Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.

  1.  @JosephStalin1941  So you don't know what socialism is. cool.
    88
  2. "historians like TIK" is about equivalent to saying "moral people like Ted Bundy"
    58
  3.  @peaknonsense2041  I'm aware. However, you claimed that "German National Socialism was described by Marx as "True Socialism" in The Communist Manifesto." Marx was dead decades before "German National Socialism" was even conceived as a collection of words. Your response does nothing to address that.
    47
  4.  @aryanshah4703  Calling me a dummy doesn't make objectively incorrect statements less deserving of said classification.
    40
  5.  @mikhailv67tv  He doesn't do the "research" in question, he quotes ideologues and cites historians that openly disagree with him. His politics is his "history."
    37
  6.  @zyxluz4645  Where's the "perceiving it as a personal attack?" I pointed out that your "joke" is built on false assumptions and betrays a cultlike mindset. You really don't have much of a counter to that. I'm not interested in random displays of rhetoric, but reality.
    27
  7.  @Kainis80  Given that feudalism is quite literally a right wing system that one of TIK's key sources constantly defends, i'm not entirely sure you're living in reality. Thanks for the political talking point, though?
    24
  8. Gotta love how even lenin proved you wrong all those years ago, but rather than even attempt to question your preconceived notions, you simply assert that everyone else is actually in the wrong but you. What cultlike thinking.
    21
  9. Considering that really didn't happen, not really. If you mean he fled from Austria because he was afraid of the Nazis, being jewish, yes he did. THough countless jewish socialists did the same, so your logic falls through. On top of that, it's extra ironic because he fled from his high-ranking position as an economic advisor directly under Engelbert Dolfuss, in the fatherland front... the fascist party of italy. He also would praise fascism later for, in his words, saving civilization, though in his mind being more of a political weapon to be wielded against the left than his ideal system. He also said "fascism does nothing to combat it [communism] except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them.” How... socialist of them.
    21
  10.  @Nice-ck7rq  I would disagree there. Hitler didn't even seem to consider himself a socialist, he openly tried to redefine the term and even rejected the inclusion of socialism in the party name at first. His ideology, to him even, wasn't a form of socialism, but rather a form of extreme nationalism that he called socialist.
    20
  11.  @AverageAlien  Already have! Sorry you can't claim the same.
    18
  12.  @peaknonsense2041  Well, "peak nonsense" is right. As, of course, your statement here is objectively untrue. First and foremost, because the communist manifesto was published 40 years before hitler was born (around 70 years before the nazi party was founded) and Marx himself died around 6 years before Hitler was born. Marx wasn't alive to describe the ideology of Hitler, much less praise it. Furthermore, the nazis were very strongly anti-marxist. God, it's sad the lies your type has to come up with.
    17
  13.  @AverageAlien  Already have, in both cases! I'm questioning whether you've watched the video though, as of course if you had, you'd have known the facts, plainly, are not on your revisionist's side :)
    16
  14.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  So you just call everyone who doesn't understand your incoherent rambling a communist?
    15
  15.  @Nice-ck7rq  ...alright then. Needless to say one could be described as socialism, the other could not. It's clear from his rhetoric and policies that hitler was not, and never was, a socialist, and that asserting otherwise is baseless.
    13
  16.  @peaknonsense2041  I agree, a great amount of time and effort went into trying to obscure and change the true story of the far-right antisocialist nazi party, and this video is only about five hours of that. He isn't correct, even his own sources know that.
    13
  17.  @AverageAlien  And do more than you have already?
    12
  18.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  ...what? the nazis weren't socialists, but aside from that I have no idea what you're trying to say.
    12
  19.  @randysavage1  Thank you for telling the world that you have no historical or economic education, and choose instead to make reasons to lash out at those you hate. Will there be anything else? Hell, man, you can't even use the right "there," you can't define socialism correctly, and you don't even recognize the fact that you're openly pointing out the problems with the ideology you push. I seriously doubt you've grown beyond the age of 15.
    11
  20.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  I don't think you understand the basic concept of a vanguard party, but that doesn't surprise me. No, the fact that you can't form coherent thoughts doesn't make anyone you argue any less intelligent, I don't speak the language of idiocy as fluently as you.
    11
  21. The problem of course is that people only "refuse to acknowledge" it because it isn't at all true, TIK has made the video on the ahistorical assumption, quite literally, that any system with a state is socialist. Of course, that isn't true. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production, and the nazis neither implemented this nor wanted it... which makes them not socialists.
    10
  22.  @OntologicalQuandry  The problem of course being that I doubt you've actually watched it, considering your apparent lack of knowledge on the points he goes over. That, and his claim that the German Reich was socialist is false, (and he in fact made excuses to point out why they didn't achieve socialism) and that the Nazis didn't even want socialism. And as usual, all of this is wrong, and all is easily proven wrong. That's the best part of history, that the further you look into things, the more the obvious answer appears. First off, hitler did not delcare himself socialist, not originally. His party called itself socialist, before he even had total control over it, and apparently he was quite annoyed with this decision. However, he reconciled it with himself by saying things like this: ""1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. " In other words, he saw no connection to socialism as an ideology, and considered the "socialist" part of his title to simply represent a type of economic nationalism. His policies, likewise, were not socialist. He in fact outlawed a huge amount of unions to replace them with a single state run union so he didn't have to worry about the workers asking him to collect on the name, he worked with private interests and vowed to protect their wealth, what the market did not control the dictator and party did, he despised any for of equality, ect. None of this is socialist, much is anti socialist in fact. The only "socialist" policies you can find were related to minor governmental reform specifically relating to his aryan workers, the same kinds of policies (non-race based though) you may see today in social democratic countries, countries we (and even TIK used to) agree were capitalist. His agenda was not the furtherance of socialism, absolutely. He had no desire to put the workers in control of the means of production, not even the aryan workers. He was infamous for calling certain government programs like those benefiting disabled people a drain on the economy, and even paid for the making of several propaganda films like Erbkrank to show how much government spending was "wasted" on these people. Hardly socialist. Hitler's control of the economy, if anyone, benefited the wealth aryan landowners who supported his regime, the very same dynamic that socialism was founded to fight against. Not only did he have complete control of all the things you mentioned, even if he did, he still wouldn't be a socialist unless he gave those things up to the workers. The germans, nor the aryans, got an inch of that. The soviets at the same time had entirely different policies, ones that (at least in the beginning) actually did attempt to give workers control of the means of production. Oh, and one more thing. Socialism is impossible under a dictatorship. I know you were hoping for your own heavily biased worldview to be substantiated, and thanks for admitting to that bias, but I don't much care. He spend about 1.5 hours pretending to understand economics, is that not enough for you? Socialism cannot exist with fascism, they are incompatible. Fascism is pretty much the opposite of socialism in all regards. Right wing, hierarchical, social Darwinism, traditionalism, the list goes on, fascism differs in nearly every aspect. I do however find it funny that you somehow think that South American socialist economics, are somehow emblematic of fascism. After all, it wasn't socialists who were throwing people out of helicopters or trying to get rats to eat them. China is perfectly emblematic of the return to state capitalism, i think that much is plainly obvious, and the fact that you somehow think they are any more dishonest in trade than their competition is again, a point of humor for me. And here, finally, I have to disagree with you, though you potentially could be right. But that's worse. After all, it's much more likely that TIK truly is deluded, and is driven by some sort of fanatic sunk-cost fallacy to continue pushing this narrative. That fanaticism, or ignorance, most likely drives him to make the insults and statements he does, lacking proof. But you could be right, he truly could know more about this than me, and simply be lying to his audience. Your understanding of these events, as lacking as it is, proves as much. So which is it? Is he an extremist fanatic trying to plaster his worldview onto history? Or is he a malicious liar, who cannot prove their arguments rationally, so they degrade to insults and denial?
    10
  23.  @douglasbroccone3144  Evidently, you didn't know anything then. After all, hitler was never a socialist, and the utter lack of evidence in this video's favor proves this utterly. I'm glad you admit you're wrong, though.
    9
  24.  @travisadams6279  But that isn't true. I hate to break it to you, but jewish people were part of the collective and society in question. They weren't even the only one punished or thrown in camps, all german citizens were repressed and those that weren't white, straight, cis, pro-nazi, anti-union, right wing, and so on were just as subject to be thrown away as jewish citizens. And yes, the soviets repressing the majority of their citizenship makes them by nature not socialist. You can have a collective, and socialists can be racist, but there is no such thing as racist socialism, and by excluding any group you are by definition rejecting socialism. The germans weren't socialists, it wasn't a "twisting," it was an outright rejection of socialism itself. There was no collective in control of nazi gemany, and the collective as a whole, the community as a whole, cannot be excluded from, hence "as a whole." While there absolutely were some german citizens that thought it easier to ignore the crimes than oppose them, that doesn't change the fact that those same germans only did so because they had no control. The government didn't want to "help the people," it made those people afraid of eachother and wanted them to kill eachother. And no, that isn't true at all. First and foremost, the nazis weren't socialists, but secondarily it's absurd to claim that jewish people represented the upper class at the time, when the majority of the victims of hitler's antisemetic crimes were directed against the poor and middle class jewish people. The wealth even of those top few was never "redistributed" in any mean. Comparing a culture of people to an economic classification is nonsensical. And again, they weren't socialist, as we've been over. That does cancel out their system, and again, what you're describing by nature goes against the definition of socialism. Authoritarianism isn't socialism.
    9
  25.  @SchmulKrieger  Except Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, he could be mistaken for either. Hitler, on the other hand, could not be mistaken for a socialist in good faith. This is not a semantics difference, it's a clear cut difference of basic ideological foundation.
    9
  26.  @DonVigaDeFierro  See video (and the long debunked arguments in it) above. Try reading a primary source for once. Hitler was not a socialist in any definition of the word. The only way to assert otherwise is to make up a new definition of socialism, as you have done, and deny hitler's history to warp him to it. So, as someone who actually bothered to know the objective definition of socialism, unlike you, hitler was in no way a socialist, and was a far right anti-socialist in policy, rhetoric, and ideology.
    8
  27.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  That's false as well, though. They never desired socialism either.
    8
  28. Just wait until you figure out that TIK's "heavily sourced" discussion pushes a narrative that his historical sources refute.
    8
  29. ​ @lineseeking  What do you mean I should watch the video? I have, that's why its so hilariously easy to disprove its "points." And of course you want to narrow down and cherry pick definitions, its the only way you people can pretend to be correct, redefine as many words and terms as possible, deny as much history as possible. Apparently, according to an economically and historically illiterate person such as yourself, taxation... is socialism. Of course you think there were "nationalizations, socializations, giving cronies the power to run government agencies" which of course didn't happen as TIK has been corrected on time and time again (I don't think either of you know what nationalization or socialization is) but even if they had happened...that isn't what socialism is? That has never been what socialism is? There is no "my" socialism, no matter how much you revisionists want to pretend there are multiple definitions to feed into your lies. There is a definition of socialism that has existed from the beginning, from before Marx, and hitler was happy to let people know, in both action and word, that he did not fit this definition. Hitler, objectively, was not a socialist. There is no such thing as "race based socialism," after all, all of this is a right wing myth made so they don't have t deal with the increasingly radical fascist side of their movement. There were no "other" socialist societies during that era, but of course, you know that - you're a proud liar, somehow thinking that any country you don't like is socialist. Hell, you're ignorant enough to think the USSR was socialist. People like you can't be helped, but here I am trying to educate you anyway. Now, I expect an apology, you've been called out on your unsubstantiated lies, and you've wasted my time for asking me to respond to a paragraph filled with words but empty of facts. No matter what you and TIK's cult say or do, no matter my responses to you, the truth remains - Hitler was objectively not a socialist, and for all of history he will be remembered as such. Your ahistorical cult is temporary, and dying already.
    8
  30. Funny, I took the opposite. Grew up a libertarian capitalist, transitioned into conservatism, and then found that the insanity posed by the right was nothing worth identifying with, and that though they claim to rail against the state, they hold it up the most. Authoritarianism is horrible, as is the right.
    8
  31. The video has a high downvote rate because a lot of his fans don't like how he's gone off the deep end with his absurd political definitons, like calling companies states. The reason so many people "refuse to accept" that is because it isn't true, Hitler was very open with what he meant when he said socialist, and it had nothing to do with socialism as it had existed, as is ideology came from entirely different places and used the name only for political grandstanding. I would recommend you watch the video anyway, but just know that if a person defines socialism as totalitarianism and uses the terms interchangeably, while calling companies socialist,while also calling anyone who disagrees with him an anti-semetic racist in the comments, his arguments might not be the most good-faith or accurate to history. There's a reason that the general historical consensus is that hitler was not a socialist.
    8
  32. exactly, everyone knows hitler wasn't a socialist. Anyone who says otherwise has to redefine socialism... like TIK does.
    8
  33.  @douglasbroccone3144   @Douglas Broccone  unlike you, I actually watched the video... And looked into his sources. Did you know that TIK happily admits that every single one of his historical sources disagrees with his false conclusion? He's a liar and you idiots who couldn't do research beyond a single youtube video are still fooled by him. Hitler was not a socialist, certainly not in deed and really not even in name either. TIKs arguments are based on false definitions and information. The "leftist propaganda" you're referencing is called history, and I don't care how triggered that makes you, hitler was objectively not a socialist. There's a reason historians across the political spectrum recognize that the Nazis were far right fascists... It's because it's true.
    7
  34. Aaaaand he didn't respond, but takes hours out of every day to respond to those who agree with him. I'm sorry you took the effort to do this, only to be ignored.
    7
  35.  @j.greenriver6293  Him being on a list of banned books doesn't mean he was specifically hunted, those lists were literally several thousands of works long and in fact contained many works countering his. Saying he was individually hunted when he wasn't even in Europe when these lists were written and enforced. Being in one more group that the nazis hated (authors) doesn't mean he was individually hunted, or even cared about.
    7
  36.  @phillip3495  And yet again, you proudly display your ignorance. State Capitalism is and has been an economic classification for a while now, and it's absurd to suggest that any regulated economy is not "true" capitalism given the fact that the basis of capitalism is within statism. Funny how the most successful capitalist countries are those that welcome regulation. And again, you here have a problem you have consistently shown, that is, projecting your opinions onto others without actually taking the time to understand what those others actually believed. The CCP didn't "come to the conclusion, that the capitalists were right, and laissez faire is the best economic system in history" mostly because the capitalists of today don't say that, and that your system is far from the best in history. You're projecting your own views onto others. The CCP protects capital not because it's necessary, but because they ideologically align with it.
    7
  37.  @travisadams6279  How is that "fascinating?" It's pretty self evident. Individuals can be racist, yes. The ideology that said individuals hold however is not one based on racism. A socialist can be racist, but the ideology of socialism cannot be one based on racism. Pretty simple. And while "a" collective can exist without including all people, but the definition of socialism is "the collective as a whole," not just one random group of people. And asserting that the jewish citizens of nazi germany represented the upper class is just false, and a piece of propaganda the nazis put out to try to rally support for their policies. The problem here is, i've presented the objective definition of socialism, and your response is to baselessly call said definition "far off unrealistic." The germans didn't even want socialism. Your "boots to the ground socialism" has nothing to do with the actual definition. And we are talking about two countries in particular, one (The USSR) which aspired towards socialism, though openly admitted they didn't achieve it, and one (nazi germany) that had no desire for socialism. They never "admitted they were indeed socialists." Perhaps you should stop trusting only the most surface level propaganda, and try actually researching the countries, and seeing if they fit the definition of socialism? Your assertion is without basis. It's obvious that you cannot refute the actual definition of socialism, so choose to try to deny it. If people want to try to deny or deflect from the actual definition you're free to try, but it doesn't go away. Trying to discount the jewish people from the community as a whole, the collective as a whole, makes no sense. If collective, no matter how small, inefficient, and exclusive means "socialism," than capitalism is socialism, monarchism is socialism, ect. Socialism is defined by collective as a whole, not just one group of many. I don't care about what exists "in you eyes," I care about the application of objective reality. Anti-socialism isn't "worse socialism." Not all socialists hold the goal of communism. Furthermore, why should socialists be held to blame for the actions of the capitalists before them? Why can't you deal with the concept of social ownership? And when will you figure out that "redistribution" was never the goal? No, there is not ever a race that is scapegoated. That is antithetical to socialism. The whole point of socialism is to put the means of production in the hands of the worker, and abolish class difference. The government repressing and terrorizing the people by definition cannot be socialist. Why would you need power to turn capitalism into socialism, when capitalists simply need to stop exerting power for that to occur? Why do you assume revolution equals government repression, post revolution? Why do you assert that socialism must be authoritarian, when the opposite is historically shown? You can try to expand the definition of socialism to include anti-socialism all you want, but the simple fact is socialism has a concrete definition, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." As a whole. To repress any amount of that community is to disregard the definition. At the moment, bloodshed and authoritarianism are required to protect the dominant ideology, that many oppose. How is resisting that force some sort of human evolution? Why do you assume capitalists would ever allow for a peaceful transfer of power?
    7
  38.  @travisadams6279  Nope. Jewish citizens were in all manner of economic conditions, and despite that, they were targeted as a group, even though only a minority of those citizens had actual economic standing. They weren't looked at as upper class, they were looked at as conspiratorial figures of hatred towards the "german race." There's nothing classist about a regime that ignores class in favor of race. The jewish people were the proletariat.
    7
  39.  @travisadams6279  You don't seem to understand that your made up definition of socialism has been torn to shreds by this point. of course, the nazis weren't "totally communal," nor were they communal at all. Of course, you continue to try to spread your denialist definitions, despite them being debunked. You don't even know the definition of socialism, silly. No, socialism isn't "a" collective, it is the collective, as a whole. Furthermore, you assert that the aryans under the nazis controlled the means of production, which is hilariously false. Workers had no say in what they worked on or why, production was decided by private owners and voluntary government contracts. The nazi state did not control the market and production, as we've been over, rather delegating that mostly to private property, which they ideologically supported. Here is the quoted definition of socialism "political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. " The nazis didn't want any collective to own the means of production, much less the collective as a whole.
    7
  40.  @travisadams6279  He isn't, though. He's attempting to call a state a community, and thus call all communities states because they're organized. Again, going by that definition, everyone's a socialist.
    7
  41.  @SchmulKrieger  Yeah, that's not at all right. Hitler called his ideology nationalism first, and defined "socialism" as nationalism. This is not a semantic interest. Hitler did state that nationalism was socialism, which objectively proved that in fact he wasn't a socialist at all, and that he in fact felt much more connection with the right. Him being an internationalist only proves this further, as first and foremost socialism has always been an international ideology, and taking that away voids its socialism. Of course he isn't a socialist, everything you've shown so far has proved that. Mussolini, similarly, was not a socialist and in fact openly rejected socialism. Syndicalism isn't socialism, for one, and for two he abandoned that as well. And none of those people were socialists, thank you for admitting to this and proving me right.
    7
  42.  @SchmulKrieger  Exactly, i've shown how utterly false your argument is, and now you've utterly conceded it. All of these sources prove my point, and I do love how you have ahd to move the goalposts to assert otherwise. You do realize that the nazis were in no way National Bolsheviks, not only because the National Bolsheviks were a party that only existed long after the time of hitler, but because the nazis were just fascists with a clear hatred of all forms of bolshevism? So no, you cannot define hitler that way. But please, keep proving my point for me, that hitler was not on the left, and not a socialist. Your sources do that well.
    7
  43.  @SchmulKrieger  No, unlike you i'm just not a liar, I actually understand history and tell the truth about it. The nazi ideology was about as anti-socialist as it gets, it wasn't socialism in the slightest. If you are literally at the point where you admit you don't know the definition of socialism, and define it as "a large group is considered to work for their wealth and the wealth of the group, sometimes considered to have means of production led by those groups. " then capitalism is socialism. And nope, that is literally all objectively incorrect. The SPD was a social democratic party, they were neither national, and like the nazis, were not socialists. The KPD were communists, again, not national and not socialist. I'm beginning to think that you just don't know what the words you are saying mean. But of course that's no surprise really, you seem fine with lying about history and ignoring the biggest allies of the nazis (the conservatives that actually got them elected) so no surprises here. And i'm sorry, but you do realize that disbanding labor unions and giving extra power to both private industry and a dictatorial state is anti-socialist and anti-syndicalist, right? So no, fascists are far right, anti-syndicalist, and anti-socialist. As we've been over. I agree, you are a moron, and i've proved it time and time again.
    7
  44.  @SchmulKrieger  Of course you are. That's why you couldn't even spell socialism, right? It's easy enough to read hundreds of primary sources that directly contradict your claim, then again, I only assume you've read as far as wikipedia. I would recommend starting with Richard Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy, for beginners like you it's a good place to start growing your understanding.
    7
  45.  @SchmulKrieger  So wait, for correctly knowing history i'm now an ancap? That's stupid. Well, thanks for proving me right, and yourself wrong. Always a pleasure.
    7
  46.  @SchmulKrieger  Yeah i'm sorry but that's just utter nonsense. Ancaps tend to be shit at history.
    7
  47. @TIK   @TIK  awww, you remembered me! I don't know why you think it give d you any credibility to never once address my arguments, but it certainly isn't a very good look for a historical denialist and extremist like yourself. After all, how many times have you left this exact comment? Begging your followers to stay in the dark, to never question your propaganda or expose themselves to outside arguments, lest your fragile facade fall away? I don't think I've ever once called you a bad person, though I'll take the opportunity to happily do so now, you are an awful person. Not because of my opinions of course, but because you knowingly tell lies to hundreds of people. I have provided facts, you have provided assertions, insults, and accusations. At this point I think I've watched the video since more than you, honestly, after all you can hardly remember your own arguments. I dont blame you, they were incoherent and nonsense to begin with, but it's a bit sad. Of course you don't want your followers to engage with reality. If they did, like so many before them, they would realize they were wrong. I've shown the truth to more than a few members of your comment sections, and many have taken it to heart. This, of course, scares you. Of course you want the praise of the ignorant, not the advice of the wise. That's why you threatened to censor me, right? Now Douglas, if you're reading this, you should question why TIK wants so desperately for you not to interact with me further, and why his assertions about me don't even match up with the response I gave you. And TIK, if you're reading this (of course you are, you're obsessed with me) then we both know you're wrong, and I'm sure that pisses you off to no end. I'm not going away until you admit that. The facts are on the table, and I'm right. We've debated before, and each time I prove you wrong, each time you accuse me of some imagined ideological or bigoted leaning and run away. When will you learn?
    6
  48. SJW is a made up term that conservatives use to refer to people they don't like, the vast majority of which are not marxist. However, they have nothing to do with hitler, as hitler was right wing.
    6
  49. Why do you think that a political propaganda pamphlet that hitler explicitly opposed, and was written by a faction of the party that he purged, is representative of his ideologu?
    6
  50.  @OntologicalQuandry  Did you even watch the video? Most of it is dedicated to him trying to justify capitalism as a system or insulting those who dare correct him, not actually looking at the history. At the same time, of course I know his arguments to redefine the word "socialism" into "state control" and the word "state" into "group." I just happen to know that etymology has progressed past the time of ancient greeks, and his argument falls utterly flat. Yes, I watched the video, which is why I know he's wrong.
    6
  51.  @fallingfallingfallingfalli500  If you want to ignore me, you can just... do it. No need to announce it for pity points.
    6
  52.  @OntologicalQuandry  Again, I have to remind you, that unsubstantiated nonsense does not get you any points here. I addressed this statement of yours, in a good bit of detail, and your only response was "well TIK is nice to me." I would be happy to copy-past that bit if you'd like me to, but i'll do what's more satisfying in the meantime. Hitler was not a socialist, as both your and TIK's lack of arguments show plainly. His methods were not socialist, they were gained from the insistence and theorization of the radical right wing of his time. He had no desire to transfer worker ownership, or even aryan ownership, over to the means of production. In a way, TIK's entire video is supposed to be a defense of capitalism. He has this odd idea of a binary between capitalism and socialism, and said himself that he would consider things like the Holocaust happening in a non-socialist country impossible. Of course capitalism does not apply to hitler, but this isn't a binary system. There are things beyond both capitalism and socialism,and things that reject both utterly. Whereas you charitably say he "defines it," we both know he does so in a biased way to argue for it's integrity as a system, rather than simply doing the job of defining it. As I keep reminding you, I have watched the video, and come to very different conclusions. No matter how often you try to discredit my arguments by attacking me personally, it won't really do much for your cause. I will tell you I watched the video, you will deny it. My very existence in this comment section for so long should be proof enough, but whatever. Make an argument that isn't a personal attack, or make no arguments at all.
    6
  53.  @travisadams6279  Just screaming "mental gymnastics!!" over and over without even attempting to explain why proves my point exactly, you can't actually come up with a rebuttal to the stated facts. The definition of socialism is and always has been the ownership of the means of production by the collective, the community, as a whole. And yes, every single person who finds themselves working within or impacted by the system would have authority over how their contribution is used, and thus, the means of production would be owned socially. You assert that nobody else defines socialism this way, with literally zero backing, given that i've literally cited the definition of socialism to you. You can claim that the ideology itself isn't a good one, but that doesn't give you the ability to rewrite the definition to fit things that aren't socialist. You don't need to "join" some great collective, by virtue of existing you are already a part of the collective as a whole, the community as a whole. So no, a collective does not have to mean a group of people, that definition is vague and nonsensical. and yes, you are literally the only one saying that. Your trying to argue that excluding a particular group cancels out socialism because its not a true "collective". This is silly, and more mental gymnastics. By your definition, every single person would have to be included for it to be real socialism... Again you are defining socialism in a way nobody else does, and going to great lengths to do so. Your definition simply isnt useful as it doesnt pertain to anything real. Like having no laws and so on. There is no one great collective that everyone has joined, and probably wont ever be. So a collective has to mean a group of people, not all peoples period. Also, Im not the one who is saying a "collective" alone makes socialism.
    6
  54.  @travisadams6279  So you think the literal definition of socialism is nonsensical, and thus disagree with the ideology. Alright, could have said as much. Please, refrain from trying to tell the same lies over and over again. Yes, the collective/communist as a whole means as a whole. Pretty straight forwards. Socialism, according to you, is when any group is in change. You are literally rewriting the very definition of socialism in this thread. I said socialism can be a system of no laws, not that all socialism must fit that definition. Attempt to read. Again, you can scream "But you're just saying no true socialism!!!" all you want, but I have provided a cited definition and poked holes in your attempted redefinition. Have you tried actually reading my responses? I point out exactly where and how you do this, in that you have declared that socialism can be when any group is in charge, therefore, every system in existence is socialist according to your definition. We're talking about collectives because you tried to assert that the nazis could be socialist despite their genocide, and I refuted that. The nazis did not hold in esteem any collective, they had no desire for the means of production to be owned by any group but the private owners backed by the state. The vast majority of nazi citizens had no power over the means of production, yes, including those of "his race." Are there different types of socialism? Sure. There's the socialists that predated marx, there's marxist-leninists and further derivatives, libertarian socialists, ect. All use the same definition of socialism. However, "racial socialism," as we've been over, is oxymoronic, and the nazi's ideology was in no way socialist. Germany did not fit any definition of socialism. You don't know what capitalism is, which is ironic given that you define it as socialism. No, under nazi germany, everything wasn't state run, and no, capitalism doesn't mean non-state. The germans prided private industry, and capitalism is explicitly statist. And what the fuck, no, state is not at all interchangeable with people or collective, the fuck are you talking about denialist? Hitler didn't even want the 'collective of aryans' in charge, and we've already discussed how that isn't socialism. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to understand that not everything is socialist. The collective as a whole (per the definition of socialism) is the collective as a whole, not just one small part of it as you assert. I think you're trying to deny facts you can't handle by clinging to your long disproven definition of socialism, and calling the actual definition "silly" because it proves you wrong. I don't care what you think is useful, I care about what is correct.
    6
  55.  @travisadams6279  Why do you keep saying "Your definition of socialism?" As i've pointed out time and time again, the definition I cite to you (a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.) is quite literally the dictionary definition of socialism. You can believe all you want about the results of those attempting to achieve socialism, but that isn't the subject of discussion. If it was, I could point out that the greatest losses of death and human rights violations belong to capitalist countries, but as it is not, i'll refrain. I'm not a socialist, what is "MY socialism?" i'm simply telling you the objective definition. Again, I said that socialism can be achieved without laws enforcing it, and that socialism can exist in a lawless society, not that it must always be that way. Also, anarchism is an offshoot of socialism.
    6
  56.  @travisadams6279  I'm quite literally responding to the claims you openly make. You said that socialism is when a collective has control. As in, when a group is in power, any group. I have never lied during the course of this conversation, unlike you it seems, who does so frequently and proudly. In am quoting you, or rather, paraphrasing you with the same meaning in order to show you the absurdity of your ahistorical claims. Why are you lying?
    6
  57.  @travisadams6279  How is rebutting the words of an extremist extremism in and of itself? The man you're defending literally argues that any business with non-family employees is a socialist state. You have to pretend I didn't watch a video I am literally citing arguments from because to admit otherwise means you would have to come up with an actual argument. From what you've said, you haven't even watched the video. Your definitions are shot and your argument is long dead. WAKE. UP.
    6
  58.  @SchmulKrieger  It's ok, you're allowed to admit you're wrong. You essentially do it here. Socialism is not just Marx and Engels' ideology, yes. However, you can be a Christian socialist, but never a capitalist socialist. Ever. That's not how this works. Syndicialism is an offshoot from unionist ideologies, including anarchism and communism. It's not just a form of socialism. You're now deciding that, without proof, now random ideologies are somehow socialist. Great. I'm sorry bud but you do realize Marx didn't believe in a "German People," or a "Slavic People," right? He didn't care in the slightest about nations, fake borders, and states. Because they're all made up, and don't matter. Engels' work there you of course take out of context, but i'm sure to you it makes sense that the virulent critic of anti-semetism in Engels was somehow just hitler, and that hitler actually wanted a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Now cry about how wrong you are again. You can't even use the word reactionary right.
    6
  59.  @SchmulKrieger  Yes, i've actually quoted many of his speeches and views in this very thread, which you seem all too willing to ignore, champ. But please, continue flaunting your ignorance. It makes this easier for me. Will that be all?
    6
  60.  @Willy_Tepes  Yet you seem to be a master of it.
    6
  61.  Jetstom Ferrari  Sadly for you, hitler wasn't a socialist. Learn basic history, this isn't hard. Oh, and you have the wrong definition of socialism.
    6
  62.  @herrhiterminator8149  What... does this even mean? This is a bunch of buzz word nonsense, that doesn't actually logically fit, so i'll address the one sentence you wrote that logically follows from the things you're supposedly responding to. Oh, also, to get it out of the way, nationalism and conservatism are wholly compatible. Anyways, your sentence "You've said that totalitarianism cannot be socialism but you're wrong." Justify that. Socialism is an ideology based around the ability of the people to collectively own their work, far more than under a capitalist system. How can that be an ideology based on totalitarianism? I would say a mass appeal towards liberation and individual ability to live one's life goes against the basis of totalitarianism, right? In any case, onto the nationalism thing. You're acting as if conservatism and nationalism are things one must choose between, instead of things that usually go hand in hand. I mean, conservatism lends itself heavily to nationalistic impulses, and nationalism is most often paired with a socially conservative outlook.
    5
  63.  @riotraverv4518  Why yes, you are only asserting things. Because you have nothing else. Fascism isn't left wing, the creators called it right wing, they allied with conservatives and industrialists, was founded by traditionalists, and openly said the left would cause the end of civilization. The privatization was a part of it, sure, but you saying "privatization doesn't count because I don't like it" isn't an argument. Of course they weren't free market, because they thought it was too leftist for them. They were further right than capitalism. Or are you one of those idiots that thinks right wing means small government? Anyway, the free market is not immune to monopoly, and fascism is fine with reigning in capitalism to secure its goals. Fascism wasn't extreme left, it wasn't even left of center. Oh, wait, didn't read to the end yet, you are one of those idiots. You know that anarchism is left wing, right? And monarchism is right wing? No, sorry, big vs small government is not how the political spectrum works, and anyone that asserts otherwise is a liar. The right wing owns fascism, like it or not.
    5
  64. ​ @riotraverv4518 No actually, they weren't. For example, Mussolini literally said he was right wing (along with gentile) and they both said in "The Doctrine of Fascism" that fascism is right wing, and rejects socialism. Mussolini personally said that his program was to "smash the heads of socialists." They hired classical liberals to create economic policy, they supported the conservative right, they denounced marx, and they outlawed the socialist parties. They loved conservatism, just thought it didn't go back far enough, that's why they were traditionalists. They also, objectively, hated marxism. Also, fun fact about Mises, hitler couldn't have cared less about hunting him down, but Mises was a member of a fascist party, promoted fascist economics, and praised fascism for fighting socialism.
    5
  65.  @riotraverv4518  Yeah, former being the key word. Like Kropotkin was a former prince, Sowell was a former marxist, and America was a former brittish colony. He didn't want to "fix" socialism, he (again) openly said that he would leave socialism behind to create a new system, which again, he called right wing. Fascism and communism dislike eachother because they want different things, communists want a world devoid of state, class, hierarchy and money, while fascists want a strong state with absolutely all of those things to enforce their supremacy. If you think people can look at marx and not just arrive at different conclusions, but opposite conclusions? You might not be the smartest. The reality is that fascists, again, most often appealed to the conservative right with mild left leaning rhetoric. Your assertion, which you have not been able to prove and not even argued in the favor of, is that somehow the far right ideology that allied with the right, called itself right wing, and acted like a right wing system... was secretly left wing. why? You haven't explained that bit yet.
    5
  66.  @riotraverv4518  Oh no, I understand the point you were trying to make. However, as you clearly don't know what marxism is, or what the history of fascism is, I corrected you and pointed out the flawed reasoning you used to arrive at your incorrect conclusion. Marxism is a method of historical analysis, looking from the lens of class material dialectics. The fascists hated materialism and class struggle in all forms, which means that the only way for them to "learn" from marxism would be to strip marxism of literally every part of it. So, they didn't. They abandoned it. Of course, you don't know what a strawman is, but seem entirely willing to keep using "fallacy" as a crutch to fall back. In fact, over half of your actual response has been just you pretending to care about bad faith arguments without responding. So here's a fallacy for you to look into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy#:~:text=Argument%20from%20fallacy%20is%20the,and%20the%20bad%20reasons%20fallacy.
    5
  67. Orwell was a socialist for most of his life, and to my knowledge, died one. He was very much against the manegerialists, a term he agreed with that was meant to described supposed socialist movements that didn't at all care about the socialism they pretended to follow. He used these tendencies, both on the right and left, to point out a trend towards authoritarianism. However, orwell himself would have very likely disagreed heavily with your understanding of socialism. Which is to say, you're wrong. Socialism, by default, is not authoritarian, it can be libertarian. It can also be individualistic, to a degree.
    5
  68.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah, it always tickles me so when you begin to pipe up, especially with such self-defeating arguments. In any case, first off, I would recommend reading Orwell's word discussing managerialism, if you haven't already. It largely explains the actual inspiration for 1994. To summarize, he agreed with the idea that new movements were springing up, both in capitalism and in socialism, that were betrayals of the principles of the movement, and sought to move away from them. These societies would not be socialists and would not be capitalist, but managerialist. In this paragraph especially you can see some of the inspiration for 1984. " The new ‘managerial’ societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely. Internally, each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves at the bottom." Pretty interesting. He didn't make them Ingsoc as a reference to socialism, but as a betrayal to socialism. As for evidence he ever "turned" in his life, we really see none. He kept his morals until the end. Animal farm does a very similar thing, it shows the beginning socialist principles as a pillar of strength, and then mourns the story of them being wiped away and erased over time. Orwell would not have been flippant or careless enough to call such a society fascist, you should know that he hated the use of fascism as a buzzword. I would agree, overally, that the point of such a story should be obvious to see, but given the continuous misinterpretation I have to doubt that. But i'm sure somehow to you your extrapolation of events makes perfect sense. Anyway, a few more quotes you might be interested in: " The question that he ought to ask, and never does ask, is: Why does the lust for naked power become a major human motive exactly now, when the dominion of man over man is ceasing to be necessary? As for the claim that ‘human nature’, or ‘inexorable laws’ of this and that, make Socialism impossible, is simply a projection of the past into the future. In effect, Burnham argues that because a society of free and equal human beings has never existed, it never can exist. By the same argument one could have demonstrated the impossibility of aeroplanes in 1900, or of motor cars in 1850." "Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralized society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham under the name of ‘managers’." "Many earlier writers have foreseen the emergence of a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery: though most of them have differed from Burnham in not assuming this development to be inevitable." "Evidently the U.S.S.R. is not Socialist, and can only be called Socialist if one gives the word a meaning different from what it would have in any other context." And there are a few more, but that is good for now.
    5
  69.  @nukclear2741  No? Here's an experiment - leave a comment saying you're an ex socialist who was convinced by this video, or that you love his work and used it to beat your friends in an argument, or make up some conspiracy about marxist revisionism, or something along those lines. He'll Heart the comment in a matter or hours, and most likely respond. But to those who prove him wrong? He says nothing. I am fully within my right to be pissed at the guy who called me a racist, fascist anti-semite simply because I don't agree politically with him, and don't support his unfounded revisionism.
    5
  70.  @j.greenriver6293  ... Ok, mate, really? Kind of proving his point. 1. Allende literally had the people backing him, the people who didn't back him were in the american government who financed the coup against him. Not the most democratic process, and certainly not with Chilean interests in mind. 2. First off, Allende was largely neutral when it came to siding with Castro or other leftist regimes at the same time. He wasn't a dictator, he was a random politician who wanted to be elected, and was doing well while he was elected. Secondly, even ignoring that... you support the man we know murdered and tortured political dissidents, silenced dissent, and held a dictatorship over the man that maybe could have done that?
    5
  71.  @phillip3495  Ah, so I see you're going for the "no true private property" argument, always a welcome fallacy to see, in that its so easy to instantly disprove. It really should be self evident to ne who thinks about it for any amount of time, but I'd guess that doesn't describe you at all, given the utterly absurd and unfounded statements found in your comments. So let's correct some misconceptions and lies you put forwards, hm? Neither the nazis nor mussolini believed in the concept of capitalist decay, nor did they oppose the processes of capital in their own states. The nazi ideology was not constructed with any set economic program in mind, but with right wing social views taking its primary form. Nazi ideology is traditionalist, the polar opposite of progressive, nor is it socialist. And here you make the issue of projecting your own views onto the past. No, at the time there wasn't some well recorded span of "social problems" in socialist states, given such states at the time were sparse and often very varied in execution. Furthermore, they were far from weak at the time. The nazis and fascists didn't decide to retain private property ownership because it was a necessity, (which is a belief you hold, but not a fact) they did so because they ideologically agreed with and supported private property. While the state in many cases did retain a right to step in, both regimes made it clear that this was only to be done if absolutely necessary. Any state can take away property if it wishes, or they can reward property owners. The fascist states were just far more open about this relationship. Your "logic" only seems to worsen from here, which is no shock. And yeah, no, this is wrong. All states technically have the ability to step in and take/regulate/manage your property if it so desires. Furthermore, a future hypothetical doesn't change the present reality. Think of it like this - everyone dies eventually, right? And despite that future hypothetical, you still live. Anyone with a gun could, technically, make your life and possessions forfeit. And yet, you still own, operate, and manage them now. If you rent out an apartment, the landlord might technically "own" the building, but they don't live there with you. A factory owner lording over their workers remains the exact same, even if on some piece of governmental paper a law is added saying that the factory in question could hypothetically be taken or managed at a different time. The fascists allowed ownership of private property to continue as it had been in the vast majority of cases, only interfering, primarily, to offer financial incentives for said private owners to align with the party. The Nazis taking the cue from Mussolini, decided that Capitalism was taking too long to decay as was predicted by Marx, and spawned their own revised system called "National Socialism", which was a progressive version of vanilla socialism. Hitler decided not to be internationalist, and instead focus on the motherland. After living among socialist nations with different results in Europe for a couple of decades, and familiar with the social problems encountered by all of these examples, these forward thinking folks, decided that the abolition of private property was too destructive to the economy, and instead decided to leave private property rights intact, but the state would retain the rights of use and disposal over all property.
    5
  72.  @phillip3495  "I'll stop you right there, because if this is the preamble to your post then there may be no need for me to go further. " Ah, already trying to come up with excuses to bow out of an argument you lost long ago, huh? Why am I not at all surprised. Your opinions are not facts. You believe private property is a moral right. That does not make it true, nor does that make it an assumption that all cultures or ideologies make. Furthermore, no, markets existed before private property and they can exist without them. The nazis, however, wanted private property, and so they defended it. They didn't "rigidly plan and control the economy," again, you're putting the cart before the horse, lying about the nazis to justify your ahistorical view of them. In any case, there's a simple explanation that you should well know by now. There has never been a successful laissez faire (not "Lessaiz") wartime economy. Even Jefferson had to acknowledge that his libertarian agrarian policies had no place in international warfare. The nazis did what every other wartime economy did, because it works for war. You don't have to be a libertarian to be a capitalist. Frankly put the nazis were economically apathetic/incompetent, but your basis for your statement is nonsense. You assume that the nazis agreed with you that capitalism was the best, and actively resisted this, rather than understanding that much nazi ideology was based on the notion that libertarian capitalism was bad for capitalists. No, they were not competent, and no, they did not do what you assert they did with no proof. Again, your assertions only go downhill from here. Your entire argument is based on calling the nazis socialists just because they "Said" they are, and assuming that they actually meant it, and meant it the same way you did. In contrast, the fact that they supported private property is one found through examination of their rhetoric, policy, and actions. All of the data to examine shows that the state did not have full and complete planning or control of the economy, nor would hitler have supported that system. You are, again, actively taking the word of a genocidal fascist state. I, on the other hand, am examining what they actually did, not just what they said, and showed their policy through objective means. Your assertions come from contextless quotes and right wing denialism, with no basis in economic understanding. And, no, it really wouldn't. First off, Occam's razor is a philosophical tool, and does not apply to everything. If a burglar exits your friend's house, and says he lives there, the simplest explanation is that he does. Obviously, that is not the correct explanation. In any case, Occam's razor entirely opposes you here. Hitler didn't implement a system that even resembled socialism, nor did he have any desire to. You assert that he "implement[ed] a system that in function and practice was identical to the ideal socialism," which makes no sense. How is a right wing system of private property 'ideal socialism?' Your assertion has no backing. He implemented a system that in function and practice was identical to the ideal anti-socialism. Of course, neither hitler nor mussolini were socialists, as we've been over time and time again. You're asserting that those that killed socialists and allied with anti-socialists, made conservatives happy and were called conservatives, repeated the rhetoric of the right and are praised and supported by the right to this day... were actually left wing socialists? Absurd. Again, your supposed "socialism" is found in modern conservatives. "Promise each work group, business, social class, race, creed that they could find, that they were on that group's side, and against their enemies." Their election campaign strategy was to lie, all while opposing socialism. They were liars, and it is very uncomfortable for their right wing denialist defenders to accept that. And I know you have no desire to read marx and thus you seek to disprove him without even knowing what he believed, but as we've been over, the nazi and fascist movements had nothing to do with marx. You literally can't stop repeating open nazi rhetoric, even when that is pointed out. I think that to claim that there are "very few differences" between the ideologies of MLK Jr and Hitler is historically absurd, and to claim that socialists and nazis "achieve the same results and implement the same reforms" is furthermore absurd and incorrect. If you want to see the group the nazis are most similar to, welcome to modern conservatism. Your argument is based solely on your own ideology, and utterly ignores reality and historical fact, in favor of defense of the right from their legacy of fascism. You would call a rock a green apple, simply because you claim to not like how both taste, despite eating rocks by the handful when nobody's looking. You're required to go off on unrelated tangents filled with unsubstantiated claims because historical facts don't back you. Your argument was a "no true scotsman" fallacy. It was a "belief based on unsound argument" We already know that you're wrong, you've shown that yourself. And evidently this, like all of your other claims, was absolutely false.
    5
  73.  @phillip3495  Tell me one good reason that you can't actually respond to my arguments, without doing everything in your power to deflect from the facts i'm attempting to bring to your attention? You can try to moralistically posture all you want, it doesn't change observable historical reality. We don't need to "go deeper" into your deflections, you need to actually provide counter arguments to statements that refute yours, and if not, admit to ignorance and move on. Objective reality is knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. Shouldn't be an issue. The very fact that you attempt to deny all historians of their credibility before seeing them named or hearing their arguments proves to me that you are afraid of what they have to say, since their facts are relevant to the conversation, and wholly disprove your irrational ahistorical denialism. Your "possibilities" are a poor attempt at deflection. 1. You do not believe historians are relevant to the conversation because they directly oppose and refute your views, which does not fall in line with the baseless assertions you call facts. Therefore, you cannot deny them, and your basis for attempting to do so is flawed and pitiful. 2. If you wanted a specific historian, and you were willing to address their work in good faith, you would have simply asked, rather than making arguments with no citation, that are responded to in euqal measure, and then trying to call out a lack of unrequested citation as an attempted argument. You have yet to actually back up a single one of your claims, so you're a hypocrite. The simply problem is that no matter how many times facts are referenced and explained to your face, with the top rhetorical and logical standards humanly possible, you will not listen, and will do all in your power possible to deny or ignore their arguments rather than engaging with them. So far your have only delivered evasions, ad hominem, and irrelevancies. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that all those you disagree with are malicious actors or unresearched morons. T
    5
  74.  @phillip3495  See, the funny thing is, I have been addressing your argument, line by line, for quite a while now. The issue, of course, is that to acknowledge that fact means you'd actually have to construct a rebuttal, something you are not capable of. I've done more than "hear" you're wrong, i've proved it. Sure, there are a hundred other people I could refer to in order to tell you that you're wrong, but evidently you won't listen, so i'm here directly telling you every way in which you're wrong, while you frantically try to deflect and run away. Anything to avoid actually constructing an argument to back your assertions, right? And no, this isn't what's going on here. It's what you wish was going on, and what you will pretend is happening in order to deflect. Let me correct it. Me: "Here is factual information that proves you wrong, that historians have been pointing out." You: "Despite that literally being the subject, I declare it irrelevant because it doesn't agree with me." Me: "Here are some more facts to prove you wrong, in my own words with my own arguments, backed by observations of historical fact. You can't just claim everything you dislike is irrelevant." You: "Actually you're just referring to historians, not making your own arguments, so I win" Me: "What? I literally just made my own argument with the backing of historical fact." And the simple fact is, you have yet to meet the burden of proof. As you said yourself, you have presented your claim, but you have not yet presented evidence. I went a step beyond what was necessary, and refuted your baseless assertions, when all I actually needed to do was ask you to provide evidence for your claims. I await refutation, and you have yet to even attempt to provide it. I have, time and time again, refuted your claim that my individual arguments were arguments from authority. Of course, you can't rebut that fact, so you ignore it. I present to you historical facts and arguments, statements constructed by me backed by historical fact. I then make mention of the fact that there are countless historians, who have made careers out of this, who back said facts up with their own observations of objective reality. You ignore the first bit, and lie about the second. I genuinely don't think you're reading my responses. I have explained why, in my own words, over and over and over again. In the few cases I have not, it is literally because i'm responding to you deflecting, and I am pointing out said deflection. You claim that the historians who prove you wrong aren't trustworthy, and then you claim that the historians didn't even exist. The fact that you cannot address or rebut my argumentation and refutations of your claims proves that you have no knowledge of the subject in question. I have explained why, over and over. You, on the other hand, have asserted the same nonsense without argumentation, citation, or logical reasoning. What you have is a "feeling" that i'm wrong, and you claim that citing historical facts is "name dropping" because you don't agree with the results of said facts. On the other hand, I present arguments. The onus of proof is not only on you to actually back up your initial claims, but to refute the refutations I have brought to you. At least you admit you have been unable to do that then. In reality, you've relegated yourself to the "referee" because you know you can't actually disprove people's arguments, so you pretend they don't exist.
    5
  75.  @karlisulmanis3810  Funny, i've done both! And still, you guys do not listen. Funny, that.
    5
  76.  @OUTERPANGEA  I'm sorry you can't accept the truth of your ideology, one that subjugates and enslaves all while you claim to promote freedom. The nazis did the same. You reject one collective in favor of the other. The nazis are not socialists, in fact, they are your allies. You can't even deny this, child. How is an anarchist a nazi? Of course you have no answer. Your goal is to deflect from the simple fact that the nazis were far right anti-socialists, much like you, and you'll do anything to keep people from correctly noting this connection. But the similarities in your ideologies are starting to get more obvious... i'm sorry you believe in such a deadly, fascistic ideology. I truly am.
    5
  77. Nobody says that the nazi ideology was capitalism, kid. Only the reality - that it was not socialism, and was a far right ideology. Also, just because you don't like the method of privatization doesn't make it not so.
    5
  78.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah, yes. So you're not only politically illiterate, but historically illiterate. We know exactly how fascist people who... advocate for a lack of police violence are? Sorry, what is fascist about "antifa," given that antifa is just a label that anyone can take up, and many do? It certainly isn't that they advocate for a state. But then again, there's a shorthand term for anti-antifascists like you. Want to guess what it is?
    5
  79.  @fallingfallingfallingfalli500  Yes, and TIK is not one of those people. I am. If you want to spam the comments with the same video and all-caps text, be my guest. But the grown-ups are talking.
    5
  80.  @travisadams6279  So, let's clarify this, just to be sure. You literally think the definition of socialism is when any "collective" owns the means of production. You then further say that the actual definition of socialism is "nonsensical," not with historical backing, but because you think socialism isn't possible. Disagreeing with a system doesn't mean you can rewrite the definition, if I believed in a system where everyone became immoral, you can't just rewrite the definition of that system to something else just because you think it isn't possible. Ideologies have no obligation to perfectly appear in the real world, you're working backwards. You assume that socialism must have existed, and so when faced with the definition, you assume the definition must be wrong because it doesn't match your preconceived notions. You then attempt to rewrite the definition, in the process making every human economic system socialist.
    5
  81.  @travisadams6279  Have you attempted to stop lying? At any point? Your statements only get more and more absurd as time goes on, and you show more and more that you don't care about actual history and definitions, just your ideology.
    5
  82.  @stephenspencer8224  I hate to clue you in put this is propaganda. TIK doesn't like actual history, so he'll do his best to obfuscate it. Thank god no actual historians take him seriously
    5
  83.  @SchmulKrieger  What are you even talking about? Proudhon wasn't a capitalist, and Hitler wasn't a socialist.
    5
  84.  @SchmulKrieger  I'm sorry, but like most of your other assertions, that simply isn't true.
    5
  85. @Newbuild Muse You mean "prussian socialism," an ideology who's creator admitted was not even a type of socialism? Do you see the problem? You literally proved yourself wrong, the nazis were not socialists at all, and marxists never redefined the terms. You are the only one acting in an orwellian sense, by rewriting history.
    5
  86. I wouldn't be expecting much depth with him on that. He called me and a few other people anti-semites in the comment section for allegedly being anti-semitic, using only his accusations of "marxism" as a basis, as well as a copy-pasted spam of marx quotes. I would agree that both marx and hitler were ant-semetic, but given that he spent so long trying to point out that not all socialism is marxist, I do agree with you that his accusation of all socialism being anti-semetic doesn't logically follow. He also ignores the large amount of historical jewish socialists, but that's asking a bit too much for him.The video has tons of problems like that, asserting a whole bunch of things that either contradict his previous points, or don't really make logical sense given his previous statements, or common understanding of definitons. His entire point rests on one of these, that socialism is state control, and that a state is any collection of people. Hitler really could not have been a socialist if the best defense one can put up for that point is to label all those that disagree with you as postmodernist, marxist, racist, anti-semetic, ect, all things he's called me personally, and redefine words. But that's just my view on the whole thing, his statements just seem absurd sometimes, and almost look to be motivated less out of some genuine desire to examine history and more out of a desire to strike back at those that criticized his previous videos on the subject.
    5
  87. Hey dude, you you're making a valiant effort here, but it's not worth dealing with TIK. And why is that? Because he actually does think North Korea is a democracy. Furthermore, he does think unions, and even companies, are "states" and thus socialist entities. No, I am not joking.
    4
  88.  @bandit6272  its sad how you try to appeal to him, like he cares, at all. He is the biggest example of bad faith argumentation I'd ever seen, why do you want his approval?
    4
  89.  @herrhiterminator8149  Use TIKs own sources, he readily admits that his historical sources come to the conclusion that hitler was not a socialist. Richard Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy is a good place to start.
    4
  90.  @herrhiterminator8149  Who is "he?" TIK? If so, of course TIK says that, but it is a lie. And of course, the notion that all totalitarianisms is socialism, or even that socialism had to be totalitarian, is another lie. The german war effort was in no way socialism, this is agreed upon by every major scholar on the time period, the only people who believe otherwise are those like TIK, who are fine with lying about things as fundamental as hundred year old definitions, because said definitions go against his ideology. Germany never was "full blown socialism," nor did they ever aim for that, their writings and actual economy made that clear. You admit it yourself, the only way to call the germans socialist is to misdefine totalitarianism as socialism, which is an objective lie. In trying to push a point, you've admitted you're wrong. I gave you a sources specifically because, unlike TIK, that source is not poorly put together propaganda.
    4
  91.  @herrhiterminator8149  Ok, no problem. First off, that isn't really the case. For one, nationalism doesn't always relate to ethnicity, in fact some nationalist movements are openly multi-ethnic. Nationalism is defined as "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." Most nations contain multiple ethnic groups. In any case, nationalist systems don't all want to gain control over their people or nation, although that isn't uncommon, that's just how political desires work. People want to actually be able to put them into practice. Also, nationalism isn't an economic or social "system," its an inclination, a belief. One cannot "implement" nationalism, and there is no one nationalist tendency or system. But the thing is, socialism isn't just "when the people work for a supposedly common good." Especially given the nazis didn't really care about the "civilian's good," when said civilians were being thrown in camps, in jail, or just generally suppressed and oppressed by the nazi government. Nationalism and Socialism tend to actually not get along that well. In any case, conservatism can absolutely be totalitarian. Conservatives supported the rise of the nazis, and social conservatism is a deeply intrusive ideology that is more often than not held up by the state or organized institutions like the church. In any case, conservatism, like nationalism, isn't really a "system" you can implement. There are literally hundreds of different types of conservative notions and ideologies. And the reason for that last thing is because... why would they? Those most likely to revolt, the political dissidents or minority groups, were already being oppressed and thrown into prisons and camps. The remaining people, if they kept their heads down, could attempt to live safely among the nazis. They didn't revolt because they didn't want to risk it.
    4
  92.  @herrhiterminator8149  According to who? It just sounds like you're saying that different ethnicities can't work together based on your own beliefs, not nationalist ones. I mean, being honest, there really is no such thing a a concrete description of a race or ethnicity. What we now consider white is made up of tens of different nationalities and ethnicities, and yet white supremacists think all white people can get along. I agree that nationalism must be openly hostile to "others," but those others don't have to be racial others, they can simply be people with other ideas, or people from other countries. And that's the problem with nationalism - that when they start throwing people in jail, they stop counting them as people. So the "ingroup," there, is an ever-shifting group with no defined borders. There were plenty of "aryan" germans being thrown in camps, because they opposed the nazis, because they were physically or mentally disabled, because they were gay, or old, or inured, ect. The nazis hated far more than just other races. And fair, if you wanted to point out the difference between one specific conservative ideology and a purely nationalist ideology, that's fine, and thank you for clearing that up in the end. And no problem, i'm glad we could agree on that point, which applies a lot to many different scenarios, not just this one specifically, but anyway, you're welcome!
    4
  93.  @masac2853  and yet, i'm objectively correct. Cry more, please
    4
  94.  @CorrectCrusader  The right can easily be collectivist. Religion, nationalism, militarism, all collectivist, all right wing.
    4
  95.  @appleboy9745  I'm using these people's definition of collectivism, which is to say any ideology that puts anything before the individual, in monarchism that would be the divine right of kings. After all, I forget the person who said this, but the general attitude of absolute monarchy was the idea that the monarchs were the state.
    4
  96.  @appleboy9745  I'm using the original usage of monarchism being right wing, as well as the hierarchy vs equality definition more commonly used in the modern day. And again, i'm just going by their definition here, i don't personally agree with it. And as for the rest I don't disagree, but i don't think it's entirely relevant to the conversation.
    4
  97.  @ColvieChannel  He was an authoritarian. Authoritarianism doesn't equal fascism in all cases.
    4
  98.  @ColvieChannel  uh, no. Again, that's just authoritarianism. Fascism is much more specific than that
    4
  99.  @ColvieChannel  Sadly, I have given you the actual definition. What you've done is cherry picked a single definition, stripped it of all context, and decided to apply it wherever you please. Here's a question - were the founding fathers fascists?
    4
  100.  @TheImperatorKnight  We know, mate. Nobody knows what socialism is but you, and it doesn't once occur to you that if socialists have a different definition of socialism than you, and universally push said definition, that your association fallacy falls apart. But yes, given that you don't understand what socialism is I have to agree that what you just described (even if it was an accurate representation) is not socialist, and does not discount the fact that the nazis were not socialists, considering all of their ideological roots, associations, policies, rhetorical tactics, the list goes on.
    4
  101. and it isn't even right
    4
  102.  @TheImperatorKnight  Wow, you really are an idiot. The left is calling for less military, less surveillance, less intervention, less of a police state, less government ability to pry into your life for the causes of "counter-terrorism," less corporate support by the government, less tax cuts for the rich, ect. Half of the things you're calling for, things like "central planning," and "central banks" the majority of the left is against. Others, like collective control of the means of production are only called for by a specific part of the left. And hell, parts like democracy, state education, and democracy are called for by both the left and right. Hell, you literally think that it's only the left calling for an organized society. If anything, historically, we can determine that the right has always been far more conducive to totalitarianism, and as the world has moved leftwards he have learned of the concepts of liberty, freedom, equality, ect. It really is sad how you push this baseless myth that is so easily countered. No, actions matter more than words. And when most of the left is calling for a smaller state in most respects, and a large portion of people don't even want a state, you can not reasonably say that Left=Big, Right=Small. Can't wait for the incoming no true scotsman. You're losing credibility by the second.
    4
  103. ​ @discipleofdagon8195  As I said, I'm not interested in random pieces of rhetoric, but reality. All your response is, is just that. Random rhetoric, half remembered from other sources that made arguments you can't fully recall, and certainly not make any points in favor of now. I would ask you how the goal of social ownership requires a change to the very process of human thought, especially given it seems based in human thought and history to begin with, but it's clear you wouldn't have an answer even if I did. I don't care about utopia, and I don't care about the random collections of disparate policy that you call socialist and label utopian without a second thought, trying to merely associate it with that they disagree with and thus reject it. I believe, as I have been shown, the vast majority of people in this comment section act not because they believe in any sort of preservation of history, but because they believe in the preservation of their own ideological narrative. I need no platform to hold beliefs, but as of now, there is no downside to my speech so i'll take it. What you need to understand is that these people do not have "mixed views on what I believe," they have extremely strong views on what they project onto me and assume I believe in. I don't care about your opinion on socialism, apparently I need to remind everyone I ever speak to in this god awful comment section that not everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist. As for the criticisms of socialism I have heard though, yours is one I cannot allow it go unquestioned, given that it weakens any anti-socialist arguments as a whole. What about social ownership requires going "full ingsoc?" What about collective ownership requires a full reworking of the human mind? The answer is quite simply put, nothing. Socialism to you is a boogeyman, an ideology defined not by policy, but by relation to your moral system. That's not a rational argument, and never will be. Wake. Up.
    4
  104.  @j.greenriver6293  I agree, it's silly. You keep deflecting from being wrong. I say "was he hunted individually" and you give examples of how he was in large groups that were hunted down. I point out that the nazis never really had an opportunity to physically harm or imprison him, and then you deflect. It ends when you admit you are incorrect.
    4
  105.  @j.greenriver6293  This is... exactly my point. The original claim is that he was hunted specifically and individually. But, rather, we find that he was just part of two major and large groups the nazis hated, vocal political opponents and jewish people.
    4
  106.  @j.greenriver6293  Wait, why the hell do you support Pinochet over Allende?
    4
  107. You really don't know what those words mean, do you? You... Realize that a dictatorship is just a system in which all political power is held with one group, and the proletariat is the working class? So put it together - a society where all the power is in the hands of the working class. It has never been an actual dictatorship, and only fools can't put together the words right in front of them.
    4
  108.  @phillip3495  I hate to break it to you, but over-application of accusations of fallacy, especially when said accusations are made in such absurd circumstances, are not arguments. You assert that believing historians is an "argument from authority." Now, the problem with your line of "logic" is that it isn't logical at all. Is it a fallacy to randomly claim that a person that is well known or an authority in one thing is always correct? Yes. Is it a fallacy to say that historians who spend decades studying a subject and publishing work to be peer-reviewed and fact checked might know what they're talking about? No. You are literally having this argument because you would prefer to believe a youtube video than the very sources it cites, because you would prefer to believe your ideology is correct than deal with the fact that it absolutely isn't. Historians generally know history. Sorry? Your whole argument is that you are the sole arbiter of what "actual knowledge is," and coincidentally, it's whatever you happen to agree with, no matter how many mental hoops you have to jump through to justify it. Are there people who dedicated time to a subject, only to be wrong about it? Sure, there's a few in every thousand of experts, which are quickly weeded out and fact checked. Is that a good reason to dismiss the findings of hundreds of different figures that all easily refute your denialism? Nope.
    4
  109.  @phillip3495  Child, just saying something over and over doesn't make it true. I've presented arguments, i've presented historical facts, and i've refuted your assertions. I have not once argued from authority, which even you admit. You, on the other hand, cannot rebut me, so you defer to a fallacy of fallacies in order to run away. You have not presented a counter to my arguments, in fact, you pretend they don't exist. You have not refuted them because you cannot refute them. So of course, I have the argument here. You are, in your own words, the "one with the assertion," the one with the baseless statement you have presented without logic, argumentation, and evidence, and expected everyone to rebut. Of course, nobody need sink to that level, one could simply point out that your argument has no evidence or argumentation and thus isn't worth a rebuttal, but I went the extra mile and effortlessly disproved you. We're in a debate, and you lost a while ago, given you inability to respond. Child, i'm still waiting for a single rebuttal.
    4
  110.  @phillip3495  But that is exactly what you suggested. You said I should attempt to mirror your trick of running away from an argument and declining to rebut. I said no. And this very much proves my point, you cannot actually make arguments, so you'll go to absurd lengths just to avoid daring to engage in debate with someone you know has already proven you wrong. And no, the way to properly source others isn't by terribly formatting a quote and attributing said quote to two letters. Generally, you want full names, dates, publication information, page numbers, ect. But as you are someone that has never cited a single one of your claims, i'm not surprised you don't now this.
    4
  111.  @polpol2739  I'm sorry, none of that is at all true. His writings are full of hatred directed towards socialism and internationalism, and praise towards the processes of capitalism in his country, especially the supposedly superior german industries. He did not seize the means of production, nor did he distribute it, unless you count the distribution of Weimar-era public property into private hands. He used Christianity, and I am fine admitting that as a person raised by Christians, and his morality had nothing to do wth liberalism. Christianity was one of his chief tools. I'm sorry, this is just wrong. The only right wing thing about hitler was... well, everything about him, his nationalism, his economics, his social views, and so on. He was in no way anywhere but the far right, much less "totaly (sic) left socialist" as you assert, a statement reflecting the opposite of reality.
    4
  112.  @polpol2739  Exactly. You denying the truth over and over does not make your statements any less false. His writings, as quoted here, show his far right anti-socialist bias, and show the deeply right wing opinions that he held, hence his allying with capitalists and allowing capitalism to proceed in his nation. Denying this with no evidence, as you continue to do, is quite silly, especially given your lack of coherent response that seems to be all too consistent with your replies. He competed with the left because he was opposed to them, and at the same time defended and upheld the right because he was in favor of them. His traditionalism was one constructed on the basis of Christian faith, and comparing his words to another deeply conservative religion that conservatives use as a strawman doesn't change that. Christianity is far from peaceful, hence, him using it as a weapon.
    4
  113.  @jonathandrake8640  Yes, you all have a problem with that. Not sure what I can do to help, if anything, and yet i try.
    4
  114.  @JeffPenaify  you see the problem there? You tacked on a bunch of non existent qualifiers that don't actually work with the definition of socialism
    4
  115.  @jonathanrealman8415  The problem is, both TIK and hitler defined "marxist" as socialist. They tried to make a distinction by using incorrect terms.
    4
  116.  @OUTERPANGEA  It's ok child, one day you'll be able to break out of your programming and leave your echo chamber. Until then, feel free to prove my point by repeating back the rhetoric of the nazis, as you constantly do.
    4
  117.  @lineseeking  Nope, it would be far to the right of center even. What reality do you live in??
    4
  118.  @TheImperatorKnight  We get it, TIK, historians are marxists, anyone who disagrees with you is a marxist, in fact, why don't you call anyone who doesn't pay you a marxist? It wouldn't make any real difference, you're a liar either way.
    4
  119.  @Pangora2  "Government is social." What? Seriously, what? This isn't even close to true, nor does the example you gave at all deal with what the nazis do.
    4
  120. ...you think the nazis had either of those?
    4
  121.  @TheImperatorKnight  That's what I recommended, TIK. It's almost like you want to be angry more than you want to actually engage with your criticism. No one here is a marxist, you can stop redefining terms.
    4
  122.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah, damn shame there. I, sadly, have watched your video,. and argued against specific points. However, as we all know (from your lack of response and threat to censor me) you don't like admitting to that.
    4
  123.  @OntologicalQuandry  Oh, sure. He's seemed plenty appreciative of other people as well, including a literal holocaust denier. He also has an unfortunate habit of calling me a post-modernist marxist racist anti-semite, and no I am not making that up, he can agree with calling me every single one of those things. He created the video, but beyond that, has had... quite some issues with substantiating it. When his points are addressed, he tends to insult before he responds, and that's if he responds at all with anything more than a copy pasted response or a link to another one of his videos. The thing is, i have watched the video. I've been arguing in this comment section for weeks, it would be stupid of me not to have. However, you don't have to agree with him because you watched the video,and the points I brought up,though he addressed them, still show how he is wrong. I know you wish to invalidate all criticism behind the label of "but you didn't watch the video" and it doesn't work. If you can't argue on your own terms and merits and have to use the video, one that is objectively wrong, as a crutch than you really didn't have an argument to begin with.
    4
  124.  @TrifectaMonkey  Yes, I did, as I keep telling TIK. He has to keep pretending I don't so he can deflect from his inability to defend his points.
    4
  125.  @travisadams6279  But they explicitly did cancel out eachother. You can't have collective ownership of the means of production and also throw the collective in jails and remove their right to impact the government. Your point is absolutely moot is what i'm saying. You can't have social ownership without social ownership, which is what you're suggesting right now. The nazi government was one that opposed social ownership and subjugated its society to an unnatural forced rule over the people, not social ownership at all.
    4
  126.  @travisadams6279  Jesus fuck, here I thought you were bad and then you go proving me right further. Capitalism is a statist system, and nazi germany was a fundamentally anti-socialist system that prided private ownership and called for the means of production to be primarily in their hands, while denying the notion that the means of production should be owned socially under any means. The state was not running all business, nor did hitler want it to, as that went against his idea of racial superiority. Also, state control isn't socialism. Furthermore, you then hilariously assert the fucking idiotic notion that "state is also interchangeable with people, or collective." The fuck are you talking about? A dictator does not represent the people or the collective. A state can represent the people as a whole, but saying that hitler was synonymous with the victims of the holocaust is absurd. You argue that the nazis had state control of the economy (false) and state means the people (also false, dictators are not supported by their victims) then using that to assert that some people had control, so it must be socialist.. (Again, absurd, and false.) You keep trying to hold onto this "different types of socialism" argument, but in trying to ahistorically broaden the definition of socialism to include far right anti-socialists like nazis, you've included literally all ideologies. Socialism is based not on just one random collective, but on the collective as a whole.
    4
  127.  @travisadams6279  Sorry, that's false. Objectively false, and you doubling down on an argument you already lost doesn't change that. No, it isn't. Socialism isn't when a collective has power. Socialism is the collective, as a whole. By your definition, you are a socialist .Mises was a socialist. Rand was a socialist. King Henry V was a socialist. And so on. Doubling down on your absurd assertion that "Socialism is when any group has power" and then lying about the nazis proves you objectively false. Stop. Lying.
    4
  128.  @travisadams6279  You mean at 7:00 he attempts, once again, to use association fallacies to attempt to conflate a public and public ownership. I would have hoped that even you realize a totalitarian state is not synonymous with it's victims, but I guess not. Perhaps stop taking all of your argument from random online right wing extremists with an agenda?
    4
  129.  @travisadams6279  I have genuinely never before seen such a completely absurd and unsupported string of claims as the one you make here, and it's fucking baffling. You are literally lying with every fiber of you being and it's sad, so let's go one by one. First off, nazis never outlawed private property. Yours is a claim not even TIK makes. In 1933, the nazis removed a right to private property from their state legal documents. You don't need a right to housing to own a house, don't need a right to healthcare to get a doctor, and you don't need some random government document to say the words "private property" in order to own and manage private property, which was happening under and with the support of the nazi regime. Secondly, non-private property isn't automatically "communal" property. You're literally saying that if a single dictator took something into state ownership, then it belongs to the community, which is absurd. Furthermore, the community of "aryans" under the nazis had no economic power, they were victims of the oppressive regime. You continue to say "nazis/aryans" or "nazis/general public," which is absurdly disgusting. The nazis were not supported by their populations or the general public, nor did they support thse groups in kind. You, evidently, have never read their laws. They didn't care about the good of the general public, they were literally throwing them in death camps. Furthermore, the state was always used as a last resort, for failure of private property in wartime critical and absolutely necessary cases.
    4
  130.  @travisadams6279  Yes, I did, hence you finding my comments there and my bloody comments in the video itself. Jesus fuck are you people able to realize that people can read your bibles and still refute them? He shows vague definitions and then attempts to piece them together, again, through association fallacies. His readings of the definitions make no sense, and are not reflected anywhere but his own extremist views. For example, one can count the amount of nations, countries, and states on the planet. It isn't even that high a number. However, TIK argues that for example, since the definition of nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory," any united groups of people can be considered a "nation," and thus have a state and government. This is, of course, absurd, for the reason primarily that the definition in question is meant to describe nations that are verified through other means, not perscribe random groups into being nations. Again, association fallacies.
    4
  131.  @SchmulKrieger  Both were contributers to socialism, but Bakunin was an anarchist, and Proudhon founded Mutualism. But what does this have to do with any of the conversation?
    4
  132.  @Willy_Tepes  .... alright have fun with that.
    4
  133.  Jetstom Ferrari  So you're literally just threatening to kill me, and agreeing with nazis... because i'm right. Thanks for proving my point, I guess.
    4
  134.  Raptor Jet  copy pasting lies does not make them more true kid
    4
  135.  @clopec  No, you would be right. TIK tends to call anything relating to government control socialism. He also calls corporations socialist. So while his original idea that capitalism and the markets didn't cause the great depression is flimsy enough, it's made even sillier by his need to slap the label "socialist" on everything.
    4
  136. According to TIK, yes. According to reality, no.
    4
  137.  @ottovonbismark5083  Oh no, they were right. And continue to be. TIK, on the other hand, has more than proven the ineffectuality of his arguments with his constant ad hominem attacks and deflections. I think that's pretty telling, personally.
    3
  138.  @TheImperatorKnight  Its amazing, I put in a single line at the end with insults whereas you colorfully sprinkle them throughout your entire response... and that's what you fixate on. I mean seriously, I don't even mean this in insult anymore, you actually do remind me aof a child. Throwing insults until you get one in return, which is when you decide to play the victim. You've called me much worse than "balding," friend, and quite frankly I don't care about your appearance and am already questioning why I included that in the firt place. That is, however, the first time i've ever said anything like that, you can cut the performance. But yes, through your words, through your actions, and through your refusal to engage with the facts, you have admitted i'm right in all but signed confession. How... sad. I do desperately hope you have a life outside of youtube, TIK. Because that would be so, so much more beneficial than whatever the hell you're doing here. Leave the propaganda to better performers.
    3
  139.  @bestdjaf7499  so in other words it wasn't communism
    3
  140.  @TheImperatorKnight  Of course you agree with OP, TIK. Because you know you're wrong, and the best way to ignore that is to engage in fallacy, as you've been doing. All i've been doing, this whole time, is disagreeing and debating. Not one time have I thrown an insult, at least not nearly as insane and serious as yours, and I have addressed your points each time. I know you want to ignore this, because it proves that you cannot back up many of your points, but it won't go away, and this is a public forum where only a few minutes of scrolling with prove you wrong. You can accuse use of "meaningless insults" all you want, but this entire time (and even now) you call random people marxists, post modernists, anti semites because they simply disagree with you. And of course, you instantly leap into an insult. You really can't defend your points, can you. Your agenda has always been to redefine history, revise it, and the whole time with the absurd goal in mind that the "popular narrative" or "mainstream understanding" must be wrong. You have decided that you would build your content off of the back of needless contrarianism and fearmongering. When you say "the comment sections are normally better," you mean, "they commenters normally don't know enough to call me out on my nonsense." But i've seen them do it, and i've seen you brush off first time commenters with the same baseless insults that you've attributed to me. And of course, here you are again, engaging in needles contrarianism. You know why you can't subject this to mainstream historians, because they'd prove you wrong in an instant, as even most of your comments have done. I see you've never actually been to university or understand the state, because buddy, most that i've been to teach Austrian economics first, and all else last. Hell, you remember Pinochet? The only reason he came into power was that the state sponsored Austrian-School economists to teach Chileans about their ideology, who were then sent back to form the new country. This country despises socialism more than you, but you can't bear to hear that. Some of the Austrians also blamed the great depression on capitalism, but i'm sure you don't want to hear that. You also, of course, don't want to hear that Austrian economics has been mainstream, ever since it wormed itself out of the Fatherland Front. But I do find it comedic that you think Austrians understand basic economics, or even why you feel the need to bring this up in a comment complaining about this you don't like. Why's that? Oh, right, you refuse to engage in nuance and try to associate everyone you don't like into one giant anti-TIK conglomerate. You also refer to me as a statist and you not as one, which is personally funny to me. I hate to bring this up. but we've already been over it. You did redefine these words, explicitly, under the pretense of going back to their base roots in an early language and connecting them there. I hate to remind you, but etymology didn't end before the english language really existed. When a socialist, say marx, talks about a "state" they don't mean your definition. When they talk about "collective ownership," they don't mean your definition. You try to make up these definitions to apply them, long after they're dead, as a way of obscuring their goals and associating them with other groups. Postmodernists actually tend to be against the state, but you've been redefining the term, so who knows. When you decide to take a thousand year old definition and plaster it across the entire english language, yes, it doesn't work. You can complain about your fictional "marxists" all you like, you're not going to get a participation trophy for being wrong because of them.
    3
  141. he would have to have facts first.
    3
  142.  Raptor Jet  I proved to you time and time again that your quotes are out of context and that hitler said manty, many things that contradicted your attempted point here. I know you hate facts, and I know the truth makes you want to cry, but the citations are indisputable, and it is a simple uncontroversial fact that hitler was not and never was a socialist.
    3
  143.  @herrhiterminator8149  Ok,but the problem is that nationalism will always divide the people. You can't have the people "Collectively" do anything if the system they are under divides them all up. If you get shoved into random groups of other people, how can you claim to hold any sort of solidarity with your fellow man? And just because totalitarianism tends to result in nationalism, that doesn't mean all totalitarianism will create nationalism, or that socialism will go along with said nationalism.
    3
  144.  @Wtiberon  What "socialist policies?" What "pro-socialism?" You never answered... because they don't exist. Hitler wasn't' a socialist, was not pro socialism, and did not put in place socialist policies. This is an undeniable fact of history, no matter your ideological leaning, and if you are trying to deny it you should perhaps question why.
    3
  145.  @Wtiberon  He doesn't, thought. He readily admits his own historical sources disagree with his findings, conclusions, and definitions. This is why you all need to do actual research and stop trusting random people online.
    3
  146.  @Wtiberon  Did you not listen, child? His own historical sources don't even agree with them, he only uses them so he can cherry pick information that aligns with his made up definitions. How is critical thinking "bullshit?" You aren't even willing to check if the sources say what he says they do, and yet i'm the one expected to provide evidence? If you want evidence he's wrong, go through his cited historians. I would recommend starting with one of the best known and best put together WW2 historical works on the nazi regime, Richard Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy, for a glimpse into how incorrect TIK is, and how objectively non-socialist the nazis were. TIK is wrong. TIK lied to you and you don't even have the critical thinking to double check his "work."
    3
  147.  @Wtiberon  I literally did though? I gave you a work that contradicts him fully, and which he himself cites. You should really know this, and its sad that you're still trying to deflect away from the truth.
    3
  148.  @Wtiberon  I mean... yes? You tend to want to cite works when you're trying to make a point, did you not realize that?
    3
  149.  @Wtiberon  ...The entire book is about the nazi rise and the nazi ideology. That's what this subject was on, so why would I limit myself to giving you a tiny snippet of the information? That seems like a pretty shitty way to deliver actual information and citation, kid. Did you never learn how to research?
    3
  150.  @Wtiberon  Yes, actually. I think when speaking on a source you should be as educated as possible, and I know that since you're acting in bad faith all you would do if I narrowed down one specific quote (that illustrates, somehow, what the whole book is about) you would try to attack the quote instead of the actual source. Thus, I cited a piece that definitively deconstructs every ahistorical narrative you and TIK have pushed, and encouraged you to do your own research. However, you seem to be unable to put actual work behind your words... so you refuse to research. Sad.
    3
  151.  @Wtiberon  What an amazing debate you've had then. I give you information, and you decide you don't want to research because its too much work. I actually spend my time looking into the claims I make, unlike you, and its pretty telling that you aren't willing to back yours up with any substance.
    3
  152.  @Wtiberon  You keep insulting me but I don't think you realize that doesn't count as an argument. TIK is wrong, yes, objectively. As I said, he readily admits that his own sources disagree with his conclusion. I simply gave you an in depth piece that explains the history of the nazis, so that all of TIK's propaganda can be countered with actual facts from an actual historian. Also, in debates the two people are expected to have actually read and interpreted the works that the other brings up - that's pretty basic. Since you obviously haven't researched this individually, I decided to give you a place to start. You can call me lazy for giving you sources, and intellectually dishonest for telling the truth, but it doesn't change the fact that i'm right.
    3
  153.  @Wtiberon  I know you're not arguing, because doing so would mean you're opening up yourself to the possibility of being wrong, and you'd rather not self reflect that much. I have put more effort into even this conversation than you by far, you are of course projecting again. I portray myself as someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research. Call that whatever you want, but that's the truth about me. And here's your best piece of denialism - "What does it matter if his sources disagree with him?" Kid. This is history. History isn't subjective, isn't opinions. History is based on facts. If I was to site 3 people saying 2+2=4 in my essay on why 2+2=5, my essay would be invalid, not only is it false, but the citations I give would be taken out of the context of their ultimate conclusion. That's why it matters, because he cited numerous sources that easily prove the nazis were not socialists... and then ignores the conclusions of said sources to cherry pick information. TIK isn't a historian, he's some gob with a youtube channel. And yes, i'm arguing peer reviewed and decades-credited historians have more credibility than this youtuber. I have already given you nothing but specific, coherent, logical reasons why he is wrong, and I have not committed anything close to the amount of logical fallacies you have. That's the thing - I don't care if you listen. You have proven yourself to be acting in bad faith and constantly shifting the goalposts. You don't care about evidence or citation, you don't want to have to research. We both know i'm right, that's why you keep asking for me to make arguments that don't requite you to actually look into the subject matter. If you don't want to debate me, you want to walk away with your ignorance, go ahead. That's your choice.
    3
  154.  @Wtiberon  Who is "we both?" You've tried to run away from this argument and citation three times now, all because you're well aware you can't actually argue your point - its impossible. You didn't read it because you know its true.
    3
  155.  @Wtiberon  I am well aware you said that. And yet you're still here.
    3
  156.  @herrhiterminator8149  they can be seen as the same, but that doesn't actually make them the same.
    3
  157.  @herrhiterminator8149  Well I was replying to your implicit assumption, that national identity and nationality are the same
    3
  158.  @herrhiterminator8149  But it doesn't have to be a part of race? like again, one can be a german without being white. In fact, race and nationality are usually considered to be similar, but they really aren't when compared to national identity.
    3
  159.  @herrhiterminator8149  Our nation. That's about it.
    3
  160.  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?
    3
  161.  MIT Mathematica   @MIT Mathematica  wait, where? All I see are quotes where hitler promoted his far right anti socialist ideology. That is, if you put them in context. Context you specifically ignored.
    3
  162.  @CorrectCrusader  Yes it does. It was literally the first right wing ideology called that.
    3
  163.  @CorrectCrusader  It's literally historical fact. Do you even know where left v right came from?
    3
  164.  @riotraverv4518  Oooo, someone just figured out what the term "strawman" means. They privatized plenty, it was a huge portion of their economy, but of course they couldn't privatize literally everything, they were fighting a war. All you've done so far is provide zero proof and only assertion, why am I not allowed to call out that cowardice when I see it? And yes, they were not socialists, thanks for pointing that out.
    3
  165.  @ColvieChannel  fascism is not just the suppression of opposition, the only reason that definition is in the dictionary is because so many people used the words to mean anything authoritarian that they changed the meaning to suit that. But the actual ideology if Fascism is much more complicated. You can look up Eco's "Ur Fascism" for a more comprehensive definitely.
    3
  166.  @ColvieChannel  I literally have, I recommended you look up the comprehensive definition posed by Umberto Eco in "Ur Fascism," because not only did he survive fascism, but studied it for a good while and tried to find the similarities in fascist ideologies from regime to regime. As for the question, I asked it because if we truly say that silencing dissent through violence is the only factor of fascism, then the Sons of Liberty, an organization that the Founders were either parts of or aligned with, were fascists. After all, they destroyed millions in property, incited riots, assaulted military personnel and random loyalist civilians, quite literally tortured people, made and burned effigies of public figures, I blelieve there was a case where they kidnapped a tax collector, and so on. By your definition, that association... makes them fascist. Yet, that isn't the government they put in place. You see the issue?
    3
  167.  @riotraverv4518  Wow. That's, like, a whole run on sentence of garbage. You didn't even address the point, and by god man, learn to use basic punctuation. In any case, that wasn't a strawman, that was hyperbole on my part, and yeah, my bad. But there's this thing called "arguing from fallacy," and you're doing it. Trying to attack my argument not for the points it presents, but instead because you don't like how the points were presented. And again, we've been over this. You can't base your entire respond on nothing more than that fallacy-chasing, it's useless and gets us nowhere. I have provided proof for my claims, and at this point you're providing no actual counter to them.
    3
  168.  @riotraverv4518  *You're. And again, that isn't what you're doing. You're spending words upon words trying to point out non-existent fallacies instead of addressing the argument. I have given proof, and you haven't once mentioned my words since then.
    3
  169.  @riotraverv4518  Point out those "counter arguments." Because I gave an argument that explained what marxism actually is, and you then decided to go out on a side rant and completely ignored the arguments.
    3
  170.  @floki_vt  Nope. As we've been over. Anything else?
    3
  171.  @allaround360  Except... he hasn't provided evidence. TIK hasn't addressed the claims you say he has. You can't ignore the fact that there is no argument to be made there, and the fact that you're blatantly lying. A good point was brought up to oppose your lies, and you couldn't address it. We all know why, its because the nazis weren't socialists, as any objective look at history will tell you. You're welcome for the quick lesson.
    3
  172.  @acraftyhuragok7586  First off, *whole. Second off, yeah, if it literally doesn't fit the definition then it doesn't fit the definition. Sorry? As well as that, thanks for admitting two things with this last line. One, that you don't care and thus know you're wrong, but again, don't care because it fits your narrative. Two, it tells me that you don't know that capitalism has killed far more than communism. You're welcome.
    3
  173.  @acraftyhuragok7586  Well that would have to be true first, and sadly for you, it is not. In fact, you've got the exact reverse of the truth, that's pretty impressive.
    3
  174.  @iToxicMochi  Socialists actually do tend to agree on the base definition, just like capitalists agree on the base definition of capitalism. Where they disagree is on specifics like implementation, or what else they want. That isn't changing the definition, that's called ideological diversity. There is one definition for the whole umbrella, there always has been, and TIK refuses to use it.
    3
  175.    You bring up a pretty interesting point, that i've somewhat noticed myself. In trying to call Nazism socialism, TIK has fallen back pretty hard on the Nazi rhetoric and propaganda regarding socialism, somehow unaware that there was a conscious effort to redefine the term to draw the appeal of the public.
    3
  176. Love how you all refer to people who prove y'all wrong as "marxists." Reminds me of a certain other group...
    3
  177.  @TheImperatorKnight  well they're right in that hitler killed socialists, and wasn't a socialist
    3
  178.  @lething1237  I have watched the video, the whole thing
    3
  179.  @TheBluntNinja  They really didn't. The vat majority of "SJWs" are just liberals, if even that.
    3
  180. Because he wasn't? Because the name of a dictator well known for lying doesn't tell us anything?
    3
  181. dude he's resorted to calling everyone who disagrees with him anti-semetic. That's like, the opposite of "owning the haters."
    3
  182. Yeah, pushing revisionism does that.
    3
  183. 0:00 <---- this is the part where he starts lying.
    3
  184.  @someguy8130  I admire the effort, but TIK literally does think socialism is not just when the government does stuff, but when society, hierarchy, and even companies do stuff. No, i'm not joking.
    3
  185.  @j.greenriver6293  They couldn't actually do anything about him, dude. He, again, was in an entirely different part of the world at the time. So he wasn't individually hunted so much as he was in a few groups of hated individuals.
    3
  186. you might want to double-check that
    3
  187.  @phillip3495  Wow, so many words all to just admit you love nazi ideology.
    3
  188.  @phillip3495  Why would I be more explicit than I already have? You support many tenants of nazi ideology. You can claim it has no basis or that it's just an insult, but that makes it little more than your reductionist deflectory walls of text, so you don't much have moral authority to speak there.
    3
  189.  @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
  190.  @phillip3495  Why would I want to use a "neat trick" for bowing out of an argument and admitting that I don't have any rebuttals, as you did? I gave a claim, and backed it up with evidence and argumentation. You openly said that you disagree with the claim ideologically, and so you would write it off. Your only response to me further clarifying said claim, is to further deflect, and claim that your deflection is somehow justified, simply because you disagree with my arguments. You demonstrated a flawed premise that logically invalidates anything else that you could say on the subject.
    3
  191.  @anonygent  Ah, according to "research." What an amazing citation! If two random right wingers found unnamed "research" for their claims, who am I to disagree? Well, perhaps they simply don't want to be associated with historical revisionism, like you.
    3
  192.  @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
  193.  @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
  194.  @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
  195. @Austin Sturtz If you scroll through any of the major most-liked comment threads under this video you are most likely going to find my comments, both to him and to others. I also have commented on other videos of his, on the same subject.
    3
  196. Yeah, and then he got kicked out of the party for spreading anti-socialist views. He himself said that he was right wing, and wanted to abandon socialism. Fascism is not socialism in any way, and they weren't socialists, at all. Case close, and it's simple as that.
    3
  197.  @gunner4lyfe723  "Case closed?" Not even close. Fascism is right wing, unlike communism and socialism.
    3
  198.  @lexicalambiguity5819  Your version of a "real socialist" isn't real. Words don't change because you don't like how they're defined.
    3
  199.  @hyacinthlynch843  And said Hitler-Hitle was right wing in ideology.
    3
  200.  @hyacinthlynch843  Yep, and that ideology was right wing and a result of right wing ideology.
    3
  201.  @hyacinthlynch843  no, in objective reality. Sorry?
    3
  202.  @hyacinthlynch843  No, objective reality, as previously stated.
    3
  203.  @hyacinthlynch843  No, objective reality is objective reality. I am just delivering that message.
    3
  204.  @hyacinthlynch843  I'm not though. You're implying that objective reality is some sort of subjective view because said reality doesn't match your subjective view.
    3
  205.  @OUTERPANGEA  Nazis are racist anti-socialists, like most racists really. Your "flavors of socialism" include capitalism, which is obviously not included in the definition of socialism. You don't know the first thing about the very things you claim to both support and oppose, and it's really sad. More sad, far right extremism...
    3
  206.  @paraguaymike5159  You mean there are several historians trying to address you and TIK's lies.
    3
  207.  @a.wadderphiltyr1559  Luckily I am not a socialist, but your desire to claim all those who understand history better than you as ideological "others" is scary. Reality wins arguments, and the reality is that hitler and the nazis were not socialists.
    3
  208.  @fattony638  The problem being that, for a country to be socialist, the means of production must be held by the people as a whole. It's not a assumption, that's just the basic definition. Yes, this can include examples like your #1, where the state holds the MoP but is accountable to the people, but the state doesn't even need to exist for it to be socialist. Calling the nazis socialist... is just wrong.
    3
  209.  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
  210.  @chopperking007  Nah, I just actually educate myself on these matters. Which is really something I think you should look into.
    3
  211. Does that not apply to the people trying to make hitler seem like a socialist, so the right is thought of positively? Also, it isn't socialists that know hitler wasn't a socialist. It's the general historical consensus.
    3
  212.  @HiddenOcelot  Theocracy and Nazism were right wing ideologies, so i'm not sure what you think you're gaining by brining those up. Also, communism is by definition stateless, so "full control?" not so much. When I look at the real world, I see modern right wingers claiming to uphold libertarian values and push for them over and over again, while in reality adding to the power of the military and state, taking away free speech ability, rigidly confining the individuality of all those they disagree with, and pushing for police crackdowns of protesters. Is that not authoritarian?
    3
  213. TimeGhost was right
    3
  214.  @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
  215.  @Isclachau  my... what now? Anger issues? I'm not the one calling everyone I disagree with mentally ill and evil, dude. Again, come up with better insults.
    3
  216.  @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
  217.  @TheImperatorKnight  Oh, that's what you wish mate. You know that lying and hoping we go away doesn't work, right?
    3
  218. ​ @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
  219.  @Matt_History  TIK plainly and happily admits that the historical sources he links don't actually come to his conclusions. When even your own sources disagree with you to the degree you have to admit it, then you're a liar. And if you didn't know that? Then he's fooling you.
    3
  220. There is no such thing as an "SJW" mate, this isn't 2017. Marx wasn't the first to come up with socialism, and class socialism had been there since the beginning. Hitler didn't propose socialism at all. It seems that you don't actually know what socialism is.
    3
  221. Or in other words - "I don't like being reminded that nazism is a far right ideology that plenty of modern anti-socialists agree with, so i'll just pretend everything I don't like is socialism."
    3
  222.  @scalisque5403  The truth. Sorry to remind you of it?
    3
  223.  @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
  224.  @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
  225.  @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
  226.  @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
  227.  @danielbowman7226  "sick!" Says the holocaust apologist. "Sick!" Says the open defender of the most deadly ideology to date. "Sick" says the one who denies objective history, who will contribute to the rise of totalitarianism and genocide again. Pardon me, I don't value your condemnation. Its funny how you call all you disagree with communists, like the Nazis. Its funny how you attempt to deflect from the crimes of fascism onto communism. And by funny, I mean it proves my point perfectly. You're closer to a fascist than a communist could ever be.
    3
  228. 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
  229.  @oriprogamer1404  Keynes was not a socialism mate.
    3
  230.  @oriprogamer1404  There are literally no similarities, Keynes was a capitalist, and marx was anti-state.
    3
  231. I hate to remind you, but those "sjw assholes" have disproven this video.
    2
  232.  @ottovonbismark5083  Yes, in fact. And I hate to pull this, but it looks like that someone is you.
    2
  233.  @ottovonbismark5083  What an utterly amazing rebuttal. Truly, those who are huge fans of TIK really do present a huge intellectual force to be overcome in rational debate such as this
    2
  234.  @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
  235.  @marcuslennartsson11  Yes, he really does. I know that sounds like the most strawmman-y thing out there, but it's true, and it's utterly absurd.
    2
  236.  @bandit6272  why should I care who asks me? I'm allowed to stay the truth , no matter how much it pisses liars like you off, right? There's a reason he can never address my proof. It's sad, you probably haven't even watched the video, or read my responses. Because you know I'm right
    2
  237.  @bandit6272  you're literally mocking the idea of giving proof now, lmao. I give proof, and you make it into a joke. That's sad.
    2
  238.  @bandit6272  so you apparently are aware of the extent I've engaged with TIK, and yet haven't bothered to actually read my responses. Sad.
    2
  239.  @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
  240. ​ @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
  241.  @bandit6272  The count begins. As of this comment, you have responded 10 times without going and finding providing the abundant proofs and refutations you admit I have. 10 times since I asked for you to simply respond to comments you admitted to recently scrolling past You're like the guy who says he's swimming in evidence, but just tells you to google instead of: finding the comments he admitted he saw
    2
  242.  @bandit6272  TIK admits that his citations don't even come to the same conclusion as him. And there you go, lying again. You just admitted that you haven't read through any of my debate threads, and yet you suppose that I don't provide any proof. So, you're not only wrong, but a liar. The count is at 12 now.
    2
  243.  @bandit6272  Nice try 1. TIK makes a claim that you say is true 2. You fail to back it up Count is at 13 Still waiting
    2
  244.  @bandit6272  You... literally agreed with his point and started this off by crying about how much you hate socialists. 15
    2
  245.  @bandit6272  17 now.
    2
  246.  @bandit6272  You know where my responses are, kid. So why do you want to waste time here, instead of finding them? You've admitted my comments exist, so as long as you refuse to engage with them, I can keep you here as long as I like and still win this argument.
    2
  247.  @flying0possum  Ah, of course. This nonsense again. You know you've struck a nerve when people start insulting you and calling for your ideas to be censored. Cry more, child.
    2
  248. ​ @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
  249.  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
  250.  @Dak1549  I'm sorry? It is a proven fact that the nazis were more anti-socialist than you. Please keep up. Also, TIK doesn't use "classic" definitions. He uses fabricated ones.
    2
  251.  @Dak1549  History is never "open to interpretation." it is objective. The nazis were not socialists.
    2
  252.  @davidkahn3569  TIK's video is full of disproven talking points, leaps in logic, and citations that even he admits disagree with him. He has no facts, so he resorts to insulting his critics.
    2
  253.  @Dak1549  but they don't kill socialists because they're socialists, they kill socialists because they are opposing that specific party. The Nazis killed socialists because they were socialists.
    2
  254.  @Dak1549  ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the Nazis heel and ideology antithetical to socialism and thus persecuted socialists and those that helped them
    2
  255.  @Dak1549  But that wouldn't make any sense, given that most of their non-propaganistic writings and actions point to the exact opposite, that they never had any intention to bring about socialism of any form. You seem to be assuming that the regime known for a hatred of equality, progressive politics, open borders, and democracy/collective ownership of any sort, had intentions to go against that hatred in policy. That assumption ias based on nothing.
    2
  256.  @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
  257.  @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
  258.  @elijahrivera2858  I already did fact check his claims, and they were incorrect. TIK does not understand the meaning of fascism, and the meaning of socialism. TIK is objectively incorrect about the nazis, as they were not socialists, and to call socialism the beginning of fascism has no historical basis and is blatantly false.
    2
  259.  @elijahrivera2858  but it literally isn't. Government business has nothing to do with socialism.
    2
  260.  @elijahrivera2858  yeah, that's because capitalism isn't the most stable economic system. Welcome to reality
    2
  261.  @elijahrivera2858  Sorry, but that isn't true. I am adhering fully to reality, and I have provided proof of it. Providing evidence isn't revising history, child, but i'm sure you think all evidence is some sort of marxist conspiracy. So no, sorry, it appears yet again I was objectively correct :)
    2
  262.  @elijahrivera2858  I believe the conclusions of unbiased historians specifically because they contain facts, and you know this. You literally don't believe in facts.
    2
  263.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm so sorry that you can't admit that I have easily, and using both of your own sources, refuted you and TIK's ignorant ideological fanaticism. 5 hours proving only that TIK hates being associated with other far right people, like the nazis. The nazis, much like you, were extreme anti-socialists. I'm sorry that you're afraid to attempt to refute this objective fact, but i don't blame you. You've failed at every single one of your attempts so far. Thank you for admitting i'm right :)
    2
  264.  @Rajpeanut  if the only form you understand history in is youtube videos, you're TIKs perfect demographic! That is to say, sensationalist idealogues who treat history like youtube drama and couldn't give a damn about the academic study of it. TIK is long disproven :)
    2
  265.  @timk6181  it happens, but someone at least has to try. Thank you.
    2
  266.  @bestdjaf7499  It was state capitalism
    2
  267. That isn't even close to true.
    2
  268. I find it far stranger that people seem to think TIK's odd fanatic beliefs are factual, simply because they agree with them. But sure, continue to give him an excuse to further dig down into that echo chamber, I suppose
    2
  269.  @mitscientifica1569  You've said that before child. What you meant to say is "capitalism." You evidently do not know the definition of socialism.
    2
  270.  @mitscientifica1569  Funny how you hate admitting that George Orwell was a proud socialist.
    2
  271.  @mitscientifica1569  you've already told me that one four times dude.
    2
  272.  @TheImperatorKnight  He nationalized the industries only if you decide that companies are inherently "states," he cut back on welfare for those who needed it most and disqualified most people, and he was much more dedicated to "cleansing" than actually using the land, oh yeah and he didn't want socialism.
    2
  273.  Raptor Jet  You done yet, liar? I've already proved you wrong here time and time again.
    2
  274.  @herrhiterminator8149  What? There are possibilities, yeah, but people tend to not do that because they don't often mesh well. Internationalism and nationalism don't mix.
    2
  275.  BenjaminTheRogue  you realize you can't exactly appeal to every group at once, right? Not that he didn't try, in fact, with quite a few oth those he tried quite a bit.
    2
  276.  @herrhiterminator8149  Ok, but even then you're considering "nationalities" and "races" to be the same. There can be a black german, or a white person from japan. Nation =/= race
    2
  277.  @jonfoster5828  Ok, that's just objectively false.
    2
  278.  @mitscientifica1569  ​ @MIT Scientifica Oh, hitler gave far more quotes than just three. And after all, no matter how many alts you mae, in the end you always admit that far right mass-murderer Adolf Hitler was an anti-socialist. “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler But thank you for admitting you care about nazi propaganda over actual history! "Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
    2
  279.  @mitscientifica1569  ​ @MIT Scientifica I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408 https://www.archives.gov "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf Your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
    2
  280. Because they're possed by the same political agenda as you? Face it kid. Calling anti-socialism socialism doesn't work. the nazis weren't socialists, and anecdotal evidence doesn't change that.
    2
  281.  @fallingfallingfallingfalli500  And yet, she is incorrect. "Lying?" I couldn't say. But what you describe is, objectively, not socialism. Anyone can get up on stage and lecture. I have. And you, as usual, are wrong
    2
  282.  @riotraverv4518  No offense mate, but how can you know something that isn't true? You mean you think you know it, right? Or you've deluded yourself into thinking it's true?
    2
  283.  @CorrectCrusader  Yes economically. Ever heard of monarchism?
    2
  284.  @allaround360  Yes, you are a sheep.
    2
  285.  @josephgilliana9213  No those aren't, dude.
    2
  286.  @acraftyhuragok7586  First off, gotta love that contradiction. > Communists killed more people > Let's kill all communists Also, it isn't even true. Capitalism has killed far more, and continues to kill far more. It's pretty clear, and it's also pretty damn disgusting that you try to deny those constant genocides. Also, please try to work on your grammar, fash. Nice death threat, though. Amazing try there.
    2
  287.  @allaround360  Well of course I must look silly to you, after all, you've abandoned the truth long ago. I suppose you want me to apologize for daring to show it to you? I've told you you're wrong, pointed out the holes in your logic, and you have no counter. Sorry you don't like it, but no counter evidence has been provided. So, prove history wrong. Prove the far right anti-socialists were, somehow socialist. Or, continue to be the sheep we both know you ate.
    2
  288.  Jetstom Ferrari you can stop lying at any point.
    2
  289. @Roberts Fawkes This is who you are allied with, who you claim stands for freedom and democracy next to you... while outright telling eachother that they're lying to you. That was said in a speech, delivered to the AFotBNP, an american group of far right people. Those are the ones you defend, the ones who would steal freedom out from under you. Remember that whenever you think that the right truly stands for more freedom, or less government. You'd be surprised how wrong that statement is, and always has been. I can only hope that you actually have the self awareness to see it. We know what you're doing. We know what you and your allies want. And we aren't having any of it. We fought hard for these freedoms, and I refuse to sit by while the right keeps telling the biggest lie imaginable to destroy the freedom generations have died for. The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, abhor social justice, and advocate for a system in which the strong prosper while the weak are "incentiveized" to work more within the bounds of society in order to succeed. The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised any and all forms of diversity. National, racial, ideological, it was all swept away in the nationalistic worship of the country. "Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism The nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised multiculturalism and all it brought, by acting as if their society would be overrun and drowned in a sea of "others" and advocating for the supremacy and separation of their culture. "We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house." "We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight." - Adolf Hitler Oh, and before you start spouting more buzzwords like "post-modernism," the nazis, like you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised all form of culture that did not paint them in a good light, or even had no purpose at all. "Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and the fields blue ought to be sterilized" -Adolf Hitler You accuse me of falling into an Orwellian paradox, but buddy... you are one. The culture of republicans has conditioned you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears, and rather to create evidence out of thin air, to lie and shut down and deflect when faced with any sort of criticism or contradiction to your ideology. You proclaim yourself rational and logical without reason, and without purpose, for the sole reason I can only assume is trying to convince yourself. The truth is, you are none of those things. You are beholden to your ideology, not history. You have been conditioned into a cowardly, idiotic blame-deflecting narrative of the right wing collective. You're living in your own Orwellian reality, and no matter what happens, no logic will ever get through to you. You are lost here, and it's sad to watch. Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda. "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." Welcome to the real world. I hope you enjoy it. "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism " And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." " Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. "“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." "Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1 https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/ https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
    2
  290. @Roberts Fawkes At least you admitted you're brainwashed.
    2
  291. @Roberts Fawkes *You're And you can't even respond. Wonder why.
    2
  292.  @alanrobertson9790  Ok, fine then. Let's do it this way. 1. I would disagree here, but your phrasing is a bit different here, and that's worth examining. The "nazis," and the nazi government, are different things. What I mean is that while "the nazis" may have been in control of some industries... that's usually because the private owner of said industry was a nazi, or at least, very willing to work with them. If you mean that the nazi government had a high degree of control over industry as a whole, I would disagree, and say this video does not show that. 2. There is certainly a debate whether there was any sort of centralized "control," which is what we're having, but the workers played literally less part in it than the private owners. Its closer to a form of corporate governance than any form of socialism. 3. And I specifically addressed this point before. All of the examples you give are vastly different in their political and economic systems, and all are varying in how "socialist" they were. Again, an example. Venezuela never claimed to be a finished socialist country, hell, their economic is around 70% private. How does that compare to the mass centralization of say, the USSR? You see the problem? Yes, these places were not socialist (like the nazis) but they were all not socialist for different reasons. The thing was, those places (with some exceptions) at least claim to care about actual socialism, and leftism, while nazism rejected both of those concepts. 4. And this is literally a criticism of one type of socialism. One that yes, I literally have of the people who advocate it. Because no, you really can't achieve worker control through the narrow lens of a single party. But again, a dictatorship is not the only thing that made the nazis so clearly anti-socialist. 5. As for this point, yes, most countries do retain quite a bit of control over their economy in times of war. However... to then assume the nazis specifically would not have attempted a market ideology in times of peace is a bit silly. The USSR, even before WW2, operated within markets. Hell, they even ended up privatizing, they opened up a stock market for foreign trade. Obviously this changed with the advent of the World War, but the idea of a market economy is far from impossible in this case. And I do agree that the nazi economy was extremely weak, and couldn't survive without that pillaging... but that was because the economy did not follow strict ideological bounds. Instead, it was highly opportunistic. Industries would be seized and sold on a whim, elites would be persecuted or courted, workers would be slaughtered en mass or kept as labor. There was no guiding economic system, they did what they thought would work. Of course nazi germany could not have succeded with a market economy in those times of war, but given their connection and willingness to work with many local and foreign industrialists (Koch Sr. and Ford come to mind) its unlikely that the nazis would have operated a wholly anti-business pro-centralization economy. As for your last point here, I agree, that command economy is just a sign of war, not socialism. So, in the end, where we disagree seems to be in the definitions of control, and the application of the term "socialism. I have my position laid out, I think.
    2
  293.  @fs1541  But... that isn't true. It isn't economically left wing or socialist. At all.
    2
  294.  @javanbybee4822  The "5hr long video" goes against even the sources it cites. Consider this before replying.
    2
  295.  @iToxicMochi  The best part is, I did watch the video. And he does next to nothing to address... like any of these points. He just strawmans socialism and socialists, and calls it a day.
    2
  296. ​ @laq2  pt1 Look, I get it, you want to pretend to have some sort of superiority in this conversation, but as I was replying to TIK and I have already given him this info, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. If you, on the other hand, wanted me to elaborate all you had to do was ask. Let's go though my examples. First off, ideological influences/roots. The nazis, and fascists in general, were most influenced by the following figures - Spengler, Evola, and to a smaller extent Darwin and Carl Schmitt. First off, Spengler invented the idea of "Prussian Socialism." It was an ideology he was adamant had nothing to to do with any other socialism's, but he only devised the name from the same root word. This prussian socialism was nationalistic, corporatistic, in favor of private property as long as it benefited the state. Sound familiar? It wasn't quite fascism, it was a sort of proto-fascism, but it was nothing like socialism. Spengler was against labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. Not very much socialism. He, however, did share the same idea that his socialism was an ancient german tradition of sorts, that Marx had stolen. He also wrote extensively on the supposed collapse of western civilization, which heavily influenced the rise of fascism, and personally supported Mussolini. As for Evola, he was also heavily involved with the italian fascist party, considered himself a "super fascist" (I have no idea, his words not mine) but more importantly he was the largely the creator of traditionalism, a social policy that was very similar to the nazi's later sort of german mythos, something he sort of acted as a foreword to. He wasn't as much a fan of the fascist forces as they manifested, he wanted them to be far more reactionary and mystical, but he certainly did count himself among their ranks. As for Darwin, he himself did little to benefit the fascist movement, but Social Darwinism, which was largely pushed by reactionaries at the time, was a cornerstone of Nazi society. They believed in a sort of enforced superiority, eugenics, which the spread of social darwinism had very much popularized. Finally, while Carl Schmitt wasn't as influential as the other figures or ideologies mentioned, his anti-democracy work in the years before the rise of the nazis was somewhat influential in the ranks, as well as useful for radicalizing many other germans. He remained an avid supporter of a new nazi state until he died, sometime in the 80's. While his ideas are somewhat less commonly talked about, regarding the use of democracy and state power you can see at the least he very much echoed nazi sentiments. All of the ideologies I mentioned, and all of the figures (save darwin) were right wing, conservative reactionary figures. Now - associations. I'll try to keep this a bit quicker. Hitler only came into power due to the effort of Franz von Papen, a conservative figure in the government who saw hitler as a way to take power against the increasing popularity of socialism. While he would later be expelled form the party, he also served as hitler's first vice-chancellor, and helped to populate hitler's first cabinet, many of which would go on to have long careers in the party. One of the first economic advisors for Mussolini was Classical Liberal Alberto de Stefani. Mussolini and Hitler both would spend a large part of their later regimes trying to appeal to the religious conservative crowd, Mussolini most of all, although a previous fascist country had managed far better, the FSA. Speaking of the FSA, their fascist party (even before takeover) The Fatherland Front under Engelbert Dolfuss employed a certain man by the name of ludwig von mises. While he would flee later to american after the FF took full control over the country and Hitler began to reach his influences into the country, Mises still taught the same economics that were so popular under the FF, and would later say that while he wasn't a fascist, he viewed it as a necessary tool in the defense of western civilization, like the Spengler fellow, a sentiment that would be echoed in part by later ideological descendants of Mises, and in a way re-contextualized by figures like Hoppe, who shared many of the same bigotries, disdain for democracy, and desire for "physical removal" of those he deemed unfit to participate in society, from communists to gay people. Hitler himself often found himself allied with conservatives industrialists of the time who would go across the ocean to work with him, most notably Ford, who would write books on jewish people Hitler personally praised and was awarded with the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor a non-german could receive, and funnily enough Koch sr. The list goes on, as you can imagine. As for policies, this one is rather simple - hitler opposed the right to collective bargaining, enriched the ruling classes of his time, and never came close to handing the workers the means of production. For a more in depth look at Hitler's betrayal of the "socialist" title, I recommend James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" for the rise in movements, both in capitalism and socialism, which only sought to take power and did so in betrayal of their principles and ideology.
    2
  297.  @laq2  pt 2 As for rhetorical tactics, hitler was amazing at redefining words. For example, i'll just give you a few quotes here, but you can see how he utterly redefines socialism, labels all previous socialist movements (including pre-marx and anti-marx ones) as "Marxist" to associate it with some sort of jewish plot. I'll let you look over the quotes yourself to see that. "Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” "Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic." “We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." "And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."" "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it." Here is also an excerpt from Strasser's "Hitler and I," Strasser being the leader of the left-wing pre-hitler branch of the party, who (like most other of that branch) would later be purged in the Night of the Long Knives. "Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’ ‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’ ‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’ That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’ ‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’ ‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be." I hope that's enough?
    2
  298.  @elijahrivera2858  God you're almost there. And then you dropped the ball. No, socialism is not a "con for authoritarianism." and no, neither mussolini nor hitler were socialists.
    2
  299.  @TheImperatorKnight  We have watched it, and we aren't marxists. You, however, have provided next to nothing.
    2
  300.  @TheImperatorKnight  it really doesn't, though. Confirm other evidence, that is.
    2
  301. The problem with that is that he'd actually have to deal with real historians criticizing his work, and unlike how he treats his comment section, he can't just call them racist and run away from them.
    2
  302. Nah, a large amount have taken to trying to debate him. His logic isn't the strongest, and really, he is wrong.
    2
  303.  Audairevonetta  Because he has to resort to insults and redefinition to "support" it.
    2
  304.  Audairevonetta  Then let's get into this. First off, he calls people marxists and post modernists pretty much constantly, which he certainly considers and insult. But whatever. I want you to read through this thread, if the link words, and tell me that he doesn't use insults randomly when he can't argue a point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugxq5hy2qYweopgLcjB4AaABAg As for his definitions, they came from the root terms the modern terms are based off of. However, that doesn't work. We don't say anyone is out family if they are not in slavery, even if that's where the original term came from. He's ignoring literally hundreds of years of semantic definitions changing and shifting around.
    2
  305. I commend your effort in reaching out to him, I really do, but you miss his point somewhat, which is really to be expected. The issue is he thinks that capitalism is statelessness, and socialism is the state. Oh, and he conflates the idea of the state with the idea of "publics" and "collectives," so that he has openly said he considers corporations the state. Therefore, since any group of people is socialist to him (as well as, in his words "organized society" and "hierarchy") socialism must be state control, even if that "state" is a private business. Trying to address his myths with actual argumentation or reality doesn't work on him, because despite his mocking of the "not real socialism" argument, he is more than happy to redefine capitalism or socialism however he pleases. I've also come to realize that nobody actually told him that Hitler was a capitalist, he just has this odd idea of a binary between capitalism and socialism, with no other political or economic systems. Oh, and he thinks that right=less government, left=more. Again, I don't mean to dissuade you from trying to engage with him in good-faith debate, but i've seen his tactics in the past, and it's usually to respond to these kind of comments with vitriol, accusations of anti-semetism, (no, i'm not joking) fascism, marxism, holocaust denial, ect, and then he'll link one of his own videos as a source. Just something to watch out for, if he responds at all.
    2
  306.  @Aldnon  Evidently not, if they disagree with this video they know the truth.
    2
  307.  @jameskrych7767  No, I just don't find use for sarcasm in actual historical conversations. But I do, however, find a nice bit of irony in you declaring the action of instituting capitalistic reform as "relying on a socialist role model"
    2
  308.  @jameskrych7767  And what, buddy? Of course I do. That's how I know you're objectively wrong. The right, in fact, does own the nazis and italian fascists. I don't need to believe my feelings, we have this little thing called history. But of course, you assume the right just sprang out of existence with the declaration of independence, and only in america, correct? Hilarious.
    2
  309.  @osmosys808  I'm not a socialist, nor a Marxist, but this man is an idiot that is open about lying about his political opponents and critics to strawman their ideology. If you genuinely think he cares about accurately portraying marxism, or even history, you need to look into his responses to some of his critics. I would be happy to link some.
    2
  310.  @Dorkeydaze  Here you go, this is how he responded to me criticizing him - to call me and a few others "anti-semites." Just scroll through the thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugxq5hy2qYweopgLcjB4AaABAg
    2
  311. ​ @osmosys808  The point of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was not to have a literal dictatorship, but to have a group (the proletariat) collectively having absolute control over the economy, so direct democracy. Trust me, I fully agree that giving power to a literal, singular dictator is a terrible idea, but it's not what Marx advocated for. Side note, the author of animal farm didn't even consider the USSR to be socialist. As for a classless society, you certainly have an odd view of individual liberty. A person is allowed to fail, a person can be born disabled with no chance of success, isn't that destroying individual liberty according to you? The "liberty" to succeed is only important when success actually means something, which it wouldn't in said society. Finally, this video perfectly proves that by no normal definition could you consider Hitler a socialist. TIK has to invent this new term, "Hitler's Socialism," and then define socialism so broadly that whatever country you are residing in now, he would consider socialist. He considers the Nordic states socialist, he considers America to be socialist, he openly says that he thinks any system in which a united group controls land and property counts as a state, and that all states are socialism. According to him, you are a socialist. So no, this video doesn't point out that Hitler was a socialist, it points out that the only way to assert he was one is to lie and rewrite history.
    2
  312. And the problem with you all is that you make up random things, slap the title "SOCIALISM" on it, and then get annoyed when people correct you. Sorry, the nazis weren't socialists, and not everyone you don't like is a marxist.
    2
  313.  @JKJK  Your comment is utter nonsense, and I pointed it out.
    2
  314.  @edwardcarson81  Yeah, unlike you I don't redefine every single group I disagree with. A fascist is not a socialist, they are far closer to modern conservatives than socialists have ever been. I'm not a socialist, but accusing me of being one is kind of proving my point, you call everything you don't like socialism. So apparently a stateless, classless, moneyless society is no matter than the literal nazis? I don't care how much you despise other systems, lumping them together does you no good. Socialists didn't invent populism. Considering many of the opinions marx actually held, not the bullshit conservatives blame on him, you'll find you're quite mistaken. But I couldn't care less about your redefinition.
    2
  315.  @edwardcarson81  I don't care about the redefinition itself, because it's easy to address. I care about the redefiners, people like you. Conservatives tend to do this all the time, which isn't really helping your case, they pick out the ones that they don't like and accuse them of not being true righties, RINOs, establishment, ect. And really, no offense, but this isn't a conversation about our views, no matter the points of agreement I might have with you. However, let me clue you in to one reason this video pretty clearly redefines history. According to TIK, you would be a socialist.No, I am not joking. He considers the very state a socialist entity, as well as companies, and anyone pushing for them must be a socialist. Hell, he said wanting an "organized society" is a uniquely leftist thing. I would be happy to provides quotes of him saying this, openly. But now do you see the issue?
    2
  316. He really has not, at least in terms of etymological use beyond our root terms. Just a warning - anyone that defines socialism as statism, and statism as any sort of common group, likely cannot base their argument in history. Hitler was not a socialist.
    2
  317. Except that is quite literally what TIK is doing, making up arguments that contradict the old ones, and other nonsense. He is wrong.
    2
  318.  @Marcus-rs6fr  Yes. Hence me easily rebutting it.
    2
  319.  @munchenonyou3774  He didn't, though. And even presuming that such a society is possible, it is still the representation of the people that defines socialism, not the state. Furthermore, you don't even need to use that method.
    2
  320.  @munchenonyou3774  Nope, hilter was pretty explicitly the creator of his ideology. Sure, nationalism and racism existed long before him, but nazi ideology was a product of hitler and his time. But keep trying to defend the worst take ever I guess.
    2
  321.  @munchenonyou3774  You mean the right wing concept paraded around by right wingers, even before the nazis?
    2
  322.  @a.r.5695  Proving it is baseless does show it is so, though, and that I have done time and time again. You're attempting to repeat a lie so often it becomes commonly accepted. Sadly for you, the truth shines through.
    2
  323.  @discipleofdagon8195  try again.
    2
  324.  @TheImperatorKnight  No, they believe the actual definitions. It's your redefinitions that we have a problem with.
    2
  325.  @j.greenriver6293  Except, it was a group, and a massive one at that. Those people had nothing in common except not falling in line with the nazis, they would have no commonality besides that. That's kind of the point. And yeah, they can do exactly that with group characteristics. He wasn't a fan of the nazis specifically, so his works were banned, simple as that. And say all you want, that's the truth.
    2
  326.  @phillip3495  I would suggest that you keep your fascistic conspiracies out of view. The notion that historians and academics were infiltrated and overrun with socialists is quite literally one hitler used to gain power, and burn books and research institutions that disagreed with his nonsense "race science." Even if these people lean socialist, which most don't, you need to stop projecting your own denialism onto them. See, there's a reason why historians of all political stripes maintain the simple fact of Hitler and Mussolini's anti-socialism, while the only people who oppose it are right wing think tanks, politicians, and influencers. Historians have been giving an accurate account of the anti-socialist nazis. Now, can you think of a reason why a right leaning individual might want to obscure nazi history, and try to discredit all historians that disagree with them? It's a simple historical fact, long known, checked, and double-checked, that the Fascists, and Nazis, were just more radical members of the anti-socialist collective. Asserting otherwise is absurd, and would likely offend them were they to be around still today. It certainly offends the proud right wingers who still fly their flags. Hitler was not a socialist, nor was Mussolini. Saying they practiced a "tweaked version of socialism" is like saying a nuclear reactor is a "tweaked version of an apple." Think about what the office of historian actually means. Historians aren't just people that say things that must be taken as fact, they are researchers, that spend years backing up every one of their statements. The right, on the other hand, asserts that the nazis were socialists because a youtuber and a blog told them. We already knows what happens when the most brutal, horrific, and tragic event happens under the watch of your own ideology. You deny it. In any case, your assertions are false. Hitler and Mussolini's far right ideology and ties were well documented before even the war ended and the true extend of their crimes was noted. Only recently, after rightfully being compared to their ideological ancestors, have the right tried to fight back against the well known fact of anti-socialist fascism. There was no need for socialists to attempt to distance themselves for nazis after the nazi crimes were revealed, they were already seen as enemies of opposing political views. And you can say that what you're saying is true all you want, it doesn't make it so. People have spent lifetimes, their entire careers, philosophically dissecting fascist political documents, speeches, and observing their actions and policies, and they all come to the same conclusion. The nazis weren't socialists, and had nothing in common with the socialist ideology. Your assertion otherwise is, again, not based off facts, but your own ideological defense. You even further prove my point, by doing the same things as nazis, trying to point out marxism in everything you don't like to justify purging it. No, philosophically, fascists and nazis were about as opposed to marxism as one can get. Marxism isn't just "when you like one group and dislike another," your definition of marxism (find a majority of their population, get them pissed, and point them at their enemies as the cause of their disenfranchisement) applies easily to modern conservatives. For example, I could say using your logic: Socialists, pit labor against capital. Nazis, pit race against the races they don't like. Conservatives, pit christianity against islam, citizens against immigrants, patriots against critics, and so on. What you're describing isn't "marxism," it's populist rhetoric. Furthermore, comparing the nazis and socialists even in this way is absurd. How is focusing on an entire different problem, with an entire different reason for considering it a problem, and entirely different methods and solutions, a "switcheroo" in the same framework? Again, you're describing populist rhetoric, not "marxism." And yet it was the opponents of CRT that called for holocaust denialism to be taught in public schools, rightists who wave the nazi flag, and the right who mirrors fascism in all but name.
    2
  327.  @phillip3495  Mostly because said "fact" has no basis in reality, and is not cited by you, given that it isn't true. If every academic was a socialist, we wouldn't have a right wing president in power, eve again. The problem is, you literally identify anything you don't like as "Marxist influenced ideas." MArx was one of the first to make economics into a science, does that make all economists socialists? You have the same "reasoning" as a flat-earther, "just look it up." You go a step further, by claiming that one of the biggest private companies is "leftist leaning." Stop trying to block reality. Oh god, the irony. Your entire first paragraph here is "it is known" without a single reference or citation. That is and always has been the only foundation of your argument. In any case, to start off with, Mussolini literally based his ideology off of right wing nationalists and traditionalists at the time, employed classical liberals to manage his economic policy, oh and openly said he was right wing.
    2
  328.  @phillip3495  I'm not, though. I'm not implying that it's impossible, since in some absurd future/alternate world that hypothetically could happen. though of course, it isn't true of today or our actual history in any sense. I'm pointing out that modern right wingers and historical right wingers share the same rhetoric, that they spread for the same reasons, in defense of the same views and policies. Your entire assertion is one that hitler proudly shared, and that directly led to his policies on restricting information and burning research and literature that proved him wrong, and you can't help but deflect. Going off on a tangent about "political bias" just shows me that you can't deal with facts about nazi rhetoric. Kid, you're a statist. The sooner you accept that, the better. Furthermore, "Socialism/Statism" is absurd for its own reasons, but I didn't come here to bear witness to your absurd, misinformed opinions, I came to debate a subject that you have evidently decided to deflect from in favor of some random moralistic ranting. You see, then, when the genocide is carried out by a certain right wing/anti-socialist alignement/denomination/flavor And you just happen to be all of those things AND you agree with many of the views of the genocidalist regime Then it is very clear that you would do all in your power to discredit academics and historians that point out this connection, perhaps even using the rhetoric of the regime you're trying to deny to do so, ironically. You would prefer to pretend your argument is objective and that the recipient is the problem, rather than once considering that they aren't convinced... because your argument isn't convincing. You are, as we speak, taking out all stops to mentally contort your conception of these particular individuals, in order to distance yourself from the genocidal history of those that shared your ideology. As i've proven, socialists already openly pointed out their major disagreements with hitler and fascism long before they revealed the extent of their crimes, whereas denialism of the nazi's views in favor of an ahistorical assertion of their supposed "socialism" is entirely recent in conception. Your statements apply easily to you, how can you not see that?
    2
  329.  @phillip3495  Thank you for so openly admitting you have not read the historians, and literally saying that the only reason you think they're wrong is because a right wing youtuber told you they were. You do actually have to read the work of those you consider to be incorrect. You do actually have to know more about them than assertions made by right wingers relating to their work. They didn't ignore any relevant facts, they pointed out objective information that you ideologically want to deny. It is a fact that the basis of nazi ideology is anti-socialism. You deny the historians that show this through painstaking research and peer review, only on the basis that you think they're wrong. The historians discussed here have not ignored the origin story of right wing fascism, or right wing nazi ideology, rather, you've openly ignored both of those things. You don't have to read very much history at all to understand that your argument has basic and fundamental logical errors that entirely void the contents of your assertions. You quite literally can't handle the reality that facts go against your beliefs, so you call said facts irrelevant rather than attempting to rebut them. Restating a disproven argument doesn't make it any less false. The nazis were in no way, shape, or form, even similar to socialists in practical formation, economic structure, or result, much less "virtually identical." The essential components of fascism are right wing traditionalism and a rejection of the left and socialism in its entirety. The fact that you didn't actually read any of the sources in question is absolutely essential. The fact that they supported and upheld not only private property, but the ideological and moral assumptions behind it, is essential. The fact that historians wrote books and did hundreds of hours of research exposing the history of fascists and nazis and their resistance to socialism that you carefully omit is essential. You attempt to discredit them without even understanding their statements, simply because they prove you wrong. They are extremely relevant to your discussion due to the fact that they point out concrete facts that you attempt to evade, or remain wholly ignorant of.
    2
  330.  @phillip3495  Let me repeat in a line you can understand - the entire basis of your argument is as follows. "The nazis are socialists. This is what I believe to be true. If anyone says otherwise, they must be ignoring facts. If people like historians use facts to point out the anti-socialism of the nazis, they must be untrustworthy, because they ignore my belief that the nazis were socialists, and thus they aren't using facts at all." Your entire argument is circular. You say the nazis were socialists, and when someone proves you wrong, you claim they aren't trustworthy because... they don't agree with your assertion on the nazis and socialism. There is no physical way to reach you through logical argumentation, because your argument isn't based in logic. The experts in question didn't ignore, evade, or conceal the history of the far right nazis and fascists - you did. You attempt to discredit them, while openly admitting you have no idea of the facts behind their statements, because they point out that you're wrong in asserting that the far right nazis were socialists. You do this all to escape the reality that you and hitler had far more in common than hitler did with socialists like MLK.
    2
  331.  @phillip3495  You mean statements that i've already rebutted, and assertions you have already been disproven in? Your "essential characteristics" are nonsense, and we've already been over this so many times, it's absurd. Of course, the world knows of the distinguishing characteristics that put fascism squarely on the right, but you knew that already, you simply deny it because to accurately represent the myriad of differences between far right fascism and leftist socialism would be to tear your own argument apart. 1. Great, fascism defense. First and foremost, the type of ethnonationalism both hitler and mussolini espoused belonged, and still belongs, to the right. Secondly, your assertion on mussolini is incorrect. While in his early campaign days he attempted to appeal to a broader audience by convincing people that he had no desire to implement policies based off of race, this was far from an accurate summation of his views. He was open about his anti-slavic racism, and made antisemetic statements such as asserting that jewish people owned the banks and ran the soviet country. He also said quite openly in 1921 "Fascism was born... out of a profound, perennial need of this our Aryan race," not to mention his race laws in the late 1930s. Racism is a key part of fascism, some fascists just hide it until they're in power. Calling an argument "retarded" without further explanation is not an argument. You assert that it admits ignorance of the concept of capitalism, though do not explain how this is the case or argue for it. You assert that it throws doubt on one's understanding of political spectrums, though again, you do not attempt to argue that point or provide evidence/reasoning. Your entire argument is "this is wrong because it's stupid. Why is it stupid? because it is." You have yet to actually refute a single one of my arguments. You have, in the past, listed out the reasons you thought nazism was socialist, and I responded to and rebutted those arguments. You have never responded. You have no argument thus far, and you've tried to make one up for me rather than rebut my actual statements. And this is why you are wrong. You, again, assert that they are only dissimilar in ways that do not matter. You don't explain how this is, or even argue for it, you just state it and move on. I have responded to this previously, saying that in reality, if fascism and nazism are a green apple, you're trying to call it an "alternative apple flavor" when compared to a nuclear reactor, that in this case, represents socialism. In reality the differences between the ideologies are numerous, near uncountable. What happened is important... and proves you wrong. Here is another axis of your failure to argue - you argue not based on actual history or definitions, but what you feel things should be classified as. In any case, your argument here is to list a number of ideologies, and claim that they all come from Marx. Not only is this absurdly false, it's a statement refuted by the very video you are commenting under, in any case, let's address them. First off, of your list, marxism, leninism, maoism, and trotskyism are the only ideologies that actually "finds its roots in Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto." Communism, democratic socialism, and socialism were already existing movements and ideologies before marx, even, as he made clear in his writings. In fact, several factions of the above ideologies were explicitly criticized by marx, and criticized him in turn. State capitalism is a concept that didn't come from marx and didn't require him. And, as we've been over, fascism and nazism find no roots in marxism, as i've already rebutted your definition of marxism. It's also similarly absurd that you try to list all these concepts under the root term of "statism," not only because the majority of these systems are vastly different in goal and economic policy, but some of them (Marxism) are philosophies and methods of study, and some more (Socialism, Communism) are in many cases explicitly anti-state. So no, they are not all the same, as they do not share essential characteristics, fascism and socialism of course being among the furthest apart of this list. You are disregarding differences, and rather than studying the ideologies honestly, you are attempting to cherry pick superficial similarities in order to make a point. What you're doing is like this: You have three people. One wants to eat at home, two want to eat out. One of the two wants to eat out because he recently got a paycheck, and wants to flex his wealth, and wants to eat somewhere fancy. The other is too tired to cook, and wants to order food to home from a fast food restaurant. You're saying these two are both the same, because neither wants to cook a meal at home. Do you get the picture? In any case, no, not all of the listed ideologies are statist, as we've been over. Not all of them are anti-capitalist, state capitalism obviously included, and fascism/nazism only repudiating libertarian/international capitalism. Again, capitalism isn't just libertarianism. Economic regulation isn't anti-capitalist by default, and the purpose of economic regulation matters more than it's existence. There is no "ect." And is this how you think "actual thought" works? Name dropping Aristotle and calling arguments you don't agree with "Retarded?" Your entire argument rests on the back of unproven assertions, most of which i've previously addressed, that you have yet to rebut. You just made up an argument rather than address mine, failed to even try to refute your own strawman, and then openly admitted that your arguments come from a place of personal interpretation rather than factual information. Your primitive concepts couldn't even hold themselves together in the context of your own argument, I can see why you're so scared to respond to my arguments. I'm sorry if reality hurts your feelings, but you need to accept it one day. Facts don't care about your feelings, and i'm glad you copied a class on logic, because you should really look into it. Let me repeat, to be crystal clear - Your entie argument hinges on three things. 1. The application of false accusations of fallacy, unsubstantiated. 2. The repetition of several core assertions with no argumentation or logical reason, unsubstantiated 3. The circular logic of denying facts that don't agree with you because they don't agree with you I have yet to see a single argument from you that breaks these rules.
    2
  332.  @polpol2739  His quotes in the video say that internationalism and socialism are somehow schemes by jewish people, though he went on and on about the powers of "productive capitalism" and private property. He opposed internationalism, and saw modern capitalism as international, and opposed it, choosing instead a national system which retains and protects the processes of capital. Stop lying, and stop engaging in strawmen. Also, stop trusting dictators on their word.
    2
  333.  @joshualittle877  But they are mutually exclusive, and the cited figures had far right anti-socialist economies. Hell, they didn't even fit your made up, incorrect definition of socialism. I'm sorry you feel the need to defend them.
    2
  334.  @joshualittle877  What alternate universe do you live in? Nothing you say is true, this is sad. Marx does not define socialism as the abolition of private ownership. Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production, not central management or economic planning. Social democracies are capitalist yes, and democratic socialism is socialist, but you have no idea what either of those terms actually means. Venezuela is 70% private, india is openly right wing, and the rest are literally just social democracies, regulated capitalist economies. None of the countries you call communist even come close to matching the actual definition. You don't know what a socialist economy actually is. You don't even know that the US is a democracy. Do you see the problem with your assertions?
    2
  335.  @joshualittle877  But you haven't, given that you're utterly unwilling to cite a single one of your absurd claims. The people living in germany at the time had no question that Hitler had no ideological ties to socialism, and they knew he represented the far right and the anti-socialists that had first come up with the rhetoric he, and sadly you, continued to use long after their deaths. Hitler wasn't a socialist, his party was one that represented the far right and existed with the explicit goal of opposition to socialism, liberalism, anarchism, communism, and left of center ideologies generally. "National Socialism" is merely a form of conservatism, as orwell said, and as historians and survivors of nazi germany have noted. Hitler literally chanted death to marx and claimed he was part of a jewish conspiracy. Calling the USSR a communist system makes no sense, not even they did that, they never claimed to have achieved communism. Marx didn't hate jewish people even close to as much hitler did, and comparing the two does a disservic to the pure genocidal rage hitler directed at those citizens. Stalin and Hitler differed on far more than you allege, and as usual, your point goes utterly unsupported. Hitler was not a socialist, "hitler's socialism" is an oxymoron, and there is no such thing as "socialism based on race," as that goes against the definition of socialism. Even if one were to try to create a coherent ideology from that phrase however, it would not represent the right wing private economy hitler praised. The very existence of private ownership means he wasn't a socialist, and said private ownership was far from an illusion, but a core part of his ideology. Stop lying.
    2
  336.  @joshualittle877  Hitler and the nazis were very much not socialists. Blocks of text with historical lies doesn't change that The nazi party was vehemently anti-socialist. You don't know what socialism is. Socialism isn't defined as the abolition of private property and centrally planned/managed economies, but hitler doesn't even fit that definition. They did not believe in those things. Hitler got into power because conservatives wanted him in power to oppose socialism. The far right nazi party and its leader said nothing like what you asserted, he openly discussed his desire to protect private property and private property interests. He didn't want to "Nationalize people," nor is that at all a coherent economic policy nor an example of socialist thought He allowed private business to exist because he thought it was proof of the supposed superiority of "his people" and his country, and he bribed, not forced, these private companies to support his right wing anti-socialist interests. They still owned their businesses, and they still profited, more even given that hitler's party had long since shut down any sort of opposition to their private rule in the form of unionism. Companies like those you mention most often worked with the nazis specifically because it profited them the most, not because they were forced at gunpoint to make private profit Ownership was no illusion,it existed and was in many cases stronger than it had been under the Weimar republic, given the lack of oppositon by unionists or socialists that the nazis had made sure of. If you owned a business making boats, the nazi party would come to you and offer a contract to you and other boat makers for guaranteed profits so long as you made a certain amount of boats, a contract that would then be competed over by private individuals for the goal of profit. Other than that, they didn't tell you how do your business, what kind of boats to make and sell, how many you were to make, who you could sell them to and how you would sell them, and so on. They kept their profits and the vast majority of their autonomy. Not sure why you're trying to present the nazis as pro-gay or something, but the night of the long knives was explicitly an anti-socialist purge. I'm sorry, they simply weren't socialist. As their ideology evolved they gave up even the pretense of being anything other than the far right anti-socialists they had been seen as for a while now. I'm sorry for the horrors your family went through but that doesn't erase the experiences of holocaust survivors and other victims of nazi germany, and the historians that studied them, all pointing out the anti-socialist nature of nazi germany. The problem is, you are asserting that the nazis were socialists while literally repeating the very rhetoric and propaganda the nazis used against socialists. No, the education system is not overrun with socialists. And history itself shows us the difference between nazis and socialists, no conspiracy. No, nazi ideology is not socialism based on race. Not only is that oxymoronic, it doesn't reflect the reality of hitler's far right anti-socialist party. You don't know what socialism is and sadly you seem not to know the history of antisemtism either. Marx was antisemetic yes, but the others didn't come from jewish backgrounds, that's literally nazi propaganda. Lenin and Trotsky weren't antisemetic either, Lenin actually spoke out about and outlawed antisemetism. Stalin never tried to purge jewish people, and he too for all his faults relating to his individual bigots he never attempted to push policy with the goal of hurting jewish people or communities. Saying he hated jewish people as much as hitler is simply false. Nazi ideology is not at all socialism, even your imagined "socialism based on race." The Baath party doesn't have much in common with the nazis at all, and the existence of far right religious extremists that supported other far right extremists (the nazis) is no surprise at all. There's no such thing as nazi with a marxist leaning. I'm saddened that you feel the need to spread such obviously false propaganda to serve the modern day far right.
    2
  337.  @althist2nd950  You're free to insult me all you want dude, it doesn't make your debunked points any more valid.
    2
  338. @Austin Sturtz Your unwillingness to look further does not mean said threads do not exist.
    2
  339.  @althist2nd950  Because your assertion at the beginning was that I was unable to provide reasoning, examples, or evidence for my claims, instead just saying "You're wrong," when in reality i've been providing all of those things to anyone that will listen for ages now, and I am still willing to provide them to anyone that can actually engage me in the topic without just resorting to baseless assertions. I put in this thread the exact same amount of evidence as all the people I replied to, and if they were willing to provide evidence to the contrary, I would provide to prove my point. I commented here to engage in rhetoric, like the other people here. This "debate" was already a useless conversation, one between people who would affirm eachother's views without a single reason and hype eachother up into a frenzy of fanaticism. Again, if people want to elevate the conversation i'm all for it, hell, I do it all the time and have several ongoing conversations and debates at that level. But as of now I am only engaging with the energy and rigor I am presented with, so why is it that you're addressing me, and not everyone else? How is what you said at the beginning remotely true?
    2
  340. The issue there being that Hitler openly said he couldn't care less about the workers, and hitler despised the left/was right wing. That, and oh, about a few more million differences between the ideologies. Really, the only thing they had in common is that both had totalitarian manifestations in the 20th century, but as socialism doesn't even need a state to function, that isn't much of a good connection.
    2
  341. @CamelMan302 no, actually. That's a blatant lie on all counts
    2
  342.  @l3v126  I mean yeah no offense, everyone does have the right to post their opinion and make their arguments, but TIK really isn't the best at it, especially on this subject.
    2
  343.  @hyacinthlynch843  Nah, you're trying to overwrite objective reality with your own very subjective views and opinions.
    2
  344.  @justiceforsadalfred527  "Question" (proceeds to ask several more than a single question.) Great. Ok, one at a time, short answers since there's so much. I spend time here because frankly I'm bored and it gives me an excuse to further research the subject and form arguments while also changing some minds. The left right dichotomy is an accurate system of political classification but is further improved with more metrics. The core differences between right wing ideologies are their applications and justifications for hierarchies. The core differences between left ideologies are their applications and justifications for the opposition of hierarchy. Hitler is far right. Some people on the right are closer to hitler, some people on the right have more in common with the left. So closer, generally. No, i'm not a socialist, not by the strict definition. I ideally support a system of decentralized self ownership. I claim no system or state as my own, but there are movements and individuals I am proud to be influenced by. The USSR was a failed experiment that had potential, but horribly and violently squandered it. Collective is defined as all people, every individual. Public property is state owned, personal is property that a person uses, and does not profit from other's labor on. I own myself just as much as nature owns me. Property means different things to different people.
    2
  345. I'm sorry you're so deluded by your own fanatic beliefs to notice reality. Of course, hitler wasn't at all a socialist, and even TIK has to concede his ideology has nothing to do with actual modern socialists. If you want to see where hitler's ideas went after his death, look to american conservatives.
    2
  346. two things - 1. Nazism was not socialism 2. And while you would be right in that he misuses fascism, corporatism is not a form of socialism either.
    2
  347. If you've actually done that i'm amazed at how you've ignored the part where they've proved that fascism and socialism are not at all related, and can not be compared. Perhaps you should attempt to actually read the sources, or seek out objective history, rather than cherry picking ideological nonsense?
    2
  348.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah yes, it is now anti-semetic to... have a bot that censors anti-semetic statements? You really are fucking bonkers.
    2
  349. Well i would hope that after that you came to understand that the nazis weren't socialists.
    2
  350.  @birgaripadam7112  that's fair, good for you.
    2
  351.  BenjaminTheRogue  ...Why does that need to exist? Does a black hole not exist because one can't touch it? What does this have to do with the conversation?
    2
  352.  @Pangora2  ...How many times does this have to be repeated. Nobody is saying that the nazis were capitalists, we all just know they weren't socialist. Wake up.
    2
  353.  @Pangora2  Not only is that not true (given the overseas private entities happy to work with them) it still would not remotely make them socialists at all, child. Wake up.
    2
  354.  @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
  355.  @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
  356.  @fattony638  I mean sure, fair point, but said revolution would still be with the aim of dissolving the group that is under attack into the group that is being defended, so even while the personal agency of a small minority may at times be ignored, it would be with the goal of transferring their needs to the needs of the people as a whole. And sure, you can criticize the effectiveness of all of these things, but its important to point out all of these small hypotheticals to correctly define the ideology.
    2
  357.  @richardbramwell8876  You say that people need to understand their terms better, but then make up definitions to terms that no expert or follower of said terms would agree with in the slightest. Why do you feel the need to lie to back up your ahistorical myth?
    2
  358.  @fattony638  Sure, I enjoy more nuanced discussions as well, its nice to be able to hear and respond to a debater's points in time, and be able to address and be addressed in turn. Thank you for the civility, really, and best of luck.
    2
  359. ​ @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
  360.  @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
  361. ​ @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
  362.  @sonderweg9927  still waiting for proof that i'm at all authoritarian, by the way. you said "by your own admission," so you have to have evidence, right?
    2
  363. Exactly, if you look at the political theory of nazi ideology and fascism, you find it goes explicitly counter to socialism, marxism, and the left in its entirety.
    2
  364.  @chopperking007  *you're. And cry more about it, dude. I couldn't care less.
    2
  365.  @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
  366.  @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
  367.  @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
  368.  @yeabuddy1610  If all of your history is based on ideological narratives, I can see why you believe TIK on this piece of nonsense.
    2
  369.  @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
  370. ​ @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
  371.  @yeabuddy1610  You know why they call Latin a "dead language," right? Yes, and english is also heavily influenced by PIE, but I don't hear TIK going back that far to justify his absurd argument. No, there is no good reason. He could have at least gone back to 1066, around when out actual language began forming into what it is today, and what some of the historical figures he mentioned used.
    2
  372.  @yeabuddy1610  If you're seriously trying to suggest that only telling biased history is somehow a good thing then I really can't help you. It seems you and TIK both care more about feeding your biases then actually telling history in a way it is meant to be told. Your refusal to see terms as the actual creators used them proves as much.
    2
  373.  @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
  374.  @yeabuddy1610  Simply saying "but it was in the video" does nothing. I know it is, but as I continue to tell you, his provided evidence and reasoning do not support his claim. The claims can, therefore, be made in spite of his insufficient counters, like it or not. You not addressing my points also tells me a hell of a lot.
    2
  375.  @yeabuddy1610  Again, every time you have said narrative you have referenced a biased telling of history. It is the job of history to go against those biased narratives, not fight fire with fire. You admit it yourself, they have to be objective, have to provide adequate sourcing. Shoving your agenda in there isn't what history is.
    2
  376.  @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
  377.  @yeabuddy1610  Literally yes. You don't get to vote, your word is worth less than you are. You don't get a say, whatever the owner wants, goes. If the owners decide to set out their own rules, that isn't politics, it's no different from doing something like putting a "no trespassing" sign on your front lawn.
    2
  378.  @yeabuddy1610  Not quite sure there bud, you say so much, and so little at the same time. Here's an idea - if this definition is not widely accepted, and makes leaps in logic that it cannot explain, why is anyone justified in using it to make their own points?
    2
  379.  @yeabuddy1610  So i don't like biased idiots warping history to their own goals... which makes me not know what history is. Amazing logic there champ.
    2
  380.  @yeabuddy1610  Ahh... but what is a family? "a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation." That affiliation usually being blood relation, but we all know you don't need to be directly related to be in a family, and planty of non-social groups are considered families. Hell, there can be "families" of products, that just relate to a grouping of products that come from a similar place, or are similar in build. In fact, here's another definition of "Family" that I found pretty easily. "a unit of a crime syndicate (such as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area" Huh, that sounds literally exactly like how you described a state. So what is this, then? Postodernist marxist propaganda?
    2
  381.  @Mounstrum  Nazism is an ideology fundamentally tied to fascism, and while it didn't fully resemble Italian Fascism in all forms, that was mainly because it was extremely economically opportunist, it would take on and discard any policy so long as it found them effective. So, I suppose it would be best described as a socially fascist, economically opportunist (which is still true of most branches of fascism) ideology. Thank you for asking.
    2
  382.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  Do you even know a single thing? Like, generally.
    2
  383.  @sslave7815  Nope, that isn't the definition of socialism.
    2
  384.  @sslave7815  Nope, state ownership isn't always socialist, and markets don't need private property.
    2
  385.  @sslave7815  You do realize one can trade without private property, right? You don't seem to know what private property is.
    2
  386.  @sslave7815  Because it's such an absurd argument. You can own thing that aren't private property.
    2
  387.  @sslave7815  You evidently don't, given that you think people can only trade things like factories and production lines, and not simple individual objects and services when required.
    2
  388.  @sslave7815  "Markets" and trade have always existed, but they were not the driving force of humanity nor did they rely on private property until very recently historically. And yes, there can absolutely be markets without commodity form or private property.
    2
  389.  @sslave7815  I'm not a socialist though, and none of that is true. Private property isn't just any random thing a person can claim they own, private property is property that is worked by others, while the profit is taken solely by the owner. So no, random boats and livestock do not fit the definition. Your definition of private property makes no sense, as the actual thing did appear quite recently. Private property is barely hundreds of years old, absolutely not at all thousands, and markets have not needed private property. Markets, for the vast majority of their time in existence, have not required private property in the slightest. "Market has never existed without the individual entrepeneurs and their private property" this is a lie.
    2
  390.  @sslave7815  I don't use "marxist definitions," I use objective definitions. And land very much can fit the definition of private property, but does not always. While some places in ancient greece and rome practiced a primitive form of private ownership, it was not at all as wide spread or expansive as modern private property ownership. Private property ownership as the basis of morality, humanity, and economics is a new concept and private property as we currently understand it now is new as well. Again, I said "barely hundreds," are you at all able to read or do you just bang out your responses before even bothering to think about what you're replying to and what words you're trying to use?
    2
  391.  @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
  392.  @TheImperatorKnight  "don't respond like normal humans would" "All of the people who prove me wrong are actually paid spies" Wow you have no self awareness huh
    2
  393.  @starcravingmatt  Oh right, and let me remind you that TIK is literally notorious for making up shit to attack the characters of those he debates with, largely because actual facts are not on his side.
    2
  394.  @starcravingmatt  what an amazing comeback. Im sure that took a while to come up with.
    2
  395.  BenjaminTheRogue  About until they start proving themselves to be ones? Why?
    2
  396.  @skeletalbassman1028  Well howdy there, nice to see you. I mean this is kind of funny, TIK always accuses me of being a troll, but here you are just admitting it. Anyway, long time no see. How are you holding up?
    2
  397.  @skeletalbassman1028  Well I mean sorry if the word troll doesn't work, but I usually hear it used to describe someone online who goes into comment sections or starts debate for the sole purpose of getting a reaction, which is kind of what you said. But that's nice to hear, it's good to have some fun every once in a while. Have a good one. :)
    2
  398.  @skeletalbassman1028  Well I don't doubt it mate, good luck in this all then. I guess we'll just have to see if we run into eachother again, then.
    2
  399.  @ParentOne1  That doesn't have much to do with war profiteering, nor does it disprove the very real records we have of hitler being fine with war profiteering when it's on his side. Restrictions on trade or punishments are not anti-war profiteering. When you quite literally invite over foreign industrialists to help with your wartime infrastructure and power, they are participating in war profiteering. And hitler awarded those people. And yes, I am aware that socialism is not discounted by corruption,and that sometimes it is a necessity for countries to trade with others. But it isn't these things that make hitler not a socialist, it's literally everything else combined as well. A national socialist economy is not a socialist one, nor did it aim to be. It aimed to use the power of the upper classes to create an effective war machine. And this is one of my problems with the video. Somehow, somewhere along the way, TIK has tried to convince people that the only ones saying hitler was not a socialist are thinking he must have been a capitalist. And that is not the case. I'll leave my own opinions towards the systems themselves out of it, but TIK's odd definition that companies are somehow public is utter nonsense, and the idea that nazi germany was socialist is equally so. Even the founders of capitalism saw a necessity of the state and companies, not just for stability, but for capitalism. With that faulty analysis, compared with his feelings towards the supposed socialism of the nazis, the video quickly disproves itself. To paraphrase Orwell, "Evidently, these systems are not socialist, and can only be called Socialist if one gives the word a meaning different from what it would have in any other context. "
    2
  400.  @HiddenOcelot  Nope. False. Jesus fuck, false. As an anarchist, anarchism is about as far from the right wing as you get. The right holds a fundamental ideology of authoritarianism these days. Saying anarchism is "as far right as is possible" is fundementally and objectively false.
    2
  401.  @HiddenOcelot  Again, false. While capitalism is right wing, "most" right wing economic practices are not called Laissez-faire, that is only the description of one subset of capitalism, and does not touch on authoritarian right wing economies. Also, anarchism and capitalism are incompatible, and Laissez-faire capitalism is in no way anarchism.
    2
  402.  @HiddenOcelot  *your And asserting that right wing ideology isn't authoritarian would be somehow more believable if you provided any actual evidence, but as we've both seen so far, no evidence has been provided by you yet.
    2
  403.  @HiddenOcelot  Traditionalism, as a philosophy, is opposed to progressivism. One is right wing, one left. And yes, we can see all throughout history that the right creates a state or system, such as monarchism, which is then pushed against by someone to their left. Usually what happens afterwards is that someone to the left of the new state pushes against them later down the line as well. So again, examples please?
    2
  404.  @MrFRNTIK  So you think the "highest form of authoritarianism is.... vaccination policy? Jesus fuck you right wing authoritarians are morons. The right pours billions into the military and police, enforces stricter rule of both, and yet the left is "authoritarian" for... discussing an issue of vaccination. Jesus christ.
    2
  405.  @Zero41sv  They're the bitter ideologue for... daring you to define your terms. Alright.
    2
  406.  @Zero41sv  Yes, because insulting them totally proves you're the one acting in good faith.
    2
  407.  @Isclachau  What an amazing response. Is this really the kind of people that watch this video and believe it? Doesn't surprise me.
    2
  408.  @TheBluntNinja  No, i'm pointing out how TIK is being dishonest. The problem that TIK doesn't realize, or doesn't want to share, is that "marxist socialism" isn't a thing, not how he describes it. The idea of socialism based on class and workers predated marx to the literal beginning of socialism, and was still pushed by socialists that hated marx and marxism at the time. saying national socialism is just "race based" socialism is like saying you're a "man based" feminist, it doesn't work, you're taking out an integral part of the ideology. Not to mention that the nazis didn't even want socialism for their race, they didn't give aryans collective control of the means of production. Given that those two movements don't push socialism at all... neither? Are you seriously just calling random people nazis?
    2
  409. You know it doesn't take being a communist to understand history, right? The video is just wrong.
    2
  410. Im sorry, why would you want to quote this video? I could understand it if you didn't know this was full of lies but it seems you do, but since it ideologically aligns with you you want to use his ahistorical arguments anyway. Do you see the problem with spreading lies about hitler? Sorry, but there's a reason TIK is so easily disproven. Might want to reconsider your propaganda pal.
    2
  411.  @admontblanc  The reason that argument isn't explored is because it isn't true. It isn't considered right wing because it was the most right of far left parties, that isn't even close to true. There was a huge conservative presence in Weimar germany, especially in the military, and one of the biggest parties was the Social Democratic party, which was a centrist capitalist party. This has nothing to do with the overton window either, because it's inherently obvious that the nazis were not socialists, or leftists at all. Why is that? Well one only needs to look at a few things. They associated with conservatives and capitalists over socialists, their ideology was created by open conservatives, Mussolini called fascism right wing while working with classical liberals and Hitler said that the left would lead to the end of civilization while the right would save it, the list goes on. All of these people were right of objective center, and substantially so. Hell, Hitler was put into power by an open conservative. Your entire argument revolves around misunderstanding the political attitudes of weimar germany, and then strawmanning socialists. Fascism is further right than capitalism, perhaps only surpassed by monarchism. Fascism was based off of traditionalism, conservatism, social darwinism, all right wing ideas. Stalin didn't say that fascism was a twin ideology of democratic socialism at all. For one, you're not thinking of stalin, you're thinking of the KPD. Second, they were talking about social democrats, which are not democratic socialists, they wanted states like what we think of sweden today, so capitalist. And finally, they didn't call them a twin ideology, but said that capitalism would eventually turn into fascism because it could not properly resist the rise of fascism. If you want to look at things objectively, you should learn a bit more on the subjects. The nazis walked like horses, screamed like goats, and only called themselves ducks. If you look at history objectively in the slightest, you've find that it's clear cut, fascism is and always has been a far right ideology. Why you would deny this, I don't know.
    2
  412.  @3rdblindmouse544  you've got a point there.
    2
  413.  @skeletalbassman1028  You don't need to not be a capitalist to recognize how majorly fucked america is and hell yeah, trancendenalism. not much of an economic system, but fun nonetheless.
    2
  414.  BenjaminTheRogue  I know, that's what always happens with your type. They see me debunking TIK, and easily refuting the arguments of those who blindly follow him, but then they refuse to actually engage with said arguments and label me whatever they feel like in the moment. TIK is wrong, objectively, no matter what label you want to give to me. If you haven't seen the facts in my arguments, you haven't even read them.
    2
  415.  Raptor Jet  You've been proven wrong.
    2
  416.  @ThatDrummerFrank  Yeah it's all good, but i'm sure that sooner or later TIK will find your comment and give you a similar spam treatment. I do have to disagree with the soundness of his definitions, but that doesn't matter too much here. I just tend not to trust the argument of someone who argues through insults and association, and that's not even counting the issues with his argument.
    2
  417.  @samuelboucher1454  Hitler's ideology was fundamentally anti socialist. That's a basic fact.
    2
  418.  @samuelboucher1454  TIK has no nuance though, and neither does his video. Hitler disagreed with socialism, plainly.
    2
  419.  @samuelboucher1454  TIK has no nuance though, and neither does his video. Hitler disagreed with socialism, plainly.
    2
  420.  @samuelboucher1454  The video itself has an inaccurate, historically false, and nuance-less view and definition on socialism. As a person who watched the video... you're speaking nonsense.
    2
  421.  @danielbowman7226  Will it? I have to ask, have you ever actually attempted to watch the video? He readily admits his arguments have no historical or political basis outside of his own made up definitions. you should have known that already. So it seems you're not willing to consume any information that goes against your preconceived notions about the world. I'm sorry that I understand the source we're discussing better than you. And sure, keep telling yourself that. After all, its not like "minarchists" like you have ever had run ins with fascist apologia and allyship against the left... oh wait, no, that's happened nearly continuously. Funny, that. Actions speak louder than words. The right sticks together.
    2
  422.  @danielbowman7226  Oh, i'm not the one saying that his video isn't based in history. He is. He readily admits, again, that every single historian he cites disagrees with his definitions, methodology, and conclusion. You would know this if you watched the video, of course. How did hitler get to power? Well, thanks to meddling in the democratic process by conservatives, who would go on to be his first second-in-commands and fill up his first cabinet. "socialist policies" didn't get hitler into power... because he didn't have any. Conservatives willingly worked with the nazis, not because they were forced to (the nazis would never have gained any political power without the conservatives) but because you rightists tend to stick together. And another lie. Again, let me remind you. Mises was the head of a fascist economy. He praised fascism for being a weapon against socialism. He's ideologically closer to fascists than any communist could ever be said to have been. Fascism is based on a rejection of socialism. It is also based on constant competition, and a strong desire for social darwinism. Just like Mises' ideology. condiment You repeated the view. Not stated it was their view... you agreed with it, and presented it as such. Your insults don't change that. Spencer has quite literally advocated for a social darwinistic system tens of times at this point. You know, the very thing capitalism upholds and socialism seeks to do away with. Spencer is less of a socialist than you, kid, and that's an objective fact. So, why are you lying about neo-nazis, even while your ideological ilk allies with them? Why are you lying about socialism, an ideology you clearly do not understand? And above all, why is it so hard for you to stop denying the basic, indisputable, and century old fact that fascism and nazism are far right anti-socialists ideologies who constantly ally with the right?
    2
  423.  @danielbowman7226  I'm sure they did pal. After all, that is a totally real thing that a group totally really did... which is why none of the people who say it can ever actually cite why they think that, right? And again - citation please? There are hundreds of examples of far right fascists working with conservatives to oppose socialism, but I have yet to see a case where conservatives and communists have been able to form any sort of agreement or ideological allegiance. So, you have anything to back up that statement? Guessing not. Fascism is, objectively, based on a rejection of socialism, all socialism, not just marxist. That's why the fathers of fascist ideology were conservative traditionalists, and the first to follow them were ex-socialists who were fed up with leftism and all it stood for. Fascism is based on the wholesale rejection of all socialist ideals. And yes, i'm sure the fascists did everything they did for the "benefit of the people..." wait, no, they threw the people in death camps. Oh no, capitalism is theft, murder, and force at its base. Without any of those things, capitalism would not and could not exist. It is the social darwinistic ideas of constant competition, and the strong dominating the weak, that even allow for capitalist systems to exist in the first place. And again - you were the one who openly stated their position, not as their position, but as your own. If you earnestly didn't mean to do that, just apologize for the poor conveyance of ideas and move on, not too hard. ...That isn't an exception, though? You realize the nazis had signed pacts with half of the developed world at that point, correct? They actually only kept the pacts with the right wingers though, and abandoned the ones with any sort of left leaning or even liberal groups. Aaaand here it is. See, the problem is, your opinion here is not founded on logic. Of the two groups, fascists and statist leftists, one is objectively more dangerous, and if both were given access to the same time and resources, would case far more damage and deaths. That group would be the fascists. And since the fascists are clearly the most dangerous and despicable ones here... it isn't logic that drives your decision to ally with the fascists, its ideological compatibility. There is no logic behind your decision, and so it has to be your own viewpoint.
    2
  424.  @danielbowman7226  That... is literally a nazi-defending lie. Literally. The communists never had death camps meant solely for the mass execution of racial or class groups, literally never. They had camps where there was hard labor and harsh punishment, yes, but those didn't have nearly the same fatality rate of nazi death camps. The soviets eventually opened up the gulags and let out millions, the nazis didn't leave anyone alive if they could manage And violence is literally the backbone of capitalism. That's why a "right" to private property needs to be established, because private property can only exist through force. And how does one use "violence to achieve equality?" training "Btw under socialism you have to work. And you can't choose where... literal slavery." Citation? Proof? Evidence? Anything? The system you're describing is capitalism, where people are forced to work for any place they can to even put food on the table, if they don't work enough they'll have there only opportunities taken away. Difference is, you aren't provided anything. No food, no medical care, nothing. You're a slave to a system that couldn't care less about you. "Ask a socialist why they hate capitalism, they'll give you a hundred reasons. Ask a capitalist why they hate socialism, and they'll describe capitalism." I agree, yeah they still exist. And here you are, defending nazism, in the year 2021. People are dumb. laughable
    2
  425.  @danielbowman7226  "Pol Pot was a communist." Citation? Seems the man was sponsored by the literal CIA to kill communist groups, but I guess to a lib anyone is a communist who you don't like. What does being a communist even mean, to you? is it just anyone you don't like? The nazis killed purposefully, and systematically. The majority of deaths under the soviets were due to poor policy. And now you're trying to insult me. Ok, so prove me wrong. In nazi death camps, you went to die. You were gassed, shot, buried, left in the woods, you were killed. Soviet Gulags were horrendous places to be, and many tens of thousands died, but no historian will tell you that the soviets had death camps. Because they didn't. If you want to try to find evidence otherwise, be my guest. The mortality rate of soviet gulags was between 5% and 25%, depending on the outside conditions. (famine, weather, ect) The mortality rate of nazi extermination camps was between 75% to 95%. You trying to equate the two is blatant holocaust apologia. "Under socialism you had to work" Oh i'm sure, and under the fairy princess everyone could fly. The problem is, you don't know the definition of socialism, so you end up describing capitalism. "Private property doesn't require violence." Ok, so your workers want to have control of their workplace. They do work the tools, after all. In order to stop them, you need to fight Them. In any case of property "defense," it is always the owner that has to instigate violence to "keep" their land. Private property only exists through violence. And here you are, justifying your same genocidal system all over again. What's new, I guess. And more ad hominem arguments. Yes buddy, i'm sure socialists just hate personal responsibility, that's why they advocate for... more of it in the workplace, along with more personal control over your production? That's why socialists have historically been the head of labor and civil rights movements, right? Because they "hate" responsibility. And i'll remind you, again. "Ask a socialist what they hate about capitalism, they'll give you a hundred reasons. Ask a capitalist what they hate about socialism, they'll describe capitalism." Try to actually address my points next time, dear.
    2
  426.  @scalisque5403  He's trying to equate a failed country with a country that based itself on murder, genocide, and racial hatred. He is trying to conflate apathy and active malice. That is why there's no hypocrisy to be found, because you are both trying to play up the crimes of one country, in the process helping to play down the crimes of another.
    2
  427.  @danielbowman7226  Wow. This is like... one of the stupidest things i've ever read, genuinely. And of course it is presented without citation or examples - because its all lies. So let's take a look, in depth, at your lies, hm? Starting with supposed "similarities." "A) Dismantle the Capitalism - old system" The monarchists want to get rid of capitalism too, as do the anarchists, as do the posties, as do the primitivists, and so on. I hate to break it to you, but anti-capitalism isn't an uncommon idea. This proves nothing except that both were against the same thing... which really proves nothing at all, given their different reason for doing so. "B) create equal society by getting rid of classes or races" Here's a quote from one of the heads of the nazi party. "Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!" Does that sound like a group that wants to "create an equal society?" No, it sounds like what the nazis actually thought - that equality was a dangerous myth, and that the strong should always rule the weak. In fact, that was the literal core of nazi ideology, not sure how you missed that or feel at all confident in lying about it. The nazis said that every race was unequal, so the "strong" races must either push out, dominate, or eliminate the "weak" races. The nazis said that every nation was unequal, so the "strong" nations must either push out, dominate, or eliminate the "weak" nations. The nazis said that every person was unequal, so the "strong" people must either push out, dominate, or eliminate the "weak" people. These are pretty damn well known facts. "C) maximize the power of the state" Communists want to abolish the state, nazis want to privatize it. This just isn't true. "D) subjugate the individual the the needs of elusive Collective" ...like capitalism does. like nationalism does. like religion does. I hate to break it to you, but it isn't true, and isn't uncommon. See point one. The nazis hated equality. They thought that each race was unequal, and each person in that race was equally unequal. In fact, they wanted a society that celebrated this "Fact," one in which the strong are given the opportunity to rule over, subjugate, and purge the weak. The nazis were right wing. They hated equality. I don't think you know the first thing about nazi ideology. "property rights" has nothing to do with left vs right, champ, given it was the relative left that first advocated for rights at all to begin with. It's pretty sad how you have to warp history and definitions to even attempt to make your ideological garbage sound coherent. "worship of the state" doesn't make something left wing. The monarchists, the first dictators of history, were the first labelled right wing ideology. The anarchists, conversely, were one of the first left wing ideologies. Your definitions don't work, and the fascists, according to all available knowledge, were solidly and without question far right. The most radical elements of the U.S. Right wave around confederate flags and swastikas while calling for another race war, and committing the vast majority of domestic terror. That is the U.S. right, and the number of radicals who either join or sympathize with those modern fascists is growing. The minarchists, the "an"caps? They're the vast minority, and even they will readily agree that they will side with the fascists against the left if need be. Its funny, you say these groups have minimum contact points... and yet history shows that they are brothers in ideology, divided by only one thing - fluid or rigid hierarchy. Hell, in this very post you state a line that the nazis would agree with, and thankfully is not reflected in reality. The right has always wanted hierarchy, be it changing with a competitive economy, or rigid, with eugenics, fascists, and corportatism. Fascism is and always has been a far right ideology, and your willingness to so clearly lie about the nazis when they plainly and openly said the exact opposite of what you assert is... frankly sad.
    2
  428.  @danielbowman7226  ...and yet again. The same debunked "arguments." Its ok, we get it, you've never known what socialism is and fall for the right wing propaganda that tries to paint it as some sort of hivemind ideology. We all know you can't even defend this idea. Of course you couldn't, its so absurd how could you?
    2
  429.  @danielbowman7226  If i've not debunked anything, and only called you names, then why are you not able to actually respond to my points directly? Twice i've responded to you, and two times you've ignored it. And we all know why - its because you don't like your propaganda getting called out. "Collectivist" is a meaningless buzzword that encompasses all modern ideologies. However, you knew this, just like how you know the next lie you tell is false. "They both seek equality." No. They don't. We've been over this two times prior, but the nazis despised equality, and worshiped hierarchy in all areas of humanity. The the nazis hated equality more than you, they thought it was unnatural and restrictive, and their entire system was built off of the protection of hierarchy. I have showed you this, with evidence, three times now. And you've never been able to respond. Different principles, different goals, different methods. The nazis even admit they aren't socialists, modern neo-nazis march proudly with the right, but you don't like these facts being pointed out, do you? Capitalism isn't meritocratic or individualistic, but you knew that already. That's why capitalists always work with fascists in the end. You assert that it requires a hivemind to work somehow which is, again, absurd. The vast majority of socialist thinkers, from Proudhon to Marx were individualists and anti-statists, and yet you, centuries later, feel you have a license to revise what they actually believed. I've proved you wrong, on all of your claims, and you have not been able to respond a single time. How is working in one's own self interest hivemind altruism? Or do you not understand what you're even talking about? And that's a line even capitalists agree on. Which of course, proves my point - capitalists are far closer to fascists than either are to socialists. Both capitalists and fascists hate the idea of equality, of humans not living their life to work, and of leftism as a whole. So, are you going to respond to facts already?
    2
  430.  @danielbowman7226  I have now three times debunked your utterly unsupported and ahistorical myth that the nazis were anti-hierarchy and pro-equality, which is so hilariously false I nearly dropped my drink when I first read it. You, this whole time, have not responded to those facts. Do you have anything more to say on the matter, child?
    2
  431. ​ @danielbowman7226  aaaand more lies. Sad. You say i debunked nothing, but there are a number of responses right above you in this thread that go unresponded to, responses that tell a different story. You remember that quote I gave you earlier? The one saying, from a top nazi official, that the nazis must reject the idea of any sort of equality, equality of individuals, equality of political control, equality of races and equality of nations? Well, you'll notice they didn't say "except for germans" at the end. In fact, the speech was a call for germans to reject equality. So no, the nazis were against equality, not just between germans and everyone else, but germans as individuals should not be equal to eachother. You say "same with communists," and then point out how they're different. Of course, you didn't at all portray the nazis how they actually existed, but even so you clearly point out a fundamental difference in ideology and methods. Strange. So, no. The nazis despised equality in all forms. All the time. What's so hard to understand about your point? Well, nothing, its quite simple. Problem is, its a lie. Ah, and more holocaust denial. The nazis threw hundreds of thousands of "ethnic germans" into camps, for holding the wrong opinions, for being too old, too weak, for being disabled or gay. The only ones that thrived in a nazi society were strong, able-bodied white straight men. Does that at all sound like "comrades on race?" I didn't think so. And of course, you then try to assert that nazi society, a society based on inequality and hierarchy, that openly encouraged competition, backstabbing, and constant ideological dominance... was like a hivemind. Because you wanted to prove me wrong, in me saying you couldn't get any more wrong. And here, again, you poitn out how even you can't strawman the ideologies enough to be the same. But I doubt you'll admit that. After all, people like you are a lot closer to fascists than any socialist could ever claim to be. There you go, repeating nazi propaganda again. Nothing new, but its still always sad to see, someone who claims to oppose fascism like yourself, but in reality only opposes their enemies, and labels them fascists instead. I do, however, want to point out how funny it is that you're calling social democracy, a capitalist ideology, "the same" as fascism. And here we go again. "They were even called the socialist workers party." Yes? And? So? Why should I trust them on that? They party exited before hitler joined and hitler's ideology existed, the party had distinct factions, was purged and restructured several times, nearly had interparty civil wars. Does that sound like a party that cared about strictly sticking to its name? Does it sound like a party that kept the same ideology since its inception? Hitler openly said that he didn't listen to any definition of socialism that exists before or during his time, and that his definition was a word that promoted hierarchy and rejected equality, that protected private property and competition, and that thought the left would lead to the end of civilization. Thankfully, you can at least admit the nazis have blood on their hands. Sadly, you can't admit what the nazis actually were, and why that blood was there. And sadder still, you continue to deny the highest death toll of any ideology of all... the one you support. You defending fascists ideas and minimizing the crimes of fascist nations, all while trying to devalue the word "nazi" by applying it to the historical enemies and victims of the nazi regime is not only sad, its disgusting. Please educate yourself. Hell, you're following in their footsteps right now, by calling me (a random person who simply knows more history than you) a socialist, despite the fact that i'm not one. The nazis did the same... only difference is, they ended those conversations by putting the socialists in camps. Wake up. Provide evidence. Walk away from defending the ideas that led to fascism. You've not cited a single argument yet. I'm not surprised.
    2
  432. It wasn't though, unless you think corporations are socialist.
    2
  433.  @TheBluntNinja  No, i'm not exaggerating, or saying "he's basically saying "X," I am directly referencing what he said. He didn't say that public trading is socialism, he literally said that any sort of collective working towards a common goal counts as a state, and thus is socialism. He literally called the company youtube "marxist." You can ask him yourself, but he genuinely sees corporations as socialist entities, and only considers sole individuals to be "private."
    2
  434.  @tsaoh5572  It depends what you mean by "roots in." Do you mean that it took some inspiration from it? That they took certain aspects or rhetoric from it? Sure, obviously they took a lot of the type of rhetoric they used from the socialists, and indeed some economic policy, though it was often warped beyond recognition. But they also took the same amounts of inspiration from capitalism, from corporatism, and even monarchism. To say they had their roots in socialism exclusively, or even primarily, ignores that. Their real roots really came from the rise of the revolutionary right in the forms of traditionalism and social darwinism, both of which were conerstones of their ideology. While they did end up converting quite a few socialists of the time, things like this are well explained in Burnham's Manegerial Revolution. In short, a lot of both capitalistic and socialistic organizations were already leaning towards fascism, and the start of an organized fascist movement is what pushed many of these people over the edge. A sort of horseshoe theory. So in short, I agree that they certainly took some inspiration and ideas from the socialists, but to say that they came from socialism, when in fact it was a counter-socialist movement that birthed them, just doesn't make much sense. But over all, thank you for being civ
    2
  435. Nice anecdotal evidence. I know open fascists and holocaust deniers, and they all test for auth-right. But I assume the vast amount of right-wing people flying swatiskas and chanting nazi slogans is just a coincidence, right?
    2
  436. It's even more frustrating seeing, TIK make the same arguments that have been debunked.
    1
  437.  @yeabuddy1610  The same nebulous comment section you seem to be referencing.
    1
  438.  @yeabuddy1610  No, where TIK repeated refuted counter arguments that neither he nor his fans have the courage to address.
    1
  439.  @yeabuddy1610  Like the idea that all socialism is anti-semetic, all his critics are marxist racists, and that collective control is the same as state control?
    1
  440.  @yeabuddy1610  I'm sorry, but this is what we call a "lie" and "factually incorrect." I would be happy to link to you cases of TIK saying that socialism must inherently be anti-semetic, but your excuses for him are just sad. Socialism literally only cares about two groups, the proletariat and bourgeoisie. To divide further based on personal bigotry has nothing to do with socialism. He also, of course, says that Marxism is inherently anti-semetic and racist, and seems to be a bit trigger happy in calling all of his critics Marxist. Of course, the conspiracy that somehow academia is marxist is a funny one, given that yu just completely said "Keynesian Marxist" and expected me to be able to trust your judgement any further. Of course many historians, writers, scientists, mathematicians ect are not perfectly trained in Economics, but I hate to break it to you, they probably still know more on the subject than TIK. Of course he spends a good deal of time talking only on the modern extremists that tend to agree with him, like Hayek, rather than the most influential and comprehensive sources that tend to do the opposite. He's all too willing to take a few of their observations and divorce them from the conclusions those observations must reach in proper contexts. And Again, i'd be happy to prove you wrong and tear down your idol on the marxist bit, so you can stop lying. Collective control, as we've been over, is not state control. Of course, you most likely agree with TIK that a local McDonalds is a state, so why exactly should I trust you over basic economic definitions?
    1
  441.  @yeabuddy1610  Those are the primary classes of socialist attention, yes. While marx did theorize on the clear existence of others, he said they would eventually conglomerate into those core two.
    1
  442.  @yeabuddy1610  Yes, which is code for "they haven't been refuted, i'm just lazy"
    1
  443.  @yeabuddy1610  Yeah, when you "pull from" conflicting worldviews you either take one with you, or neither. Never both. And please tell me you did not just call marxism a school of economics.
    1
  444.  @yeabuddy1610  Jesus you're a contradictory person. Ok, first off, do you really think that literally no socialist had ever touched on class relation before? They advocated for collective ownership of the means of production, yet never once addressed the difference between the power of a collective, and the power of the private owner? No, it was still a popular socialist position at the time to go into class politics, Marx just cemented it in a new way, and used materialist dialectics to explain them. Of course you and TIK will repeat the same mantra over and over, "socialism predates marxism," ect, but you never actually speak on the ideology of pre-marx socialists. This is the problem I keep noticing, you proclaim that TIK refutes points, but you never once consider that those refutations may have been addressed and rebutted, or might just be plain false or misleading. And again, I have to plead that you actually educate yourself on these matters. For one, for the love of God, "Marxism" is not an economic system, it is a method of historical analysis. Marxist economics don't describe any one system, and don't necessitate state control, hence communism being stateless. A capitalist economic system and a socialist economic system are not closer to eachother just because some Libertarians don't like them both.
    1
  445.  @yeabuddy1610  Yeah, that's kind of the point. That you guys are programmed to say "Marx didn't found socialism, socialism is not Marxism, there can be non-Marxist socialists" which is true, Cornel West is a good modern day example, but you actually need to know a bit about the history of socialism to make those examples. Owen was a Utopian Socialist, so he didn't care at all about the process, so much as he planned an end society. That's kind of the point, most non-Utopian socialists did deal in class, and the Utopian socialists only didn't because they didn't care about analysis generally, even though it was often still a factor of their ideology. And jesus christ, have you even ever read marx? Is all of your understanding of his work gotten from TIK? Let me clue you in on something - again, marxism is not an economic system, it's a method of historical analysis. Movements by marxists have not always led to state control, but that says nothing about marxism as an ideology. Not only are you wrong on the communist manifesto (the shortest and least important of Marx's works) but it appears you don't even know how Marx defined socialism. You know Marx said that socialist systems would be highly decentralized if not downright stateless, right? Or, again, did you learn everything you know about Marx from TPUSA and TIK? You're telling me to "read Marx" but the only point of evidence you produced is a mis-reading from an old edition of his shortest and least illuminating work. Come on, read Critique of the Gotha Program, or The German Ideology, or something longer than a pamphlet. And we've been over this champ, Austrian capitalism is far from the only type. Keynes was a full on capitalist.
    1
  446.  @yeabuddy1610  Not really, as usual, but good job declaring that anyway? And good for you, capital is probably one of his longer works, but not the ones in which he really gives much up about his own plans for the future, and how that would happen.And it's primarily about history, though economic factors of course play somewhat of a role in analysis, as they should. And... really? Come on, seriously? Is this what TIK lets you get away with believing? I'm going to drop a video here that explains this better than I could, but two basic corrections: 1. This is from an old version of the Manifesto, after the events of the Paris Commune he created a footnote, in which he described that these measures were no longer necessary. 2. What he is describing here is not socialism, nor communism. It was his idea of a transition period between capitalism and socialism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXvQuE9xO4&vl=en
    1
  447.  @yeabuddy1610  It seems you're doing that thing where you pretend your form of the ideology is the only "true" form, and all others that don't comply must not then be true.
    1
  448.  @yeabuddy1610  This is why I advocate actually reading Marx, and not believing what TIK tells you. Marx literally did not differentiate between communism and socialism. He used the terms nigh interchangeably, only calling them two movements divided by the identity of who called for them, not the policy positions they held. Marx said that socialism, as well as communism, must be stateless. He preached a transition period between capitalism to lower stage communism, and lower stage to higher stage communism. The idea of a strong transition state was popularized by lenin, and it was to transition to socialism.
    1
  449.  @yeabuddy1610  Well yes it is, sure, but that's more important to understanding how marx would come to his later conclusions, not necessarily what said conclusions and even criticisms would be. But I don't mean to dissuade at all from reading the volumes. 1. Considering that, again, he not only would later go back on those words but in fact would not even use them to describe socialism in the first place, I think that's important to not. However, he did actually specify that there would be a collective control, that's what the DoP means. 2. Well, that's the thing. That's part of M*L* ideology, Marxism-Leninism, not just Marxism. Marx saw socialism as a sort of lower-phase communism, which was where Lenin got the idea, in which there was no state, but there would still be money, and the remnants of class. This would, indeed, be ruled over by the absolute power of the collective ruling class, or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. However, Marx thought this should be done in a decentralized manner, and Lenin thought that to even get to socialism, one must first put in place a statist transition from capitalism to socialism, that being his NEP policy. In short, while MArx did describe the DoP, he didn't actually think that was a part of socialism or communism, he thought it would predate both of them. And thank you, the video is pretty good at explaining how a lot of the misconceptions relating to Marx's more statist ideas came into the public consciousness, and it is far from a full overview, but it does a decent enough job.
    1
  450.  @TheImperatorKnight  We've been over this TIK. A republic is a form of democracy. Also, since the founding fathers wanted a state, they were socialists according to you, right?
    1
  451.  @gabbar51ngh  And then rejected it.
    1
  452.  @dosran5786  Nope, white supremacists disagree with socialism. There is no such thing as "Socialist fascism," just as there is no such thing as "up down."
    1
  453. Hayek was a monarchist, kid. You're quoting an authoritarian rightist trying to pretend that his fascist adjacent ideology has nothing to do with fascism. You quoted a liar trying to cover his tracks, kid.
    1
  454.  @P7777-u7r  Well, no you absolutely can. In fact, most capitalism was racist and white supremacist for the majority of its existence. But even though they opposed international capitalism, that doesn't suddenly make them socialists, or even leftists. That's a pretty damn basic fact.
    1
  455.  Raptor Jet  isn't it funny how easy it is to prove you wrong?
    1
  456.  @KameradVonTurnip  you ... Realize that repeating the same disproven lie doesn't make it true, right? God you people are like sheep, saying the same shit over and over without thinking about how bullshit your words actually are.
    1
  457.  Raptor Jet  I've already addressed these supposed "favorable" comments time and time again, liar. You've admitted you are wrong, and yet you continue to spam them. This is the act of a dying argument, a failing lie.
    1
  458.  Raptor Jet  I agree, it is a verified and uncontroversial fact that you're a liar, and that you not once portray these comments within context. After all, you never once admit that hitler defined socialism as, well... nationalism. That he said he wanted to protect private property. And you not once cite your facts. Sad. The real question is , how did the Nazis Get called socialists when they hated socialists, and took control from the workers and gave it to the private sector. How did they extended private control over the means of production for the entire country: 1) mass privatization of land 2) The Nazi Government found alies in Corporate Boards which would then assist the nazis from the private sector. 3) Nazi Government at no point held total control over all pricing and all labor wages in all industries Even if the lies you told were true, they still would not be socialist, by the definition of the term. You have admitted this. Give up, nazi sympathizing liar.
    1
  459.  Raptor Jet  Why do you try to dispute objective history? Why do you try to lie about the uncontroversial and indisputable fact that hitler was a far right anti-socialist?
    1
  460.  MIT Mathematica  @MIT Mathematica   @MIT Mathematica  ah, and there you go again. Quoting propaganda speeches and acting like that's all hitler said and wanted, like he put his words to practice, and like he defined socialism as the same thing you do. Of course, you leave out his quotes on him saying he believes private property is the most efficient method of production, that he aligns with the right, that the left and equality will cause an end of civilization, that he had no plan to implement many of the policies he sold to the public, how he defined socialism (every time he said it) as nationalism, ect. Because you admitting these things, and showing everything hitler said, his actual actions, his inspirations, ect, would prove you wrong instantly. That's why liars like you have to cherry pick from elections leeches and propaganda pamphlet. The whole story proves you wrong. Hitler had no favorable or positive views on socialism. He was a far right fascist, an anti socialist who did his best to refine the word to appeal to more people.
    1
  461.  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?
    1
  462.  MIT Mathematica   @MIT Mathematica  wait, where? All I see are quotes where hitler promoted his far right anti socialist ideology. That is, if you put them in context. Context you specifically ignored.
    1
  463. ​ MIT Mathematica  but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong. So let's add some context, shall we? Quotes from Hitler - Quotes regarding the nazis - "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew." "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf "Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics." "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
    1
  464.  MIT Mathematica  what lying? What delusion? I'm giving you facts you don't like, and you disagree. The citation s of hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti socialist ideology are indisputable and uncontroversial. The context that you left out, as well as his actions beyond words, are all there. What are you so afraid of, champ? Your lies catching up with you?
    1
  465.  MIT Mathematica  aww, and you're just repeating words like a broken record, because I so easily proves that hitler held a favorable and positive view on far right anti socialist ideology, much like you. I provided context and outside experts and definitions whereas you provided none. You, in repeating the same disproven lies time and time again with no change, have admitted that you are objectively incorrect. I hate to break it to you, but hitler was far more anti socialist than you could even hope to be. Linking to me speeches of propaganda devoid of context and definitions, and then ignoring the definitions and context when they are given to you, makes you a willing liar. So, why are you so interested in defending your fellow anti socialist hitler? And why don't you like accepting reality?
    1
  466.  MIT Mathematica  aaaand more copy pasted insults and responses that do nothing to disprove the authenticity of hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti-socialism. How many times do I have to repeat that in context, the quotes you gave do nothing even close to showing some form of pro-socialism, but are propaganda speeches in which hitler readily agrees that his usage of the word "socialism" is a stand in for nationalism, and has nothing to do with the actual ideology of socialism. The quotes you have provided prove exactly this, that his speeches were filled with propaganda, rewritten definitions, and overall, were indicative of his far right anti-socialist ideology, that you most likely share with him. You are free to insult me in any manner you so wish, but with every insult and every further response in which you refuse to substantially address my points, you only admit further that I am, as we both know, objectively correct.
    1
  467.  MIT Mathematica  "ask a socialist what they hate about capitalism, they'll give you a hundred reasons. Ask a capitalist what they hate about socialism, they'll describe capitalism." Like what you just did, champ :)
    1
  468.  MIT Mathematica  I hope you realize that Orwell knew full well that the nazis weren't socialists :)
    1
  469.  MIT Mathematica  As I said before, child. Advertising propaganda isn't a good look :)
    1
  470.  MIT Mathematica  Its like you're threatened by my facts, so as a defense mechanism you release hoards of copy pasted nonsense :)
    1
  471.  MIT Mathematica  How am I moving on, child? I proved the facts of the matter, and reliably solidified hitler's favorable and positive statements on far right anti Socialism. You then deflected back to your same copy pasted paragraphs I already disproved. At least you conceded to the facts and reality of hitler's anti-socialist beliefs :)
    1
  472.  MIT Mathematica  Neitzsche was one of the nazi's main philosophical inspirations. Thank you for proving my point :)
    1
  473.  MIT Mathematica  Hey, guess what! Like what I already told you - that exists.
    1
  474.  MIT Mathematica  You just copy pasted that one child.
    1
  475.  MIT Mathematica  I have both, unlike you :)
    1
  476.  MIT Mathematica  What ignorance? How is easily proving you wrong with facts, definitions, context and citations ignorance? Oh wait, i forgot you spoke in exclusively newspeak.
    1
  477.  MIT Mathematica  I am a product of individual research and a lifetime of historical inquiry. You are a product of ideological zealotry and malice.
    1
  478.  MIT Mathematica  More proof of you dancing around the issues at hand just to deflect and offer me victory. And yet, his ideology was directly one of the inspirations of the nazis. His philosophy, sadly, had nothing to do with his own personal views, and thus his notions of socialism's inefficiency and his own nihilistic view of the modern world were directly given to the nazis.
    1
  479.  MIT Mathematica  I'm not a socialist, nor an incel, nor unemployed. But its ok, you already know that. That's why you've admitted i'm correct :)
    1
  480.  MIT Mathematica  So, wait, which is it? Socialism is mass murder and prison, or socialism never existed? Your doublethink is progressing to even greater levels!
    1
  481.  MIT Mathematica  again, accept it you can’t disprove Hitler’s favorable and positive statements on far-right anti-socialism as per the added context, definitions, and expert citations . You are being pathetically delusional or you are just an outright liar which is probably why you are unable to even address a single one of my points, even once. You are most likely everything you call me :) i am glad you admitted I was right though, and that you and hitler share the same ideological anti-socialist zealotry
    1
  482.  MIT Mathematica  Ah yes, Venezuela, the famously 70% private... socialist? country??
    1
  483.  MIT Mathematica  stop evading the original question with your circular attempt at distracting from the original fact that you can’t disprove the authenticity of Hitler’s favorable and positive statements on far-right anti-Socialism. It is incontrovertible fact they are authentic as per the is indisputable evidence provided by the most credible speeches, definitions, and experts i provided to you. You keep deflecting from both my correction on the missing context from your quotes, and the additional quotes I provided that quite clearly prove you wrong instantly. I agree, the National Archives are accurate, the problem is, your quotes are missing the surrounding context and definitions. Which makes you someone who wants to twist the facts of the National Archives (which readily hold proof of hitler's far-right anti-socialism) into your own ahistorical ideological zealotry. So why do you continue to defend your anti-socialist ally hitler?
    1
  484.  MIT Mathematica  Sure, I freely admit that hitler's favorable and positive statements on far right anti socialist ideology are authentic and true.
    1
  485.  MIT Mathematica  Sure, I freely admit that hitler's favorable and positive statements on far right anti socialist ideology are authentic and true.
    1
  486.  MIT Mathematica  What do you mean? Hitler had no favorable or positive statements on socialism. What you're referring to are his propaganda speeches on nationalism, and virulent far right anti-socialism, which your quotes showed. Just because hitler said something doesn't mean he meant it, believed it, put it into practice, or agreed with your interpretation of it. This is why you have time and time again helped me prove to you that hitler's opinion on socialism was unfavorable and negative, and thank you for agreeing with that basic and uncontroversial fact :)
    1
  487.  @Rajpeanut  I wasn't the one who ran way from our last conversation because they were proven wrong, champ :) that was you ;)
    1
  488.  @Rajpeanut  that sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense champ. And thank you for admitting you ran away from our last conversation because you know I'm right :)
    1
  489.  @Rajpeanut  why would I be lazy and make a five hour video, when instead I could be intellectually honest and write to TIK directly?
    1
  490.  @Rajpeanut  even TIK knows he isn't right, and you know it too. That's why you haven't written a single word or made a single response as a rebuttal to my objective facts :)
    1
  491. ​ @mitscientifica1569  Oh, hitler gave far more quotes than just three. And after all, no matter how many alts you mae, in the end you always admit that far right mass-murderer Adolf Hitler was an anti-socialist. “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler But thank you for admitting you care about nazi propaganda over actual history! "Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
    1
  492.  @mitscientifica1569  ​ @MIT Scientifica I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408 https://www.archives.gov "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf So your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
    1
  493.  @mitscientifica1569  Do you literally just spend all your time copy-pasting nonsense?
    1
  494.  @mitscientifica1569  Why does people posting proof that you are a liar infuriate you so much? Wait, nevermind, I get it. You don't like having to admit that you're wrong :)
    1
  495.  @IsaacPSmith  oh, and there's another ad hominem attack from you, an attack on the character of your opponent. And, better yet, it's one that betrays your own ignorance in the subject. You know Marxism isn't an economic theory, right? The problem here is that hitler was not a Socialist. Obviously he was not a Capitalist, just as obviously as he is not a Socialist, but you seem unwilling to admit that. This debate does hinge on defining Socialism and Capitalism, the issue there being that TIK refuses to use the well known or original definitions, and constantly commits semantic fallacy in his goal to rewrite said definitions. Clearly you yourself are not well educated on the subject, because you compare Marxism to Capitalism. No, a better comparison would be Capitalism to fascism, or Marxism to Hegelianism. Those terms are at least in the same category.
    1
  496.  @TheImperatorKnight  Oh, TIK. Even you know how wrong you are. Class socialism predates marx. There is no socialism but socialism for the workers. Oh, and you're more of a socialist than me, according to your logic.
    1
  497. Except he wasn't a socialist, at all. Just in name.
    1
  498.  @skeletalbassman1028  I mean you're basically just saying hitler was a socialist, but then saying your point of calling him one still works because no self-avowed socialist state is socialist. And like... yeah? Kind of? Orwell would agree, he said that both the USSR and the Nazis weren't socialists. However, they were "not socialists" for different reasons. Stalin was not a socialist because, while he (supposedly) wanted socialism, he kept putting it off and reforming the economy to get them back on their feet, at the same time moving further away from the goal. The nazis, on the other hand, objectively didn't want socialism. (no, not even for their race, or anti-marx socialism) They wanted a system that bent both the market and the state to their will, emboldening the worst of both. Stalin didn't have communism, but whatever. While they do both dislike people and funneled them into adversity... what country hasn't? Seriously. In the cold war, we did the same to the USSR and their allies as the germans did to jewish people and the USSR did to the rich, in terms of directed hate and propaganda. And again, the average person doesn't know that much about history, to be honest. And I have to ask this - if every socialist is socialist in name only (which just isn't true) then how can you say hitler was a socialist? Especially with all the differences between his ideology and socialism.
    1
  499.  @skeletalbassman1028  So your amazing point is that socialists don't know what they want, despise clearly pushing for the antithesis of what you're proposing, so you just get to prescribe their "actual" beliefs to them. Ok, so you want a dictator, right? What's that, you say you don't? Well clearly you don't understand what your ideology requires, which is a dictatorship, to enforce property rights and keep the workers in line. You see the issue? You're strawmanning an entire ideology, openly, with no consideration for what they actually say. Your silly comparison with fascism is just you saying "well my purposefully fascistic strawman of socialism seems a lot like fascism... hm seems familiar what a coincidence." No, socialism is not necessarily dictatorial, nor is it based on state ownership. Capital has no way of reasserting ownership in a system where it is not supported. Your idea that all things have to be brought through the state is equally ridiculous, such a system might not even have a state.
    1
  500.  @skeletalbassman1028  Not a communist, child.Oh I get it, you're trying to sound like an idiot on purpose. That makes sense. Socialism is not state ownership, and never has been. Deal with it. I know you love speaking about the wonders of liberalism, but you try to bring up Thatcher to show it. You know, paramilitary death squad Thatcher, ruined the economy thatcher. Socialism doesn't require any sort of dictatorship, individual or no. That "meme" you're talking about exists in an entirely capitalist country, which utterly disproves your point. You are strawmanning, you admit to it openly, but even you can't see it. That's your fault here mate, not mine. Nope. Both are referring to types of socialism. It seems you really aren't educated on this matter.
    1
  501.  @skeletalbassman1028  "everyone I don't like is a communist. What's my proof? Well, I don't like you." Thatcher is the result of the liberalistic principles you seem fine sucking off. When you convince people that the only entity that can do bad is the government, of course you're going to get a thatcher figure.
    1
  502.  @jussim.konttinen4981  I... didn't? Whatever. In the case of hitler, i'd put him to the far right on a cultural scale certainly, but on some sort of economic scale i'd put him near the center right.
    1
  503.  @jussim.konttinen4981  Yeah, that was kind of my intention. And you certainly don't need to be left wing to be a populist, right wing populism has a pretty long history.
    1
  504.  @ptkiller26  No, they haven't. Marxism isn't even an economic system. The idea of class and workers owning the MoP was socialist before marx, and it was pushed by anti-marx socialists. Hitler was not a socialist.
    1
  505.  @TheImperatorKnight  And failed all the while to provide a single bit of evidence it was socialist.
    1
  506.  @bandit6272  And, just as I thought. No points from you, just deflection. Apparently you've been able to see my prior arguments, and yet you don't want to look for proof. I literally included an example of you lying in the response. Jesus. You are a liar because, well first and foremost, you support TIK's historical lie. However, specifically, you're a liar because you claim that you've seen me arguing for a while and "know" that my arguments contain no proof... and yet you admit to never having read through a single one of my arguments. Which one of those statements of yours is a lie? And in these next few lines we see your actual reason for engaging with me. Because, without proof, you assume me to be a socialist, and my argument to be from an ideological perspective... because yours is. God, its sad. And of course, that was your intent. Never to inform, but to sling insults and run away. Sad.
    1
  507.  @bandit6272  As i've told you time and time again - You know where my arguments are I don't owe you my time, and if you really wanted my arguments, you know where to find them but you don't want them, do you? You want to "mock," to waste time. So I think that only lends credit to my point.
    1
  508.  @bandit6272  Aww, you're getting genuinely mad. Yes, you perpetuate a lie, and i've told you it time and time again. And why are you acting like you being ignorant is some sort of master point? I literally pointed out the possibility of that in the first line of my last response, can you read? And again, apparently you've seen my arguments all over. Why can't you just go back and find them? They're already there, there's no point in me filling up some other chain if you can just go back and find them. But no, you'd rather hurl insults and deflect, hm. Your last few comments have had zero facts, zero arguments, and you have not once addressed the reality that at any point you could go and find the hundreds of arguments i've presented in this very comment section. Why is that? Why don't you want to engage in argumentation? You've admitted i've been debating here for a while, hell, you used it as a deflectionary insult. So why are you lying about that now? Put up or shut up, i'm waiting for a factual response to one of the many hundreds of comments i've left under this video.
    1
  509.  @bandit6272  Give me one reason that you can't just go back to the arguments you've seen before. Give me one reason I should bother going through the effort of something you yourself admit isn't necessary. I'm waiting. I could, at any moment, copy paste hundreds of words, quotes, and citation. But I have no reason you, you admit you've seen my arguments elsewhere, why would I bother posting them twice?
    1
  510. ​ @bandit6272  Aaaand you've not yet responded to my arguments, as numerous as they are. I'm waiting...
    1
  511.  @bandit6272  Um... what? You're literally commenting under a video that tries to disprove all of commonly and uncontroversial accepted history. It isn't my claim here, its TIK's that you're supporting. And I would hardly call writing hundreds of words down to disprove people smarter than you "lazy." In fact, it seems you've already scrolled past those arguments, after all, i've forgotten where many of them are, and you know right where they are. So respond to them But of course, you just want to "mock," don't you? Its sad, really. I know, you're still failing to respond to a single one of my arguments, despite making fun of me for how many I made. Go ahead, start your count! This is fun.
    1
  512.  @bandit6272  The count is at 11 now. Respond to one of my arguments, if you dare
    1
  513.  @bandit6272  You're at 14
    1
  514.  @bandit6272  What's the problem? Annoyed when it comes back to bite you? 16.
    1
  515.  @bandit6272  18.
    1
  516.  @bandit6272  did you seriously just say "ok boomer?" 19.
    1
  517.  @bandit6272  all you have to do is go back to responses you admit exist. come on, I'm in nearly every thread. What's the problem? 20!
    1
  518.  @bandit6272  wait, sorry, you never addressed my arguments, you admit said arguments exist, and yet I'm somehow losing? Ny arguments will stay in the threads they're located in, you can address them at any time. Now, tomorrow, years in the future if you want. I win.
    1
  519.  @bandit6272  I know, I'm wondering if you're a socialist now. After all, I'm not, and you seem willing to project about everything else you do. 21.
    1
  520.  @bandit6272  come on it's ok bud, just literally scroll down to another comment thread. 22.
    1
  521.  @bandit6272  yep, you went 20 responses without ever addressing my arguments. Whatever, they'll stay in those threads, and there isn't shit you can do about it
    1
  522. All this because TIK can't admit when he's wrong...
    1
  523.  @douglasbroccone3144  ...why in the hell would you believe a totalitarian political party known for propaganda? Do you also believe them when they said that aryans were the master race? If you're fooled by that name you need to reevaluate how much you're willing to trust Nazis, and why you're assuming that they were: A. Telling the truth Or B. Using the same definition of socialism as you assume In other words - you're wrong.
    1
  524.  @zerozatan  The problem is, the video is four hours of bad argument after bad argument, and disproving every incorrect argument with one comment would keep me here writing for a few days at least. If you want to bring up a point you think TIK makes well, and have me make my argument against it, I would be happy to, but it would be difficult to address the entire contents of a large video like this in a simple youtube comment. I can prove TIK is a liar, or at least seriously uninformed and willing to stay that way, but I do that by addressing the arguments people pose in favor of him. And its kind of hard to address every single problem in one response. So, if you want to hear my points, feel free to give me an argument or two to address, i'll address them, and then you can either counter or give me more arguments to address, and I would be happy to do so.
    1
  525.  @flying0possum  do you have a single valid argument? I didn't think so.
    1
  526.  @flying0possum  Ok, so why ask?
    1
  527.  @zerozatan  So no, socialism is not state control. And I think given the general oppression, suppression, or outright extermination efforts by the nazis, we can safely say that the collective was not represented. I mean, look at some of the nazis policies, they outlawed collective bargaining by creating one big union, that had no actual say against the government or their bosses. And that brings us to the next two points, what was actually happening in the nazi economy, and why? Well, first off, the nazi ideology isn't one based around economics in the slightest. Of course, they had economic policy, but you notice upon studying nazi policy in rhetoric that it was not consistent in the slightest. They would appeal to business one second, and kill a business owner the next. They would call private enterprise the most efficient mode of production one second, and then put out a pamphlet saying they want to nationalize everything the next. They did whatever they thought would gain mass appeal, first and foremost, and then whatever they thought would best equip them for the war. The nazi ideology was one built around nationalism, bigotry, and violence, not economic theory or calculation. Hell, hitler himself said "'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions." upon defining his ideology. He defined socialism... as nationalism. Now, I notice how you said "indirectly," and that's a lot closer to what we were looking at in the nazi economy. The truth is, full ongoing direct control by the nazis was rare. There was no party line when it came to economics, so often those jobs were delegated to others, usually other rich or powerful people that were sympathetic to the nazi party. In other words, according to the social-darwinist attitude of the nazis, the strong ruled, both in government and business. That's something I never really understand about those who argue that the nazis had strict control over their economy. The nazi ideology is about power, life and death, the strong surviving above all others. Why would they then put in place rigid economic policy that didn't allow for any of that darwinistic attitude? In any case, the goings-on of the nazis economies largely consisted of the nazis allowing power structures and struggles to remain as long as they did not go against the party. Both the chemicals used to gass millions of people, as well as many of the camps they were to be killed in, were competed and bid over for. In short; Socialism is not just state control, but even so the nazis were not always ideologically inclined towards state control, nor did they actually run a rigid state planned economy. As I said, I would be happy to elaborate on any of these points, answer your criticisms or comments, or give additional quotes, citations, information, ect. Most of the information I just gave you can be found in the books i've mentioned already, but if you want more references or quotes, all you need to do is ask. Or, feel free to ask me another question, and move this forwards. (also, worth stating: the nazis weren't capitalists either, don't get me wrong.)
    1
  528.  @flying0possum  Have you thought, perhaps, that we aren't all you?
    1
  529.  @flying0possum  ...what?
    1
  530.  @flying0possum  Why would I be getting paid, child?
    1
  531.  @flying0possum  What? i've said nothing of the sort, are you perhaps insane?
    1
  532.  @flying0possum  ...what?
    1
  533.  @flying0possum  Why.
    1
  534.  @julianpetkov8320  This is the biggest pile of nonsense and babble i've ever seen. It is so hilariously incorrect, you manage to be wrong multiple times, every sentence. I sincerely hope this is an attempt at bait, because if so, well done.
    1
  535.  @julianpetkov8320  The problem is, your "argument" was presented without evidence, reason, or citation. There was no reason to engage it in good faith, because it was not presented in good faith. The truth scares you, which is why you so fervently deny it, because your indoctrination doesn't allow you to understand just how irrational and poor your "argumentation" (read: nonsense) is. You have no arguments. Period.
    1
  536.  @julianpetkov8320  Everything you wrote is wrong though, and i'm still half-convinced you're some sort of troll, which is likely why you're unable to admit to basic material reality. You aren't as left as it gets at all, you're simply deluded into believing propagandistic nonsense without proof. That's why when I called you out, all you could do is screech against the truth.
    1
  537.  @julianpetkov8320  You mean i continue calling you out on your nonsense? I keep educating you, and you keep trying to deflect and insult you. The fact that you have so blatant misunderstandings of the words "state," "corporation," and "public," all without once doing anything close to citing your nonsense. I have no reason to engage with a person like you, who when called out, simply repeats their nonsense with tons of insults sprinkled in because they can't think of anything else. Clearly, you are not worth the effort it would take to deprogram you, as it seems the only actual facts inside your head are ones which are categorically false, which, when countered, you can do nothing but cry and scream against my Truth. You have proved time and time again to be a liar.
    1
  538.  @julianpetkov8320  A third time of what? Proving you wrong? Well yes, I do that easily. And again, you simply provide zero citation nor any sort of explanation for your nonsensical ramblings. You also fail to provide your conspiratorial definitions of corporations, states, secretaries, presidents, and the "British corporation." this is, after all, because you have no definition, nor any facts. Why are you a liar? You can't explain why you're supposedly right, because you are unable to cite any of your "facts," and unable to deal with my arguments when I easily prove you wrong! Hence you are going to whine and cry like a little baby, and commit to personal attacks like every ignoramus on the internet. Like you literally just did, right now, proving yourself wrong.
    1
  539.  @julianpetkov8320  I mean, simply yes? Your perception of definitions and the modern world has no basis, which is why you continually try to deflect from your overwhelming lack of evidence.
    1
  540.  @julianpetkov8320  You mean you presented me with no evidence and are now scared because you got called out on it. Of course you don't want to address my facts, because any attempts to rationalize your indoctrination by far right idiots would destroy your deeply ingrained notions of false definitions by, you guessed it, the same far right idiots. Grow up, child
    1
  541.  @julianpetkov8320  Well, yeah. Because its so easy to dunk on your lack of citation and horrible arguments that I just feel like continuing to do so. After all, you've given me no valid reason not to.
    1
  542.  @tekis0  why would anyone bother when TIKs own sources disprove him?
    1
  543.  @El-marino-loko780  we've already done this song and dance, child. The evidence is there, and they cannot address it.
    1
  544.  @El-marino-loko780  I already have, that's the problem. Everyone here is very aware that I have made the same arguments over and over and there is no need to copy paste, and yet you still ask for it
    1
  545.  @elijahrivera2858  ...no. It never has been, and while i'm sure you're trying to describe the nazis, that isn't a good reflection on actual reality.
    1
  546.  @elijahrivera2858  ...again. I hate to break it to you, but basic government programs, and basic wartime programs, don't mean much more than that the nazis were statists. I mean you said it yourself, the same programs the nazis implemented are largely implemented worldwide, even in capitalist nations. Also, you're still not accurately representing the actual actions of the nazis, but I don't think I can stop you from doing that at this point. Mainly because most of the policies you name don't actually accurately reflect the nazi ideology, but also because comparing the modern US to a fascist state in full power with any sort of supposal of good faith is... not a good idea. The nazis didn't want socialism, pretty plainly, and the policies you're talking about don't make a place socialist, even if they accurately represented the nazis, which they don't.
    1
  547.  @elijahrivera2858  aaand another word salad that proves and conveys less than nothing. "Also, there *are no capitalist nations." I'm sorry, citation? Or are you one of those types that doesn't understand that capitalism is not just libertarian capitalism? You do realize that the history of capitalism started out with not just statists, but monarchists, right? The idea of capitalism being anti-state is new, only arose in the mid 20th century. Learn your own history. You think that just because the market isn't unimpeded in all areas, it isn't capitalist? Well i'm sorry, but by this logic, Adam Smith wasn't a capitalist. And yes. I am aware of the fact that nationalization isn't socialism. Nationalization of private businesses has been a policy for centuries, and I hate to break it to you, not all socialists want it, and most who call for it aren't socialists. Just because its a statist policy doesn't make it socialist. And I get it, you somehow think "collectivism" is a coherent political concept, and that it somehow goes against human individuality, which is of course incorrect and absurd.. You could have just told me you've never seriously studied politics, your on these topics ignorance shows as much.
    1
  548.  @nixinox318  this is history. Something that actually matters. No, I won't let it go. no matter how much you all wish to preserve your echo chamber - im staying.
    1
  549.  @aculasabacca  Wow. Didn't know you could be misogynistic to a dude but here you are.
    1
  550.  @aculasabacca  So your only method of argumentation is "wow I think you're dumb. I don't like you. You're bad. You're dumb so you probably think these things." Just admit i'm right and move on. Perhaps do some self reflection on your blatant bigotry and fascist-adjacent views.
    1
  551.  @michaelhenry3234  As I said to the others, if you want to find them, just pick a top comment on this video and you'll most likely see me respond before long. I don't have my responses saved, and I don't have the time at the moment to write out a rebuttal of his whole piece. If you have a specific question or argument, feel free to give it to me now though, and i'll respond.
    1
  552.  @douglasbroccone3144  I've watched the video, which is why I know it is so easy to disprove. Hitler was not a socialist. Hitler was not a capitalist. And you don't seem to understand that is wholly possible. His actions went against all socialism, historical socialism, modern socialism, his actions were as anti-socialist as one regime really can be.
    1
  553.  @douglasbroccone3144  You insult me because you can't handle that I bring facts and reality. I have proved that the nazis had no intention to implement the policies they often pitched to the poor and desperate. The fact that you somehow think that I, at any point, have asserted the nazis to be capitalists tells me that you lack any and all critical thinking or reading skills. Stop strawmanning, maybe?
    1
  554.  @douglasbroccone3144  Except, as we've been over, that isn't true. Hitler's actions went against all forms of socialism, communism, leftism, ect. This is pretty basic stuff. the fact that you think the only difference between "collective control of the means of production" and "racist eugenics based hierarchical oppressive government" is race is, quite frankly, sad. They are in nearly all respects exact opposites.
    1
  555.  @douglasbroccone3144  You insult me because you're annoyed I bring facts to the table, and all you bring is ideological attacks and bias. When your only reason for a group you dislike supposedly being the same as another group you dislike is that you dislike them both, you've utterly lost the plot. Its ok, you can admit hitler wasn't a socialist. We all know that's reality.
    1
  556.  @douglasbroccone3144  you can insult me all you want. It only shows how you can only argue through insults. Just because you don't think that a system is possible, does not mean it has a distinct goal. And whole the communists absolutely desired collective control, the nazis bad no such desire. The fact that you don't understand what a collective is, well it's sad, but not surprising unfortunately. I don't think you understand what either the communists or the far right anti socialist nazis actually wanted, but again not surprising. though you should know, claiming there is no difference actively emboldens modern nazis. Hitler "promised" programs found in modern social democratic (capitalist) countries, while laughing at the notion of actually carrying through with those empty promises with his party officials. just because you want to take the nazis on their word does not mean anyone aspiring to be a historian should also limit themselves to that kind of sad ignorance. Yes, I'm sorry, the mass privatization and corporatist system of the nazis was not what you claim it to be. So... You lied. Europe was consumed by a mass anti communist movement that people like you would have reality and happily paid into. And of course, only after your type are correctly linked to this ideology, do you try to spread lies. Communists and what you call "racist socialists" (otherwise known as the nazis, one of the most anti socialist regimes in existence, nice newspeak there) are, by definition, further apart than the Nazis and their capitalist sponsors. Communism, by definition, rejects racism, while capitalism encourages it. Its funny, the nazis say the same. What can I say, you two complete eachother. Racism has existed under capitalism for centuries, child, because your ideology is based on social darwinism and is built on slavery. Next time, don't debate someone who can so easily prove you wrong. Its embarrassing.
    1
  557.  @edwardweisberg4369  how is it unproductive to bring facts to a debate? It might not achieve much, being that your type despises facts, but it's worth a shot.
    1
  558.  @OUTERPANGEA  what do you mean "now?" You realize that the first socialists were literally anti-state, right? God what are they teaching kids in school these days.
    1
  559.  @AnthonyEvelyn  responses of nothing but insults have always been an admission of failure
    1
  560.  MIT Mathematica  ...I'm sorry but doing free advertising for historically false propaganda isn't going to get you much in life.
    1
  561.  MIT Mathematica   @MIT Mathematica  ah, and there you go again. Quoting propaganda speeches and acting like that's all hitler said and wanted, like he put his words to practice, and like he defined socialism as the same thing you do. Of course, you leave out his quotes on him saying he believes private property is the most efficient method of production, that he aligns with the right, that the left and equality will cause an end of civilization, that he had no plan to implement many of the policies he sold to the public, how he defined socialism (every time he said it) as nationalism, ect. Because you admitting these things, and showing everything hitler said, his actual actions, his inspirations, ect, would prove you wrong instantly. That's why liars like you have to cherry pick from elections leeches and propaganda pamphlet. The whole story proves you wrong. Hitler had no favorable or positive views on socialism. He was a far right fascist, an anti socialist who did his best to refine the word to appeal to more people.
    1
  562.  MIT Mathematica  good thing that literally already exists
    1
  563.  MIT Mathematica  pointing out how one of the nazis main philosophical inspirations despised socialism proves my point wonderfully
    1
  564.  MIT Mathematica  I literally already did. Every quote you gave is cherry picked and was taken from speeches, of propaganda. It ignores the wider context of his views or actions, as well as crucially, his definition of socialism. So you have any counter to hitler's undeniable hatred of leftism and socialism or...?
    1
  565.  MIT Mathematica  ohhh, it's you again! New accounts, same nonsense
    1
  566.  MIT Mathematica  my God you haven't even come up with new insults.
    1
  567.  MIT Mathematica  what do you mean? I already proved that, months ago when I first interacted with you. So why do you keep wanting to lie about the far right anti socialist man known as hitler? Why do you keep ignoring his definition of socialism? Oh wait... You agree with him don't you.
    1
  568.  MIT Mathematica  so you have the same copy pasted points I disproved weeks ago, the same insults you really are the same person. So I take this to mean you can't disprove the fact that hitler despised leftism and socialism in all forms, and had no favorable or positive comments on it to be found? I mean, of course, unless you chery pick quotes and lie about their context and meanings. Which is precisely what a sympathizer like you would do
    1
  569.  MIT Mathematica  and morw copy pasted insults. Try some originality?
    1
  570.  @douglasbroccone3144  oh don't tell me you're falling for quotes from propaganda speeches all while not focusing on hitler's actions or his definition of "socialism?" What am I saying, of course you're falling for that. TIK fans aren't known for being the most intellectually robust.
    1
  571.  MIT Mathematica  except I did? And you were utterly unable to even address the facts I brought to your attention. I'm sorry that you unable to admit you and hitler share some very similar views on socialism and leftism. And dude, it is painfully apparent you're the same person that commented these exact comments before, you use the same phrasing, same copy paste insults, and so on. We're not all as immature as you.
    1
  572.  @douglasbroccone3144  that's quite literally a strain of socialism that already exists. But well, if one of you can appeal to authority, I have no doubt you will
    1
  573.  @douglasbroccone3144  well you're right I'm that hitler didn't invent a new strain of socialism. He didn't invent or practice socialism in any form. You, however, seem to think that mussolini, with his ideological basis in conservatism and religious nationalism was somehow a socialist. Because I guess everyone is a socialist at this point Hitler openly and proudly stated that he defined socialism... As nationalism. That isn't "adhering to the established concepts of socialism," that is rather openly trying to redefine a word for solely political gain. Hitler, in no way shape or form, adhered to any type of socialism, historical or modern. But again, admitting that must be a lot of work for the crowd that doesn't disagree nearly enough with him.
    1
  574.  @edwardweisberg4369  ...no? What?
    1
  575.  @douglasbroccone3144  I'm afriad to tell you, all TIK's video shows is that he is an ideological zealot who is more than happy to rewrite definitions, misrepresent history, and ignore his own citations to write himself out of ideological guilt. Hitler, objectively, was a far right anti-socialist, and frankly if facts don't convince you, then there's nothing that will.
    1
  576. @MadManRob1 ...Biden is a conservative capitalist. Not your best attempt.
    1
  577. @MadManRob1 ...critical thinking is a form of objectivity and factual information. It's ok, you can admit i'm right.
    1
  578. @MadManRob1 One does not have to be a republican to be a conservative, though? Biden markets himself as a liberal but is no different from moderate republicans.
    1
  579. @MadManRob1 ...so not, what you call, "feelings."
    1
  580. @MadManRob1 Why would I identify as a nazi, a far right authoritarian ideology, when I am none of those things? Biden is, by all objective standards, your typical conservative. Sorry these facts hurt your feelings. I'm also sorry you don't see any value in objective fact.
    1
  581.  @douglasbroccone3144  And yet, we both know nothing i've said has been a lie. That's why i'm confident to write passages upon pages to you, and you're afraid to even response. I know it... and you know it.
    1
  582. @MadManRob1 Look, I know you're most likely some sort of troll, but when your best evidence is "well I think I remember my grandparents telling me something," you've admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. The nazis were the definition of a far-right regime. That's pretty apparent, no grandparents needed, just historians. They tend to be more reliable anyway. I find it funny that you, like hitler himself, accuse all those you disagree with of being a part of some socialist conspiratorial plot. Its almost like you're trying to prove my point. "Left wing liberal" is an oxymoron, not that you'd know that, but no according to all basic and objective measures biden is a conservative. Your lack of any sort of rebuttal or counter argument is noted, and is not at all found surprising.
    1
  583. @MadManRob1 I hate to break it to you, but anecdotal evidence, no matter how supposedly well remembered, is not evidence at all. And sorry to you, but the evidence roundly points to the nazis being your anti-socialist allies. And if you you aren't a troll, you must just be exceptionally divorced from reality and factual information. The facts will always point in the same direction, to the nazis being far right anti socialists. Sorry you can't accept that reality.
    1
  584. @MadManRob1 What has biden done to make you think he's at all leftist? He's empowered major corporations, strengthened the border, he has a conservative voting history, to all those not buried with mounds of propaganda, he is clearly different only in party name from republicans. The nazis, as well, are not at all socialistic, by the very definition of the term. It seems that your political compass is on backwards, and you attempt to lump together all those you claim to dislike, though your actions show you aligning with those groups far more than you'd like to admit. Thank you for admitting that you don't have an ounce of rationality in your body.
    1
  585.  @douglasbroccone3144  And that's what we call an admittance of insecurity. You'd rather run away than dare deal with a volume of facts you know you can't combat. Call me a troll all you want - we both know that i'm right, and that my points remain uncontested :)
    1
  586. @MadManRob1 I'm sorry but "grandparents" have never been a form of acceptable evidence, and frankly, actual historical and peer-reviewed professional evidence does not back up your ahistorical nonsense in the slightest. You should know that. This isn't a case of different views. History doesn't base itself on opinions. Its a case of you lying, and me correcting you. Simple.
    1
  587. @MadManRob1 This isn't a case of simple disagreement. If you're too deep in your own propaganda to see the truth, that's on you. But you'll always be wrong, you and me both know that.
    1
  588.  @douglasbroccone3144  I don't need "fixed," champ. I know your type doesn't tolerate wrongthink but one day you'll have to face the facts I bring to the table.
    1
  589. @MadManRob1 Because, I hate to break it to you, history isn't a matter of "belief." Its a matter of cold, hard, facts. And when you can't accept those facts, it isn't just a difference of opinion - its a lie. Not sure what's so hard to understand there.
    1
  590. @MadManRob1 But you really, objectively, don't. You have a lie backed by supposed anecdote that you refuse to defend or even treat like what it is - a statement on history, not a mere "opinion." I "get upset" at liars because they muddy the waters for actual historians and embolden modern groups to attempt to rewrite history. You aren't going to think differently, no matter the fact. I know. That's on you. You can insult me all you want, it only proves you are truly out of any potential arguments.
    1
  591. @MadManRob1 ​ @MadManRob1 And yet its you who this whole time has preferred to sling insults than bring up a single fact. This isn't a matter of opinion, kid. It is a matter of basic historical accuracy, objective fact, a lie or a truth. And you, by refusing to adhered to critical thinking, factual information, or any argument besides anecdote or insult, prove yourself a liar. And you continue to do so now. I, unlike you, have no affinity for far-right anti-socialist n@zi ideology or the people who founded it, but not once have I believed your hero was a capitalist. This just proves to me that you can't read. Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, its a story. And that is the only "evidence" you've been willing or even able to give. This proves to me and everyone watching that you know your lies are indefensible. I don't care about your "opinion," it is an objective fact, proven by plainly available historical and contemporary evidence, that the n@zis were nothing close to socialists, unlike what your propaganda masters would claim. I know facts will never change your mind, trust me i'm well aware, and I have no desire to let a liar like you go feeling at all confident in their lies. So sure, run away if you want. I can't stop you. And I for sure have no respect for someone who would compare the pursuit of truth with a spoiled child. Run away, kid. You've already proven me right.
    1
  592.  @douglasbroccone3144  stunning comebacks as always, buddy. The denialism runs deep in you.
    1
  593.  @douglasbroccone3144  All you have are insults and deflection. I based my statements off of facts, you based yours off of ideology. You openly admitted you can't stand to read what I have to say. How is that open minded to the facts, hm? You, like the nazis before you, will call everyone you dislike a communist or a disturbance. Sorry for breaking your echo chamber.
    1
  594.  @douglasbroccone3144  Screaming "projection" doesn't change the fact that as I write, you run away. You call everyone a communist or nazi because you can't stand to think that those words actually hold meaning.
    1
  595.  @douglasbroccone3144  You accuse me of that and yet have nothing to back it up. You only ever respond with insults and deflection. Sad.
    1
  596. @MadManRob1 We can that "reality." It is based off of objective fact, something you seem not to care about.
    1
  597. @MadManRob1 You didn't, though. I can plainly look at the nazis and see their far right inspiration, far right policies, far right language, and their far right descendants. You get triggered because you know that i'm objectively correct, and you haven't presented any facts otherwise. It is a fact that the nazis weren't socialists, or anywhere even close to left of center. If you had looked at any evidence, you would know this. Critical thinking is a tool of the left, yes, because it is based in objective fact and reasoning, which the right despises. Anyone using a tiny amount of logic (critical thinking) can see that the nazis were far right anti-socialists who hold many of the same opinions as their modern far-right anti-socialist counterparts. Calling them "commie wannabes" is a nonsense lie backed up by zero factual information, which is why you haven't actually presented any of your evidence yet.
    1
  598. @MadManRob1 I understand that you've attempted to assert that logic is synonymous with feelings, yes, but as you've provided no evidence for it, it is easily dismissed. The definition of critical thinking is "Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action." So of course, something the right is terrible at. And of course, you can look at any book, or even any modern event, and see that the nazis were clearly far right anti-socialists, likely like yourself which is why you try to distance them so desperately. They hated socialists, and hated communists even more. This is a basic fact that is plain for all to see. It is glaringly obvious that they were and are right wing. For one, you realize the original rightists were anti-capitalist, right? Monarchists? Ring a bell? Hitler disliked capitalism because he thought it wasn't right wing enough. He despised the left, and socialists, for supposedly infiltrating his culture and capitalism and "turning" it away from his own far right ideology. He never "took control of every means of production," in fact he readily sold back governmental assets from the weimar days into private control. And, as we've been over, government control is never and has never been socialism. I understand you right wing types have trouble with facts, mainly because you see objective information and your own feelings as one in the same, but please do try to keep up, because you've been proven wrong quite a few times already. And here is the way all right wingers cope with their own lack of argumentative or intellectual skill - childish insults that a preschooler would cringe at. You have fun with that, i'll be over here enjoying understanding objective history, and unlike you, not aligning with the far-right nazis :)
    1
  599. @MadManRob1  @MadManRob1  and get you plainly show an anti-leftist bias in literally every sentence you type. A quip, an insult, you expose your bias every second. I on the other hand give the truth, something you despise. I don't know why you get so annoyed when I point out your obvious lies hut it seems to have really struck a chord with you so perhaps just stop lying? I never brought my feelings into this and I don't plan to, it is of course an objective fact that the Nazis despised socialists more than you do, and to call them socialists is a form of genocide apologia, which I'm sure your nazi friends are more than happy with. I'm sorry that you feel the need to insult people and clearly show your biases towards the far right, which you continually try to make excuses for. I wonder how much you'd agree with a nazi, being you both are right wing anti socialists?
    1
  600. @MadManRob1 and yet you excuse the far right nazis while finding every opportunity to insult the left. You're in denial about your own bias. Not uncommon in you types
    1
  601. @MadManRob1 Well yes, far right nazis is what they are. I know that basic facts are hard for you to understand but try to keep up.
    1
  602.  @PzedP1818  Amazing, more insults, no counters.
    1
  603. @MadManRob1 the nazis, the ones you excused, and apologized for, since they're your ideological allies? "Left wing nazi" is an oxymoron so great that every historian in a ten block radius of you writing that probably had a heart attack. Just remember child, the nazis are further right than you, and more anti socialist :)
    1
  604. @MadManRob1 well yes, actually. If you try to tell a lie, I'll correct you. And you're free to keep responding, but it's apparent that the Nazis have rotted your brain. So why do you defend the far right anti socialist nazis again?
    1
  605. @MadManRob1 I'm telling you the truth child, I'm sorry it pisses you off so much. I know you only want to insult me because you have no other points, but please do try a little bit harder, this is sad.
    1
  606. @MadManRob1 and there you go again. Sad, seething insults that would make a child ashamed to know you. Its ok dude, you're only proving my point :) So this is your both sides bias, right? Excusing the far right and insulting the entire left whenever you make any sort of single response? What a sad little apologist
    1
  607. @MadManRob1 as I thought - intellectual truth doesn't even matter to you. And it never really has. That's why you're so confident in every lie you tell, because you never even cared if it was true.
    1
  608. @MadManRob1 actually, right wing political groups are among the most common, and among the most violent. By far. And you excuse them by denying their very existence, like the nazi apologist you are. You call me a spcoalist because you know you're anything but a centrist, and you know you excuse the far right.
    1
  609. ​@MadManRob1 Wow, you literally can't even spell the word "parties?" Damn. Also, nice shifting the goalposts! You said "groups," not "parties." In any case, i'm happy to provide a list of both of them! 😁 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/far-right-taxonomy/509282/ https://prospect.org/culture/books/how-the-right-went-far-right/ https://www.gale.com/intl/c/political-extremism-and-radicalism-far-right-groups-in-america http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3157&context=utk_chanhonoproj https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042814-012441 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006 https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/groups/compendium/what-characterizes-the-far-right-scene-in-Europe-and-beyond.html https://theconversation.com/far-right-groups-may-be-diverse-but-heres-what-they-all-have-in-common-101919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Far-right_political_parties is that good enough or do you need more?
    1
  610. @MadManRob1 Yep. And not all groups are parties! Glad you figured this out.
    1
  611. @MadManRob1 Ahhhh, so we're at the point where objective facts are not only ignored, but mocked by you. Sad.
    1
  612. @MadManRob1 I sent you a list of political groups, one you've refused to read. That's on you.
    1
  613. @MadManRob1 Hey if leftists understand basic grammar, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I do, however, see it as a bad thing for you to worship far right ideologies, like the anti-socialist nazis.
    1
  614. @MadManRob1 no, actually. Wikipedia, unlike you, cited their sources. Of you can prove this article in particular is biased or false, please do. But only a child dismisses evidence they don't like.
    1
  615. @MadManRob1 it's ok kid, you can admit you don't know how to click on citations. We know.
    1
  616. @MadManRob1 not... Really. Wikipedia edits all need to be sources and verified, they can't be edited by just anyone. I get that you don't like that they sourced facts better than you, And I get that you know that the list is accurate and don't like that fact. But you could at least try to make better excuses.
    1
  617. @MadManRob1 aaand another lie. Nope, not everyone can edit a page. If I'm wrong, feel free to delete that whole page I sent you.
    1
  618. @MadManRob1 and more one sided insults, just to prove that children like you are entirely biased but too immature to admit it.
    1
  619. @MadManRob1 you notice how you purposefully cut out the part where changes needed to be verified and cited. I wonder why?
    1
  620. @MadManRob1 that's you taking wikipedia out of context and ignoring the realities you don't like.
    1
  621. @MadManRob1 but it doesn't. It lists that anyone can register to become an editor, not that everyone can edit. Cut and dry. Feel free to prove me wrong and delete the page I sent you though. If it's just a matter of clicking edit even one as... Challenged as yourself should've able to do it, right? So come on, you've got the chance, prove me wrong. I do love when far right wing apologists like yourself don't understand how basic facts and citation works. It really is funny to watch you struggle with reality. Prove. The. Article. Wrong. Oh wait... You can't. I knew it.
    1
  622. @MadManRob1 it really is sad that all you guys have are insults. Perhaps consider growing up?
    1
  623. @MadManRob1 kid, you don't even believe one side exists. You apologize and deny the crimes of the far right constantly and take every opportunity to insult what you see as the left. You're rightist, just admit what we can all see
    1
  624. @MadManRob1 And yet you refuse to prove this. Makes me think you know you're lying. Which of course you do know. You far right liar.
    1
  625. @MadManRob1 you do realize you actually need to prove "facts" are true, right? Oh wait nevermind you're a right winger, you don't know the difference between feelings and facts.
    1
  626.  @TheImperatorKnight  well, given my permission wasn't gained or even asked for, regarding my inclusion in the video, I can't claim to be much a fan of your obsession with me, TIK. Don't get me wrong, the irony of you doing everything possible to avoid open and honest debate with historians is funny, but at this point I do hope you know it isn't the best to have someone in a video they didn't consent to. And God, looking through the comments you've lent your support to, it's obvious you would prefer to mislead your audience and whip them into a frenzy than dare to admit the truth to them. I can at least fine solace j. The fact that no matter how many comments you heart that use insults and conspiracies as sole points, nobody will ever believe your innacurate rewriting of history. Rather, the truth will always be taught. And have fun with your power now - you only prove my point. I would recommend removing me from the video.
    1
  627. @MadManRob1 That isn't how that works though? Like at all? TIK asked for other's consent, not mine I suppose.
    1
  628.  @alixritter9851  but they were more than anti marxist, they were anti socialist, anti leftist, even anti liberal. Of course there were more types of socialism than marxist varieties, but the Nazis do not fit the definition of any of them This is pretty basic history that of course TIK wouldn't teach you.
    1
  629.  @alixritter9851  but... Literally none of that was true Hitler wasn't a socialist, he was objectively right wing even by american standards, he was a fascist, that isn't who inspired fascism, and fascism has never been or called itself an ideology of the left. All of your assertions are presented without evidence, and this is because no evidence of them exists. They are frankly false, and the only reason you believe them is because you'd prefer to consume propaganda rather than do your own research
    1
  630.  @alixritter9851  Except a single letter that only existed because mussolini tried to fool the outside world into believing that his ideology was fundamentally different from its actual reality means nothing. What's far more important is mussolini expecting leftists and having his state, party, and economy managed by right wingers. Nazi ideology is a type of fascism, its pretty simple. Italian fascism and german fascism were different in some small ways, but both were a part of the same far-right anti socialist movement. Also, fascism was not inspired by Giuseppe. Nazism was inspired by german conservatives and traditionalists, and I hate to break it to you, the concept of "darwinian socialism" is a basic contradiction of terms. Nazi ideology came from those who rejected socialism, and then went on to reject capitalism, on the basis that it wasn't right wing enough. Again - pretty simple.
    1
  631.  @alixritter9851  I have provided more than enough evidence but I guess that's never enough and this is just... incorrect. First off, you're misrepresenting the positions of both parties involved here. You're also comparing the moderate american right with the far right nazis, of course they will have different policies. So let's make this more accurate. And finally, you're taking one subsection of the modern moderate side of the american right and assuming its the whole thing. Many modern conservatives don't hold these views, and you just wrote them out of the picture. The American Right: We support gun control and state repression when minorities start arming themselves (see Reagan) Nazis: Only white people should even be able to arm themselves, and we will always support gun control and state repression when minorities start arming themselves American Right: The state should force people I like to give birth Nazis: The state should force people I like to give birth and remove that ability for people I don't like American Right: If you say anything bad about patriotism, nationalism, or America, or in any way attempt to burn the flag or disrespect the country, I will attempt to rewrite history or throw you in jail Nazis: If you say anything bad about patriotism, nationalism, or nazi germany, or in any way attempt to burn the flag or disrespect the country, I will attempt to rewrite history or throw you in jail, and probably kill you American Right: Only the rich deserve healthcare, and the poor and weak are a drain on our economy. American Far Right: The white people should be guaranteed care, and the poor, weak, and minorities/immigrants are a drain on our economy. Nazis: The white people should be guaranteed care, for everyone else we'll privatize the healthcare industry, and the poor, weak, and minorities/immigrants are a drain on our economy.
    1
  632.  @alixritter9851  ...using darwin and abiding by darwinism are very, very different things.
    1
  633.  @alixritter9851  How were they not? They fit the very definition of right wing.
    1
  634.  @alixritter9851  I do hope you realize that the nazis were hardcore traditionalists, right?
    1
  635.  @alixritter9851  and again, that is a baseless assertion you have yet to provide evidence for. All socialism is based on the ideas of equality and social ownership, this was the definition before marx and among anti-marxists. Darwinism goes fundamentally against this
    1
  636.  @alixritter9851  an example of what?
    1
  637.  @alixritter9851  except mussolini happily went above and beyond to deal with the conservatives, he put them in power, he followed their policies, and most of his base were radicalized conservatives that thought the old monarch wasn't doing enough to push reactionary right wing ideology. The socialists, on the other hand, he executed. Hitler was the same, he was only put in power because of conservatives, his ideology was inspired by conservatives, and conservatives made up his first cabinet and vice chancellorship. The leftists and socialists? He executed. Mussolini was unabashedly right wing, and he himself said fascism was an ideology of the right, that utterly rejected the left and the moderate in every sense of the word. Hitler's mission was to return society "to traditional means," whatever the hell that meant.
    1
  638.  @elijahrivera2858  except that isn't true and you've been disproven on this very point before :)
    1
  639.  @elijahrivera2858  we literally have a Capitalist economy. This is an objective fact and if you can't admit to the most basic definitions of socialism, fascism, or capitalism (the system we live under) then you are a liar and very likely a sympathizer to actually fascist ideals, all while ignoring basic economic definitions and objective history. You cannot be both a fascist and a socialist, as fascism is far right, and socialism is far left. Neither of those systems, however, describes our current system of neoliberal capitalism. The leaders you hate? They were all capitalists, and you pretending otherwise by pointing out the failures of Capitalism is ironic. They believe in markets, free trade, whatever.
    1
  640.  @elijahrivera2858   @The LGND Rivz  and yet another pro-right wing extremism long debunked talking point. We live in a capitalist economy, where the private sector holds the vast majority of all economic or social power in this country. The existence of a public sector does nothing to disprove this fact, in fact capitalist economies have coexisted with the public sector since the inception of Capitalism. and no, of course you cannot be a socialist and a fascist at the same time. Socialists are leftists who call for the means of production to be socially owned, with or without the state. Fascism is a far right ideology that promotes tradition, hierarchy, inequality, and anti leftism. Not all authoritarian ideologies are the same, and not all socialism is authoritarian. Again, you don't understand economics, politics, and history, and I have proven this.
    1
  641.  @elijahrivera2858  But... it quite literally is, even your phrasing of the issue practically admits this. Suppression and subsidization implies that there is independent private business that needs to be subsidized or repressed, and thus of course private property existed. I'm sorry, but none of that disqualifies the fact that the system you're describing is capitalism. Having a central bank that distributes currency and regulation? That has existed in literally every capitalist country to date, and capitalists love that system. You know who doesn't? Socialists. You are literally calling historical capitalism "fascism and socialism" (a blatant contradiction) because you can't admit that capitalism is failing. Socialists advocate for social ownership of the means of production, which is not present in this system. Fascists don't own the means of production through the state. They aren't the same, they're antithetical. Fascism is a far right ideology that in no way wants social ownership of the means of production. AS WE HAVE BEEN OVER. You continue to assert things without an evidence, over and over, because you know you are incorrect. It is an OBJECTIVE FACT that fascism is a form of far-right anti-socialist ideology. Fascists know this, anti-fascists know this, but you fascist sympathizers try to ignore it. Grow up. That's all there is to say - you are wrong, and i've proved it.
    1
  642.  @elijahrivera2858  Because that isn't a fact. The vast majority of modern and historical capitalists recognize that taxes and welfare do not discount capitalism.
    1
  643.  @elijahrivera2858  Yeah... regulations under capitalism. Pretty simple stuff. I don't know how you haven't been able to grasp it so far given all the facts i've provided you with.
    1
  644.  @elijahrivera2858  Just because a private business is impacted by the government or its consumers, does not make it not private. We do not live in a fascist nation, we aren't that far right, and we do not live in a socialist nation, as we are not left wing and we do not have social ownership of the means of production. Like it or not, your actions promote far right extremism and fascism, and you are incorrect. That's the truth.
    1
  645.  @elijahrivera2858  that literally just proves we live under Capitalism though? Even adam smith advocated for welfare
    1
  646.  @elijahrivera2858  but that literally only proves that we have a military... Like all capitalist nations.
    1
  647.  @elijahrivera2858  this literally just proves that there is a public sector, which again, does not discount capitalism.
    1
  648.  @elijahrivera2858  but that isn't evidence for your views, in fact most of those articles make specific mention of our capitalist economy.
    1
  649.  @elijahrivera2858  exactly, "socialist fascism" is an oxymoron, you cannot be far right and far left, and we of course live under capitalism.
    1
  650.  @elijahrivera2858  keynesians are by definition capitalists, which is why they tend to hate socialists so much. Taxation of any amount does not discount a business from being private, champ. Keynesians are capitalists, and you can't be both a fascist and socialist, that's impossible. So why do you support fascism?
    1
  651.  @elijahrivera2858  regulating businesses is not socialism, under socialism they wouldn't even exist. Regulation is the epitome of capitalism. You are criticizing capitalism.
    1
  652.  @elijahrivera2858  and yet you refuse to embrace when you are wrong
    1
  653.  @elijahrivera2858  And yet again, you say I am wrong, and yet offer no counter arguments to my objective facts. The nazis, at no point, "used socialism." They had no desire to be anything close to a socialist, they had no socialist policies. Also you don't understand how the public or private sector works. If I am subsidised by the government I am still objectively part of the private sector. I got bailed out by society. So, sorry, a massive public sector isn't socialism, nor does that describe our current system. You are wrong and don't understand the basics.
    1
  654.  @elijahrivera2858  He saw the impacts of mass poverty and giant government business, so even worse.
    1
  655.  @elijahrivera2858  why would I "realize" something that is objectively not true? I've proven my points, you've just insulted me I win.
    1
  656.  @elijahrivera2858  A massive public sector is not socialism though, by definition, nor does it accurately describe the state of the US economy, which is majority private by a vast amount. Now you are backtracking because you know i've been proving you wrong this whole time. You literally don't understand the basics of your own ideology, do you? Venezuela is over 70% private, zimbabwe is a country in the middle of international capitalism. As I have proven in the past, socialism cannot be anything like fascism.
    1
  657.  @elijahrivera2858  Again, you are ignoring the OBJECTIVE FACT that the Reichstag Fire Decree did nothing to abolish private property, and that point 14 was never implemented, and hitler despised it. Unlike you, I can actually provide proof: From Strasser's "Hitler and I." "‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’ ‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’ ‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’ ‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’ ‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’ "
    1
  658.  @elijahrivera2858  Free market nations by definition have to print and spend vast amounts of money, there has never been a capitalist nation that hasn't done this. Socialist nations, by definition, have no currency, and fascism is far right. Even right wing historians admit this.
    1
  659.  @elijahrivera2858  Why would I quit when it is so hilariously easy to prove everything you say wrong?
    1
  660.  @elijahrivera2858  But the private sector is in control of the economy, and yet taxes are where they are and government spending is where it is. Nothing about either of those things discounts the FACT that the private sector has the vast, vast majority of economic power in america. So, again - you are objective wrong.
    1
  661.  @elijahrivera2858  It is a quote directly from hitler, proving he had no intention to implement those policies... and he didn't.
    1
  662.  @elijahrivera2858  Nope. there was literally more government interference then, champ. You are clearly uneducated.
    1
  663.  @elijahrivera2858  Insults don't change facts :)
    1
  664.  @elijahrivera2858  But I had to explain, to you, what historical capitalists defined their ideology as. Not the other way around, child. Try some basic research?
    1
  665.  @elijahrivera2858  but I'm right on everything
    1
  666.  @elijahrivera2858  but he didn't, the vampire economy as a source only exists because he didn't do those things
    1
  667.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm right though
    1
  668.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm right
    1
  669.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm not a marxist, though. Like at all. I am telling you history you don't like, and educating you in economics and history. If the educated people are proving you wrong constantly, you might want to do some self reflection
    1
  670.  @elijahrivera2858  objectively right, though.
    1
  671.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm sorry, but you're literally the one pushing fascist conspiracy theories and using fascist talking points. I'm a classical libertarian, lol. So maybe stop pushing fascism?
    1
  672.  @elijahrivera2858  thank you for being a part of the 60-66 percentage of the population, child 😂
    1
  673.  @elijahrivera2858  bit you literally are. This entire time you have done nothing but blindly follow authority and call those who don't various insults and forms of slander. You are the perfect example of a brainwashed individual who is so deep in propaganda they don't even realize it
    1
  674.  @elijahrivera2858  so you're running again. Not surprising.
    1
  675.  @auo2365  the nazis not being capitalists doesn't make them socialists, the nazis not being socialists doesn't make them capitalists
    1
  676.  @elijahrivera2858  I know you hate my facts, but its funny to see the level of cope you get to, and so easily too
    1
  677.  @auo2365  Ok but just making an assertion, saying " we should agree on this" though you provide no proof for it, and moving on, does nothing. So let me give this to you in the most barebones way possible. The nazis were not socialists. They weren't just "some other type" of socialists, they weren't "racial socialists," they weren't socialists at all. There is a very good reason this fact is near universally accepted by historians, and the only ones attempting to attack it are right wing political pundits and economists who don't like to be lumped in with far right political groups like the nazis. The more in depth you look, at both the definition of socialism and the nazi party, the more and more apparent it is that calling the nazis socialistic at all is a dreadful mistake. See, the problem is, you're just calling random regimes socialist, and saying that those who attempt to correct you have "bad arguments" or that they should just agree with you, without you actually providing any reasoning. The nazis weren't capitalists. The nazis weren't socialists. The nazis didn't have "all state control," nor did they want that, nor would that be socialism. Nobody is calling the nazis capitalists, they're just rightfully pointing out that they weren't socialists. You can't just make a statement and then back down from it by saying its just you judgment, this is history, a study of fact, and what you're saying doesn't line up with the facts. This is why I recommend people actually do some research themselves instead of believing admitted far right youtubers instead of like, actual historians who are well known for being good at their jobs. Just a quick thought for you.
    1
  678.  @elijahrivera2858  Right, you mean
    1
  679.  @elijahrivera2858  Unlike you, I don't blindly follow authority to stupid degrees, like you seem dead set on doing :)
    1
  680.  @elijahrivera2858  *right. You can admit it :)
    1
  681.  @elijahrivera2858  Its ok, you can admit i'm right.
    1
  682.  @elijahrivera2858  Keep crying :)
    1
  683.  @elijahrivera2858  aww, you've been disproven :)
    1
  684.  @elijahrivera2858  you crying is only proving me right :)
    1
  685.  @elijahrivera2858  aww, so you're admitting that we so easily and effortlessly proved you wrong that you can't even bear to reply to use further? I've not deleted any of my comments child, nor have my objective facts been "refuted." Shall we add this to the long list of lies you have told without evidence, with the goal of hiding your ideological shame?
    1
  686.  @elijahrivera2858  where have comments been deleted, child? Where have I been refuted? Ill wait.
    1
  687.  @elijahrivera2858  who? What are you even talking about? I was literally never refuted. I'd love to see literally any evidence to the contrary
    1
  688.  @elijahrivera2858  are you talking about the thread where I deleted three comments that were just me calling TIK out for insulting me and lying, and I only deleted them because I had no desire to be dogpiled by people who I had already disproven? That thread? Still waiting for any sort of "refutation," given I objectively proved you wrong.
    1
  689.  @phr3ui559  awww, you mean reading the thread where effortlessly disprove TIK and his supporters while they show their conspiratorial tendencies, and the video where he showed his utter vapidity of argumentation? I'm sure you loved it :)
    1
  690.  @Rajpeanut  i order a les sensationalized response. Respond to him directly and what him melt down
    1
  691.  @Rajpeanut  again - why would I make one?
    1
  692.  @Rajpeanut  aww, and yet ive typed out pages and pages of arguments for anyone to read in this very comment section. You only want me to make a video because your too lazy to read a comment. Looking forward to seeing your written rebuttal of my points :)
    1
  693.  @Rajpeanut  if I have no argument, how have I so effortlessly disproven so many of you drones, and why do you refuse to address my points :)
    1
  694.  @Rajpeanut  why would I make a video when I've already spend tens of hours writing out responses to TIK directly. Yet more proof that TIKs audience don't understand anything unless it's spoonfed to them in the form of entertainment :)
    1
  695.  @Rajpeanut  so where is your response to my comments? Or are you too lazy :)
    1
  696.  @Rajpeanut  exactly! Which is why the my reasoning for no doing so is not "being lazy" as you assert, but rather me not wanting to how to the lazy history-as-ideology/entertainment of TIK
    1
  697.  @Rajpeanut  given that it would be the far lazier and more intellectually dishonest route to make a video, why would I?
    1
  698.  @Rajpeanut  likely excuse :)
    1
  699.  @Rajpeanut  because my comments were all things I had said to TIK before, that he had ignored, and that you can still tell from his responses that he ignored that time as well. All he had were insults and unproven assertions about me, so I decided not to bother even engaging with him there, because I had already said all of that to him before. He's a lost cause.
    1
  700.  @Rajpeanut  why are you so annoyed by me pointing out the fact that it would be lazier and more intellectually dishonest of me to make a video? TIK only makes videos because he would prefer to look like he's "owning" his opponents, rather than actually effectively disproving them. I spent weeks replying specifically because I have so many arguments, and please get it right, it has been far more than weeks. TIK, on the other hand, has done nothing but respond with insults and even conspiracy theories about me for going on months now. And you have responded to none of my arguments, reinforcing how correct I am. What is your obsession with a video?? I mean, I know you want me to make one because you're lazy and want TIK to make another response so you can run away and call me "disproven" without either of you addressing my arguments, but why a video?? All I would be doing is reading out words I've already said to TIK, that he has refused to respond to. You're only telling me to make a video because you have no arguments against the historical objective fact that the Nazis weren't socialists. And if you'd like to address my points, feel free to make a response video, lazy :)
    1
  701.  @RightTurnClyde  You mean yet another ahistorical lie that doesn't care about the facts, just pushing an extremist narrative. Please do something with your life other than lie.
    1
  702.  @mitscientifica1569  I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408 https://www.archives.gov "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf So your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
    1
  703. @Big Brother I suppose that's fair, but I don't think the ther aspects should go unstated.
    1
  704.  @WiiMiiBiin  State capitalism isn't anything close to socialism, and considering the person who made the video thinks even most types of non-state capitalism are actually socialism, it really doesn't say much that he thinks this one is too.
    1
  705.  @WiiMiiBiin  It doesn't explain anything, it only gives us an insight into the mind of the idiot who is trying to lie to you all. Capitalism is not individualism, and private has never meant individual. He thinks that socialism is any and all state/collective control, which is also wrong. He is disproven.
    1
  706.  @WiiMiiBiin  You're literally the one accepting a lie here, to say that state capitalism is somehow a form of socialism because you don't like it is stupid.
    1
  707.  Awsometime  socialism is not state ownership of the means of production. “State-capitalism” (a term idiots try to run away from) directly contradicts socialism by placing privately owned means of production under alliance control of the state. It is certainly nowhere close to a form of socialism. Private does not mean individual, despite him attempting to lie in the video.
    1
  708.  Awsometime  If you haven't seen me giving sources, you're most likely lying. Have you actually... checked his sources? The vast amount of historical sources utterly disagree with his claim that somehow the nazis were socialist. His other sources are cherry picked and highly ideological and do nothing to prove his point. He fails to explain how capitalist, a system build on collective self interest, is individualist. He fails to explain why state interference is anti-capitalist, ignoring the very first capitalists, and thus cannot disprove the existence of state capitalism. He gives no concrete justification of socialism being state control, because it isn't, socialism can exist without a state. No socialist has ever defined it that way, and TIK knows that. The only people who do define it that way are the extreme right and those ignorant enough to take their words for it. This video literally goes on and on about how marxism wasn't the only type of socialism, and your evidence is just saying "marx and lenin said x?" That isn't even true, Marx wasn't really a hardcore statist and didn't want to sacrifice individuality for state control, he wanted worker control. The problem is, you're just saying "everyone knows x" without providing proof, because you know you can't prove it. You're the only one shifting goalposts here, and it really does show. Hey, here's two things to consider - one, if the people you're talking about (socialists, of which I am not one) don't use your definitions or call for things according to your definition, your definition is bad. Two, people can be wrong. "everyone knew" that the earth was flat a couple thousand years ago, doesn't make it right. But please, keep saying "Socialism is state control" and then somehow calling me an idiot. It's a bit funny, maybe address reality next time.
    1
  709. ​ @manniefresh3425  Sorry for telling the truth? Yeah, sorry, that's kind of how capitalism actually works. Also, your other point is absolute nonsense. Socialism cannot have private property, and it isn't about state ownership, it's about collective ownership. Saying there can be any private property under socialism means what you're talking about isn't socialism, especially when hitler made such an effort to appeal to private interests over any sort of workers collective ownership. I mean at least you know he wasn't a communist, but come on, it isn't that hard to get these definitions right.
    1
  710.  @manniefresh3425  No, you just don't like my framing of capitalism, you haven't even rebutted it. And yes, there are many forms of socialism, but they don't vary in terms of private property usage, but in how collective ownership of that property is gained. That's how it's always been defined. It can be done through government, directly by a government representative of the people, by the workers themselves, by communities, on and on and on. You don't even need a state for socialism. The key isn't "governing power," it's collective ownership. Private ownership and collective ownership are incompatible, so if private ownership exists (and indeed, is praised) on cannot call that system socialist.
    1
  711.  Awsometime  And now you're missing the point. I know i'm repeating myself, but listen to what you quoted. All of those solutions have one thing in common, at least - collective control. It can be done with a state, without a state, through the state, in spite of the state, in competition, in perfect equality, on and on and on. But it's still collective control. And Hitler still never wanted that. If he was a "different kind of socialist," what aspect of his ideology did he share only with the other socialists? Not state control, clearly, so what?
    1
  712. ​ Awsometime  So you concede that he's wrong, then. After all, you're implying that he knows more than historians that have studied this for their entire lives, they by default have the authority in this situation. The reason they know hitler wasn't a socialist and TIK asserts otherwise is simply because TIK has objectively redefined socialism along lines that no socialist considers themselves. So it seems he values his opinion over socialists, nazis, and historians that professionally study both. Of course they're cherry picked, that's why you say there was "so much evidence to the contrary," because TIK redefined the terms and then picked out whatever bits of history he thinks he can use to push this narrative. When you come to a different definition of socialism than socialists, a different understanding of history than historians, and a different conclusion than the one that exists in reality, then he must be cherry picking. And i'm sorry, but that's just false. Like most of this, it's also asserted without evidence. Things like nationalism, religion, and according to TIK "organized society" is collectivist, and you can absolutely be individualistic within societies stricken by those. =Yes, cherry picking. Because, I hate to fill you in, capitalism did not exist in ancient greece. (yes i've watched his public v private video, and I heavily disagree with the conclusion of it.) And if you have to go back before the creation of the english language to try to prove something about said language, you've failed. Hell, I can play that game. Have you ever called your parents or siblings part of your "family?" Well, I'm sorry bud, but it seems you were actually calling them your personal servants, according to the latin famulus and famulita. And in fact, everyone who has ever praised "family values" must then be pro-slavery. What's that you say? The word's meaning has changed, and many of those writers didn't have this definition in mind? Strange. Of course capitalists predate the term, but not by long. Also, Marx wasn't the first to use capitalism, or even use capitalism derogatorily, that would be Proudhon. As well as that, the term "state capitalism" wasn't used by Marx, it most likely originated with Bakunin, Engels used it a few times, but it was really popularized by Lenin's NEP policy. Of course, you would call anything to do with the state "socialism" without any proof, and rather than argue that case, you just put in parenthesis (i'm right.) Right, Marx was a hardcore statist. That's why he said we shouldn't sacrifice individuality because of private property, why he wanted a stateless society, why he said every person should own a gun,there should be no taxes, ect, ect. The fact that you think, again, the guy who wanted no state was a statist is a bit silly. And furthermore, of course when pressed on your propaganda, you frame me as a marxist (i'm not) "defending totalitarianism" for daring to tell you the truth. What you're doing is conflating his methods with his goals. If we look only at the methods of other groups, like say, the Sons of Liberty, we find in fact they were extremely violent, censored political opponents, destroyed millions in property, and after the war in fact seized and redistributed some property. Yet, they paved the way for modern Libertarianism. Because a revolution will always be violent. So let's try this again, with actually applicable quotes. (quotes posted in follow up reply, as the comment was too large.) It is also of course worth noting the nature of your quotes. As in, the first is in reference to a direct democracy, hence the proletariat as a whole to take power which also relates to your second quote, in which Marx in fact (as you can see from the phrasing of the first sentence) is predicting the natural progress of a transition to socialism. Again, conflating what he thought would happen vs what his goal was. Should I do something like quote Sherman saying "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." and cite the numerous innocent lives lost, women rp*ed, and towns burnt in the civil war, and thus conclude that the act of freeing slaves is in fact totalitarian? But of course, you haven't thought about much of any of this. Your two quotes came from Marx's least personal and least comprehensive work, which you attempt to project on top of his entire ideology. Of course the truth is insane to you, you probably found these quotes from watching TIK and haven't read a word past the Communist Manifesto, and that might even be a stretch. Ah, of course. One of those. Well, while neither you or I can verify that, but given your "attitude" towards these topics at large I think we both know at best you came into this looking for arguments against marxists and socialists. Ok, i'm sorry, that still isn't a good excuse. For one, obviously, not everyone has watched this video. The vast majority of people don't use the definitions posed in this video. If you were to ask the average person if a company was a private entity or not, I think we both know how that poll would go. And, as we've been over, many of the quotes both he and you pose are highly misleading. But sure, the issue is clearly with me here. Well at least you know definitions can change. That's good, might want to take that into consideration with your previous statements. And I say it's bad because, well, let's take you. I assume you're a capitalist, I could be wrong, but let's go with that assumption. So let's say I define capitalism. Let's go further back than ancient greek, let's go to PIE, and we find the root of "capital" (kaput) means "head," as in head of an organization. Therefore, capitalism must mean that you're the head of something. So, one might say Monarchism is a close relative of this, right? But of course, you, as a capitalist, might say "What? No, it's (x definition)" To which I would say "Ah! It seems you're trying to redefine terms in order to weasel out of the blame of the dark ages!" And if you question what capitalist philosopher or economist has actually followed this definition, I can point out people like Hoppe and Hayek's view on monarchism, or cherry pick some quote from Smith in which he says something favoring the powerful and use that to justify that conclusion. Hell, now that i'm thinking about it, since "capital" now means "head," that means all hierarchical systems are capitalist. So dictators, monarchs, emperors, CEOs all of them capitalists. And if you ret to bring up that i've made the definition of capitalism so wide and meaningless that now actual self-proclaimed capitalists don't identify with it, while warring factions that disagree on nearly everything are under the same category... well I'll link you a two hour video in which I do more of what I talked about above? You see the issue? Let me put it bluntly - socialists do not want what TIK says they want. Most people, including the founders of socialism, did not use the definitions that TIK uses. He is calling not only the nazis socialist, but nearly every country on the earth. It's an association fallacy, pure and simple. And right now, I notice that you... haven't. I mean seriously, this post went all over the place, but it didn't once address socialism supposedly just being state control of the economy. It's collective control of the MoP. Of course you assert it's state control, but you don't actually prove it. You know marx was heavily against things like monarchies and feudalism, right? Those had a hell of a lot of state control. And a point you may have forgotten from this video, one that doesn't matter that much as you're already wrong, but marx didn't invent socialism. His ideas didn't start with him. There has always, and will always, be anti-marx socialists and communists. Some of those founding socialists didn't even want a state. So how can socialism just be state control? Hitler wasn't a socialist not because he was anti-marx, but because he rejected the ideas that all of the warring sub-ideologies of socialism had accepted as a foundation to work from.
    1
  713.  Awsometime  "Thus two facts are here revealed. First the productive forces appear as a world for themselves, quite independent of and divorced from the individuals, alongside the individuals: the reason for this is that the individuals, whose forces they are, exist split up and in opposition to one another, whilst, on the other hand, these forces are only real forces in the intercourse and association of these individuals. ... Thus, on the one hand, we have a totality of productive forces, which have, as it were, taken on a material form and are for the individuals no longer the forces of the individuals but of private property, and hence of the individuals only insofar as they are owners of private property themselves. Never, in any earlier period, have the productive forces taken on a form so indifferent to the intercourse of individuals as individuals, because their intercourse itself was formerly a restricted one. On the other hand, standing over against these productive forces, we have the majority of the individuals from whom these forces have been wrested away, and who, robbed thus of all real life-content, have become abstract individuals, but who are, however, only by this fact put into a position to enter into relation with one another as individuals." “Thus the old view, in which the human being appears as the aim of production, regardless of his limited national, religious, political character, seems to be very lofty when contrasted to the modern world, where production appears as the aim of mankind and wealth as the aim of production. In fact, however, when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity's own nature? The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? In bourgeois economics - and in the epoch of production to which it corresponds – this complete working-out of the human content appears as a complete emptying-out, this universal objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-down of all limited, one-sided aims as sacrifice of the human end-in-itself to an entirely external end.” "This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now." “Individuals have always built on themselves, but naturally on themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships, not on the "pure" individual in the sense of the ideologists. But in the course of historical evolution, and precisely through the inevitable fact that within the division of labour social relationships take on an independent existence, there appears a division within the life of each individual, insofar as it is personal and insofar as it is determined by some branch of labour and the conditions pertaining to it. ([…]) In the estate (and even more in the tribe) this is as yet concealed: for instance, a nobleman always remains a nobleman, a commoner always a commoner, apart from his other relationships, a quality inseparable from his individuality. The division between the personal and the class individual, the accidental nature of the conditions of life for the individual, appears only with the emergence of the class, which is itself a product of the bourgeoisie. This accidental character is only engendered and developed by competition and the struggle of individuals among themselves. Thus, in imagination, individuals seem freer under the dominance of the bourgeoisie than before, because their conditions of life seem accidental; in reality, of course, they are less free, because they are more subjected to the violence of things.” “Individuals always proceeded, and always proceed, from themselves. Their relations are the relations of their real life-process. How does it happen that their relations assume an independent existence over against them? and that the forces of their own life become superior to them? In short: division of labour, the level of which depends on the development of the productive power at any particular time.” “This subsuming of individuals under definite classes cannot be abolished until a class has taken shape, which has no longer any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class." ...and so on and so forth. You know you'd think that the idea that the most well-known communist in history doesn't want a state is something of common sense, considering the very definition of communism, (moneyless, stateless, classless, post-scarcity) but I suppose somehow these crazy marxists have gone back in time rewritten the very words of Marx! Darn, we'll get them next time. https://libcom.org/library/marx-theoretician-anarchism https://libcom.org/library/marx-individualist-communist-excerpts-individual-karl-marx https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXvQuE9xO4
    1
  714.  @jeffs8195  Where's the personal attack? I simply pointed out that their assertion was pointed at the wrong people, and factually corrected it. Was their statement a personal attack as well? If so, why do you only insult me for saying the same thig? I've made counter point on top of counter point in this comment section, and rarely do I get more than insults in return. You have only reinforced my point about TIK and his fanbase, whereas I have disproven the creator's point about opposition. Stop being a hypocrite, please.
    1
  715.  Raptor Jet  god you really only can repeat back disproven nonsense, can you
    1
  716.  Raptor F-22Jet  Now why don't you bust out the quotes where he explained what he actually saw socialism as. Which was, decidedly, not socialism.
    1
  717.  Raptor Jet  Mate you literally have to copy paste your insults, I am miles higher than you in anything intellectual
    1
  718.  Raptor Jet  And yet you have no proof of that. Funny. In fact, it better represents your ideology.
    1
  719.  Raptor Jet  You've said this all time and time again, and I just keep proving you wrong
    1
  720.  Raptor Jet  My man I literally am in the happiest relationship of my life, jesus you really only do have projection and copy pasted insults.
    1
  721.  Raptor Jet  copy pasting more insults literally just proves my point lmao
    1
  722.  Raptor Jet  god of all the insults you can choose, really? Incel? You're just proving how much of a terminally online child you are.
    1
  723.  Raptor Jet  Are you ok man?
    1
  724.  Raptor Jet  This is kind of pathetic of you, not going to lie.
    1
  725.  Raptor Jet  My man I have facts, citations, and data. You have insults you have been copy pasting for months
    1
  726.  Raptor Jet  Oh, you mean those quotes I already disproved? You know, its telling, in every one of those quotes you prove you can only take from hitler's propaganda views, not his actual implementation of any policy. Oh, and you never looked at his actual definition, a colorblind man can say they like the color red and still not mean the color red if they define it differently.
    1
  727. ​ Raptor Jet  Why don't we take some actual citation and quotes from the man that put your propaganda and nazi apologia into context - "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew." "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew. “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
    1
  728.  Raptor Jet  Why don't we take some actual citation and quotes from the man that put your propaganda and nazi apologia into context - "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
    1
  729. ​ Raptor Jet  Oh my gosh this is so easy. I give you citation, directly from him, that proves you wrong. You then accuse me of having an "unoriginal copy paste post" which is especially ironic considering that is literally all you've done. And I hate to break it to you, but that wasn't some random person disassociating hitler with actual socialism - that was hitler himself happily disavowing it. I just did credibly and legitimately dispute your cherry picked and out of context "citations" of Hitler’s positive and favorable comments on his own ideology, which he happily distanced from actual socialism or leftism. That's the best part about my quotes, they didn't need to be "unearthed" by anyone, they were said, loud and proud, by hitler. Your biased historians and cherry picked "evidence" can't hold a candle to the actual best WW2 historians who unanimously agree that hitler was not a socialist. I have a job, I have a life, and honestly its fun to see you project your own poor condition onto me. Its just a hobby to so effortlessly prove morons like you wrong, but you're excused in thinking I do so professionally. And now the whole internet sees that when confronted with facts and logic... all you can do is sit and cry about how right I am. Simply amazing :)
    1
  730.  Raptor Jet  I've already addressed these supposed "favorable" comments time and time again, liar. You've admitted you are wrong, and yet you continue to spam them. This is the act of a dying argument, a failing lie.
    1
  731.  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?
    1
  732.  MIT Mathematica  wait, where? All I see are quotes where hitler promoted his far right anti socialist ideology. That is, if you put them in context. Context you specifically ignored.
    1
  733.  MIT Scientifica0101  given that hitler had zero favorable or positive comments on socialism, I doubt that
    1
  734.  mike mcmike  oh that's not even new, he's accused people of that before lol
    1
  735.  mike mcmike  yeah,,, not the opinion of a very stable person
    1
  736.  @RightTurnClyde  Child. The nazis had no socialist roots.
    1
  737.  @mitscientifica1569  I'm sorry child, but that simply isn't true. Stop weaponizing your ignorance. I already posted that he gave 122 speeches from Oct 16 , 1919 to January 30, 1945,and many of those are housed at The National Archives and Record Administration, ( NARA) Washington, DC 20408 https://www.archives.gov "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf So your statement was a lie. The nazi economy was, by no name, socialism, and socialism is, in no way, simply government ownership.
    1
  738.  @mitscientifica1569  So you agree that capitalist countries should cease their embargos?
    1
  739.  @mitscientifica1569  So you agree that the US should stop prohibiting necessary resources?
    1
  740.  @mitscientifica1569  At least you can admit he was a socialist, took you long enough lol
    1
  741.  @mitscientifica1569  Insults won't change reality, child :)
    1
  742. ​ @mitscientifica1569  I am known on youtube now for effortlessly debunking notorious ignorant people like you I guess, yes, thank you. At least you admit you only have insults, never facts. So I must ask, does it make you feel good to know that you are objectively incorrect, and know that you have zero proof for any of your claims? Do you enjoy the fact that your nonsense actively emboldens actual nazis? Now the facts: the nazi government did not have control of the economy, and government control is not socialism 1. You mean they had private backers on private industries? Wow, what a shocker! You don't seem to realize that most of these business cooperated with the nazis voluntarily, for the sake of their own profit. The nazis had little power to enforce their rule on german businesses, and little will to do so 2. The nazis... did no such thing, as you well know. In fact, they let individual private business owners do this. 3. And again, false. They actually let companies compete for the right to fill nazi quotas, they were not forced, and were not decided. The best part of course is, none of these things are socialist, as socialism is system of social (collective) control. The second best part is that none of the things you stated were true. So, based on those three key non-socialistic and false elements of the Nazi government, and my corrections, we can see that the Nazi Government was not socialist, as you have continually admitted. . "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." "It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)." “'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45). "'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1). "After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251). "Fascism, by contrast [to conservatism, liberalism, & socialism], was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. …Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. …Fascism is 'true' insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other people's in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16). "Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214). "Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. " (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
    1
  743. Would you like me to copy paste one of my many arguments in? I really do have many, i've been doing this a while. The use of my pithy statements is to begin a discourse, my goal is not to come in with a massive paragraph on first contact with random people. I know you hate the fact that we so easily prove both you and TIK wrong, and that the very thing you accuse us of doing (insults and meaningless statements) you and TIK readily and easily do, but you really must understand that I could not care less what you think. Looking through the comment section, it's easy to see both of us engaging in much longer form argumentation. So i'll ask you again, do you want me to copy paste one of my previous arguments? I'd be happy to, to prove your generalizations wrong. Would you like to ask fro clarification on specific issues, so I can give my reasoning? Or will you keep screaming into the comment section about how annoyed you are at us, and how often we manage to disprove your nonsense? It's your choice, really. I'll be waiting.
    1
  744. That's hilariously wrong. For one, because this video is literally lies and propaganda for the purpose of getting people to believe in utter nonsense. What does that tell you about your own ideology? Fascism,and the nazis, are not just right of communists but right of center, and by alot. Now let'smake this response a bit more accurate. "Hitler wasn't a Socialist, and since Socialism is nowhere near right of center, the Right has to lie to perpetuate their claims that Hitler was a product of the Left, which is a blatant LIE. Capitalism, while not perfect, has led to more people being fed and lifted out of poverty with the added issue of the hundreds of millions dead and having to be supplemented by other systems...but again, the Right (Fascists & Capitalists) have to lie about this as well. Capitalism & Fascism benefits the people at the top, but punishes everyone else. Capitalism & Fascism always leads to mass poverty & misery. The Capitalist & Fascist elites (overlords) know this, but in order to get people to accept their ideology, they LIE about their ideology. Then you get the people who buy into it and believe it, and regurgitate the propaganda, and are thus puppets (useful idiots & tools). Fascism is is terrible, and capitalism isn't much better Many nations have tried it, and they ALWAYS fail. But again, the Right has to LIE and brainwash...so the clam then becomes..."if only we did capitalism more, we would do it better" rant. As always, its a LIE." That fits together a little too well to be honest.
    1
  745.  @KameradVonTurnip  Because when you post the definition, you say "this definition is correct, if you redefine every term within it." Because if you define a community as a state and a state as any group of people and socialism as state control, then of course your conspiracy fits together, no matter how illogical it actually is.
    1
  746.  @KameradVonTurnip  I mean, this is literally just you admitting that you are indeed trying to redefine basic terms. A state is more than a governing body, it is a governing body that stands above all the rest. A system devoid of that distinction would not have a state. If literally every person is in a ruling position in your fake version of a government, there is no government. By your logic, companies are governments.
    1
  747.  @KameradVonTurnip  Yeah I know, well idk if this is even worth doing anymore. At least we can agree posadism is shit.
    1
  748.  @KameradVonTurnip  Again, not always. That's only really for the two major parties, and even then you often end up with a compromise of values, where you settle for who agrees with you the most, not who actually agrees with you. I mean, I hate to bring it up, but that posadist does still have 0% representation. As does the anarchist. And the trotskyist. And the identiarian. And so on. Many, many groups don't receive any representation, at all.
    1
  749. so just not socialism at all.
    1
  750. @Roberts Fawkes You realize that you proved me correct, right? You literally admitted that the only way to call mussolini left wing is to rewrite the meaning of the word, and also to call capitalist ideologies like social democracy the same thing as socialism. You are literally complicit in fascist lies, and you are politically closer to fascism than any marxist could ever be. Dude, you literally just proved you didn't bother to learn the definition of any words or terms you used in that sentence. Any. For one, your left-right dichotomy is false, the left and right are not at all defined by their acceptance or hatred of government. This is easily shown in cases like anarchism, which as a philosphy was formed by Proudhon and Kropotkin. Look those names up for me real quick. Yeah, didn't seem very right wing, right? A self labeled socialist and a self labeled anarcho-communist. And I know, I know, you'll say anarcho communism is an oxymoron, despite the fact that communism is defined as a stateless, classless, and moneyless society in which the people directly control all industry through direct democracy. You can say that system is impossible, but the simple fact is that doesn't matter as to what the word means. For further evidence, the original meanings of left and right were determined at a National Assembly in france, where the conservative right (monarchs, nobles) sat on the right, while the French Republicans and Anarchists sat of the left. You can see this even today, the right claims to be small government, but in terms of military and police spending they are fine with larger government. So your initial logic is false, the left wing is not government control, and thus we must look elsewhere to define fascism. Here's a good start. (you also forgot that fascists don't want to regulate industry, and generally don't. They prefer to regulate people instead, something the left dislike smore than conservatives.) https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf Your definition of fascism, also, is minimalist. By that definition, many capitalist regimes would be fascist, yes? That's why I just posted a link to a more accurate definition, written by a survivor of fascist itally. So let's look at your other points. - Exalts race above the individual? Yes. It's called tribalism and the left uses it all the time. It's also called intersectionality. It isn't, though. That's a strawman argument, the left does not put race above the individual, they put race as a factor of the individual. Whereas the far right generally loves to bring up things like nationality and race much before yourself. Don't forget the words of MLK, a socialist - "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr." - Stands for a centralized government? Yes. They want the government to control healthcare, private business, and the economy. Which covers economic regimentation. Except for two things. For one, that isn't extreme regulation by any sense at all. That regulation exists in places like Denmark, which are free market capitalist and have a higher degree of economic freedom than the US. For second, not all leftists are the same. The vast majority do not want to control the entire economy or all private business, they want mild reform. You forgot that bit. - Social Regimentation? Yes. You mean if I disagree with you I'm a Bigot, Racist, Sexist, Homophobe? There is no room for freedom of thought on the left. You are either with us, or you're a nazi, which coincidentally means we can punch you. or you're a race traitor/uncle tom if you're black Literally no, dude. That's another strawman created by right wing conservatives who get mad when their bigotry is called out. All of those words have meanings, and the fact that you refuse to deal in them is very telling. You use this as a shield, to deflect from the fact that there are bigots on the right. Also... that's literally the opposite of social regimentation. That's called free speech. If i wanted to, I could call you anything I wanted. That's free speech, the opposite of social regimentation, and the left defends free speech as well as uses it. You seem to have a problem with that. - Forcible Suppression of Opposition? Yes. Beating people in riots, shouting down speakers at colleges, spitting on people, all you have to do is watch a video of a conservative giving a speech on campus and you will see them getting suppressed. Again, incorrect on all counts. Shouting at people is not forceful, and most leftists don't do it. I have been to college lectures given by conservative,s they are all quite. You're following a sensationalist narrative that you don't want to break out of. Now at the same time, the right wing has committed 75% of all terror in the past decade, and is currently supporting the police officers that have explicitly attacking peaceful protesters, and even killed unrelated people. That is ideological censorship with the full backing of the state. That is fascism. You say you're a free market conservative who doesn't support the government, but you just admitted you only fail to support it when it doesn't agree with you. You love power, the power of the military, the power of police, until it's turned against you. And we're getting to that point, because you all decided to enable an idiot who loves big government and get him into office. Mate, I want less government then you and even I see how silly you're being. Also, - "Like I'd love to have socialized medicine because at least I vote for my healthcare policies, rather than some mega-corporation that can charge thousands of dollars for medicine that costs pennies. If anything, stronger police and military and things like voter ID's give the government more control" That sentiment is shared by the majority of the populace. You are literally so out of touch you think what you just said was absurd. Jesus. So based off the definition that isn't even accurate, you made up things that don't actually fit, and then called it "radical left" because you strawmanned arguments and didn't understand the very words you were using. That's a problem. I don't care about your other political opinions, because you've already lied. So let's try this again this time, and with evidence. Say it with me - fascism is right wing. Because mate, what about that is leftist? You seem to think that if it doesn't subscribe fully to your reductionist perfect world version of conservatism, then it isn't right wing. You realize the right wing existed before the constitution, and will continue to exist in places where the constitution isn't, right? What you just described is still something right wing people do, but you refuse to admit that because you've well and truly bought into your own bs, you've taken your own supply. That, what you jsut told me, was right wing. You can deny it all you want, but according to every definition, that was right wing. Right wing does not mean "no/less state," in fact right wing government were the original totalitarians, and leftists the original anti-statists. Hell, libertarianism is a leftist term. Or rather, was, until it was stolen. "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...” The history you believe is a lie. Hell, the right wing website that first promoted this myth, Mises.org, is named after a man who praised fascism and worked, voluntarily, in constructing a fascist economy.Your ideology is painted with blood and held together with an iron first, and while you claim to stand for freedom, and who knows you may even believe it, your political allies abuse you, and use you for their totalitarian gains. The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. Basically, that means to use saleable words – such as freedom, identity, security, democracy. [...]Once we're in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, 'yes, every last one must go'. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. [...]There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas, and the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable." - Far-Right British National Party.
    1
  751. @Roberts Fawkes And yet, all rightists will be forever closer to fascism, culturally and policy wise, than any leftist. Do you see the issue? Do you see how easy it is to go from the supposed weakening of the state, to the social darwinistic capitalibities of capitalism, to full on fascism?
    1
  752. @Roberts Fawkes One, there being "different forms" of socialism does not mean that everything you dislike is a form of socialism. There are multiple forms of capitalism, and many economists that disagree on what capitalism even is, but few would call north korea capitalist. You see the issue? So what, Marx took some things from Hegel. So did many other philosophers, none of which had anything to do with fascism. And, indeed, marx also took from Smith. Does that make Adam Smith a fascist? Again, all of your "points" relate to the past. So what if Gentile used to idolize marx, he created an ideology that would be the foremost hater of socialism for the next century, and rejected leftism, marxism, and socialism in their entirety. Also, you're getting off point so I won't indulge you much further, but how much do you actually even know about the world Marx advocated for?
    1
  753. @Roberts Fawkes Ok then, that's fine, but you also do realize that "the left" in america is such a small sampling of the actual left that's its practically useless, right?
    1
  754. @Roberts Fawkes ...you do realize you're proving yourself wrong, right?
    1
  755. @Roberts Fawkes So i'm somehow closer to a nazi... because i corrected your grammar. Wow. You really are fucking dumb.
    1
  756. @Roberts Fawkes The problem is, it hasn't changed. People have tried to change it, but the definition of right and left have remained consistent.
    1
  757. @Roberts Fawkes if you want to tell a joke, at least tell a good one that doesn't waste my time.
    1
  758. @Roberts Fawkes ...so you call yourself some sort of lefty, yet use the same dumbass conspiracies about marxism that the right does, no matter how disproven. Right
    1
  759. @Roberts Fawkes And again, you're spouting nonsense instead of a point. We're talking about the supposed marxist infestation of academia, another rightist dogwhistle, one wholly unproven, and you can't even stick with it. What's the point of writing a response if it only goes to ignore the previous ones?
    1
  760. @Roberts Fawkes what is this even supposed to relate to?
    1
  761. @Roberts Fawkes what are you in about?
    1
  762.  Jetstom Ferrari  you've been disproven. Cry more.
    1
  763.  Raptor Jet  Wow, you're helping to prove yourself wrong. At least I know it isn't taking you much effort, what with the copy pasting and all, but nice job making a shit point that is so riddled with fallacy and assumption that it proves itself useless :)
    1
  764.  @genericnamehere7602  That is not and never has been true. Right wing has never meant less government, in most cases it means much more.
    1
  765.  @genericnamehere7602  And again, you're proving how brainwashed you are. Both parties in the US are solidly right of center, most conservatives would be considered extremists in other countries. Libertarianism literally started out as a leftist idea, what you're talking about is the inbred and stillborn child of the actual libertarian movement.
    1
  766.  @genericnamehere7602  And again, this is simply false. The right is only defined by an inclination towards the preservation and upholding of hierarchy, the left towards the dismantling of it. The right couldn't care less about the individual, not when they constantly prop up dictators and gods above them. No, the right loves power, they just want to be the ones to have it. Educate yourself.
    1
  767.  @alanrobertson9790  I agree, those who support TIK have nothing but assertions
    1
  768.  @alanrobertson9790  I'm sorry, what TIK are you referring to? Certainly not the one whose video we are commenting under, because he readily admits that his own historical and defititional sources do not agree with him. I, on the other hand, am happy to cite professional historical sources which do actually come to the correct conclusion, that the Nazis were in no form socialist. And you're far closer than some others are, but let me ask you this - what the hell belonged to the workers in nazi germany? Nothing. Everything belonged to the private owners working with the state, while the workers themselves had even less control over the products of their work than under a pure capitalist system. This video does not in any way, shape, or form "show that german industry was controlled by the state," especially given that the creator of this video considers any group outside of a family as its own state. In other words - your argument, even by your logic, falls flat, proving once again that TIK is full of ahistorical nonsense.
    1
  769. ​ @alanrobertson9790  It seems that you're trying to go the simple route of saying, "well, if TIK "addresses" an argument, it can be dismissed." I hate to break it to you, but TIK simply pointing out his own flaws does only that. His argument has immense flaws. The conclusions of the actual historians he cites are not matters of opinions, but the conclusions that the evidence they wrote about and found suggest - that the nazis were in no way socialists. And, again, another flop of an argument. So let's just nip this next one in the bud - if a state, no matter which state, does not match the definition of a word commonly ascribed to it... then that word does not describe it. Simple. Literally all of the examples you gave of "socialist" states (USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba) have had vastly different political systems, economies, market systems, ect. And yes, none of them have at all conformed to the definition of socialism. And yeah, that's the end of it. Socialism does not and has not existed in those places, especially given some of them, like China and Venezuela, can only be called socialist by someone woefully uneducated in basic economics. Oh, and here's an amazing example of doublethink. So which is it, is socialism a utopia that can't be achieved, or a dystopia that has been achieved many times? You try to have it both ways in only a few lines and yet can't seem to even see the contradiction you're creating. Also, what do you mean "against people's self interest?" You realize that human self interest doesn't stop at the individual, right? In any case, your next argument doesn't logically follow. No, the nazis were not socialist, but literally all of the places and regimes you mentioned were not socialist, all for different reasons. To say that the nazis were the same type of "not socialist," is stupid, considering I could say the same of any anti-socialist group. To give an example, say, the USSR was not socialist because the people were not properly (or at all) represented in the strong state that controlled labor relations. They claimed to be working towards what socialism actually is, though. The nazis, on the other hand, didn't even claim that last bit. The "socialism" they wanted fit no prior or later definitions of socialism. You see the problem? Them not being socialist doesn't mean they're actually socialist, jesus. In any case, I would disagree that places in which workers have control have existed, they have, but if they've never existed that hurts your argument by proving that socialism hasn't be put in place, yes? And I mean, again, you're not helping your case here. "Maybe the closest we have are unions. (things socialists actually really like) Funny thing that the nazis (Who you somehow still think are socialists) completely got rid of those. As for the "private owners" bit, again, I said that the private owners and state worked together. It was a mutually beneficial relationship, and the state allowed open competition and flexible working conditions and production in many areas. It is a myth that the state had "full control," nor did it ever do so in the interest of any but the rich or politically powerful. defer
    1
  770.  @rlewis8821  His own sources disagree with him lmao
    1
  771. ​ Raptor Jet  I've already addressed these supposed "favorable" comments time and time again, liar. You've admitted you are wrong, and yet you continue to spam them. This is the act of a dying argument, a failing lie.
    1
  772.  @hailbane9633  Wow this is the longest bout of nonsense i've ever seen. You quoted arguments that destroyed your own with no substantial refutation. Sad.
    1
  773.  MIT Mathematica  Stop evading the original question with your circular attempt at distracting from the original fact that you can’t disprove the authenticity of Hitler’s favorable and positive statements on far-right anti-Socialism. It is uncontroversial fact they are authentic as per the is indisputable evidence provided by the most credible speeches, definitions, and experts i provided to you. You keep deflecting from both my correction on the missing context from your quotes, and the additional quotes I provided that quite clearly prove you wrong instantly. I agree, the National Archives are accurate, the problem is, your quotes are missing the surrounding context and definitions. Which makes you someone who wants to twist the facts of the National Archives (which readily hold proof of hitler's far-right anti-socialism) into your own ahistorical ideological zealotry. So why do you continue to defend your anti-socialist ally hitler? And why do you pretend to be a new person? but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong. So let's add some context, shall we? Quotes from Hitler - Quotes regarding the nazis - "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew." "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf "Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics." "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
    1
  774.  @fs1541  Then you might not even know how to read.
    1
  775.  MIT Mathematica again you have conceded in your previous posts that the supportive , positive , favorable and praising statements on far-right anti-socialist ideology by Hitler are authentic as proof via the the original 122 Hitler speeches that are housed in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408. Website - Archives.gov Phone: 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272. And if you need more quotes, more history, more context... i'd be happy to provide. You have admitted to this time and time again, that hitler was not a socialist, and that the statements you give are without context. When context is added, the full story is revealed. All you have is cherry picked words from a mass murdering propagandist. I have experts, actions, and context. You know you're a liar, and that hitler was less of a socialist than you. Thank you for admitting that :) but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong. So let's add some context, shall we? Quotes from Hitler - Quotes regarding the nazis - "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew." "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf "Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics." "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
    1
  776.  MIT Mathematica  Oh, but please do show me this "previous post." After all, I would never "concede" to a lie, especially one as silly and easily disproven as yours.
    1
  777.  @saddamisthe691  False, in every way! First off, every fascist in history, at least the most prominent and notable ones, have recognized their position on the right. Hitler for example, is famously known as saying "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." Hitler also defined socialism as a pro-property, patriotic, and religious system, which is what he was referencing in your quote. Mussolini similarly said "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" So, you're either uneducated or a liar. Furthermore, libertarianism is statist, anarchism is left wing (which is why all anarchism is anti-capitalist) and "anarcho capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, and is even recognized as such by its founder, Rothbard saying "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." You're a liar.
    1
  778.  @saddamisthe691  Your first quote does nothing to disprove that he was a right winger, as of course he was, he denied liberalism and upheld the state, he was an authoritarian rightist, simply put. And once again, you seem to have a simple issue with understanding that other people do not use the same definitions as you. After all, you quote mussolini saying that he defines socialism as corporatism, despite corporatism being an ideology that is right wing, and upholds private property and denies a state of collective ownership. But make no mistake, Mussolini was no fan of what could actually be called socialism. "After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251). "The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 253). And hitler himself did openly say it, that he despised the left and instead turned to the right, as he felt the left would inevitably lead to bolshevism and thus the complete destruction of civilization. Unless you are arguing that right wing socialists exist, he was not a socialist, nor a marxist. Mussolini, similarly, rejected all of socialism, and decided instead that a redefinition of the term was in order. And i'm afraid it was you who took the Rothbard quote out of context, as he was explaining, in a piece titled "Are Libertarians Anarchists?" that no, right wing capitalists could not be considered anarchists, even for the very reason that the historical and traditional definition of anarchism is anti-capitalist. "anarcho" capitalism is a contradiction of terms for this reason, which is why Rothbard proposed the title "nonarchism" for his ideology. And sure, let's look at hitler, the man that led a regime that gave privatization its name, the man who created the GLF, a privatized union, the man you cannot help but lie about. "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
    1
  779.  @saddamisthe691  And yet again you've confused etymology for definitions, corporatism has the same meaning in italian that it does in english, and just like in english, the word corporation comes from words meaning guilds, syndicates, groups, ect. It is still, however, a right wing economic system. And you again say I took the rothbard quote out of context, but the longer quote (“We must turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines… we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists… we must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.”) literally proves my point just the same. Simply put, the "union" was literally run by private backers and existed to outlaw the right to collective bargaining, and give more power to the business owners, not those that a union traditionally represents, thus, it was a private union. And yes, the businesses were willing to work with the nazis for their own profit, that does not make them any less private, in fact literally every private economy in the world has examples of government contracts for private business, which that same private sector usually completes for its own profit. You call a private system not private simply because the privatization happens within the context of a relationship with a state, and this is simply false. The private businesses helped the nazis, and thus allied with the nazis, based off of their own profit motive, saying this system was not private means you are calling all trade deals not private because one party will always ally with another. The state giving business benefits is, again, another basic fact of exchange, and it does nothing to address, much less disprove, the private economy in question. Also, never called the nazis capitalists, they simply weren't socialists. The state, however, did not retain ownership in the vast majority of cases, actually the state usually gave over ownership to private business. Saying they had "no free market" is simply false.
    1
  780.  @saddamisthe691  privatization is, quite literally, a government program. All privatization occurs when a state privatized a business, as in, made a government run or government owned piece of property into a piece of private business. This property that was privatized was usually left over public property from the Weimar years, as in, before the nazis took power. Private does not mean unhindered, as all capitalism is based on hindrances, however small. If a business is privatized and joins to work together with a state, it is still a private business, that was privatized. Worker councils were not "set up," councils of business owners were created to make deals with the private market, and contracts with guaranteed profit to those that helped the war effort. Privately.
    1
  781.  @saddamisthe691  First off, the word you want to use here is "you're." Second off, i'm not redefining anything, i'm telling you a truth you don't want to hear and backing it up with facts. Privatization is defined as "the transfer of a business, industry, or service from public to private ownership and control." The GLF was a private union, in that is was controlled and owned by private individuals, to the detriment of the workers. While the nazi government did create contracts to incentivize companies to help them, they were allowed to refuse, and not everything they made directly helped the nazis, nor the nazi military. Private business collaborating with the state is still private, monopolies are still private, even if you don't like them. He allowed them to compete, and in fact, they competed far more as he provided concrete incentives for them to compete over. Privatization is literally a word used to describe a government policy of turning public property into private property, corporatism in Mussolini's sense is referring to actual corporations, not guilds or syndicates, as his actual economy was based on corporations and the state collaborating. None of this is redefinition, simply definitions you don't like.
    1
  782.  @saddamisthe691  Again, false. Monopolies are the natural result of capitalism, despite what you monopolists claim, and Mussolini even explained that an association of corporations is what he meant, given his employment of individuals such as De Stefani. The quote you're talking about was a single out of context quote from a propaganda speech, the economy of italy was one of collabotation between business and the state.
    1
  783.  @saddamisthe691  Again, asserting nonsense multiple times doesn't make it more true. Mises called capitalists "socialists" constantly, and praised fascism for being on the side of private property. The prices and wages are not controlled by the state, the GLF was a private organization manned by private individuals, and the corporations in question participated in their own competition, as many more were privatized by the nazi regime than had existed previously.
    1
  784.  @saddamisthe691  Oh wow, i'm sure that the source from Mises.org is unbiased on this issue.
    1
  785.  @saddamisthe691  His economic advisors like Alberto De Stefani who led a program of privatization within the country, to start with.
    1
  786.  @saddamisthe691  Funny, most capitalists claim monopoly is opposed by capitalism, and yet in reality, all capitalist economies have led to monopolies, and all capitalists strive to achieve monopoly, or the closest thing to it. Monopoly does not need a state, but the existence of the state reinforcing a monopoly does not disprove the fact that monopolies are a direct result of capitalism.
    1
  787.  @NostalgicGamerRickOShay  Jesus fuck, you have no idea what you're talking about. No, the political spectrum in question is objective, you just seek to deny it because it speaks to a truth you don't want getting out there. On the American spectrum, Fascism/Nazism are 100% right wing, with communism, anarchism, and socialism being 100% left wing. Fascism and Nazism have no rational place on the left, and no rational person would place them there. Trying to make up random propaganda doesn't change that fact. Fascism is right wing, like it's offshoot, nazism. They are the opposites of communism.
    1
  788.  @mitscientifica1569  Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. " His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it! Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view. Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx. Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
    1
  789.  @NostalgicGamerRickOShay  Militarism is generally right wing though, given that it gives into right wing concepts of authority, power, hierarchy, nationalism, and interventionism, and that the right is overwhelminingly the advocates of militarism.
    1
  790.  @NostalgicGamerRickOShay  Fascists aren't socialists, though, they're far right anti-socialists. The nazis actively persecuted and attempted to imprison or murder all socialists, not just the ones in the socialist parties themselves. Jesus your denialism is bad.
    1
  791.  @NostalgicGamerRickOShay  Yeah, that isn't true though. See, the thing is, what you call the "American political spectrum" is no such thing. What you're referencing are pieces of propaganda that the right puts out to deny their foundation in authoritarianism. In reality, the "French political spectrum" is what you call the objective one. The American political spectrum as you reference it makes zero sense, and puts forms of socialism on the right and capitalism on the left. The "french" (objective) one is based on adherence to hierarchy. By even the American spectrum, Mussolini was not on the left, and certainly was not a leftist,(a concrete ideology, not just a position) He was a far right fascists, and admitted so openly. Also, you try to deflect again from the fact that Mussolini and Hitler didn't just oppose the socialist parties themselves, but the socialists within them, their allies, and nearby/sympathetic ideologies, all while allying with the right. Fascists aren't socialists, not sure how you got the opposite into your head. Mussolini was talking about opposing and rejecting the ideology of socialism and its members.
    1
  792.  @gagi333  trying to project your ideological fanaticism on others doesn't look too good pal
    1
  793.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were. This quote: “National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1] In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact. Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out: "Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. " He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought. Sources: [1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159. [2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
    1
  794.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  795.  @gagi333  they evidently know better than you.
    1
  796.  @gagi333  Don't you feel silly. Child, i'm not a socialist. I've been living by myself working two jobs for a while now, something you cannot attest to.
    1
  797.  @gagi333  You don't need to psychoanalyze someone to compile and understand statements made by that person, and get conclusions from them.
    1
  798.  @gagi333  But my conclusions are correct, the simple problem is that your projection of your own biases seems t overwrite any care you have for reality. And i'm used to that particular rash, random misjudgement
    1
  799.  @gagi333  your entire support for this video is based off of a fanaticism, your desire to ignore arguments in favor of appeals to authority is fanaticism, your constantly assumptions that other people must fall into political groups directly counter to your own for simply pointing out historical facts is fanaticism, and so on. You've given me plenty of material in those things alone. Sorry, I guess?
    1
  800.  @gagi333  But i'm not, and you're proving that explicitly. Agreeing with a fanatic's video over the reality that their sources show does make you a fanatic, just like I pointed out. You pretty explicitly do appeal to authority, ignoring arguments someone makes against your agenda and recommending they watch a video they evidently already did, given their rebuttals of it, and your inability to rebut those points reinforces that. You pretty explicitly do put people in political corners, you automatically assert that anyone who disagrees with you or this fanatic's views is somehow a socialist, and yeah i'd say that's a pretty wild assumption to just make right off the bat. They don't put themselves in these corners, that's pretty much entirely the actions of you and TIK. No, most people disagreeing with this video aren't socialists, that's just something TIK says to make others more ready to ignore the arguments of others who more readily disprove him. I mean hell, this whole rant of yours proves your projection in your worldview. TIK, his video, and his audience spend most of their time saying how bad socialism is and how amazing capitalism is, rather than actually making historical arguments. I mean hell, that's the majority of his video and comment section, how do you not see that? You don't need to believe in pure unfettered capitalism to be a fanatic for it. No, I live in reality, and thus i've noticed that your statements don't at all line up with it. You could not be more wrong in all of your statements, and you know it. Why would I take your "advice," after everything else you've been wrong on? I've made a point you can't refute or even seemingly address, i've countered your wrong and laughable assumptions and you've been unable to prove any of my statements incorrect. No, I haven't made exclusively wrong and laughable assumptions, you're thinking of TIK. So stop wasting my time, go outside, grow up, and figure out that you couldn't be more wrong. There is no further point to engaging with you until after that.
    1
  801.  @randomuser5609  In american school systems? Yes, I would say so. If anything here it's ironically the opposite, the mindset of proper education is being somewhat oppressed by some groups of conservatives,who want to go back to abstinence-only Sex-Ed and teaching creationism,though thankfully that faction is small. I cannot argue for other countries either, but yeah, that's the case here. I think that if that view is historically accurate, it should be taught,but I think if an equally historically accurate side is available they should be taught and contrasted as well. I think that the facts should be shown unadulterated. If those facts favor one "side," than so be it, but they tend not to. I think that if such views fit into historical discussions, then perhaps, but none of that really matters. If it's a debate about modern politics, or historical subjects, if both topics are equally true, they should both be presented, equally. I don't think giving people a certain perspective on history or a certain lean in terms of understanding that history is a bad thing, as long as it's done in adherence to the facts, and done in away to make children support them.
    1
  802. @IL NGR You know tariffs were the equivalent to taxation back then,right? They supported huge public projects, welfare systems, land grants, regulation, taxation, ect.
    1
  803. @IL NGR Oh really? No, I gave you the names of prominent socialists, you actually have to prove that somehow all of recorded history is false. I want to see your sources, and if not, your reasoning. There was a socialist presence.
    1
  804. @IL NGR Oh my god....are you serious. You know the 19th century means the 1800s, right??
    1
  805.  @randomuser5609  Yeah no problem.
    1
  806. @IL NGR You realize you just proved me right, correct? For one, both major parties supported gold standards, and the dems today support bank bailouts. But speaking of bailouts, your lincoln quote fits perfectly. Not only did he put in place many restrictions, welfare reforms, (the biggest in our history before FDR) and public spending, but he advocated in an actual fair system that allowed people to be able to work their way up. The dems similarly give bailouts to the rich, and guess what? They want a fair system where people can actually work their way up. The dems suck on many,*many* things, but they're not the republicans, that seem to support an unfair system skewed for the upper classes. You also forget i said leftmost party, left of the time.
    1
  807. @IL NGR You literally just quoted a passage that proved there was one, though. And you still have yet to prove those people were not socialists.
    1
  808. @IL NGR Pretty similar to today, in location. As in, the south has always bee far more conservative and agrarian, while the north has been much more liberal and industrial.
    1
  809. @IL NGR Are you joking? He was literally a socialist. He was well known, outspokenly so, for being a socialist. He wanted reconstruction to end because he didn't like the south. I don't know what else to say here, you're just denying history at this point with literally zero evidence. "he endlessly promoted utopian reforms such as socialism, vegetarianism, agrarianism, feminism, and temperance while hiring the best talent he could find." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley https://archive.org/details/horacegreeleysne00tuch Horace, again, was objectively a utopian socialist. He justified his hatred for slavery as a hatred of the very systems that created it,that being capitalism. He called for literal socialism, alongside other progressive reforms.It's telling you could link nothing,because even you know at this point you're rewriting history.
    1
  810. @IL NGR Do socialists need a party to exist? No, they do not. They will find other places to proliferate, and in american history, that was the republican party.
    1
  811. @IL NGR Mate, this is just more nonsense from you, utterly unsubstantiated. What you seem to forget is that while Dana was a socialist, he was in favor of the republicans. However, by the time he had become writing the opinions you espouse... he had been writing for the Sun, and had become a democrat. Not your best point there. Yes, quite the socialists he was. Before he became a dem. You also seem woefully unaware of the point of the parties. For one, he wasn't a liberal republican, he was a radical republican, different factions. The liberal republicans received support for the dems, because unlike the radicals, they were in favor of putting off the abolition of slavery, or creating a compromise of abolition, as in not instantly but a longer and more stable process. Not only is your analysis of Greeley's beliefs incorrect, as is your definition of socialism. The book I linked, like it or not, has evidence. I would be happy to link you more, but it seems your entire worldview is centered on you being correct, and denying history to do so. Hell, you call the author a socialist, presumably only because they disagree with you and want to teach history that you don't want to acknowledge. The point of the book is to teach history, the point of your argument is to warp and obscure history. I just provided you proof of him being a utopian socialists (as well as many other socialists in the republican party, then and later) and your response was "No." He lost his election because he wanted to abolish slavery right then and there, which was an unpopular idea at the time. I don't care how "troubling" you find history, it's true. https://www.worldcat.org/title/horace-greeley-and-other-pioneers-of-american-socialism/oclc/788815 https://books.google.com/books?id=SF0rWO4y-JYC&pg=PT184#v=onepage&q&f=false Horace pretty clearly didn't have the support from most dems, because as you proved, the dems were the right wing and conservative party at the time. He quite literally was a radical republican, and wanted instant abolition. Do you think that idea was favorable among the right wing conservative democrats?
    1
  812. @IL NGR As I already showed you, Dana became a democrat as he became more conservative. You proved as much yourself. Horace didn't work with the democrats on many issues, as you yourself showed, and you continue proving that the dems back then were the right wing party.
    1
  813. @IL NGR Exactly. They were two military leaders who were personally invited to help within the union. Of course they were military leaders, but they proliferated their views in america, and at the same time were openly accepted by republican leadership. Would the republicans do that today, I wonder? So, Dana started out a republican (and a socialist) and became a conservative as he became a democrat Greeley was a staunch abolitionist who had support within the readical republican faction, and quite literally wrote for and created the first republican paper, so of course he had their support. Republicans did have other goals at the time, like the expansion of welfare and government regulation as well as major spending on public services, as well as being entirely liberal for the time in a social sense, with Lincoln even calling the act of freeing slaves a liberal one. It was not founded as a conservative party at all, in fact some of the first republicans came from a disbanded commune somewhat nearby, it was founded as a counter to the conservative act of owning slaves, and the pro-business libertarianism of the southern robber barons.
    1
  814. @IL NGR Wow you can't keep a straight point can you. You literally just said Horace wasn't supported by the republicans, and now you call him a leader of the republican party? Stay consistent, mate. It's also very interesting that those people, at the time, were considered politically liberal abolitionists, and was founded by many of the founders of the conservative party, countering your idea of a conservative republican founding. And your own source both answers your questions and proves you wrong. They wanted to end reconstruction because they felt it was an overreach and no longer necessary, though they supported the original efforts. Horace was best known for being a radical republican, though he was a nominee for the liberal republicans, simply because he was anti-grant, as he thought he was corrupt. And yes, are you surprised? Lincoln had racist views as well. This was the 1800s, racism and white supremacy were the norm, the concept of equal rights was still over a century away.
    1
  815. @IL NGR And at the same time they were welcomed in with open arms. Again, the Union had generals, and some good ones. There were plenty to choose from. They in fact turned down some generals because they felt they were too loyal to the dems, or had come from southern states. Yet they welcomed these ones in. They certainly learned from their views, and in fact Willich stayed in america for a while, joining a position in his local government. It was in germany where he was shut down.
    1
  816. @IL NGR one, liberal republican party was a (gasp!) liberal party. Two, Horace was better known for being a radical republican.
    1
  817. @IL NGR He lost by a landslide because he was part of a third party group he didn't completely agree with and didn't have enough backing.
    1
  818. @IL NGR Horace had next to no democrat backing (your own source noted how this was because he vocally despised them) and grant was not a radical republican.
    1
  819. @IL NGR They literally did, they had entire countries worth of leaders to import.
    1
  820. @IL NGR Your statements, again, show your ignorance. Horace disagreed with the liberal republicans on many issues, but it's not because he was for a "smaller government" as much as he was for not making the advancements that grant proposed, which would by proxy lead to a "bigger government." As well as that, but you know "bigger government" doesn't mean socialism, right? Hell, some of the first socialists in the world didn't even want a government, period. I added those other things to show he was more socially liberal, not that he was a socialist, but that book about him proves that he did indeed fit that category of socialist. That quote does not at all prove that, it proves he was against unearned money and scheming in private buisness. Greeley was a pre-marx utopian socialist, but your analysis of him, as well as your analysis of socialism, is wholly flawed. Also, "anarcho corporatist" is an oxymoron, completely.
    1
  821. @IL NGR Radical republican is a party, not just a position. He sided with them on some issues, but was not one of them. "During the Civil War, he mostly supported Lincoln, though he urged the president to commit to the end of slavery before Lincoln was willing to do so. After Lincoln's assassination, he supported the Radical Republicans in opposition to President Andrew Johnson"
    1
  822. @IL NGR and as I literally just told you, small government does not equal anti-socialism.
    1
  823. @IL NGR And you seem to think a society literally hinging on the state can do without it. No.
    1
  824. @IL NGR No, I am not a socialist, and no, socialism does not hinge on the state, nor wealth distribution. Who do you think the first socialists were? Oh right, people like Proudhon, people who didn't even want a state to exist in the first place. What you described is just an early form of libertarian socialism.
    1
  825. @IL NGR Proudhon was a libertarian socialist, most likely the first one, and his idea of communal property was one socialists took in stride.
    1
  826. @IL NGR he influenced Mutualist thought but was not himself a Mutualist, and called himself a Socialist
    1
  827. @IL NGR A lot of the things you call untrue are historically true, like it or not. “Grant wasn’t a radical republican,” - he was never a part of the party “Proudhon was a libertarian socialist.” - he was a socialist who believed in no state. “Greeley was not a liberal Republican.” - he was far better known as a radical republican, and agreed with them far more. What i'm telling you is not based on semantics, but objective fact. To contest it, you would have to do more than just say "no"
    1
  828. @IL NGR yes, he was a republican. Not a radical republican
    1
  829. @IL NGR he also frequently called himself a Socialist, something you leave out
    1
  830. @IL NGR he founded Mutualism in that he laid the framework, but he was still a libertarian Socialist. Actual Mutualism wouldn't really be solidified until Kropotkin
    1
  831. @IL NGR You've got this literally reversed. Your same logic for calling Grant a radical republican (he was supported by the party) would have made Horace a radical republican as well. He supported many of their causes, both before and after the war, and still aligned with them more than the liberal republicans. he was clearly more than a one issue man, but if we are defining him by one issue, then that issue would be the abolition of slavery. However, that isn't why he joined the radical republicans, is it? He joined, and ran under their title, for the sole reason that he thought Grant was corrupt.
    1
  832. @IL NGR "More research?" You dismissed an actual work of a historian as some sort of socialist propaganda, and then quoted wikipedia articles out of context. That is not research. That is denial and cherry picking. What you seem not to realize is the contradictions in your argument. You claim that the republicans were founded on a mantle of conservatism, and yet by actually doing research you find that the republicans,and especially the liberal and radical republicans, were far more leftwing than the democrats at the time. After all, their goals were "the destruction of slavery and second the destruction of Confederate nationalism. "As the act of slavery was then considered a conservative institution, both by republican leadership like lincoln, and by the populace generally.The dems, on the other hand, supported their entire ideology on the ideas of conservative nationalism, and the idea that the government was overreaching into their lives and land. ". Northern Democrats were in serious opposition to Southern Democrats on the issue of slavery; Northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas, believed in Popular Sovereignty—letting the people of the territories vote on slavery. The Southern Democrats (known as "Conservative Democrats"), reflecting the views of the late John C. Calhoun, insisted slavery was national." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Republican_Party_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#1828%E2%80%9361 Greeley outspokenly hated the democrats, and largely lost because of the critically low support he got from them in the elections. "Poor results for the Democrats in those states that had elections for other offices in September and October presaged defeat for Greeley, and so it proved."" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley Greeley was a one issue man during the civil war. He was against slavery. He was still in favor of many of the other policies republicans were for, and spoke for them on quite a few issues. Greeley was a Radical Republican, that’s who he agreed with more. He was a socialist, as I already proved to you, but you seem completely unwilling to even realize what socialism means, largely because of your own bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Greeley https://archive.org/details/horacegreeleysne00tuch https://www.worldcat.org/title/horace-greeley-and-other-pioneers-of-american-socialism/oclc/788815 https://books.google.com/books?id=SF0rWO4y-JYC&pg=PT184#v=onepage&q&f=false By doing actual research your argument is deemed completely invalid
    1
  833. @IL NGR Yes, you keep saying that, without any evidence.
    1
  834. @IL NGR Yes, that is what defined his transition to the liberal republicans. Simply that he didn't like grant, which is why that really wasn't who he agreed with more. I've not yet seen the connection between Horace and Fourierism, but i have seen that it is commonly shown that hie is a socialist. And as I said previously, there is no such thing as anarcho corporatism, what you described seems like an early form of market anarchism or potentially mutualism.
    1
  835. @IL NGR I'm pretty sure you're the one who doesn't understand american conservatism. I'm from Connecticut. I'm pretty sure I can speak on american politics. Conservatives in america couldn't care less about the declaration of independence or the constitution, as shown by their recent actions which you should be keeping up with. The people who made the party, and those who built it, built it to be first a left wing party against the conservative nationalism of the democrats. Obviously, a self-labled conservative joining the democrats supports this fact. The issue doesn't revolve around just those figures and parties, but the various differentiating and deflecting viewpoints relating to construction, or abolition, or even the first cases of those trying to work towards civil rights. That's what is worth focusing on.
    1
  836. @IL NGR And they would be wrong, hell even ancaps know that corporations cannot exist without the state taking pains to hold them together and stifle competition.
    1
  837. @IL NGR No, it's nothing to do with the "european" form of conservatism, it's do do with what conservatism actually, you know, objectively means. There was nothing nationalist about america's founding as a nation, we in fact tried to avoid such sentiments. But that's your nonsense version of conservatism , which doesn't actually translate into what the term has always meant, and been used to mean. When he said he was conservative, that may very well be what he was referencing, but you must also not forget that by now there already was the association between left = liberal and right = conservative. This party, thus, was not conserving anything but the union, and was moving forward liberally with the abolition of slavery. Obviously the platform has moved on as time has changed, but it has largely migrated places, from being the leftmost party to the rightmost party. America tried to be that, and continually failed, until now, where we realized we can just pretend it's the case and move on. Not only is that not true, but it seems the modern conservatives don't quite agree with you there. In any other society it would be called one, because liberal as americans use it is utter nonsense and politically devoid of life and meaning.
    1
  838. @IL NGR It very much does mean as a buisness, if not that distinction is utterly meaningless and the ideology is just "work together"ism.
    1
  839. @IL NGR That... literally isn't mate. You can't say "it is" and then prove it isn't.
    1
  840. @IL NGR That's just called "patriotism." And The act of conserving foreign interests is not a solely conservative device.
    1
  841. @IL NGR And not only does that definition not work and is not what it means now, but rather it would far better line up with syndicalism.
    1
  842. @IL NGR Nationalism is putting your nation above all others, and worshiping it as is. Patriotism is seeing the good in your nation, and working towards bringing more of it out, while recognizing its flaws.
    1
  843. @IL NGR It very much did.
    1
  844. @IL NGR Obviously just the left right system is not perfect, but it does work, just with newer, more consistent definitions
    1
  845. @IL NGR You pretty much just repeated my definition. Patriotism is just “love of ones nation, but obviously conditionally." Nationalism is “identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.” - that goes along just fine.
    1
  846. @IL NGR That's an entire other debate for another time.
    1
  847. @IL NGR God damn ok, but it's getting late, let's stop around 150. How about this - are humans inherently good or evil?
    1
  848.  @TheImperatorKnight  Socialism is collective control of the means of production, which the nazis said would destroy their industries, but of course you would do your best to shut down any and all criticism.
    1
  849.  @TheImperatorKnight  *as you tried to explain, and promptly got clowned on.
    1
  850.  @laq2  The impression of what? That you wanted more info on the subject, or me to back up my examples?
    1
  851.  @TheImperatorKnight  Incorrect. Idiots everywhere, including in the creation of this very video, claim that National Socialism wasn't Fascism, and that Fascism has literally anything to do with socialism. I have zero history books confirming this lie in any sense, but plenty of "youtube historians." Modern economies are not either private or public, nor can you define those correctly. The definitions of Socialism and Capitalism that I you're using are not the historical definitions, as the linked video fails to explain. Postmodernist-Socialists don't really exist, because of the inherent contradiction of the terms, but you still blame them because the actual definitions work perfectly, even if you try to change them based on your internally hypocritical ideology.
    1
  852. Nobody says that, not really. Even he has to admit it.
    1
  853. fascism is shit, as it statist manifestations of socialist movements, but they're shit for different reasons. Calling them one and the same only detracts from your arguments against both.
    1
  854.  @thecatguy4301  And yet, the only group haphazardly labelling the political opponents is yours. You call anyone you disagree with a marxist, and a brainwashed idiot, all while wholeheartedly subscribing to blatant propaganda and defending the very traits you associate with "marxism." Pure projection.
    1
  855.  @Inspector-Chisholm  I have. Time and time again, just because you don't want to find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    1
  856.  BenjaminTheRogue  If you have read through all of my conversations and yet remain unconvinced, despite me clearly refuting TIK time and time again, and him not once responding to his own blatant denial of reality, there's not much that can be done for you, you like a narrative so much you'll trade reality for it.
    1
  857.  @radagast7200  I think you had a misspelling problem there, the n@zis were not socialists, is what you meant. I know in your paranoid mind you want every fact you don't like to have come from some kind of ideologically inclined conspiracy or mass hypocrisy, but that simply is not the case. There is no trick, no falsehood, no ideological scheme. There is only the single fact that the n@zis were not, and never were, socialists. Of course the n@zis were right wing, they were pretty much as right wing as you can be, not counting hardcore social darwinists or religious monarchists, ironically both groups the n@zis took from. This is a fact that all historians agree upon, only denied by ahistorical extremists. Heck, no matter the political position, even rational right wing historians are happy to tell you the truth: the n@zis were not socialists. Hardly some "socialist trick." I don't think you understand much of anything, honestly. Well, perhaps you unconsciously understand that if you were to stop laughing, if you were to listen to the historical arguments or even read an actual historian, you'd know how objectively wrong you are. You know you can't change a historian's mind - because you're wrong.
    1
  858.  @Boy10Dio  Mate, you use terms that literally contradict themselves interchangeably. do you not see the issue with that, or do you not know what the words you are saying actually mean? All of your "evidence" is anecdotal, it's ideological, and it doesn't actually even make internal sense. You can make up whatever dumbass boogeyman group you want, but that group doesn't actually translate into real life. But sure, let's look at your actual claims. I would just call you an idiot for this one, because it's blatantly false. And literally no one alive would say "i don't want fathers back in the housholds," but the other things you are proposing are literally the things taking them out. The self admitted socialists and marxists actually agree with you on the father bit, but you couldn't be bothered to deal with that yourself. The only victim class is one under capitalism. And yes, this group of people that I can not verify even exist totally identified themselves as the one thing you don't like. And this is just further proof that this is something you made up. First off, we know who actually ran the plantations, and they were conservatives, so it seems that you've managed to associate yourself with that group, brilliant. But more importantly... why would a marxist or socialist care if you're a democrat or not? They don't like the democrats at all, because they say they're just republicans painted blue that serve the interests of corporate elite and sabotage the left, same as the republicans. And you do realize the republican party is 93% white, and that trump was literally sued for discriminatory practices, right? Hell mate, if we're treating anecdote like evidence, I can tell you all about the time I was trying to have an online chat with a trump supporter, and after saying I had noticed how race relations seemed to be getting worse, with my experiences, he proceeded to spam me with racial slurs and racist assumptions ofr literally hours. OR that time I called out a trump supporter online for saying sexist things, to which he called me a tr*nny, said i should kill myself, and sent me graphic photos of gore. Those are the people you are allied with, no? This isn't the last time you'll make this mistake, but you know that liberal and socialist are terms that cannot be applied to the same person, right? They are opposites, even, you yourself would most likely be a liberal by any proper definition. In any case, every time I have heard someone say that they were "censored for providing good arguments which go against the norm," nearly all of the time it's because they lost an argument and told a dude to hang himself, and then got pissed off when whatever platform didn't want to deal witrh their shit. I mean really now, you're blaming the actions of massive corporations on... socialists? Why not blame capitalism, where you have no rights in those systems as a result of it. If by telling people to explore them you mean calling everyone you don't like somehow a nazi, marxist, and liberal, then I can see why you get some backlash, because none of that makes a lick of sense. And there you go calling random people nazi apologists, which is funnily enough, something Jordan Peterson has tried to do, by attempting to validate race science, agreeing in the importance of a national mythology, and even trying to explain away hitler's intentions as anything other than genocidal by nature. But please, keep both assuming someone is a socialist and a nazi for calling you out on citing a man that has not only been wrong, but dangerously wrong, in other areas. And i'm sorry, petty insult fights aren't what the nazi party did at their zenith, what they did was label anyone who disagreed with them politically and enemies of the state, kidnapped people (usually protesters or political dissidents) of the street under the pretense of suspected "terrorism" (thought crimes) and had a populace that was largely complicit in it. Seem familiar? And your russia example isn't the greatest, for a few reasons. One, define socialism for me. Let's see how off base you get. Two, saying something exists online is not evidence, and as I can not verify it, it isn't a good example either. Asserting that it came to violence or something is something you have not yet proved. And finally, do you even know what socialists actually want? I would agree, nazi activity does't start at gassing jewish people, but it also has already been found where it started, and for the answers on that would recommend reading "Ur-Fascism," by Umberto Eco. It's a short essay, you can easily find PDF's online. In it, the author (Who survived fascist italy) explains that movements of fascism, of nazism, always start in similar ways. They are right wing, they are ultra nationalistic, they are obsessed with the identity of the ingroup, they worship hierarchy, they despise academia and media, and so on. Essentially, by reading the essay, you get a comprehensive guide to the mind of a trump supporter, except it wa written years before he even ran. And again, misusing the term liberal, which is to be expected, but I cannot verify your supposedly perfect arguments, so count me as skeptical. And I love when conservatives bring this up, it shows how out of touch they are with reality. 1. The person that said that runs a charity, not an international movement. Most people who shout the slogan or pick up signs or go to protests don't even know who she is. 2. For that matter, how can the words of one person transalte to all? Why does calling for less police burtality mean marxism? Why can only marxists support it? And in the charity, are you seriously suggesting everyone they hire or employ must be a marxist? It's silly. 3. The KKK did something very similar, as did older conservatives, call things like the civil rights movement or interracial relationships communist. History is one big circle, apparently.
    1
  859.  @Boy10Dio  I did address that, in a very long post you seem to be ignoring. Every racist, and I mean every single one, i've ever dealt with is on the political right.I have no doubt one can exist on the left, but I have yet to meet them. Every time i've been shut down in conversation, blocked, ignored, or spammed, and even once beat up in real life, it's been because of an intolerant individual on the political right. Lefties don't call me slurs. Lefties don't beat me up. Lefties don't shut me down. I disagree with some leftists far more than I disagree with some republicans, but they still treat me with respect. You gave me anecdotal evidence you now seem afraid to substantiate, which i'm sure makes sense to you. You know, for being on the front of both the abolition and civil rights movements, you seem to be under the impression that socialists are racist. Perhaps it's a sign of deflection? Projection? Denial? The funny thing is, I have addressed this, over and over again. But you won't admit it, because that means you'd have to take a good, honest look at yourself in a mirror, and question the validity of your ideas. And I hate to admit it mate, but no matter how much you hate dems, they aren't socialists. Policies pushed by socialists in American history that come to mind are abolition of slavery, free speech, civil and equal rights for minorities and women, a two day weekend, 8 hour work day, and so on. But again, of course you'll attempt to deny this. Mate, there are police in the country right now that are abducting innocent protesters, not reading them their rights, and treating them like non-citizens. There are police beating journalists, mothers, and Marine Veterans alike. There are police that have shot out peoples eyes, broken their skulls, shattered their bones, cut them and shoved them, and even in some cases killed them. Being told to shut up online is not censorship. The police that the republicans and political right are attempting to embolden and give more power to are actually censoring people, actually violating your first amendment rights, actually acting like the brownshirts in the rise of nazi germany. This isn't some dude online blocking you, or even a corporation deleting your comment, this is full scale censorship and fascist power expansion. And it's being done on your side, all while you're ignoring the Constitution and complaining that other people dare use their free speech to criticize the false ideas you put forward, and the malicious narratives you are trying to spread. It's to be expected, honestly. "You can't have capitalism without racism. It's impossible today for a white person to believe in capitalism and not believe in racism. And if you find a person without racism... usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is socialism." - Malcolm X. "Something is wrong with the economic system of our nation. Something is wrong with capitalism. Maybe America must move towards a Democratic Socialism. We must develop programs that will drive the nation towards the realization of the need for a guaranteed annual income." - Martin Luther King Jr. "We think you are strangely and disastrously remiss in the discharge of your official and imperative duty with regard to the emancipating provisions of the new Confiscation Act. Those provisions were designed to fight Slavery with Liberty. They prescribe that men loyal to the Union, and willing to shed their blood in her behalf, shall no longer be held, with the Nations consent, in bondage to persistent, malignant traitors, who for twenty years have been plotting and for sixteen months have been fighting to divide and destroy our country. Why these traitors should be treated with tenderness by you, to the prejudice of the dearest rights of loyal men, We cannot conceive." - Horace Greeley
    1
  860.  @TheBluntNinja  That's fair, I suppose,though I don't know anyone who calls themselves a, sjw in the first place
    1
  861. ​ @JesusFriedChrist  I hate to clue you in, but this is all nonsense i've already disproven. If you want to spread your brainwashing, do it to someone less educated on the subject. Ad hominem attacks don't work here. Nobody cares about your new buzzwords, nor do they care about you calling everyone you disagree with a marxist. Hitler did the same. The philosophical underpinnings of the ideology of whatever the hell a "Woke Tumblr Marxist" is has nothing to do with hitler, even this video admits as such. Your definitions of left Vs right is absurd. By your definition, i'm left wing. The thing is, you say "if collectivism is left wing, and individualism is right wing..." i'll stop you right there, it isn't. The first ideology to even be called right wing was Monarchism, a heavily anti-individual ideology. And what was the left doing at the same time? Well, constructing anarchism! Anarchism is still a leftist, anti-capitalist ideology, and it has been since the beginning. Left vs right is not based on collectivism vs individualism not in the slightest, or else many left wingers would be right wing and vice versa. Also, communism is a stateless society, so according to you it would be right wing, right? Libertarianism used to describe left wingers as well, so... You see how fast your "logic" falls apart? Your entire statement is based on a bizarre hypothetical you offer up with no explanation. "If right wing is individual..." It isn't, and you provide no proof that it is, whereas i've provided proof to the contrary. Hitler's idol was Mussolini. And you would be right that he, and Gentile, used to be socialists. However, that by itself is useless. Is Sowell a Marxist? Was Kropotkin a Monarchist? Is TIK a socialist? No, origins mean next to nothing. Fascism was never ment to be an expansion of socialism, it was meant to be a rejection of it. Socialism is not authoritarian by design. Fascism is not collectivist, because it does not care about the collective, only the ingroup. Socialism is the exact opposite of oligarchical. And we've already been over authoritarian/totalitarian. I always love when people include this little thing at the bottom, where they try to act intellectually superior, assuming that I won't respond and prove them wrong. Would you like me to show you what they actually said? How they were seen even back then? How you are objectively correct? You're here calling me a pawn, all while ignoring the very things you're telling me to search. And who is "they?" Is it jewish people? Jesus. Anyways, some quotes. "[Fascism] preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism " And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." - Adolf Hitler "" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic." - Adolf Hitler ""Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler "We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." - Adolf Hitler "'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the J*w who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. " - Adolf Hitler. ""For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." - George Orwell
    1
  862.  @KameradVonTurnip  The usage was made up, of course they didn't literally invent the terms "marxist" or "social justice warrior," but they took the terms and applied them to a group that either didn't use them, or it didn't make sense to apply them to. I'm aware that terms like social justice aren't at all new, but i've not really heard the title applied from within, just from outside. I could be wrong, but the only ones i've seen calling themselves SJWs are doing so ironically because of the negative connotation of the term it's gained only after its more modern usage.
    1
  863.  @KameradVonTurnip  Because they did somewhat make up the term. Yes, the words themselves had existed before, but if you take a bunch of words that already exist, slap them together, and then use a completely different definition, you've still invented a new term. Also, this is what I said, not what you quoted me as saying: "SJW is a made up term that conservatives use to refer to people they don't like..."
    1
  864.  @KameradVonTurnip  They certainly did. It was, before they got their hands on it, just a term relating to a person that advocated generally progressive policies. Then, they somehow made it turn into a term to describe militant leftist marxists that wanted to overthrow heterosexuality or something. The only thing that stayed the same was that it was still generally used to refer to left wingers, but the new term described anyone who wanted more minority representation in movies as some sort of communist.
    1
  865.  @KameradVonTurnip  The problem there being that TIK (despite making a video on the overuse of fascism) calls everything he doesn't like fascist, when the term doesn't apply. I mean, calling those people fascist would make utterly no sense, it would just be a buzzword at that point. Also, nice point 8.
    1
  866.  @KameradVonTurnip  I know, i'm literally in the comment section of that video as well, which is why I made the reference to him making videos on the subject. And of course, in his videos he doesn't, he still tries to maintain at least a veneer of professionalism, at least in there. However, given that he's called nearly everything on earth socialism, and seems to conflate that a lot with fascism, it is a potential issue. That, and he called youtube fascist. Oh, yeah, and devaluing a term for insulting banter isn't a good thing. It's odd, I know in concept he doesn't like how those terms are thrown around, but he seems fine himself with throwing around tons of them, and sometimes worse terms.
    1
  867.  @StarlasAiko  don't entirely disagree with most of your points, but I do disagree with your conclusion, and i'll address the last segment specifically. Socialism does pre-date marx, that is correct, but not exactly in the way you make mention of. For one, while The Republic did contain socialist ideals of a sort, it was far from a full socialist piece, and more an inspiration. On top of that, you then make a common conflation, which is marxism and socialism. It isn't too important, but marxism is not an economic or social system, it's a method of historical understanding through materialist dialectics. Marxism wouldn't tell you how to build a world, and indeed it's influenced plenty of non-socialists. As well as that, I will contest that "national socialism" is socialism at all. The thing is, while socialism does predate, and even can go against marxism, it still had common ideas. Ideas that fascism, or national socialism, never picked up on. Your "unifying definition" shows this better than I could have, in order to count the two as the same thing one has to make an excessively vague definition. "Socialism is the practice of social engineering in the pursuit of an ideological Utopia through defining which needs to be destroyed without regard for costs and sacrifices." That just isn't true. Are, say, anarchists now socialists? What about socialists that preach acceptance, reform, or non-violence? And what is so utopian about the idea that a worker could democratically control their workplace, we have it already, albeit in individual businesses and not a national system. On top of that, fascism doesn't want a utopia. It wants a constant struggle, to assert its supremacy in all forms. Socialism is egalitarian, promotes equality, doesn't want a utopia, but wants progress. Fascism seeks to regress, and literally thinks that the "irrational" idea of equality will lead to the end of humanity. How can those be compared? Fascism is not collectivism, the two are not wholly synonymous. All ideology forms collectives. Religion is collectivist, is that now fascism as well? You can have individualist socialism. In short, while I agree with many of your above statements about left vs right (though I disagree with how you define them) and the ganging meanings of words, I don't see how your conclusion can logically follow from what you say above. Anyway, thank you for the nuance, and I hope to hear what you have to say on what i've brought up here, if you have any clarifications, rebuttals, objections, ect. Have a good one.
    1
  868.  @elijahrivera2858  *you're. And I hate to break it to you but you've yet to provide any evidence of any of that.
    1
  869.  @elijahrivera2858  Is that a socialist quote? no, because it is literally only an anti-capitalist quote, which then tells nothing about the speakers intent. Oh, and that's assuming the speaker is even telling the truth about their views... which they likely were not.
    1
  870.  @elijahrivera2858  According to who? You?You say they're a socialist only because they speak against capitalism, however, that does not mean they are speaking in favor of socialism, and as I said, that does not mean they are telling the truth. You fell for literal nazi propaganda.
    1
  871.  @elijahrivera2858  That isn't redistribution though? That's called imperialism, which guess what, is an anti-socialist right wing ideology.
    1
  872.  @elijahrivera2858  The 25 Point Program was a propaganda pamphlet that the nazis handed out to gain favor, but was not implemented when they were in power and in private was mocked by hitler. Didn't you know this?
    1
  873.  @elijahrivera2858  Hitler didn't abolish private property, though. Did you even read what is on screen? He abolished government protection for private property, but left business owners to continue on owning their own shops and subjugating their workers. You know, the same thing that the quote you gave claims to be against. You fell for nazi propaganda.
    1
  874.  @elijahrivera2858  *you're And you realize the "people's welfare" was a system that was designed to administer eugenics to most and care for only the wealthy, powerful, or "pure," right? Again, pretty much as anti-socialist as it comes. fascism doesn't follow socialism. And it's pretty clear that fascists aren't anywhere close to leftists. So why are you trying to deflect from this fact? Why do you call me a troll, just because I prove you wrong?
    1
  875.  @elijahrivera2858  Nope, fascist policy has always been right wing. Cultural, economic, everything, extremely right wing.
    1
  876.  @legalfictionnaturalfact3969  ...but, they did? The people who resisted the democratic order to put hitler in power were conservatives, the people who ran the economies of both the italian and austrian fascists were open capitalists, and hitler's regime was funded by foreign capitalist industrialists. The few socialists that fell for hitler's rhetoric had no idea what he'd actually do in office, and when they found out, either abandoned the party or abandoned socialism. Because, in the end, the principles of a socialist and the principles of hitler were directly countered. Because in principle, in execution, and in fact, hitler's principles were anti socialist, regardless of what anyone called anyone else.
    1
  877.  @elijahrivera2858  Why are you talking about bias?
    1
  878.  @elijahrivera2858  That isn't socialist at all, though. Which you don't seem to understand. Hell, in this case you're lying, as Marx never differentiated between a communist and socialist society, so your assertion is again, a lie. The most common eugenicists of history have been far right anti-socialists. And no, not every socialist uprising has resulted in fascism. You know this. I've proven you wrong simply through the virtue of bringing facts, while you bring none. Hell, you can't even bring proper grammar to the arguments. The dishonesty you are displaying is at levels Orwell couldn't even dream of.
    1
  879.  @elijahrivera2858  ...because he's the best and closest to a socialist america has, even though yes, he's a capitalist, and yes, his record is far from perfect. What's your point?
    1
  880.  @elijahrivera2858  Your "schooling" is open revisionism, though. Sorry for that fact. And I hope you realize how disgusting you are by implying that a jewish moderate capitalist politician (bernie) is at all comparable to hitler. Also, bernie fans tend to be against "vote blue no matter who," and I don't think you understand that hitler wasn't elected democratically. Lenin and Stalin may have been authoritarian dictators, but they weren't fascists. But at least you can admit that the nazis were open, far right fasicsts. Yes, mussolini did used to belong to a socialist party. And then he disagreed with the socialist party because of his open nationalist and anti-socialist sentiments, and when he got into power he appointed classical liberals to run the economy and outlawed the socialist party he used to belong to, all while openly writing that his ideology was far right and rejected socialism and marxism in all forms. And yes, as you point out, the spanish civil war happened precisely because progressives, anarchists, and leftists have a fundamental difference in ideology with eachother. The cultural revolution under Mao was again, authoritarian, but not fascist. One could argue modern day china is similar to fascism, but this only happened later, and the left in china protested it, and was then silenced. You can keep going, and I can keep correcting you. Every one of your examples has been false, proved my points, or is presented on evidence. You're showing your own ignorance, child. Your historical revisionism will not work on me.
    1
  881.  @elijahrivera2858  Well, i'm using lines against you precisely because you didn't provide any evidence, data, or historical arguments for your assertions. And you proudly continue that with this latest statement. Authoritarianism is as old as civilization, it predates fascism by centuries. Educate yourself. I think I understand fascism a hell of a lot better than the guy comparing bernie to hitler. You used bernie, despite the fact that he is a jewish man who lost family in the holocaust, simply because you have no understanding of modern politics. Again. Your assertions are provided wholly without evidence. Fascist policies are right wing policies. Every known fascist has wholly rejected socialism, a fact you seem to ignore. Just because you don't like a policy doesn't make it socialist, child. I know you want to excuse the actions of fascist dictators and the far right ideology behind them, but you should at least try to use facts when doing so, or else you just prove me right. But if you want to live in your own fantasy land, than go ahead. Just know that you lied, never cited a thing, and presented yourself as a literal child who didn't even know which "your" to use in your way to losing the debate. you can admit you're wrong now, your words have done as much.
    1
  882.  @elijahrivera2858  ...bernie wants programs that are largely supported and agreed upon by modern day capitalist countries. Not communist, or fascist. It's amazing how you continue to feel pride in every loss you take in this ongoing destruction of your propaganda.
    1
  883.  @elijahrivera2858  but you didn't. You provided me with your own personal opinions, which I countered with actual facts.
    1
  884.  @elijahrivera2858  And how am I a liar, champ? That's a lot of information to admit what I just told you - the conservatives conspired with the nazis to upend the democratic process. Hitler never won a fair election. "The conservative elite were the old ruling class and new business class in Weimar Germany. Throughout the 1920s they became increasingly frustrated with the Weimar Republic’s continuing economic and political instability, their lack of real power and the rise of communism. They believed that a return to authoritarian rule was the only stable future for Germany which would protect their power and money. The first move towards this desired authoritarian rule was Hindenburg’s increasing use of Article 48. Between 1925-1931 Article 48 was used a total of 16 times. In 1931 alone this rose to 42 uses, in comparison to only 35 Reichstag laws being passed in the same year. In 1932, Article 48 was used 58 times. The conservative elite’s second move towards authoritarian rule was helping the Nazi Party to gain power. The conservative elite and the Nazi Party had a common enemy – the political left. As Hitler controlled the masses support for the political right, the conservative elite believed that they could use Hitler and his popular support to ‘democratically’ take power. Once in power, Hitler could destroy the political left. Destroying the political left would help to remove the majority of political opponents to the ring-wing conservative elite. Once Hitler had removed the left-wing socialist opposition and destroyed the Weimar Republic, the conservative elite thought they would be able to replace Hitler, and appoint a leader of their choice. As Hitler’s votes dwindled in the November 1932 elections, the conservative elite knew that if they wanted to use Hitler and the Nazis to destroy the political left, they had to act quickly to get Hitler appointed as chancellor. Von Papen and Oskar von Hindenburg (President Hindenburg’s son) met secretly and backed Hitler to become chancellor. A group of important industrialists, including Hjalmar Schacht and Gustav Krupp, also wrote outlining their support of Hitler to President Hindenburg. The support of these figures was vital in Hindenburg’s decision to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Once elected, the conservative elite soon realised that they had miscalculated Hitler and his intentions." You are such a liar.
    1
  885.  @elijahrivera2858  But... that literally isn't true. He mocked the policy specifically because he never intended to pass it, and he never did. Which marks yet another lie on your long and growing list of lies. He didn't pass socialist policies, that's the counter. Also, no, abolishing private property is not "literally socialism and communism." That would make monarchists socialists, which is completely absurd. I'm not trolling, i'm telling you the truth. Taxing, regulation, and private property aren't what makes a place socialist or capitalist, champ. The fascists were far right, and your refusal to admit this fact just proves you're some kind of troll.
    1
  886.  @elijahrivera2858  Yes. Thanks to far right conservative capitalists. Thank you for admitting it.
    1
  887.  @elijahrivera2858  *you're. And no, it was hitler's first vice-chancellor that led the group of conservatives who got hitler undemocratically elected. Again, you're just lying.
    1
  888.  @elijahrivera2858  ...because they were both deeply conservative figures. Sorry to break it to you.
    1
  889.  @elijahrivera2858  That isn't true though, I literally cited otherwise. Have any proof?
    1
  890.  @elijahrivera2858  You didn't make an argument though, you proved my point exactly and then deflected when I told you so.
    1
  891.  @elijahrivera2858  Ah yes, the anarchist is a "fascist sympathizer." What an amazing term. And no, the usage of emergency powers in a time of political crisis is what all countries have done. Capitalist, fascist, ect. That isn't fascism, and it isn't even close to the same thing as an executive order. You're literally just lying about basic political knowledge. You literally don't realize orwell openly said the nazis weren't socialists.
    1
  892.  @elijahrivera2858  Hitler never had a "democratic" rise to power though. The power he gained wasn't through democratic means in the slightest. You literally admitted this.
    1
  893.  @elijahrivera2858  oh, I already can. And both, in the Nazis case, were right wing and anti socialist
    1
  894.  @illusionclassicrock6742  Ohhh, point 13? You mean the one he never implemented, and admitted to his party officials in private that he had no intention of implementing? " In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books): https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of National-Socialism?’ ‘ I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’ At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism. Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of Hitler’s official programme. ‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’ ‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’ ‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’ ‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’ ‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’ ‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’ Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP": https://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php "
    1
  895.  @illusionclassicrock6742  It isn't though. State control over private property existed long before socialism and will exist long after.
    1
  896.  @illusionclassicrock6742  ...which is right wing. The right and left are divided by adherence to hierarchy, not state control. You can see this historically - the first right wingers were absolute monarchs. Some of the first left wingers were liberals, socialists, and anarchists. Leftism is about reducing hierarchy, and rightism is about protecting it. Fascism is about state control, and rejects the individual, just like monarchism before it. Fascism is right wing. https://arcdigital.media/fascism-is-from-the-right-c968943b07a9
    1
  897.  @illusionclassicrock6742  but it isn't. Not at all. You're choosing to redefine socialism because you don't like the fact that fascism is anti-socialist. After all, if socialism is supposedly when the individual is disregarded and the state reigns supreme, why are some of the oldest examples of strains of socialism stateless? Why did so many socialists, including Karl Marx, write so much about the liberation of the individual? See, you're uneducated on these basic matters, and your baseless assertions are damn easy to counter with cold hard facts.
    1
  898.  @illusionclassicrock6742  Collectivism isn't left wing, though. That's a lie right wingers tell, even while proudly believing in collectivist ideologies, like religion, nationalism, and capitalism. Fascism is collectivist, and proudly right wing. The left right divide has always been about hierarchy, which is why the truest individualists are those that reject hierarchy, and call themselves leftists. The fact that you didn't know this is frankly quite sad.
    1
  899.  @illusionclassicrock6742  It wasn't, though, and they never proclaimed it to be. It was a propaganda pamphlet they handed out to get elected. You know what else was in that pamphlet? A greater ease of access for elections, and expanded voting rights. Given that hitler's goal was to become a dictator, I don't see why you think a word of that propaganda was true, especially after I provided a quote directly from him openly saying he had no plans to institute that policy.
    1
  900.  @illusionclassicrock6742  But... he wasn't. Hitler wasn't a socialist, he was violently anti-leftist and anti-socialist. They both had vastly different goals, after all, hitler never wanted “Socialization of the people into a harmonious community free of exploitation.“ He wanted a system of nothing but competition, exploitation, and unjust power structures. The fact that you're lying about hitler so openly only tells me that you're afraid of the many similarities you hold with him that you'd like to distance yourself from.
    1
  901.  @illusionclassicrock6742  But again - most of those points aren't socialist, many modern capitalist nations openly and proudly boast of having those policies. Furthermore, as we've already been over and i've already proven, it was propaganda designed to appeal to a desperate people, and in private hitler laughed at the idea of actually striving for any of said policies. Also, socialism is state control.
    1
  902.  @illusionclassicrock6742  I agree. Which is why it's impossible to have a debate with you, who decided to make up definitions of socialism or left vs right, when I clearly cited my definitions.
    1
  903.  @elijahrivera2858  I agree, your "point" is filled with oxymorons. It seems you don't understand what state control or private property even are. Learn.
    1
  904.  @elijahrivera2858  Religion and nationalism are collectivist ideologies that put the collective, either the church or the nation, above any one individual. Unless you claim churches teach you that you are above god? Collectivism is a nonsense term right wingers use to pretend that leftists haven't always been the true individualists - which they have been.
    1
  905.  @elijahrivera2858  You meant to spell it "you're" And furthermore, those sections prove my point exactly - hitler privatized industry. However, as you and your ideological friend there want to deny this, you make up a new definition for the word privatization and then pretend they don't fit the actual definition fully. So, in other words, you're wrong again. Why do you keep apologizing for the nazis, again?
    1
  906.  @illusionclassicrock6742  But he was. His ideology was about as anti-leftist as you can get, far more than your average modern day conservative.
    1
  907.  @elijahrivera2858  But that isn't an example of those policies, is it? That's an example of a capitalist policy being mixed with eugenics.
    1
  908.  @elijahrivera2858  Oh, so you're not only a denier of history, but a denier of basic science as well. I'm not surprised, only dissapointed.
    1
  909.  @elijahrivera2858  You can call me ignorant, doesn't make me any less right. I hate to break this to you, but healthcare policies are not capitalism-exclusive. State capitalism is real, and is adjacent to similarly right-wing fascism. Which you know. Or at least, you really should know this at this point.
    1
  910.  @illusionclassicrock6742  I "won't acknowledge that" because its not true, and in telling you that its not true, unlike you I provided historical examples and
    1
  911.  @elijahrivera2858  Exactly, hitler put a deeply corrupt conservative council in charge of the privatization and corporatization of his economy.
    1
  912.  @elijahrivera2858  How does an anarchist do what the nazis do?
    1
  913.  @illusionclassicrock6742  Well yeah, because you are lying, pretty openly. I "won't acknowledge" that statement, because its nonsense, and I proved that to you with historical facts and citation, which you did not provide any of. Just because it doesn’t jive with your belief system, doesn’t mean I’m lying. I don't think you know what leftism is.
    1
  914.  @elijahrivera2858  Good thing that isn't something exclusive to leftism, and leftists have other policies? You're literally trolling at this point.
    1
  915.  @elijahrivera2858  I know you want me to stop. Because the longer I keep talking, the stupider you seem to yourself. I bring facts. You bring insults.
    1
  916.  @elijahrivera2858  But it is. Its literally still your property. You don't seem to understand that your ownership, that "private property," is a state-protected thing. With out a state, it doesn't exist.
    1
  917.  @elijahrivera2858  State capitalism = private property with the help of the state.
    1
  918.  @elijahrivera2858  But I did provide links, like it or not. And I know you don't like it, because it so effortlessly proves you wrong. He wasn't conservative because he put corrupt people in charge, he was a far right winger that put corrupt conservatives in charge. And yes, right wingers are big fans of empowering the state. Glad you noticed.
    1
  919.  @elijahrivera2858  You got that reversed. I brought facts, reality, and basic understanding. You brought lies and anecdotes.
    1
  920.  @elijahrivera2858  And you can't spell "you're."
    1
  921.  @elijahrivera2858  I agree, you're participating in constant fascist apologia by lying about their policies and desires and the basis of their right wing ideology. Again - you don't understand what ownership is, or what government control is.
    1
  922.  @elijahrivera2858  Yes, I do see, that state capitalism and fascism are far right ideologies filled with privatization and corportatization.
    1
  923.  @elijahrivera2858  Supposedly "free" market capitalism is anti-individualist. But yes, capitalism is right wing. Those who argue against capitalism tend to argue against the state, as capitalism is impossible without an authoritarian state, but then again you should know that. And right wing states, by far, have been the most deadly, genocidal, and overall desctructive of any state, in all of time. And you don't seem to realize that modern right wingers are authoritarians, just like they've always been. Modern capitalism is right wing, and wants to be authoritarian. That's pretty basic stuff. State capitalism is less leftist than you. Which is to say, its rightist, 100%
    1
  924.  @elijahrivera2858  It doesn't take tech knowhow to write a word.
    1
  925.  @elijahrivera2858  The government protecting the "right" to private property is the only way it exists. Capitalism is, by necessity, statist. Collectivism is a nonsense word made up by right wingers who don't want to admit they fit the definition perfectly. Go ahead and save your humiliation, fash. Maybe you'll learn something.
    1
  926.  @elijahrivera2858  "free" market capitalism doesn't exist, and physically can't. Capitalism exists through coercion. I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Most modern capitalists and capitalist nations call for more corporate tax, capital gains tax, higher wages, stronger unions, and weaponizing the IRS. Which I guess, according to you, makes reformist capitalists into fascists? "Leftist fascist" is an oxyoron. I'm an anarchist calling you out. You are revising history, and are anti-individual and anti-freedom. Learn some history child.
    1
  927.  @elijahrivera2858  Wow, you really are stupid. The bill of rights is the only reason your "rights" exist. They exist because they are protected by force, justified force or not. That is the definition of giving the government more power. Just because you agree with the government forcing its morals on the people under stain government doesn't mean its suddenly justified to the rest of the rational world, which you seem to have lost or been cast out from. Which, like you, is a mark of fascism.
    1
  928.  @elijahrivera2858  But they can. And they do, happily. The problem is, you're more than willing to pretend that the government right now is somehow immune to the fascism you and people of similar ideologies to you push. This, of course, is nonsense. I agree, your ideology is very fascist. No matter how you dress it up. And I hate to bring it to your attention, but statism isn't always fascism. The things you're describing as fascist are omnipresent under capitalist states.
    1
  929.  @elijahrivera2858  god doesn't exist. The state does. and you love that fact.
    1
  930.  @elijahrivera2858  I hate to break it to you but the ability of the government to tax has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Do you at all know what you're talking about?
    1
  931.  @elijahrivera2858  But that isn't. If you want to call the modern government fascist, go ahead, you'd be wrong, but literally everything you just stated is the direct result of capitalism.
    1
  932.  @elijahrivera2858  Why would I apologize for the far right nazis, the ones you constantly attempt to justify and excuse? Statism isn't fascism, to say otherwise is to minimize the crimes of fascism.
    1
  933.  @elijahrivera2858  But I don't. I don't advocate for any government, at all. Unlike you, who advocates for an extreme right wing authoritarian anti-socialist government - fascism.
    1
  934.  @elijahrivera2858  Screaming colonial slogans don't make you any less ignorant of american history. Its ok child, you can admit to your inherent authoritarianism.
    1
  935.  @elijahrivera2858  How is it a defense of statism to point out your totalitarian statist far right ideology? How is it a defense of statism to correctly point out that statism isn't fascism?
    1
  936.  @elijahrivera2858  Modern government is capitalist. It has been happening under capitalist politicians, pushed by capitalist economists, and sanctioned by capitalist public figures. You only call it fascist because you don't want to admit to the failure of your ideology.
    1
  937.  @elijahrivera2858  What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, the fuck? The nazis policies weren't "taxation is good," they were "lets fucking kill millions of people." At least you finally outed yourself as the holocaust denier we all know you are. Your logic doesn't follow.
    1
  938.  @elijahrivera2858  That doesn't have anything to do with anarchism, though? And the only one defending a system of unreasonable taxes (capitalism) is you, fash.
    1
  939.  @elijahrivera2858  The "free" market can't exist without the government stepping in to force everyone to respect it. Capitalism is, by nature, a statist and authoritarian institution. As i've explained to you time and time again, fash.
    1
  940.  @elijahrivera2858  You are literally overusing "fascism" because you align with them and can't get that metaphorical "gum" off your shoe, but this is honestly sad that you support fascism, don't believe in the genocide committed by the nazis, and somehow think the bill of rights is anti-taxation.
    1
  941.  @elijahrivera2858  *you're. And you keep calling me a troll whenever you realize that I am objectively correct, and you have no way to argue against my positions except by insults. Its ok fash, just admit i'm right. It isn't that hard, hasn't even been.
    1
  942.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm not a fascist like you, none of my positions are impossible to defend. So why do you defend the nazis?
    1
  943.  @elijahrivera2858  And again - no matter how much you feel compelled to deny genocides and defend fascism, state power =/= fascism. State power existed before the fascists, and it will exist long after fascism and its supporters are six feet underground. Why do you hate anarchism, by the way?
    1
  944.  @elijahrivera2858  Well yeah, I agree, you are a holocaust denier. If you don't understand how that's the case, then i'm sorry, but you're not smart enough to read your own words. Really not my problem. And here you are, literally saying that the fascist powers on the side of the spanish civil war were better than the anarchist powers. In other words - literally supporting fascism. All you rightists do is infight. I'm sorry that you and the nazis agree on so much and seem happy when eachother are in power (because modern nazis still support the right.) Oh, and sorry, how do anarchists and nazis agree on so much? What do I agree with the nazis on? I'm not far right, traditionalist, corporatist, nationalist, hierarchical, anything the nazis are. You seem prone to all of those things.
    1
  945.  @elijahrivera2858  Fascists outlawed unions, child.
    1
  946.  @elijahrivera2858  So you, again, are defending the fascists of the spanish civil war and calling them superior to the leftists. Not surprised. Just dissapointed.
    1
  947.  @elijahrivera2858  Yes. Because not all state power is fascism. We've been over this. Laughing at reality doesn't make it any less true. My stances are reality, pro human, pro intellectual, and just basic fact. And his name is spelled "Chomsky," dumbass. The purpose of the state in your mind is a totalitarian purpose. You say the state only exists to protect your rights, and yet you make up "rights" for the state to protect. The fascists would have agreed. Fascists outlawed unions because they knew unions were small groups of individuals that could oppose their far right government. Regulation is not fascism - regulation is an integral part of capitalism, like it or not.
    1
  948.  @elijahrivera2858  that might not be what you want to admit. but it is what you're saying.
    1
  949.  @elijahrivera2858  Trade unions are by definition anti-fascist, though? Which is why every fascist nation in existence has outlawed or heavily restricted their ability to exist?
    1
  950.  @elijahrivera2858  You're an opposer of freedom and individualism. You're afraid of the basic facts surrounding your own ideology.
    1
  951.  @elijahrivera2858  yeah but that still isn't true. As we've been over.
    1
  952.  @elijahrivera2858  but the nation isn't society. And they didn't do that.
    1
  953.  @elijahrivera2858  It isn't, though. In fact, the opposite is documented. As i've proven to you, like it or not.
    1
  954.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm sorry that you're so dead set on apologizing for your ideological allies, the far right anti-socialist nazis, but it isn't a good look for you. You should realize that.
    1
  955.  @elijahrivera2858  But I already literally countered every single one of your "arguments" and you had no response, all you did was go back to asserting the same disproven lies. Like you're doing now. I'm sorry that logic doesn't appeal to you at all.
    1
  956.  @elijahrivera2858  But again - that isn't true and i've already proved it. You know this, so why do you keep deflecting back to nazi propaganda of yours i've already disproven? The Reichtag fire degree of 1933 did not eliminate private property or trade, in fact there was constant trade and comprtition even between nazi-loyal companies. All the decree did was remove the right to private property, which meant the government could take it if it wanted. However, the government chose not to in most cases. Nazi point 14 was not only never established, there was never even a plan to establish it, and Hitler condemned the point with his own party chiefs. Removing a right to private property does not mean removing private property. I can, say, remove your right to healthcare (like in the US) that doesn't mean that you can't just get healthcare, it just means it isn't guaranteed. The nazis still privatized hundreds of businesses and kept competition going. There was even a bidding war over who would get to build nazi concertation camps, and the company that manufactured the gas used in the holocaust is still around today, un-nationalized. All of your and TIK's arguments were destroyed, not only by me, but by his own sources. Cry harder. https://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-trilogy-Richard-Evans/dp/0140911677
    1
  957.  @elijahrivera2858  But again, that isn't true, as has already been proven to you :)
    1
  958.  @elijahrivera2858  Ok, but that in literally no way abolishes private property, nor does it make it "impossible" to own property. The government, right now, has the ability to buy your land from you. And yet, you still own it, do you not? Again, the fact is that the removal of private property rights did almost nothing to the existence of private property or trade as a whole, as both existed and even flourished in cases under the nazis. Fixing prices, removing any "right" to private property, those have nothing to do with socialism or fascism, in fact both exist under capitalism. Also, socialism and fascism are incompatible, as has been provento you before. Hitler and the nazis werenot socialists, this is a fact you deny only because you agree with the nazis. Of course I saw that, and funnily enough, I already fact checked him - unlike you. I agree, your counter argument is eliminated by all of TIK's sources... which he admits disagree with him and prove you wrong :)
    1
  959.  @elijahrivera2858  but TIK is the one who does not understand basic definitions or history, and that is why he is objectively false. This is pretty simple stuff dude
    1
  960.  @elijahrivera2858  If you think the existence of taxes means that you don't own anything you buy, then you clearly don't understand the concept or ownership or private property, and also do not understand the basis of capitalism, which has never been incompatible with taxation. In other words, i'm sorry to have to break this to you yet again, you're making up definitions for things you don't understand to try to rewrite history because of how clearly history proves you wrong. The elimination of private property never happened, again, there was still open trade and competition in between even nazi-friendly businesses. Trade unions were abolished and their leaders killed. I'm sorry, but these are all objective, basic facts. I know you didn't actually read any of TIK's sources because they all plainly point out that Hitler was quite fond of giving government property back to nazi-friendly industrialists and letting them compete with eachother for the sake of "efficiency." And as we've been over, socialism and fascism are incompatible, and what you're describing is not either of them. They had a market. That is pretty damn basic stuff, and it is sad you don't understand it. Your ignorance proves that you really are a fan of the nazis. If you ran away from leftism because you can't handle historical facts, that's your fault. Stop being ideological, start being objective.
    1
  961.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm sorry, but Keynesians are literally right wing, they're capitalists. This is the problem, you just lump everyone you disagree with onto the "left" and refuse to listen to facts on what that term actually means. And i'm sorry, but that doesn't prove... any of that? Even assuming that those numbers are at all accurate, that doesn't ake the government fascist for just... existing. Jesus, as we've been over, fascism is not just authoritatianism. The supporters of anti-establishment causes the vast majority of the time are left wing. The educated, the scientists, the historians, the left wing actually listens to what they have to say instead of doing what you are, which is dismissing them because you don't agree with the facts they tell you. I mean, one of the cores of nazi ideology is literally a rejection of academia... like you're doing. Grass roots media? Usually leftists. Those who don't want an oppressive government or market? leftists. You really don't know what you are talking about. They quite literally are, and you're too ideologically blind to see it.
    1
  962.  @elijahrivera2858  Yeah leftists do that too. Problem is, you children don't listen.
    1
  963.  @elijahrivera2858  "No taxation without representation" pretty clearly doesn't just mean "no taxation" dude. Which is why the first capitalists and those that influenced them were not only fine with taxation, but encouraged it... with representation. I am objective, and you'll notice unlike you, I cited sources. All you do is go back to repeating the same old assertions over and over without providing any proof, examples, anything. The nazis abolished trade unions and allowed for open competition in business. These are the facts in TIK's sources, sorry you haven't read any of them. And as we've been over, you don't know what the definition of socialism is. And this part is objectively false. Take ford, for example. He never backed the soviets. He literally opened up businesses on soviet land in an effort to convince the citizens that socialism was a failure. He waged an ideological war against leftism, and openly endorsed the nazis. Having private property, not just private property rights but private property at all instead of socially owned property, discounts any regime from being socialist. The nazis weren't socialism, and they didn't want socialism. and I LITERALLY REBUTTED THIS YESTERDAY. The reichtag fire degree in 1933 only ever got rid of the right to private property, but did nothing to impact those who already had it. Again - there is no right to healthcare in america, and yet people get healthcare. There was no right to private property in nazi germany, and yet it existed, plentifully. We went over this already, and you seem to not remember that I already proved you wrong on this front. Why are you such a supporter of modern nazis? argumentation
    1
  964.  @elijahrivera2858  "we will never forget" oh so another fascistic threat! Don't worry, I picked up on it. I don't care if you don't understand taxation - that doesn't mean private property doesn't exist. Private property also exists in the healthcare industry, and in fact, the private property exploits government help, which is what capitalism always leads to. Sorry for being so correct?
    1
  965.  @elijahrivera2858  But... they did. Many did, in fact, many people grew their private enterprises and wealth under the nazis. Your points are literally refuted in all of TIK's sources, this is pretty simple.
    1
  966.  @elijahrivera2858  and yet again, insults instead of arguments. Not surprised.
    1
  967.  @elijahrivera2858  I agree, you have nothing but lies. Anything else?
    1
  968.  @elijahrivera2858  Exactly, i've been spending this whole time arguing with someone who doesn't understand definitions or history, and who has admitted as such. Thank you :)
    1
  969.  @elijahrivera2858  Exactly! Than you for admitting that your copy paste revisions of history don't convince people at all.
    1
  970.  @elijahrivera2858  insults don't change history. Sorry for being correct :)
    1
  971.  @elijahrivera2858  I'm sorry, but I already refuted this "point" days ago. Taking away the right to private property, in no way, abolishes private property. Again, we in the US have no right to healthcare, and yet doctors exist, and exist in excess. Private property existed in nazi germany, and in fact, the nazi regime on numerous occasions spoke out in favor of different rich industrialists and the supposed "efficiency" of private property. So you are just overwhelmingly wrong and don't understand the Reichtag fire degree of 1933 or the concept of free trade or private property. I entertained your arguments and am not convinced that the nazis or Hitler were socialists. They were far right anti-Socialists. This is, as I have proven, an objective fact. Also, child, there's more than capitalism and socialism, I have never called the nazis capitalists... they're further right than capitalism.
    1
  972.  @elijahrivera2858  oh but I do. And the fact that you've never responded to it tells me you know I'm right.
    1
  973.  @elijahrivera2858  Well if that were true, you would be able to prove it, instead of repeating the same debunked nonsense. And yet, here you are. That means i'm right.
    1
  974.  @elijahrivera2858  But you haven't provided any evidence or history, I have. I've proven you wrong and all you can do is cry about it.
    1
  975.  @elijahrivera2858  Exactly, there's no point in debating with someone like yourself, that does not understand the aspects of economics and history which you have been consistently disproven on. If you actually had a counter argument, you would have presented it days ago. Now, all you have left are insults. Hell, you said you would stop responding forever ago. Seems you're more worried about your ego than history.
    1
  976.  @MrReco12  Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. You also might not know this, but it can easily be contradicted. Youtube keeps deleting my comment, but look up "trump holocaust survivor" or any combination of said terms and you can quite easily see the associations being made and news articles on them. And that was before the unmarked vans.
    1
  977.  @danielbylund8937  Given the NSDAP's rabid pursuit of social darwinist policies and eugenics, I very much doubt they cared at all about any sort of economic equality. You can look at what they said about disabled people, for example. There is a short nazi-made film called "Erbkrank" which was meant to show off the drain on the state that disabled people caused. That kind of society isn't one that would really strive for economic equality.
    1
  978. You mean basically the actions that TIK strawmanned so he can continue to call people anti-semites and nazis for daring to disagree with him?
    1
  979.  @iain5615  While I would agree that we have moved left since the age of monarchies, the right has always been ok with statist and non-capitalists. Modern libertarians are a rather new movement, rejecting all that the traditional right stood for and pretending that they in fact stand for it. The state as it existed 250 years ago, as I keep telling you. It does not matter how much land those dictators owned, or if those nobles were considered private citizens, they were still outreaching arms of the state. Not only did this system already take away the rights of private property (something that you said would qualify it as a state) but it was much more totalitarian than other systems to follow. You excusing this says a lot about what it means to be right wing. Ad hominem attacks cannot change your clear lack of understanding relating to history. In the height of the british empire those 8,000 people most likely carried by far the majority of the wealth and power in the country,and had dictatorial control. Not only is that not the case anyone, but the system has diversified,to any,many more people. More people being employed by the government is not a sign of totalitarianism, mate. It's a sign that power it becoming more spread out,and thus the individual is better represented in government.
    1
  980. This video doesn't much work, is not supported by anything but semantic fallacy, and calls all that prove him wrong marxist and post modernist. It's incorrect, in short.
    1
  981. @Adam Beasley Which part? Everything I said was true, he does attempt to redefine words, and (you've seen it yourself) he does like to attack people with random insults.
    1
  982.  @floki_vt What a moron you are. Communism is left wing, yes, like fascism is right wing. The nazis were right wing, as were the Italian Fascists. Trying to deny that is silly. FDR praised Mussolini based on the propaganda that filtered through to America, not the actual conditions of Fascism, or the true ideology it pushed. He was fooled like most of the populace that voted them in, just for their promises to not be met. good thing he fought a war with them. But do you know who actually saw through that propaganda? Business owners. People like Koch Sr. and Ford, who voluntarily praised and worked with the nazis whenever they could. Seems like a bit of a contradiction.
    1
  983.  @floki_vt  1. He killed socialists. Evidently you cannot define socialism, nor marxism. 2. Sure. But if you claim to be a socialist, but kill a bunch of socialists while siding with industrialists and conservatives, you aren't a socialist. Wait, you think hitler's anti-socialist philosophy won the war? No, he lost. Heavily. Because hitler was not a socialist, he was an inchoherent fascist, and to this day idiots try to conflate the two.
    1
  984.  @floki_vt  Yes, you have admitted your definition is revisionism. That's why you cannot actually cite a socialist that agrees with this definition (in fact most mock it) and why you somehow think libertarian socialism is impossible. And of course I could, but I could fine one even easier. so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ Learn to pronounce noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    1
  985.  @floki_vt  Nope. And of course somehow regulating the people through torture, executions, and silencing is just fine with you. Libertarianism used to refer to leftists and anti-capitalists. Libertarian socialism is older than libertarian capitalism. Don't believe me? Let's take something from one of the founders of american libertarianism. "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...” - Rothbard
    1
  986.  @floki_vt  So this is the part where you turn to ad hominem, eh? Well, I suppose the man who admitted to stealing the word libertarian from the left was lying? Hm? Well, you seem to believe in a lot of the other nonsense he spews. As for communism, you do realize that it is stateless, correct? How is that not libertarian? Yes, me proving you wrong has put you in quite the pickle. I don't care about socialism nor communism, I am neither of those. I'm just a guy that cares about history and definitions you seem all too willing to throw away.
    1
  987.  @floki_vt  Saying it for what, the third time, doesn't make it any more true than the last two times you lied. Yes, it can have different economic systems, but socialism is not one of them, and hitler was not a socialist. Yes, he killed capitalists, but he killed socialists primarily, and focused his efforts on them until the true racial genocide began. Not just marxists, socialists. You gave a revisionist definition you couldn't cite from any socialist, and then projected that onto me. Your argument? An insult. It's truly sad how you know you're wrong, yet continue to argue.
    1
  988.  @floki_vt  Marxists aren't anything inherently, marxism isn't an economic system, it's a method of historical analysis. A marxist can be a communist, an anarchist, and yes, a socialist. More revisionism from you. I'm done with your revisionist, snowflake ideologue idiocy. The Nazis and Italian Fascists weren't socialist.I don't care what you think of the systems, but the fact that you so vocally hate them proves to me you aren't looking at history objectively, but just shunting everything you don't like onto one side Fuck the right that genocided millions with the anti-socialist Nazis and the Italian Fascist, and fuck the left that did the same with Stalin and Mao. Oh, and fuck capitalism for doing that amount of deaths every few decades. Definition of socialism (no revisionism this time) so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun * a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. * policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. * (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. And again, you'll find not one socialist, ever, backing up your definition of simply state control. State control existed before socialism, and will exist independent of it. Thank you for proving yourself wrong so I didn't have to go through much effort.
    1
  989.  Jetstom Von Cleef  I'm sorry, but as it has been explained to you time and time again, that isn't what the nazis did, and it isn't socialism.
    1
  990.  Ichbin Janichblöd  You mean like your narrative of trying to deflect from the objective historical fact that hitler was right wing?
    1
  991.  Ichbin Janichblöd  Because he was a liar? Because he openly allied with the right, passed right wing policies, and had a right wing ideology? Do you really not know any of that, is that how brainwashed you are? If you actually read Hitler's own writings, hear him define his "socialism," you find that it's about as far from left wing as you can get. He was a fan of business, of germany industry, of social darwinism and traditionalism. It's readily apparent that you really don't understand the first thing about hitler, or more accurately, the first thing about the left and right, and what divides them. If you were, you wouldn't make such a silly claim.
    1
  992.  @cruiser1333  So let me get this right, you only believe him because historians (who you label as marxists) are annoyed that he's lying? Wow, you might as well just admit they're right. Sorry, hitler was never a socialist, and was always right wing.
    1
  993.  @KaptajnKaffe  I mean yes, you literally are. A truly deluded individual
    1
  994.  @robert48044  You were asked not to comment because you were spreading disproven ahistorical lies. Simple.
    1
  995.  @robert48044  Ok, first, what? You're making a fair bit of assumption and taking it for granted. You're first assuming the definition of socialism, and also for some reason assuming that your listed countries were all communist? What's up with that? As for "my opinion," this isn't a matter of opinion, but historical fact. You can find comments of mine going months back on this video and others, engaging with TIK directly. And through it all I have seen nothing to convince me that the nazis were in any way socialists.
    1
  996.  @KaptajnKaffe  You... literally are though? That's what you and TIK have been doing this entire time, do you really not even have that level of self awareness.
    1
  997.  @KaptajnKaffe  You mean unlike him, i'm an academic
    1
  998.  @robert48044  Again. You're making assumptions without proof. First off, the places you listed, not a single one fits the definition of communism. Which means your first basic assumption falls flat, they were not communist. If you haven't seen arguments relating to how a hereditary monarchy is not the same thing as a system without state, class, and money, then you truly do live in an echo chamber. And again, the nazis weren't socialists not just because they focused on "Race," that's a strawman TIK sets up and every time someone repeats it I know for a fact its only his point of view they've spent any time looking into. If you actually spent time in the replies, and bothered to go by a definition of socialism that makes sense, you would see how wrong you were instantly. They were not socialist, your qualifiers for "socialism" can be found in numerous other economic systems, and might not even be found in socialism. In other words - you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and have to rely on incorrect assumptions rather than making any points.
    1
  999.  @KaptajnKaffe  This is how you know that you're an ideologically inclined moron, and how i'm right. Because guess what? I never gave my ideology. I never said a single thing about it. But because your goal here is the deflect the ideological crimes of the right, you assume I must be doing the same, and deflect your moral failings onto me. Both you and TIK deny the actual ideological underpinnings of the Holocaust, the actual reasons it happened, and your denialism actively helps those who would commit another one spread. The nazis were not and never were socialists, nor am I a marxist, nor does marxism have anything to do with this conversation. You're just a raving ideologue. "My ideology" does not matter in this discussion. Yours, however, does. And your ideology is hurt by the true fact that the nazis were not socialists.
    1
  1000.  @KaptajnKaffe  I am. Much more so than you or TIK.
    1
  1001.  @KaptajnKaffe  ...and again. Proving my point in full, jesus this is easy. No, the evidence points towards the exact opposite, but you only like evidence that conforms to your ideology. Your are clearly deflecting, by stating false "facts" with no actual evidence to support them. They are not facts, they are conspiratorial beliefs and opinions that you use to justify your hatred of recorded history and academia.... like the nazis did. And you clearly haven't had these arguments at all, or must have lost every single one terribly, because your "points" are little more than crying about how you want me to be a marxist to justify your paranoia, and that you don't like history so you choose to not listen to it. Simple.
    1
  1002.  @robert48044  ...Do you really not see the fragility of your "points?" Yes, that was in relation to the DPRK, and no, they do not fit the definition of communism. I know you didn't start the "socialism for race" argument, but its made no sense anyway so why even bring it up? And as for your final point... what? Why does a party saying they want communism instantly mean said country was communist? If I created a new country, headed by the "utopia" party, and I said I loved utopianism and wrote it into our constitution... that doesn't make my country a utopia, now does it?
    1
  1003.  @robert48044  ...you realize under communism that money is abolished, right? You're literally admitting these places weren't communist while trying to attack communism.
    1
  1004.  @KaptajnKaffe  And that's textbook projection. I've actually addressed your claims, you've done nothing of the sort and simply accused me of being a part of the larger conspiracy you seem to think has overtaken... basic history. I am saying exactly what I said. That you are doing something eerily similar to what the nazis did, just replace marxists with any sort of ethnic minority and its practically the same. I'm pointing out exactly what I said, that your denialism of history empowers the same ideological trends that led to the nazis. I've proven you wrong, not like I needed to, all of recorded history did that long before I left my comment. I'm not the one screaming apologetics and conspiracies, that's you. And you don't need a mind reading device to see that, just some self awareness.
    1
  1005.  @KaptajnKaffe  And you can't even define socialism, jesus. No, communism is literally a moneyless society, but I doubt you would know that from just listening to TIK here.
    1
  1006.  @robert48044  ...according to what now? One, this is a totally separate topic, but also, that is again a bunch of assumptions stacked up.
    1
  1007.  @KaptajnKaffe  Again - you're assuming my ideological leaning. Do you not see what that says about you? That you assume someone who disagrees with you on an issue of history must be as ideologically inclined as you? And you worked by your definition, which if you believe TIK or that the nazis were socialists, simply cannot be correct. And where did you hear that definition? By that definition socialism is literally an omnipresent ideology, everyone "works" in some sense, and somebody must always own that work. So every place in the world has always been socialist?
    1
  1008.  @KaptajnKaffe  Aaaaand just further proving my point. I teach history in America, a country skewing much further right, and yet I somehow have avoided the same brainwashing you seem to throw yourself into. Hey, here's a thought - maybe if all of academia disagrees with you, there isn't some massive marxist conspiracy, you might just be wrong. And I'm comparing your behavior, the behavior that TIK encourages, to the end result of that mindset. You are the one who accused me of some socialist marxist conspiracy before I said anything, that's the very definition of trying to poison the well. Oh, and by the way, saying "I don't accuse people of being a part of a conspiracy, I just believe in a conspiracy i'm accusing you of perpetuating" is about as ironic as you can get. And here we go again. When you can't actually prove a point, you'll point to anything else to deflect from your ahistorical revisionism. Its literally a constant thing.
    1
  1009.  @KaptajnKaffe  How am I forcing ideology on you when you're the one who first brought up any sort of ideological leaning at all, and used it as a focal point of your argument. You gave an unverifiable story that I cant have any source for when you delivered your definition, I wouldn't qualify that as what you think it is. And again, assertion after assertion. "every flavor has their own definition" is blatantly false, you're just trying to define multiple things as the same. And there is only one definition, that being collective ownership of the means of production. Simple. And uh, sorry, wtf? Why are you literally participating in nazi apologia? They were throwing german workers in gas chambers and camps, they didn't seize shit for them. What the fuck.
    1
  1010.  @KaptajnKaffe  What the fuck are you on about. For one, I already answered your question. You should read my responses before spouting bullshit. For two, yes, you are participating in apologia for the nazis. They threw millions of people in camps, concentration or death, even those they saw as "racially" superior would be harmed if they spoke out against the nazi regime, were gay, were disabled, were "suspected" of any of the above, ect. You trying to erase that fact is pure nonsense. And it doesn't matter what the nazis "saw" as the people, why should I care? They saw the majority of their own citizens as subhumans and traitors, their actions killed millions of the "right" citizens in war. Nothing they did was for the people. By claiming that they somehow "helped" the german worked, all while throwing german workers in camps or onto a losing battlefield, you are participating in blatant apologia. And if you're so far removed from the ideology of the nazis, which I would certainly hope you are, why do you keep making excuses for them?
    1
  1011.  @KaptajnKaffe  How is me pointing out that the nazis hated so many of their own people that they put them in camps "misrepresenting?" I'm sorry, I answered your question literally day ago, and if you really never read that i'd advise scrolling up. My guess as to why you're "giving up" is that you recognized that you don't have an actual comeback.
    1
  1012.  @KaptajnKaffe  If you want to continue asserting a plain falsehood, that is that I never answered your question, you're going to have to prove it. The word you're looking for is "alluding", and all i'm doing is pointing out how the lies you're telling are making excuses for, and in fact, emboldening the lies of, historical and modern fascists. I never said you "made up" the conspiracy, but you certainly are a fanatic believer in it, beyond any type of reason. After all, even assuming that these marxist scholars had any more significant impact than conservative or capitalist scholars, they don't need to "distance" themselves from the nazis, marxists were literally one of the groups the nazis persecuted. I tell you the truth, all in good faith, and you run from it. The nazis otherized millions of even those they claimed were racially superior, they threw even many of whom they saw as "german" workers in jail. The state and massive corporations fused together in a popular front against the workers, who were silence, oppressed, and killed by the millions. You are attempting to erase nazi crimes and history. The idea that fascism or nazi germany were socialist is a long debunked myth, the only people who claim its true are those that all forms of objective academia have left behind. There is no debate, its been settled time and time again. That's why your cult, the ahistorical idiots, are stuck on youtube, while those who correctly point out the nazis aren't socialists are some of the top historians of the field. Oh, and Ps. The US is going further right by the year. Popular politicians are calling biden, a conservative, some kind of socialist, because to you all anyone to the left of regan is a socialist. It has not moved left for a good while, since the New Deal.
    1
  1013.  @jccgold  I'm sorry, what are you on about? Do you understand what authoritarianism or anti-fascism mean?
    1
  1014.  @jccgold  Oh, thank you for proving my point! No, actually fascism is not socialist in any sense, its far more anti-socialist than you even. In any case, it seems you simply define fascism as an ideology belonging to any who you don't like, as none of the actions of anti-fascists line up with the actions and goals of actual fascists. And what do you mean, the same fascism as mussolini? You mean the fascism that the american right holds and defends?
    1
  1015.  @jccgold  I know, its the historical objectivity of my statement that makes it true... which it is. And yes, I actually have. In that mannifesto, he points to liberalism, socialism, and capitalism as false ideologies, and that the fascist future would be "of the right." You, however, have not read it, and are only regurgitating TIK's talking points. I did know Mussolini used to advocate Mark, similar to how figures like Thomas Sowell used to advocate him. In both cases, they soundly rejected him. Did you know that state power has nothing to do with political leaning, and yes, a large amount of state ownership under a fascist regime is still entirely right wing? So yes, in fact, fascism is and always has been right wing. Did you know that fascists hate anti-fascists as much and you, and claim the same things, that the left stands against tradition, order, and nationalism? Fascism is an anti-socialist, pro censorship ideology... just like the one of the modern right. I have proven that I know, apparently, a few decades of researching more than you what fascism actually is. I have proven you, conclusively, wrong. And now it appears you are comparing anti-fascist libertarian anarchism… to totalitarian right wing fascism. Admit you're wrong.
    1
  1016. ​ @jccgold ... You're literally proving my point. This is one of the most famous quotes of Gentile, one that he makes explicit note of in his work. This is you admitting you never once read it. The quote is as follows: ""We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." This was gentile himself, co-written and endorsed by Mussolini. And yes, leftism has nothing to do with state power. This is actually the far less ignorant approach, after all, anarchism, and statelessness in general, have always been and always will be leftist ideas. There's a reason the first anarchist theorist called himself a socialist. The left is not defined by state power at all, rather, the left strives for the reduction of hierarchy. Something you would know if you ever spent a second studying objective politics outside of your echo chamber. That's why the first "right wing" ideology was monarchism, which is pretty damn totalitarian. The right hates individual liberty, you prove it in this very response. "The left" as a whole doesn't want anything, there are hundreds of ideological factions among leftists that all want different things. The only thing that unites them is a desire to lessen hierarchy in the world. As I already proved, anarchism is leftist, how does that require state power? It requires the opposite, in fact. Didn't think that far, did you? You realize that the economy of venezeula is 70% private, right? They're hardly better than most social democratic states, which you might know, are capitalist. Are you seriously calling mussolini a capitalist? I proved you wrong. And sorry, it isn't your little anti-semetic conspiracy about antifa that I care about here. There is no "group" guiding "cancelling," there are individuals banding together to hold other individuals accountable... a practice explicitly protected by the first amendment. Which you are arguing against. Who is arguing for hate speech legislation? Well, a bunch of people. Capitalists, socialists, communists, some fascists, your point is moot. The majority of people pushing for it... are capitalist. Who is fighting against capitalism? Well, not modern fascists, they hide behind it because capitalists like you protect their interests. Who is trying to force society to conform? Well, the fascists and conservatives that want an ethnostate or religious indoctrination. So you agree, the modern american right is fascist. Antifa, is mostly, but not all, anarchist. They value individual freedom far more than any right wing totalitarian idiot could claim to. People identifying as anti-fascist tend to not openly run for office decrying themselves as antifa. Seems they're doing a bad job of gaining power then, given that they don't run for office and in fact want to reduce government power. Its the right that wants power, order, conformity, and fascism. I proved you wrong on every point, and you know it. Even worse, you embarrassed yourself. What do yo have to say? What apology can you possibly give for wasting my time like this?
    1
  1017. ​ @jccgold  ...What. For one. I didn't quote wikipedia, I quoted his actual book. If that quotw appears on wikipedia, its because it is an actual important quote he said, like it or not. As for what you say next... that quote does not exist. I looked numerous times for any actual evidence of said quote existing, as I don't remember seeing it when I read through the book, and found literally zero evidence of it existing beyond your assertion. Provide pictures, a page number, screenshots, anything to prove your case, as you just simply fabricated a quote and seem to expect me to believe you. The line "a century of the Left, a century of Fascism," for all I could find, was only found in a single mistranslation of the exact same line, and surrounding context in the piece points to the meaning being unequivocally the right. So no, I didn't forget anything. I just actually read the text. After all, the quote you provided wasn't on another page at all, like you implied. You alright? And i'm sorry, what? When did I say "the first anarchist theory was socialism?" I said "the first anarchist theorists called themselves socialists," which, yes, they did. That's an objective fact, like it or not. As for you not understanding the basic definition of words, there's nothing new. We get it, you hate marx and you hate leftism, but don't rewrite history on that basis. However, none of the figures you mentioned "redefined" socialism at all, the only person to do that so far has been you. For some reason you "forgot that". Socialism as a concept does not predate communism at all, they were synonyms for decades, and even marx treated them as the same system at the time. You seem to be forgetting that early writers on socialism were also talking about different systems, because the word didn't have a concrete meaning yet. That's why both technocrats and anarchists were calling themselves by the same ideological title. And here's more ad hominem. You know, you're really helping my case here. I was a bit worried for a second that i'd have to deal with an actual argument, but instead, I guess not. Actually, that's a lie, i've never been worried about ant arguments from you. Anyways, its evident that all you have are insults and ahistorical assumptions. You can't even spell the word "scientific." In any case, again, you're speaking not because you read the sources, but because TIK and other ideological idiots told you what to say and you never wanted to break out of your echo chamber. Tell me, if Marx somehow was so interested in "redefining" the term, why exactly did he use so many historical examples of that exact meaning? Why did so many other non-marxist accept his teaching? Oh, you're a liar. Yes, i'm sorry, the venezeuelan economy is 70% private, to this day. This is an objective fact, and you cite literally zero sources for your absurd "10%" figure. The reason being that no sources exist, and venezuela never did anything like that. In any case, there's a reason venezuela is so poor, that reason being capitalism. And I have a hell of an easier time understanding what authoritarianism is than you, after all, you think that free speech is authoritarian if it disagrees with you. Hell, you're currently trying to defend the existence of the monarchy, which is one of the most historically authoritarian institutes possible. In other words... you want power and authoritarianism as long as it means you can force that power on others. Individual freedoms are void under a monarchy dumbass, its literally a dictatorship. I wouldn't expect you to think that though, you actually think that north korea is either democratic or leftist. You want a system where the minority takes all the power and individual liberty from the people as a whole. That is what the right wants, trample individual liberty to fight against freedom, equality, and basic human nature. I have read more on all of these subjects than it seems you Ever have, which is why I can so effortlessly destroy you in debate. And yes... yes two different movements can't actually "band together" to do anything, there are no leaders or organizations, it is literally just people working together freely. The video you linked? Why should I care what some random person says? There's no such thing as a "leader" of anti-fascism. So you took a random video and then used that as your only evidence. Sad. What is cancel culture? Well, it doesn't exist. It is the right's way of trying to suppress free speech. And yes, antifa is by nature for individual liberty, unlike the right, who as you have shown, despises that. I have researched freely and openly far more than you here, clearly. And yes, you are advocating for authoritarian, anti-freedom, and anti-leftist policies. You should stop.
    1
  1018. ​ @jccgold  Yes, I actually did quote Gentile, unlike you. And in fact, I hate to break it to you, but as I showed the vast amount of translations and contexts from the text show that yes, he was talking about the right. And this is a common, but awful argument. You're fabricating quotes again, though. He never said "*more* to the right," he simply said on the right. Because fascism is not just right of socialism, but in fact, right of center, and right of capitalism in fact. Mussolini never said fascism is on the left at all, which i why you were unable to provide anything more than a single mistranslation of the same sentence which is easily countered by the surrounding context. And what kind of strawman argument is this? Fascism is a right wing ideology because it allies with the right and promotes stregnth and hierarchy, like all right wing ideologies do, from capitalism to monarchism. Him admitting it is on the right simply proves me right. Oh, and I "can't find it" because it doesn't exist. Simple. 🤭 A random imgur page with no cover, book, or actual citation doesn't count as any sort of proof, anyone can literally just print a page out. However, you did just now prove yourself a liar. You said this quote was on a different page, proving you never read the piece. Here is the correct quote, the one actual professional historians use. http://sites.nd.edu/world-politics-2017/benito-mussolini-doctrine-of-fascism-1932/ Your mistranslated quote was from a right wing ideologue, much like you, because there is no actual way to mistranslate "right" for "left" accidentally, especially considering how much of the quote was purposefully left out. Weird that they did that, hm? Edited the quote further? 🤔Its ok, you can admit that I've proven you wrong. Given that the translation you continue to refuse to provide is not backed up by any major historians and is in fact disproven by the surrounding context... yes. It proves you wrong. Its ok, you can admit you are jut seething at me so effortlessly destroying your argument. And i'm orry, what? Your argument as to the undeniable fact that anarchism sprung out of socialism is simple ad hominem? Oh, and I hate to break it to you... but marx didn't advocate for a strong state. In fact, he wanted to lessen the power of the state. But its ok, he's not nearly as dumb as people like you, who go the extra step and say that giving the government power is giving you freedom. And I agree, socialism does have a meaning. You simply do not understand it, and I can't blame you, children like you have been stuck in ideological echo chambers for years, and i'm happy you're finally starting to admit you are wrong. Of course I can't be "helped" by you, that would imply that you were right... which you've openly shown you aren't. And here is another assertion you don't back up. You'd think if Marx was such an open liar he would have been called out by other socialists... and yet he wasn't. Odd. And again, more ad hominem. Why would I care what random misquote you can pull out from engels? All you have are deflections and insults. And again, you have no citation to prove anything you say here. Yes, Venezuela is 70% private. That is an undeniable fact, and the fact that you've backed down from your previous made up numbers tells me even you knew you were lying there. And... what? Why the fuck would I care what CNN says? Unlike you I don't listen to random propaganda, I do my own research. They should denounce all monarchies, even the modern constitutional ones. Did you really think I hadn't thought about that? Wow. I claim the right wants to get rid of liberty because they do, and you literally never asked for an example, but here's a few - they want your boss to be able to fire, harm, or mistreat you as much as they want. They want the government to be able to silence your ability to do things like burn flags or speak out about them. They despise individual accountability, so they want to get rid of the ability for people to hold others accountable, also known as "cancel culture" to you morons. And again, what leader? You showed me a rando person i've never seen before sitting in his room. There is no such thing as a leader of an ideology. And again, did you really think that was a "free speech rally?" This is why fascists love you idiots, because they could be marching in the streets chanting racial slurs and as long as they called it a "free speech rally" you morons would defend them. Ahahah. Dude I don't know if you live under a rock, or if you're the rock itself You've proven to me that you are beyond help, but i'd be happy to continue to effortlessly prove you wrong Ahahahah 😁 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  1019.  @mcsmash4905  exactly, some people will always choose to be ignorant and believe tiks lies. Not much you can do for them.
    1
  1020.  @jccgold  Except... its literally true.
    1
  1021.  @P4NZ3RSR34K  Exactly, misinformed people (like you) don't like real history.
    1
  1022.  @P4NZ3RSR34K  yes. Like you are
    1
  1023.  @jccgold   @Joaquim Coutinho  I'm sorry, you realize what people say and what they actually want is very different, right? Antics protests far right rallies. And it's easy for the far right to get you on their side by simply calling themselves free speech advocates. Trump doesn't care about free speech, none of the right does. He wants education censored, personal expression limited, and dissent crushed, and he's open about it. But you follow his propaganda anyway. Sad. And of course you somehow think "the left" is at all a fan of big tech... You know, the thing the right constantly praises and funds until it realizes associating with the right isn't profitable. I agree, you stupid people are easily brainwashed. But at any point you could simply agree that you don't have an argument and move on.
    1
  1024.  @mcsmash4905  there would have to actually be "irony" outside of your conservative propaganda for that tonhe the case
    1
  1025.  @mcsmash4905  at least you admit to it. Yes, it is propaganda, which is why even TIK admits all the historians he cite disagree with him. Did you even think about that?
    1
  1026.  @mcsmash4905  mate you realize one can pick up on sarcasm and just not engage with it, right?
    1
  1027.  @mcsmash4905  did you... Read my last response? I saw you were being sarcastic, and I didn't engage with it. Simple as that. Do you have trouble reading?
    1
  1028.  @jccgold  unlike you morons I understand and accept reality, something you seem incapable of. And what are you talking about? You realize she wants to regulate and break up big tech monopolies, right? The same big tech that the right does nothing but defend?
    1
  1029.  @jccgold  the more "citations" you try to give, the more you show off how brainwashed you are. I hate to break it to you but sensationalist propaganda does not count as news. In any case, twitter, as a company, cannot "censor" speech at all, they don't have to give you a platform, that's well within their first amendment rights. If you want twitter to not be able to ban or block you, then you should come over to the left where we actually don't like massive corporations having unchecked power over politics and people.... Unlike the right. As for AOC, I already addressed your myth of "cancel culture" (otherwise knows as first amendment rights to petition and association) that you want to get rid of, but now you're openly calling to censor AOC because she said something you don't like. I hate to break it to you, but even if she did say what you say she did (she didn't) that would still be protected under 1A, which you seem to hate more and more as time goes on. Do you see how easy it is to utterly debunk and destroy your propaganda and fallacy? Maybe you should think about why that is before continuing, kid.
    1
  1030.  @jccgold  again, this is literally propaganda. Did you even watch the video or just see a flashy thumbnail from an unverified source and assume it was true? And if this is the case, why is it that the right actually does preform the vast amount of, even fatal, political censorship?
    1
  1031.  @jccgold  I will take literally any actual source with verifiable information. If you count literal random youtube videos designed to get attention as better sources than actual media companies who are under literal regulation to not directly lie, then you're brainwashed. Simple as that. If all it took to make a "trustworthy source" was to have a youtube channel then the world would be a very different place. Luckily, facts still matter, so your propaganda is useless. And there, there it is. You calling all facts that disagree with you "fake news," while shifting the goalposts. Trump called from freedom of expression to be limited, education to be censored, and his opponents to be ridiculed and fired. His voters were by far the most likely demographic to commit politically charged domestic terrorist attacks. Are you really this dumb? Oh, and dumbass, you see my point? You're trying to censor me, right now, for telling you the truth. Every sentence you say proves my point better.
    1
  1032.  @jccgold   @Joaquim Coutinho  Coutinho  no, actually. Twitter is ok to "censor" people because dumbass rightists like you decided that corporations get to count as people, for some god damn reason. Did you not remember that? I know you have arguments copy pasted and ready, but you're really out of your element here kid. If you want twitter or other companies to not be able to do that... Then stop advocating for a system where the private sector has unchecked power. People like you really only understand the things you're advocating for when they come around to bite you in the ass. And you, as well as the right wing press, are attempting to censor politicians you don't like by trying to tell lies about them, slander them, and otherwise make them impossible to be heard. And after all you do want to silence her. Desperately. What an absolute, certified child you are
    1
  1033.  @jccgold  I'm sorry, you're telling me to "stop lying" (when I've done nothing but tell you facts you don't want to hear) and yet you're telling the gigantic lie that twitter is not a private company. I hate to break it to you, but they actually are private, and just because they are fine with lobbying politicians for special protections (a "right," I'll remind you, that only the modern right wing wants them to have( they are just as private and able to do that as any other corporation. That's capitalism at work, baby. Twitter tells the state what it wants, and the state comes running to it. No matter how much you hate the truth, that is capitalism, and no capitalist system has ever existed without it. I love how to extremists like you everything left of Reagan is the extreme left. Funny. Here's the thing - the state is only involved in twitter because twitter wants them to be. That is always the end result of capitalism. It always has been. Twitter doesn't work for the democrats (which would make nonsense given that the Republicans have practically owned the government for the last few years) the democrats do what major companies.like twitter want them to, same as the Republicans. The only "censorship" happening has been done by the conservative government, dumbass. Nobody has to host you. And I couldn't care less about your long debunked biden conspiracies. And I'm still waiting for... Any example of AOC censoring anyone. Because you have provided zero. In fact, just like the free speech hating republican you are, you've called to censor your opponents more than you've even asserted she has. You are proving me right with every word you authoritarian contradictory moron.
    1
  1034.  @jccgold  yes. They do. Ok, first off, did you really think that one out of context quote with no policy behind it that doesn't even showcase the meaning of a single politician with a single position of literally hundreds, you really think that can showcase the position of the entire left? You know like, a large portion of the left hates AOC, right? Or did you really not even think of that? And again you're just showing me how brainwashed you are. like, didn't you just say that the Dems already own all the media? Why would they need to "reign" anything in then? You didn't think this out very far, did you?
    1
  1035.  @jccgold  Yes. Literally yes. When you take a random video with a random quote and literally fill it in with what you want, it is out of context. And what laws? There are no laws like that, meant to censor, except those that the right push out. After all, the right did try to push an entire education program meant to indoctrinate the youth by censoring facts that the right doesn't want you to know about our history. And again, you have literally no proof for your assertions, just conspiracy. "Haven't you noticed" and "of course they would" are not proof, those are examples of your paranoid thought processes. And again, get your conspiracies right. Do they already own the media or are they pushing to own the media? I don't live under a rock, I just live in actual reality, unlike you. You, who thinks that facts going against conservative propaganda is censorship. And I'm actually "arguing" (stating the fact) that it wasn't even AOC, but why the hell should I care what "the democrats" want? You don't even know what they want, and why do you even think they represent the left? And again, more insults. You still haven't answered me, why do you think its so easy to make a fool out of your arguments? I'll just tell you - it because you are objectively wrong.
    1
  1036.  @jccgold   @Joaquim Coutinho    ...again, you took a single out of context quote that you literally filled in half of, then added in made up legislation behind it that doesn't actually exist and was never proposed. And again, more nonsense assertions with literally zero evidence. For one, not all the of the left cares at all about hate speech, but even talking about the part that does, the purpose is to protect the speech if those being discriminated against. You know, the idea that your rights only go as far as not infringing on the right side others... An idea that the founding fathers came up with. Jesus you're bad at this. you say hate speech is anything the left doesn't like, but you do realize that you can't actually put that into law, right? Which means, like usual, you've been lying. And you don't stop lying there, of course. I proved that the left as a whole, certainly the modern american left, does not advocate for censorship. You couldn't provide any solid evidence against that, which I pointed out in that you could only find one out of context quote from a single politician that is not backed by any sort of policy. In other words, I was right. On the other hand, I pointed out how times of right wingers, yourself included, participate in desires for censorship. I literally told you many but not all of the ways in which trump promoted censorship numerous times. So you claim of me not providing any figures... Is another lie. I just keep catching you in those, huh? and now you just out more propaganda with no source, things that the literal Nazis said, and expect me to just believe you when you've never once cited a single one of your pro totalitarianism assertions. You're a liar, a moron, and more than likely a literal child. You've been schooled time and time again and I'm happy to do it for a few more weeks. Sit down and admit the right wants censorship more than anyone on the left ever could, kid.
    1
  1037.  @0xredrumx078   @MADx Games   i hope you understand the irony in you claiming that I'm lying... While not only proving my point, but lying yourself. You seem to not understand the meaning of words you're throwing around, which doesn't surprise me at all, in order to be a right winger you have to be pretty ignorant. The problem is, it isn't a lie at all. Conservatives want to silence minority groups, like trans people and the scientists that back their existence. They want to silence those scientists on issues of climate change, as well. They want to silence those that disagree with them politically, hence all the calls to use live ammunition on protests that they don't like. They want to silence your ability to, say, have an objective education or use your freedom of expression. They hate people who think differently, look differently, believe in a different god, and openly celebrate when those people are discriminated against. This is common conservative knowledge, but I guess you haven't admitted that to yourself yet. The right are the champions of censorship, and they're so good at censoring the truth that you don't even know it. Im sorry, are you listening to yourself? For one, you just called liberals left wing which... Is, admittedly, a common mistake, but one that any sort of political education would have disproved you of. For two, you claim a major tech company, which leftists want to regulate the power of and break up... Is a left wing institution? No, apple banning your dumbass app is just capitalism at work, and if you don't like it, too bad. That isn't censorship. You forcing a private company to host your dumbass app, on the other hand, is an infringement of their 1st amendment rights. There is no left wing private sector, kid. What you're witnessing is right wing infighting, and you've swallowed the propaganda so much that you aren't even willing to admit it to yourself. Also, you do know that hate speech laws protect free speech, right? Or have you completed deluded yourself on that issue too? Oh conclusion, as I've definitively proven, the right is far more censorious than the left could ever be. Now, I believe you owe me an apology.
    1
  1038. ​ @0xredrumx078  I say that... because its true. You really do nothing to disprove that notion, but of course having written as much nonsense as you have, I assume you want me to respond to it, individually. You first say that “conservatives want to silence minorities, like trans people and the scientists that back their existence”. "Any regime or context in which the content of what is publically expressed, exhibited, published, broadcast, or otherwise distributed is regulated or in which the circulation of information is controlled. " So... what conservatives do to minorities. Daily. And again, just because the facts hurt your feelings doesn't make them true. You hide behind public speeches and dogwhistles but its pretty damn easy to glean your intentions. First off, why the hell do you trust politicians? Look at their actions, not their words. And when those actions ignore science, and silence minority groups time and time again, then it doesn't matter what they say in their campaign speeches - their goal is censorship. You are not, however, just stating the incorrect, science-disproven "fact" that you don't think trans people exist. Your goal is to stop trans people from getting proper care, joining public institutions like the military, and being able to express themselves in public. This is, after all, the ends that conservatives worked towards in the past few years, and just because you're the kind of coward that hides behind fake, uncited "facts" and ignores the tangible impact of conservative policy doesn't make it any less true. And yes, one private institution deciding to not serve another private institution is called capitalism. Tough shit, deal with it. You realize that "getting rid of competition" is just how capitalism works, right? If i'm a business, what do you expect me to do, help my competition out? No, my goal is to get rid of them, not deal with them, because that's how I make the most money. They operated in capitalism, and if you're arguing that capitalism is against federal law, then it sounds like you want capitalism to be regulated. And yet another assertion of me being false... with no proof. For one, there was no censorship of Parler - You could easily go to any other hosting platform and get on. But even if no private hosting platform would take them, it still would not be censorship. Private enterprise has no right, no duty, no obligation to give others a platform. If you're in my house, I can kick you out. If you're advertising/hosting on my site, I can kick you off. Easy. If you were to argue they shouldn't do that... looks like you're trying to infringe on their property rights. Shame. If you're angry at the power that private enterprise uses to regulate speech, then you should have been annoyed years back when they were strikebreaking and banning leftists off their platform daily. But then, you would have to admit that what you're actually angry at - is capitalism. The free exercise of capitalism, this is where it always goes. And, buddy - You really don't know much about the constitution, do you. You do know that companies are legally considered individuals, right? I know, its stupid, but you can thank conservative lawmakers for putting that into place. The fact that you don't know that is really, really sad. But hey, if you want to get rid of that stupid ruling... oh look! Another thing the left wants to do that the right doesn't. And I state there is no left wing private sector, not just because the private sector itself cannot be left wing, but because the competitors within are themselves not left wing. Read what I say. And I've already proven how your "censorship" is a conservative propaganda method, but you weren't listening, of course. And again - do you not know the difference between left and liberal? No, of course not. As I said, the right loves infighting, it just hates to admit it. In any case, lets assume that they did donate to an actual left wing politician, unlike what you showed me. Why does that matter? They could have just as easily donated because it gets them far more money to have those policies. Companies don't care about politics beyond what makes them rich. So again - what you're angry at is capitalism. I proved you wrong there, and you offered no suitable comeback, nor did you actually cite anything that would add to your point. I am happy to continue to prove you wrong time and time again, though your type is usually hopeless.
    1
  1039.  @0xredrumx078  Amazing comeback - "no, they don't." You do realize that simply saying "no" in response to a point doesn't matter in the context of an argument, right? And your logic is highly flawed, like, you realize if every individual is protected, then everyone is protected, right? The protection of the most speech, by necessity, entails the regulation of some speech. And an un-cited quote that simply doesn't help your point, bud. I'm guessing that's from one of your propaganda sources, right? Sad.
    1
  1040.  @0xredrumx078  This is all you've got? Damn, If i'd have known you'd give this lackluster of a response I wouldn't have bothered. Yes, addressing hate speech does indeed, protect the rights of people to speek It really is that simple. If I'm, say, a member of the lgbt+ community (wow, I am) and I'm in, say, a workplace of homophobes, I will be silenced. I am afraid of talking about my experiences for fear of retribution, and thus, I am being "censored." So what happens is either nobody does anything, and I'm still censored, or somebody restricts the homophobes ability to intimidate or harass me. That is how hate speech protects speech. And I'm well aware, I know that companies are so, so different from individuals like you or I. Problem is, Republican lawmakers seem unwilling to address this odd discrepancy. They did, after all, sign into being "coroprate personhood." And again, this has nothing to do with the supreme court, but even the article you link starts off by listing some of the many exceptions in which "hate speech" isn't protected by the constitution, going back centuries.
    1
  1041.  @0xredrumx078  Again, you seem to act as though I care about court precedents. I really, really don't. Just because one past court made one decision, does not mean that decision is intrinsically sound, nor does it mean it will stand the test of time. And that's assuming that you're actually representing the issue correctly, which, you aren't. The problem is, hate speech does incite violence, just not as directly as a threat. That's why the debate is ongoing, like it or not. I know you want so desperately to appeal to authority in everything you do but I really don't care that much, after all, only a fool would trust the government to effectively give rights to the people. But from a conservative mindset, a mindset of authority and hierarchy, it isn't at all surprising.
    1
  1042.  @0xredrumx078  ohhh, I get it. You're an ideologically driven moron. You assume just because i'm telling you the facts, that i'm arguing for an ideology that goes against yours. No, i'm just telling you the reality of the situation, and how those laws work. And again, yeah, I don't care about what nine old dumbasses decide is best for "the people," I tend to look to the people themselves when deciding that. Again, you're putting too much faith into the same government you claim conservatives disavow.
    1
  1043.  @0xredrumx078  Again, you're an ideologically blinded moron. We've been over this. Just because i'm telling you the facts doesn't mean I agree with everyone who also recognizes those facts. What you claim I advocate for... I don't actually. Simple as that. At least you admit you're a fool along with your strawman of "leftists," but given the policies you mentioned aren't solely advocated for by leftists, that many leftists disagree with those positions (myself included) and that it means that you as a conservative are admitting to the same hypocrisy you try to project onto other people... well, you fucked up with this statement.
    1
  1044.  @0xredrumx078  To answer all of your points - First off, I don't believe in laws. Period. Of course I wouldn't support one type, then. It was your initial assertion that I disputed. If you want to claim that "many leftists agree with hate speech laws, you're going to have to support them. And no, by positions I was also referring to the other positions you mentioned in your responses, such as single payer healthcare, ect. And the thing is, its not that I have a misconception, its that you simply aren't willing to address the inherent contradictions in conservatism. For example, you say you believe that we as people have rights beyond the government... and yet you assume we need a government when they seem to be the ones who "give" you any rights, and also seem to be the ones most likely to trample them. The government doesn't actually have to do anything, which is damn evident. The problem is, if the government is around, it might as well help. Its already doing damage, might as well have it do some good as well. The problem with the conservative mindset is that it pulls away government only when it wants to, not based on a coherent framework. Sure, its our jobs to help eachother. And why not appeal to the most effective way of doing so?
    1
  1045.  @0xredrumx078  what do you have to gain by lying? Read back my responses. If I don't support law, why would I support a type of law?? So, yes. I am saying that. For now, the third time. I have said this exact same thing to you time and time again - me pointing out something you're afraid to admit is not me not understanding something. I'm well aware of the conservative myth that their ideal government only exists to "protect" my rights, and yet, as I keep saying, conservatives keep creating governments and "rights" that can only compliment eachother. As in, they keep appealing to rights created by government, rather than any sort of inherent rights. And... yes. The government is doing next to nothing for its people, besides, it seems, trying to hold back the natural will of the people as much as possible. And I could very much ask you the same, if you think the government can't handle something as simple as healthcare, why the hell do you think they could do something as nebulous as "protect our god-given rights?" I believe the government will continue to do damage, but there's no reason that they can't help in other areas while its around. And repeating back conservative talking points does not and never has qualified as a point. I know you guys have a hard on for "order" but the government is shit at maintaining it, nor does it have any sort of moral right to attempt to do so. You all advocate throwing millions into propaganda, billions into military, all wasted. The conservative mindset is one of hypocrisy.
    1
  1046.  @0xredrumx078  why would I care about democrats? Again, do you know the difference between left and liberal? If the democrats say something should happen, in what way does that effect what leftists want to happen? Again, the two groups seem to pretty much hate eachother. And we know republicans dislike "hate speech laws," given all the factual misconceptions they seem to have about a lot of them. After all, why else would you throw in that last line? Compared to 27% of republicans who say that government should ban hate speech, whereas 72% of republicans say government shouldn’t ban hate speech. Like...do you really think "hate speech" means banning opinions?
    1
  1047.  @0xredrumx078  and yet you used both terms interchangeably, and seem to not care about the distinctions and how incorrect your statement was.
    1
  1048.  @0xredrumx078   @MADx Games   @MADx Games  this... God this was painful to read. No, they both ran on highly liberal platforms, none doing anything more than regulating or modifying existing capitalist entities. "Socialized medicine..." Can exist under capitalism. Easily. Hell, it already does. Them being further left than you like doesn't mean they ain't liberals. I can't claim to know what they truly believe, but Warrens platform was objectively liberal, bernie's slightly less so. And just... God, no. Holy shit this is painful to read. liberals are capitalists. Simple as that. Conservatives are a type of liberal ideology. You can have different views within Capitalism, but it's all still capitalism. Leftists aren't just "democratic socialists," hell most self proclaimed democratic socialists aren't even leftists. A leftist is simply somebody who advocates for an alternative system to any capitalism, from the left. Medicare for all doesn't make you a leftist, it just makes you a social democrat. You know, a social democrat, like the ruling parties of so many capitalist countries. Medicare for all and college debt forgiveness don't abolish capitalism, bud. In fact, they only exist because they're funded by capital, through taxes. Liberals are people who believe in capitalism, no intervention or lots of intervention. Leftists just don't. Even your article gives a better answer.
    1
  1049.  @0xredrumx078  no? No, I hate to break it to you, medicare for all is not a serious intervention by any means, not do I say why I should take the word of some random article over the definitions leftists have historically used, which clearly show themselves when that divide begins to come up.
    1
  1050.  @0xredrumx078  ...what? What do you mean "destroying everything capitalist?" Yes, they want to abolish capitalism and replace it with something else. And yes, you can't be a leftist without being anti capitalist
    1
  1051.  @0xredrumx078   @0xredrumx078  you're close but kiss the point of your definition. It isn't markets, or typed of property, that defines capitalism. It is the ownership of the means of production resting in private hands. The thing is, private people are not the same as just people. After all, people can own property in non capitalist systems. The difference is that the means of production, specifically, are in the hands of a few private individuals
    1
  1052.  @0xredrumx078  so... You're an admitted liar then. Not surprising in the slightest. The definition of socialism is not, and never has been, state control of the means of production. Come on, this is pretty basic stuff. The soviet union didn't even claim to hold a socialist system for the majority of its existence, why the hell would you base your definition around that type of propaganda? This is why nobody trusts conservatives on these issues, they make up nonsense like that. And just because an individual exists doesn't mean that they're private. We've been over this, bud. Yes, the people can own property in socialist systems, government or no government. All people. That's literally the definition of socialism, the people as a whole own the means of production. Plus, socialists want nothing to do with your personal property. I do, however, love how you basically admit that the USSR wasn't socialist. And... no. This is what I was talking about with government given rights, because the only thing keeping Tom's workers from owning their work... is the capitalist government. In a capitalist system Tom is his own minor dictator, ruling over his workers and taking their profit. In a socialist system, the people that work in Tom's pizza shop, or the people in his area, or maybe the people as a whole, would direct that one specific venture. You made up an internally inconsistent lie, and I called you on it. I think an apology is long overdue. Do you know how definitions work? You don't have to be a conservative source to spread a conservative lie. The meanings of words is not, sadly, set in stone - the dictionary accepts whatever the most popular usage of a term is. And after literally decades of conservative cold war propaganda, that's the definition they settled on. It's why anarchy, to them, first and foremost means "chaos," instead of the historical system of anarchism. The problem with that definition you posted is that it makes King George V, a conservative, more socialist than Marx. in fact, that definition even excludes Marx from being a socialist at all. I feel like if your definition includes monarchs, one of socialism's first and biggest enemies, as socialists but doesn't count some of socialism's ideological founders... You've got a problem.
    1
  1053.  @0xredrumx078   @0xredrumx078   ...what? Do you understand how etymology works in the slightest? Your "point" is an objective lie. Dictionary definitions are objectively based on how people use words, not some sort of nebulous concept of "historical correctness." After all, who determines as what era a word had the correct meaning, then? The word family has linguistic origins dating back to house slaves in ancient greece, does that mean that family "correctly" means support of slavery? You substantiate your point with nothing, and of course you couldn't - because it isn't true. hell, you admit this in your very response. They find their definition through reading texts on the subject, and what would you know, there are a hell of a lot of texts since the cold war that purposefully redefine socialism for a blatantly political, biased purpose. Again, I'll bring up to you the fact that according to the definition here, Marx was less of a socialist than King George. Yes, monarchists, the first enemy of the socialists.... Was somehow more of a socialist movement, according to this definition, than Marxism, or even all forms of non lenninist socialism. You see the problem yet? I don't care that you don't understand how etymology works, because even according to your logic (the historically correct definition should be the one in use) this definition is incorrect. I don't care what kind of fallacious appeals to authority you want to whip out, if your definition of an ideology includes the greatest enemy to that ideology but discounts its most known movements and figured, the definition is false, and you are lying. your supposed definition of socialism is false, and your only proof otherwise is trusting an institution you don't understand, that I just showed was biased by it's very nature. It isn't the definition of socialism by any means, and trusting a source just because you feel like it should be trusted, without even understanding how etymology works in the first place, that's the problem with your argument, I already explained how it's wrong and you can't even rebut me. There's a reason you didn't respond to that point - you couldn't.
    1
  1054.  @0xredrumx078   @MADx Games  do you have any other "points" or is this it? You've literally said nothing new here, just repeated the same nonsense I already addressed and debunked in full. If you have no suitable response, which is clearly the case, then just admit your flawed argument and admit you are wrong, or find another point. This isn't that hard. No, the definition provided is not factually or historically true. It is only "true" insofar as it is the most popular and wifely used modern definition... By enemies of socialism and proponents of cold war era propaganda. You allege that the staff use historical correctness as a measure as to the accuracy of their definitions, and yet it appears that they didn't even think to check Marx if this was the case. Again, I'll remind you - this is a definition that excludes Marx and in fact most of early utopian, and later libertarian, socialism. The definition, historically, does not make sense. What, then, is it based off of? Oh right, what I said in the beginning - etymology changes and is based off of vernacular. That's why, again, anarchy isn't defined as the political system most often, it's defined as chaos... Despite that definition not being historically accurate Comment 2 no, it's not true because it doesn't line up with historical socialist movements or theory. However, if you're asking why the incorrect definition is labeled, the answer is pretty simple - because of, yes, cold war era propaganda. I don't even k ow why this is a surprise to you, we spent billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in physical wars to best back communism, are you really saying it's unrealistic that the US would also try to turn public favor away from socialistic systems through negative propaganda? And again, so you understand how etymology works? The dictionary I reliable in that it is taking the most commonly used definition of something. That's its job, and it does it well. Problem is, it's really easy to change mass perception about something like a political ideology. Most of the US public hates socialism, do you really think that causes no biases in their interpretation of it? And again, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring - the definition isn't false because there's some conspiracy going on at all dictionaries. It's false because the US fought an ideological war against leftism for over half a century, and that very much includes a war of propaganda, and the results of that have very much changed the most popular usage of terms... And thus the official definition. No conspiracy, just etymology. And it is your definition,, because it's the definition spread by people like you in blatant contrast with the actual definition. I notice you've never once addressed how the definition you give excludes Marx. And I think I know why.
    1
  1055.  @0xredrumx078   @MADx Games  Comment 2 (+3) no, it's not true because it doesn't line up with historical socialist movements or theory. However, if you're asking why the incorrect definition is labeled, the answer is pretty simple - because of, yes, cold war era propaganda. I don't even k ow why this is a surprise to you, we spent billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in physical wars to best back communism, are you really saying it's unrealistic that the US would also try to turn public favor away from socialistic systems through negative propaganda? And again, so you understand how etymology works? The dictionary I reliable in that it is taking the most commonly used definition of something. That's its job, and it does it well. Problem is, it's really easy to change mass perception about something like a political ideology. Most of the US public hates socialism, do you really think that causes no biases in their interpretation of it? And again, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring - the definition isn't false because there's some conspiracy going on at all dictionaries. It's false because the US fought an ideological war against leftism for over half a century, and that very much includes a war of propaganda, and the results of that have very much changed the most popular usage of terms... And thus the official definition. No conspiracy, just etymology. And it is your definition,, because it's the definition spread by people like you in blatant contrast with the actual definition. I notice you've never once addressed how the definition you give excludes Marx. And I think I know why. To reiterate, since you seem unable to do anything but repeat your same debunked points - dictionaries base their definitions over the most commonly used modern usage of terms. They may include historical definitions, but only as pieces of an etymological story. Decades of cold war propaganda warped the meaning of socialism to so many people, it took on a new definition in their eyes. This is basic etymological history, and for you to deny it while trying to fallaciously speak to authority is silly. Yes, those dictionaries are good at their jobs - taking the most used definitions. Sadly, those definitions aren't always historically correct, even you admitted being historically correct was the most important factor, and as I keep pointing out with your definitions, they simply aren't. Comment 3 why are you unable to address my points and continue lying? At this point you know you're wrong. I already told you, I didn't call the dictionary propaganda, I specifically said that the definition most in popular use was only in use because of said propaganda. They're a steady building, problem is, they're on a flawed foundation. You're a liar, plain and simple. your only rebuttal to the objective fact that they don't like up with historical socialist movements or theories is... Well, you don't have one. Your only evidence is that they say that they look at evidence for their examples, and I've explained that most of that contemporary evidence is tainted by that same information war. You have no counter to the fact those definitions do not line up with historical definitions, of which I have provided evidence for you. So, you simply point out that the dictionaries say they're right (despite the evidence otherwise.) That is not an argument, liar. and then of course, you aledge that I simple call any definition I disagree with propaganda, which is another one of your lies. After all, I provided to you historically accurate examples, which you could not find by looking through propaganda, so you dismissed. I am objectively correct here, as I have explained to a liar like you time and time again. and let me ask you - are you stupid? First off, do you think the Oxford dictionary only takes definitions used in england? No, they take definitions from all common english speaking country's vernacular. It doesn't matter that they're a British dictionary. Also, dumbass, the Brits were about as anti communist as the US and were among the US' closest allies during the definition of the cold war. There was no need for a "treaty," they both already had the same goal. and then you provide another unsourced opinion, which is that the Oxford dictionary is somehow the most historically correct version... When according to it, Marx is not a socialist. No, actually, that's a lie, as I've explained to you time and time again. You are wrong, and you know it. As for that definition, there's a reason it's not in dictionaries plagued by cold war propaganda, why would it be? And why do you trust modern companies to define a word better than those who used it first? That's like trusting a modern economist to explain the economy of the USSR better than an economist from the USSR at the time. The reason I gave you that definition is that every branch of socialism, no matter libertarian, marxist, feminist, authoritarian, whatever, has aimed for the collective control of the man's of production. That is what socialism has meant since the beginning, even before Marx, and what socialists mean when they advocate for socialism to this day. It sounds like you know this is a fact, and simply decided to fall back of fallacious and false appeals to authority to make up for your lies. You are a liar. Ask yourself this question - if every historical socialist theorist and movement used this definition, if every modern socialist uses it, if it is the definition given in socialist theory, who do I trust more : that, or some random company that decided the meanings of words based on how random people use them. To counter your point - the singular "they" was only recently added to the dictionary, despite being in common usage since before shakespeare. What happened to their research then? Oh, right. It seems they aren't quite perfect. Liar.
    1
  1056.  @0xredrumx078   @MADx Games   @MADx Games  I did provide evidence, and examples. You have not addressed any of these, and now you're just ignoring them. Sad. Why would I link to you a capitalist dictionary, when I pointed out the problems that dictionaries addressing a propagandized public have. Instead, I have you examples of those historical records that those dictionaries have failed to look over, which you've ignored. You have not provided to me any historical evidence that your definition is accurate. and this is an assertion you (a proven liar) have made time and time again, but have yet to back it up. I want more proof that merriam webster actually does historical research, beyond them simply saying so, which is something you have not yet provided. Assertion is not evidence. On top of that, I've actually provided counter examples, showing how it's not historically accurate, which you have brushed h see the rug as they soundly disprove your point. So I want actual proof that the research you allude to, and they assert having made, actually exists, because all available evidence says otherwise. You are able to quite the website, but are you able to back it up? in any case, what articles and books do you think they're reading? ...that's right, articles and books written by random people, to apply to the general public. A public, you may remember, that was the subject of half a century of propaganda from proud liars such as yourself. and they has been used to refer to singular people for longer than the advent of modern english. You're a child. Comments 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 I have these quotes from notes I took from in person copies of these books. Why are you acting in bad faith, why is it so hard to simply google a name and book, followed by the three letters "pdf?" Could it be because you're not telling the truth and you know you've been caught? You realize that I have cited to you the quotes, so you can choose to either but a physical hard copy, or look then up. Of you don't, you admit to being a liar. You have one response left to do so before admitted that you only operate in bad faith @0xredrumx0 i gave you the titles, child. I gave you authors and quotes. That is the information I have, so I have it to you. Why are you unwilling to fact check me? Why are you scared? I provided to you all the information you need to verify my claims, and you refuse to do so. That is solidly your fault, and I am happy to proclaim my objective victory. I didn't delete those comments, youtube automatically removed them for whatever reason. And of course, you have not yet managed to disprove my objective facts. And here you are, continuing to not address your cowardice and failure. Truly sad. How is it my fault that you need a link from me specifically, when you can look it up just as easily as me? you do realize there's more to citations than links, right? I gave you titles and authors, that's more than enough information It's not my fault that you can't look up basic information to counter my objective facts. Its not my job to provide you with evidence I've already provided you with, if you want to prove me wrong, then feel free to do so, I'm waiting. Of you can't search up the large amounts of information I gave you, you're admitting to failing to tell the truth. And what are you talking about? Youtube regularly will delete older comments at random, usually due to people reporting them. Which I'm sure you know nothing about, right? Do you think that they either don't let you post, or wipe your whole account? You're just sounding more and more conspiratorial, as usual. You have two more responses to convince me that you're in good faith, then I'm walking away with my victory. Because I already cited my sources, and youtube doesn't allow external links, as evidenced by the many missing replies of me trying to send them. “you gave me that information, so you should be able to get the link for it.” why don't you search up the large amount of the information I gave you, after all, you have as much information as me, so you should be able to get the link for it. How is it conspiratorial to point out that my comments were deleted, when I can still see them and you evidently can't? Do you understand basic definitions of words or are you being this obtuse on purpose? Again is not my job to provide you any more evidence than the suitable and objective amount i've given you; it's not my job to provide you with more evidence than I have, when you can easily verify it with what i've given you I've won everything, and now you're crying about it. In fact, you're so pathetic that you can't even google something that I have already cited to you. Again it’s not my job to provide you link to my stated sources, after all it's your desire to fact check my objective citations. If I'm pathetic for not being able google what i've cited, then how pathetic are you for not being able to google what you yourself have asked to fact check over and over again? That's really pathetic. “No, why don't you search up a large amount of information you gave me. ” No, why don't you search up a large amount of information I gave you, specifically for this purpose. Stop depending on other people to do things for you. Pathetic. Yeah, why don't you search up the large amount of information I gave you? I'm waiting. You can’t provide justification for your inability to search based on the copious amounts of information I gave you. But you're going to depend on someone you call a lair and pathetic to do it for you. That's really pathetic.
    1
  1057.  @0xredrumx078  oh, I. Can do you one better, and directly give you sources from those historical and modern experts which your definitions seemed to ignore. Update - he refuses to look at the sources because they aren't in link format, when youtube doesn't allow external links generally. He apparently can't verify the quotes by just looking them up - because he knows he's wrong. I literally named the sources, it's not like I refused to say where I got these. Grow up, kid. " 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 Povery," by Proudhon, or "Critique of the Gotha Program" by Marx or even Malatesta's "Anarchy." All are far more illustrative of historical socialist thought than some random online definition created to appeal to a propagandized public, a definition you cannot even back up. 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. Now i'm sure you're going to try to twist this somehow, its what you do, but why not question, now, why your definitions seem not to actually adhere to what experts on the topics say? In any case, I look forward to your next denial of basic reality. Also, I noticed how you ignored that you were wrong on the historical usage of "they." Funny how you dropped that so quickly.
    1
  1058.  @0xredrumx078   @0xredrumx078   @MADx Games  I have these quotes from notes I took from in person copies of these books dumbass. Why are you acting in bad faith, why is it so hard to simply google a name and book, followed by the three letters "pdf?" Could it be because you're a liar and you know you've been caught? You realize that I have cited to you the quotes, so you can choose to either but a physical hard copy, or look then up. Of you don't, you admit to being a liar. You have one response left to do so before admitted that you only operate in bad faith  @0xredrumx078  i gave you the titles, child. I gave you authors and quotes. That is the information I have, so I have it to you. Why are you unwilling to fact check me? Why are you scared? I provided to you all the information you need to verify my claims, and you refuse to do so. That is solidly your fault, and I am happy to proclaim my objective victory.
    1
  1059.  @0xredrumx078 I didn't delete those comments, youtube automatically removed them for whatever reason. And of course, you have not yet managed to disprove my objective facts. And here you are, continuing to not address your cowardice and failure. Truly sad. How is it my fault that you need a link from me specifically, when you can look it up just as easily as me? you do realize there's more to citations than links, right? I gave you titles and authors, that's more than enough information It's not my fault that you can't look up basic information to counter my objective facts. Its not my job to provide you with evidence I've already provided you with, if you want to prove me wrong, then feel free to do so, I'm waiting. Of you can't search up the large amounts of information I gave you, you're admitting to lying. And what are you talking about? Youtube regularly will delete older comments at random, usually due to people reporting them. Which I'm sure you know nothing about, right? Do you think that they either don't let you post, or wipe your whole account? You're just sounding more and more conspiratorial, as usual. You have two more responses to convince me that you're in good faith, then I'm walking away with my victory. “you gave me that information, so you should be able to get the link for it.” why don't you search up the large amount of the information I gave you, after all, you have as much information as me, so you should be able to get the link for it. Again is not my job to provide you any more evidence than the suitable and objective amount i've given you; it's not my job to provide you with more evidence than I have, when you can easily verify it with what i've given you I've won everything, and now you're crying about it. In fact, you're so pathetic that you can't even google something that I have already cited to you. Again it’s not my job to provide you link to my stated sources, after all it's your desire to fact check my objective citations. If I'm pathetic for not being able google what i've cited, then how pathetic are you for not being able to google what you yourself have asked to fact check over and over again? That's really pathetic. “No, why don't you search up a large amount of information you gave me. ” No, why don't you search up a large amount of information I gave you, specifically for this purpose. Stop depending on other people to do things for you. Pathetic. Yeah, why don't you search up the large amount of information I gave you? I'm waiting. You can’t provide justification for your inability to search based on the copious amounts of information I gave you. But you're going to depend on someone you call a lair and pathetic to do it for you. That's really pathetic.
    1
  1060.  @TheImperatorKnight  Yes, your propaganda says he nationalized the industries, when in reality he did not by any rational definitions. And plenty of capitalists and industrialists got rich off the regime, as well as private companies. You forget, the socialists were in camps.
    1
  1061. yeesh. might want to finish the video first
    1
  1062.  @KaikanoSei  If that's what you've "seen," I would recommend you get your eyes checked. Fascism and Nazism were ideologies born out of an opposition to socialism, and they almost always allied with the conservative right over any sort of socialist movements. Fascism is not socialism. Nazism is not socialism. And communism is literally stateless, but of course TIK doesn't want to entertain that.
    1
  1063.  @KaikanoSei  It's amazing, you call fascism socialist, and in the same breath perfectly embody their own rhetorical strategy of literally labeling anyone who opposes them as a marxist. This is classic. Mussolini outright said in his book "The Doctrine of Fascism" that fascism was a right wing political ideology that wanted to leave behind both socialism and capitalism. Communism is not socialist, nor is it marxist. Socialism has always focused on class, even before marx, which is something you left out, which makes hitler not a socialist. Oh, by the way, the Nazis started the cultural marxism myth to justify sending jewish people to camps. As I said, fascism is objectively not socialism. Neither is nazism. You also seem to have no idea what socialism actually is, or what they actually want. Hint: it's not total state control of... anything. Socialism can exist without a state. Anyway, fascism and nazism are not socialism, nor were they even close to the same in terms of ideology.
    1
  1064.  @KaikanoSei  I hate to clue you in but you're letting your ignorance show. Marxism isn't an economic ideology, so it' can't be socialist. Leninism isn't an actual political ideology, you're thinking of Marxism-Leninism, which is socialist. Fascism is a right wing corporatist ideology, which despises socialism as much as you. Nazism is the exact same. You can argue on their merits some other time, but to lump them all together is the same as lying. You have the nerve to call me propagandized, while repeating lies that we've known are false since the very beginning. You don't know what collectivist and socialist mean, and it's clear that you're a fanatic. If i've been infected with some kind of rabies then friend you have ebola and stage 4 cancer, rolled int one. You don't know what I am. Hint - it's not a socialist. Hm, did you know that socialists actually took quite a bit of inspiration from all of those people? I'm guessing not, you're far too propagandized for anywhere near that level of self awareness. I care more about history, facts, and liberty than you ever could. It would do you good to look into any of those things. Perhaps, before you start to write, think for half a second about how easy it is to disprove your hateful idiocy, and how fanaticized you sound. Nevermind, you probably think ignoring history is a good thing.
    1
  1065.  @KaikanoSei  And yet you seem to purposefully seek to weaken your arguments against them by conflating entirely different ideologies together as somehow one big, cohesive thing. Odd. If that is true, then you need to get your eyes checked. I know hatred can be blinding, but i'm sure you can do better. If you didn't discover a difference, it's because you weren't listening. The first one you should have noticed is how they aren't socialists, despite the lie you keep implying. And I would agree with your assessment of those systems. I am, however, surprised that you don't somehow imply that those movements and groupings are socialist as well.
    1
  1066.  @Aldnon  Wow, amazing counter. But, wait. How does that work?
    1
  1067.  @Aldnon  Again, amazing counter argument. It's ok dude, you're free to admit that you are wrong at any time, I won't hold a grudge
    1
  1068.  @Aldnon  Angry? Me? Nah bud, i'm just laughing over here at how pathetic your "arguments" are.
    1
  1069.  @Aldnon  It's ok buddy, you can always admit you were wrong and work towards being much less wrong in the future, it's not that hard.
    1
  1070.  @Aldnon  Gotta love how this all started with you admitting you're wrong, and then coming up with a whole fake backstory for me. Really, i'm flattered. Let's see where this goes.
    1
  1071.  @Aldnon  Gotta love how this all started with you admitting you're wrong, and then coming up with a whole fake backstory for me. Really, i'm flattered. Let's see where this goes. But nah, let's get into this. So, how do you feel my pain? That kind of feels like a self-insult.
    1
  1072.  @Aldnon  Gotta love how this all started with you admitting you're wrong, and then coming up with a whole fake backstory for me. Really, i'm flattered. Let's see where this goes. Oh I don't hate my parents, not even close. Am I sensing some projection? It's ok bud, you can tell me.
    1
  1073.  @Aldnon  Gotta love how this all started with you admitting you're wrong, and then coming up with a whole fake backstory for me. Really, i'm flattered. Let's see where this goes. It's as if you think calling me angry... will make me angry. Keep trying that dude, it's actually fun to watch.
    1
  1074. @JC Denton You mean you disagree with me, which means you're happy living a lie.
    1
  1075.  @jameskrych7767  Oh, now you're pretending the "facts vs feelings" thing is still an argument. Gosh, you really are trapped in 2016, aren't you? That mask of professionalism is slipping away, inch by inch.
    1
  1076. Because people like TIK don't want to tell the truth.
    1
  1077. They are neither.
    1
  1078.  @TheImperatorKnight  They are private, and therefore not socialist. Easy.
    1
  1079. that and all of that anti-socialist stuff, non-socialist stuff.
    1
  1080. I don't agree with anyone sending death threats, but it seems the vast majority aren't, and instead are trying to correct TIK's faulty argument through debate.
    1
  1081.  @baileyburnsed4352  Because his "point of view" involves rewriting the definition of well known terms with little to no historical backing.
    1
  1082. Prove it. Prove that left=big and right=small.
    1
  1083.  @tlanimass952  Those opinions very much do not belong solely to the right, though some on the right do agree with a few of them. It's neoliberals who are pushing the antithesis to those things, neoliberals that one must fight to put those things in place. Neoliberalism isn't left wing. And I know that the dems and republicans aren't a left-right thing, because they have considerable overlap, and both would be considered right wing in many parts of the world.
    1
  1084.  @freedomordeath89  I'm sorry, but you do realize that calling random groups socialist just because you don't like them isn't an argument, right? The nazis were more anti-socialist than you. Get over it.
    1
  1085.  @doofer149  But... those arguments aren't addressed. TIK claims he does, but even in your shameful little rebuttal here you show the weakness of those counters.
    1
  1086.  @freedomordeath89  That... actually isn't how it work, though. Socialism, long before marx, meant one thing. Hitler went far against that. Your proposed definition of socialism is so vast most people alive would be considered socialists. Stop projecting.
    1
  1087.  @freedomordeath89  See, this is the problem. The policies we have today, most of them, have nothing to do with socialism, and in fact many socialists don't like. But because you're stuck to your crazy definition... here we are. You are so ideologically possessed that you've decided to rewrite the definitions of ideologies you dislike, rather than admit you just have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  1088.  @freedomordeath89  ...socdems are literally, by definition, capitalist. Socdems, historically, have resisted socialism in favor of putting in place capitalist regimes. If you don't even understand your own ideology, how can I trust you to understand others? See, your problem is, you're pointing to random groups and calling them socialist, and when you get called out, you're calling that a fallacy. I think we can say, for example, that Adam Smith wasn't a socialist, right? So is me saying that a "No True Scotsman" fallacy? No, its just true. Same with hitler. Hitler, according to all objective historical facts and definitions, is not a socialist.
    1
  1089.  @freedomordeath89  Aaaaand more overly emotional crying that nobody cares about your random, made up definition of socialists. No, actually, I had no say in the definition of socialism, it was created centuries before I was born. I just adhere to it, something you seem incapable of doing. You literally have no argument, your entire span of responses consists of accusing others of fallacies without once substantiating your claims, because you literally can't. You're right, I don't decide who is a socialist and who isn't. The basic, centuries old definition does. And that definition proves you, objectively, wrong. Sorry? If you are accusing me of a fallacy, prove it. Prove that your definition of socialism is somehow more correct than the objective historical one, and prove that the random people you're calling socialists at all adhere to that definition. If not, you're committing a fallacy of fallacies.
    1
  1090.  @freedomordeath89  You keep saying i'm committing a fallacy, and yet you've done nothing to prove it. I don't decide who's not a socialist, true. And I never have. I've just listened to the objective definitions, something you seem incapable of.
    1
  1091.  @freedomordeath89  Nope. Not chosen by me. Chosen by people who lived and died hundreds of years before I had to waste time talking to an ideological zealot like yourself.
    1
  1092. "The problem being that for almost every nation at war during WW2 (with some mild exception for the US due to its own political climate) you could put forth the argument that the economic systems they adopted during the build up to the war was inherently socialist and statist in nature, however would you call the United Kingdom a socialist nation during and before WW2 during the interwar years post-Weimar? Both the UK and France implemented what you would call "socialist" systems and rules such as a centralized economy, minimum wage and the abolishment or restriction of trade unions. Even regarding the lowering of the profit motive was heavily debated in France and the UK by the factory owners and business runners themselves " this is the issue. TIK's answer to that would be "yes." He considers all statism, and indeed even corporations or "organized society" to be socialism. That's the only real way I think you can call them socialists, by redefining socialism itself. Socialism is far more than state control, and in some cases, doesn't even need it. It's collective control, which is very different from some dictator deciding what you can and can't do with the nation's property.
    1
  1093. It's stuff like this that makes this video such nonsense. Because it leads people to making reductionist and historically inaccurate claims like this in full confidence. Do, like, a second of individual research.
    1
  1094.  @JKJK  Sure. I think that the idea that communism is the same as nazism, and that Stalin had no ideological differences than hitler, is a bit absurd.
    1
  1095.  @JKJK  Except... that isn't true. They aren't the same, at all, especially in ideology. Communism calls for a stateless, classless, moneyless society, and although it isn't actually achieved in the cases we have, the very goal of it is antithetical to nazism. Nazis were not left wing, they were right wing, and openly said they despised the left. communism, as an ideology, is all about spreading democracy to the workplace. And if stalin's non-efforts against poland started WW2, then isn't the western world also to blame for letting germany expand? Of course both ideologies have had bad regimes, totalitarian ones, but that's far from being the exact same. You couldn't even name that many actual ideological similarities.
    1
  1096.  @JKJK  The program you're talking about doesn't exist. The closest I can find is the 25 point program, and it only has one of the points you mentioned, although it's documented in private that hitler didn't want to follow it. Hitler himself praised private property openly, and said that his ideology would protect it. He's right wing because he primarily allied with conservatives, was open about hating the left and praising the right, and his ideology came from right wing figures. Even Mussolini said that fascism was right wing, it wasn't propaganda at all. As for the main attributes, i'd say this - left leaning ideologies tend to value equality before all else, whether that's equality in terms of equality of opportunity with some fallbacks in capitalist social democracy, or rigidly enforced equality, or communal stateless equality. The right tends to prefer hierarchy, either the fluid ever-changing hierarchy of capitalism, or the rigid hierarchy of fascism and monarchism. That isn't to say that the left never embraces hierarchy, or the right doesn't want some measure of equality, but the further you move away from the center the more those values separate.
    1
  1097. He actually thinks companies are socialist dude, it's not worth engaging.
    1
  1098. TIK's definitions, if you want the truth, are made up. They are based off of extremists who declare, ahistorically, that the only "true capitalism" is one without a state, despite the fact that the first proponents of capitalism were avid statists, and capitalism always results in a state. The worst part is, however, TIK's definition of both capitalism and socialism are so warped, that he honestly thinks all prior and modern countries have been socialist, and despite, you know, historical records, no country has ever been capitalist. In short... why ask him to clarify? It's not like he thinks his ideology is correct, or even coherent. He knows its a lie.
    1
  1099.  @acuerdox  Capitalism exists. Cope.
    1
  1100.  @acuerdox  glad you agree with objective reality for once
    1
  1101.  @acuerdox  all right then. bye.
    1
  1102. You're joking. He despised the left, and many of those old monarchist conservatives were his first and finest allies. On the general spectrum he would still be far right, objectively. He literally learned from the creator of traditionalism as an ideology, the guy who called himself fascist. There are multiple types of far right, and hitler's hatred of the left alongside him allying with the right is literally proof of the opposite of your claims. Hitler wasn't just a nationalist, his economics were based off of his extreme nationalism and traditionalism, which again makes him right wing. Hitler was absolutely a nationalist, in fact he defined 'socialism' as 'nationalism.'
    1
  1103.  @edwardcarson81  I find myself saying this to every person I happen upon in these comments, but my job here is not to defend any one ideology, it is to categorize them. And while putting fascism and socialism far apart is may be seen as a defense of socialism, I view it more as a better opportunity to criticize socialism for it's actual crimes without muddying the water. And I would point that out in the beginning, I often do, but you posed your own argument so I saw fit to address your argument before speaking on the validity of the video. I am no fan of either system, but to conflate them is utter nonsense. You can criticize both, hell, you can harbor a seething hatred for both, and still know that they are very different things. Because if you don't make that distinction, you're really only weakening your argument against both.
    1
  1104. i'll prove you wrong - it's worse. He thinks corporations are socialist.
    1
  1105.  @MarkTAllenby  Oh yeah, don't forget about the very concepts of society and hierarchy, which he explicitly included.
    1
  1106. Yeah, no. They're called "historians" or "people who understand history" and generally get annoyed when people act ahistorically, like TIK is.
    1
  1107. He's wrong tho
    1
  1108. I would recommend looking at a few other sources if you have the time. This video, while expansive, pushes a narrative that can't really be found or substantiated with further, unbiased research.
    1
  1109.  @j.greenriver6293  I am aware, yeah. That doesn't change the fact that he was largely outside of the Nazi's political jurisdiction for a while, and was hunted as part of a larger group.
    1
  1110.  @j.greenriver6293  ...ok? Great comeback then I guess. Have fun with that.
    1
  1111.  @custosvalpha7912  That he's informed on the facts. Let me ask you something - can a company be socialist?
    1
  1112.  @custosvalpha7912  First off, that isn't what socialism is, socialism is when the workers own the means of production collectively. Second off, TIK disagrees with you there, because he thinks companies are socialist entities.
    1
  1113.  @custosvalpha7912  I mean yeah that's fair but it's also kind of crazy to say something as capitalist as a business is somehow socialist
    1
  1114.  @custosvalpha7912  Ok then, cool. Nice talking with you.
    1
  1115.  @custosvalpha7912  yeah mate will do, have a good one.
    1
  1116. Idiots like TIK, who claim that Hitler improved the lives of thousands while trying to call him a socialist? Yeah he's an idiot.
    1
  1117.  @Not_SoIrish  What are you on about? TIK is trying to apologize for Hitler's actions by saying that he improved the life of workers, which is utter nonsense. The few workers he didn't throw in camps he ended the rights of collective bargaining for, and did next to no good things for.
    1
  1118.  @TheImperatorKnight  TIK, you have spent more time making up stories about me in the last week than I have actually commenting. I decided to come back, see what was happening, and of course I find you peddling more ahistorical nonsense. If anyone is a troll, it's you, who has refused to engage with a single bit of criticism beyond trollish accusations of imagined bigotry or projected accusations of bad faith. You absolutely defended the actions of hitler, you talked at length about the supposed benefits and labor unions that gave the german workers a leg up, ignoring that not only were your actual statements false, they wholly took up the torch of defending the actions of hitler. Of course you must also ignore the fact that I have addressed specific arguments and examples found in your video, as well as several other ones, because you simply think that just by presenting a faulty "counter" that the point can be wiped away. You cannot hide behind your excuses forever, and you and I both know that you've been wholly disproven, and are so dishonest you refuse to engage in any sort of good faith to respond to your failed arguments. I'll say it again, as I said the last time I called you out for this behavior - one cannot call hitler a socialist without getting into revisionist and apologist territory, and you prove that more and more daily. If you can't actually even listen to criticism, and call everyone who dares oppose you a marxist anti-semetic troll, I can see why less and less of your old fans are praising your videos, and rather its random people who have stumbled upon this one.
    1
  1119.  @Not_SoIrish  That's the problem, stating he "improved the life of the average german" is quite silly.The only way to even start with that claim is to follow hitler's logic, and only count the few people he considered "true aryans" to be german citizens. If we don't do that, and count all pre-hitler citizens of germany, well we can't say that the averahe life improved, because of the many, many people that were killed or thrown in camps. Even then, many citizens were sent off to war, and millions died in it. But even at home, the life of the worker improved in some smaller ways, but hardly in the way TIK praised them for. For example, he used the German Labor Front to somehow show that life was better for the workers, despite the fact that the labor front was but in place specifically for the purpose of outlawing all unions and removing collective bargaining rights, replacing them with a state-run union that, specifically, could not go against the state. That was not an improvement for anything. Obviously he wasn't a capitalist, but trying to call him a socialist through TIK's revision isn't a good move.
    1
  1120.  @Max-kr2nl  I always love when one of you guys show up, really. I know "projection" is just a BS cop-out point that doesn't seem to mean anything in online discourse, but this is so close to the perfect time to use the word. I say this because your comment is hilariously ironic. For one, because you're defending a guy that has, since release of this video, responded to criticism with insults and vapid assertions, rather than let his worldview fall apart. Second off... do you not see how you are kind of that person as well? Making a pithy statement with the sole goal of coming off as patronizing, all to avoid having to confront realities you don't want to deal with? I don't know, seems a bit like propjection.
    1
  1121.  @Max-kr2nl  Ah yes, amazing point. "No u." You do seem a bit defensive about my analysis, which tells me quite a bit thought. And I would tell you,I would spend much less time on videos like these if people like you stopped trying to hide their own ideological insecurities behind snark while trying to invalidate my arguments without addressing them as much as possible. But sure mate, have a good one.
    1
  1122.  @Max-kr2nl  Oooo, great point, absolutely stellar. Well, that's why I added the little preamble to my usage of projection, eh?
    1
  1123.  @joshualittle877  Hitler and the nazis were very much not socialists. Blocks of text with historical lies doesn't change that. The nazi party was vehemently anti-socialist. You don't know what socialism is. Socialism isn't defined as the abolition of private property and centrally planned/managed economies, but hitler doesn't even fit that definition. They did not believe in those things. Hitler got into power because conservatives wanted him in power to oppose socialism. Hitler said nothing like what you asserted, he openly discussed his desire to protect private property and private property interests. He didn't want to "Nationalize people," nor is that at all a coherent economic policy nor an example of socialist thought. He allowed private business to exist because he thought it was proof of the supposed superiority of his race and country, and he bribed, not forced, these private companies to support his right wing anti-socialist interests. They still owned their businesses, and they still profited, more even given that the nazis had long since shut down any sort of opposition to their private rule in the form of unionism. Companies like Volkswagon worked with the nazis specifically because it profited them the most, not because they were forced at gunpoint to make private profit. Ownership was no illusion, it existed and was in many cases stronger than it had been under the Weimar republic, given the lack of oppositon by unionists or socialists that the nazis had made sure of. If you owned a business making boats, the nazi party would come to you and offer a contract to you and other boat makers for guaranteed profits so long as you made a certain amount of boats, a contract that would then be competed over by private individuals for the goal of profit. Other than that, they didn't tell you how do your business, what kind of boats to make and sell, how many you were to make, who you could sell them to and how you would sell them, and so on. They kept their profits and the vast majority of their autonomy. Not sure why you're trying to present the nazis as pro-gay or something, but the night of the long knives was explicitly an anti-socialist purge. I'm sorry, they simply weren't socialist. As their ideology evolved they gave up even the pretense of being anything other than the far right anti-socialists they had been seen as for a while now. I'm sorry for the horrors your family went through but that doesn't erase the experiences of holocaust survivors and other victims of nazi germany, and the historians that studied them, all pointing out the anti-socialist nature of nazi germany. The problem is, you are asserting that the nazis were socialists while literally repeating the very rhetoric and propaganda the nazis used against socialists. No, the education system is not overrun with socialists. And history itself shows us the difference between nazis and socialists, no conspiracy. No, nazi ideology is not socialism based on race. Not only is that oxymoronic, it doesn't reflect the reality of hitler's far right anti-socialist party. You don't know what socialism is and sadly you seem not to know the history of antisemtism either. Marx was antisemetic yes, but the others didn't come from jewish backgrounds, that's literally nazi propaganda. Lenin and Trotsky weren't antisemetic either, Lenin actually spoke out about and outlawed antisemetism. Stalin never tried to purge jewish people, and he too for all his faults relating to his individual bigots he never attempted to push policy with the goal of hurting jewish people or communities. Saying he hated jewish people as much as hitler is simply false. Nazi ideology is not at all socialism, even your imagined "socialism based on race." The Baath party doesn't have much in common with the nazis at all, and the existence of far right religious extremists that supported other far right extremists (the nazis) is no surprise at all. There's no such thing as nazi with a marxist leaning. I'm saddened that you feel the need to spread such obviously false propaganda to serve the modern day far right.
    1
  1124.  @k.a1z597  Can't handle the truth?
    1
  1125. That and the two were entirely different on pretty much every issue
    1
  1126.  @chrishill3536  I mean, you just described why he wasn't at all socialist. His ideas weren't roughly the same at all, he just defined "nation" as "social" and decided that he would name his nationalist ideology after socialism, to draw in voters. Of course he let some companies act on their own, he didn't want to control them, he said as much outright and openly. He thought that if they did good work they should be able to own themselves, and his policies reflect this pretty well.
    1
  1127.  @chrishill3536  I am aware of that, but the thing that i'm trying to tell you about hitler is that he wasn't a socialist, by any metric, at any point in his political career.
    1
  1128. @Austin Sturtz Of the top 10 threads youtube recommends to me as I first click on the video, I have replied and had ongoing conversations under 6 of them. That is the metric i have been using, and if youtube decides to sort differently for you, there's nothing i can do.
    1
  1129.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I'm sure child. Have you stopped stalking and associating with nazis yet, or...?
    1
  1130. @Austin Sturtz The pinned thread? Yeah, I made a few short comments, only a few sentences long, but deleted them soon after because I realized that engaging with TIK further in a thread full of people was pointless. I continued to respond to him, and him to me, after the fact. You can see that in his recent "response" style video to ODS.
    1
  1131. @Austin Sturtz Again, I said scroll down for my comment, as it would be the first one shown in the link I gave you. And why would I respond further to the creator of the video, when they (as you can even see from the pinned thread) are far more willing to insult and assert than back up their arguments? I find it much more productive to engage in good faith with those who are actually interested in doing so. And I deleted the comments because whenever I comment I do so with the intention to respond to all who respond to me, and I did not feel I could keep that obligation in that thread, so I deleted them a few minutes after posting.
    1
  1132. @Austin Sturtz I don't usually have a problem with larger threads because they're usually mostly settled by the time i leave my first comment, but given that this one was pinned just an hour or two before I commented, it blew up pretty quickly. I was in the old pinned comment thread a lot, and I was in this new one for a few minutes, after which he insulted me and I decided not to bother. I mean, what he said there he's been saying since, it isn't a "until after you removed yourself" situation.
    1
  1133. @Austin Sturtz What, his first insult? Most recent? Hm? There's a lot to choose from, you're going to have to be more specific.
    1
  1134. @Austin Sturtz Alright, sure. In this thread (scroll down to the top comment) he calls me and a few others antisemites and marxists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugxq5hy2qYweopgLcjB4AaABAg
    1
  1135.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  And yet, here you are, happily defending them and spreading their talking points. Actions speak louder than words.
    1
  1136.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  ah yes, pushing a denial of the Nazis far right policies totally doesnt help them out..
    1
  1137.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  By defending a content creator that calls them socialist?
    1
  1138.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Denying the origin of the nazis is denying what one should look for when nazism begins to resurge. What you get is right wingers calling random leftists nazis for proposing mild social democracy, while they run around pushing antisemetic conspiracy theories.
    1
  1139.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  ...from a rejection of socialism, yeah. That's like saying black pulled a lot of its color from white. The basis of nazi ideology was a rejection of socialism and the principles espoused by socialists.
    1
  1140.  @althist2nd950  why would I agree to something that evidently isn't true?
    1
  1141.  @Donestre1234  that literally is. The Socialists at the time despised the war, saw it as a Capitalist imperialist effort, and refused to support it, especially on some made up issue of nationalism. Mussolini, on the other hand, appealed to right wing nationalism to want to fight the war. That is anti Socialist.
    1
  1142.  @Donestre1234  Nationalism is absolutely antithetical to both of those things, as socialism has always focused on the international shared struggle of class identity, not national identity. Marx never even focused on the nation, he explicitly said that the struggles of the workers were not just resigned to one nation, but to all of them, meaning internationalism. Stalin literally went against all of the principles of socialism, and wasn't even a nationalist, he worked with the Americans plenty. Most socialist parties didn't want to touch the war, nearly every single one, because it was an anti-socialist issue. The Italians especially knew this, because Italian socialists and Italian fascists voted opposite on nearly everything, including the war. It was absolutely in issue, not of competing factions, but of socialism vs separate unique ideologies.
    1
  1143.  @Donestre1234  Can "national identities" still exist under communism? Yeah, kind of, but not really. The whole point of socialism is to focus on class before race, before gender, before nation. The case you're talking about doesn't actually reflect that. On top of that, no, national identity pretty much could not exist under a system that does not have any states, or classes, or nations, because that's what a worldwide communist system would be. You're thinking of a different war, this was WW1, and Lenin's first act while in change of the Soviet Union was literally to pull out of the war. In WW1 the issues were absolutely issues of socialism vs nationalism, and they very much shaped the assessment of such issues.
    1
  1144.  @Donestre1234  That's not even close to true. For one, syndicalism by itself is not socialist, that's anarcho-syndicalism. Alongside that, these people weren't just "syndicalists" either, they preached themselves as a right wing variety called, wait for it, "National Syndicalists." Mussolini never intended for fascism to be on the left, nor did he want it to be socialist, as he openly said. And so, it was neither of those things. The system you described is, by definition, anti socialist, no matter what small and nuanceless semantic connections can be made.
    1
  1145.  @Donestre1234  If the world, tomorrow, turned into a communist world, then the very concept of nation itself would cease to exist. People may still feel some form of connection with their heritage or culture, but the notion of tying that to a nation, a piece of land, would vanish. Why? Well, what would they have to feel nationalistic about? Here is the definition of nationalism is such - "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." How can they be nationalistic when there is no nation, and there are no borders? How can you care about your country to the detriment of other countries when you don't even know where your country ends and their's starts? You can't. And yes, communism is by definition a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Lenin was clearly against the war, not just because of the logical problems with fighting it, but because it was a war the proletariat had no stock in, and quite correctly he pointed out it was a war that faulty alliances and bureaucracy had forced them to fight in anyway. He may have seen some good things in the war, but he certainly wasn't willing to expand the soviet union into destroyed Europe. Byt the time Lenin was in power the "civil war" had been all but won.
    1
  1146.  @Donestre1234  Syndicalism is not socialist, nor is it leftist, by definition, that is if you're counting "national syndicalism," which was but a fancy word for corporatism at the time. The fascists utterly rejected socialism, leftism, ect. Here's a quote from the Doctrine of Fascism. "A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century. " They rejected those things you said they were built on. Also, your very link details how much of their goals were not put into place, nor are they particularly left wing.
    1
  1147.  @Donestre1234  there's a reason I said "practically won" and not actually won, because while fighting would go on a whole longer it was very much not a great possibility that the other side would win. That was my point, and at least from what I've seen, that was very much a reality of the time, though I could be wrong on some aspects of it, who knows. In any case, sure, I have no problems agreeing to disagree. Have a good one.
    1
  1148.  @TheImperatorKnight  You see, this is the problem. In trying to call the nazis socialists, you always lapse into nazi apologism. You, again, assume I haven't watched the video just because I disagree with your false version of history. Does living under a totalitarian regime where you could get tossed into a camp at the slightest sign of dissent, or "degeneracy," sound like caring about the workers? Does campaigning with films like Erbkrank to convince the public that disabled people did not deserve to live sound like caring about them? You ignore that this union was established in the place of all other collective bargaining rights (which were removed) and had no automnity, it acted as only a pacifying arm of the state. And it's odd that the rich gained so much wealth and kept coming over from other countries to work with the nazis with this "massive tax burden," but oh well, those must not have been real right people, right? All this of course relating primarily to german citizens, which discounts the fact that they arbitrarily removed that citizenship from groups they don't like. Right, sounds so worker friendly.
    1
  1149.  @the_answeris6694  Oh, no part. I understand that it isn't socialist, which is far more understanding than you seem to have on the subject.
    1
  1150.  @the_answeris6694  So to you, obvious right wingers aren't right wing. And you claim I know nothing about the subject. Two things - for one, that speech was written for him, not by him. Want to guess who by? Well, no less than his minister of propaganda. Second off, you have to look at how hitler defined socialism. Let's look at some quotes. "Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” “We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." "Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic" "'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the J*w who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. " None of that sounds remotely leftist. So, it turns out he defined socialism at whatever he wanted, and then spread that instead. As for this nonsense "Ending the freedom, liberty, and opportunity of capitalism is a long held LEFT -WING SOCIALIST demand," that was actually a right wing demand first, by the monarchists. It then became right wing again, with the fascists, as they thought that sometimes capitalism could work against their culture. Face it - they weren't socialists, and that's objective fact. Welcome to reality.
    1
  1151.  @the_answeris6694  So you ignored all of that, huh. Socialism is socialism, and the nazis weren't socialists. Hitler wasn't left wing,he was right wing, he openly despised the left and said they would lead to the downfall of western civilization. Also, not only has that book been long debunked, but you do know liberalism is capitalism, correct? Or, perhaps, are you uneducated on that matter as well.
    1
  1152.  @bigbrother6548  Dude, I shit you not, he does.
    1
  1153. Nobody calls him a capitalist. The problem is that he never invented a "Whole branch of socialism," he rejected socialism in all it's forms, and said his "socialism" had nothing to do with them. He's not a capitalist, again, but this video does nothing to prove he was a socialist instead. This video also defines socialism as "when the government does stuff," which by his definition would make countries like Denmark socialist. It's utter rubish.
    1
  1154.  @Reriiru  I did, sadly. And he was still very, very wrong. That's why i'm doing mu best to fill people in to that fact.
    1
  1155.  @Reriiru  Well first off, you'll notice the vast majority of the time isn't actually going over the material. The first ~1.5 hours are his critique of socialism and promotion of capitalism. The last ~1.5 are him addressing smaller, less historial arguments. Only the middle section ever even dives into his point. Hell, the vast majority of his citation goes into that first part, not the actual historical bits. On top of that, he defines socialism as literally state power, and defines a state as any collective of multiple people. The problem is of course, he didn't do that. Hitler rarely called himself a socialist in anywhere but a few public speeches, and even then he defined "socialism" to be the same as "nationalism." He didn't make the party, he took over it with a new faction, and then purged most of the old members. He didn't institute socialist policies, unless you consider regulations on a capitalist market or basic welfare socialist, in which case every country is socialist. Hell, that second to last thing, "rivate property redistribution to the state officials" is about as un-socialist as it gets. There's a reason he, and his allies, wrote hundreds of pages explaining their ideology, and it isn't just so they could be called a new branch of socialist. He was a fascist, right wing. He blamed "marxist socialism" for many things, but the key is that he defined all socialism as marxist socialism, and tied it to marx (who was ethnically jewish) to aide his conspiracies. One more thing - globalism is a capitalist ideology. Come on. So, not socialist, really at all. I mean, it kind of is taking them on their word, but whatever. Which of their actions gave the workers as a whole any sort of control over the means of production? Maybe when he outlawed all unions? Or when he put union leaders in camps? Or maybe when he used the state to reward owners of private property while ignoring the workers? No, they weren't socialist. Totalitarian? Yes. Places like Denmark or Sweden, while not socialist, are good examples of places with strong welfare systems that help the poor have a say in their lives. The nazis literally put out hundreds of films, like Erbkrank, with the sole purpose of pointing out the drain such programs caused. I would recommend actually reading some nazi or Italian fascist literature on their ideology, or some analysis of it, and not from guys like this who think statism is socialism. You find that they rejected socialism, wholly, but (like capitalism) stole some bits to use along the way. However, they didn't care about any of what socialists cared about, they just saw potential in the rhetoric. I would be happy to show you some quotes showing this. Overall, they weren't socialists, and that's pretty well known for a reason.
    1
  1156.  @Reriiru  The problems (as i've stated) in the video are numerous. The issue of course is that all arguments for saying the nazis were socialists, much like yours, utterly ignore the definition, even while you quote it. Yes, you quoted the definition. And, funnily, enough, even you have to segment and twist it to even get close, and even then it doesn't work. "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Did the workers, as a whole, own the means of production, distribution, and exchange in nazi germany? No, they did not. Did hitler advocate for them to? No, he did not. "Did Hitler and NazSoc party own and redestribute the means of production? Yes, yes it did, the video gives you the evidence INCREDIBLY clearly." I think you misread the definition. The means of distribution *must be owned by the community, *socialism is not just when redistribution is done. By that logic, i'm sorry to say, the founding fathers were all socialists. The question, of course, is who were they distributed to in nazi germany? Not the workers, and that already disqualifies hitler for being a socialist. In fact, they were most often distributed back to private companies. Tell me, was Thatcher a socialist? Reagan? After all, they "redistributed the means of production"... into private hands. Is a dead father passing down his factory to his son socialist? No, I didn't think so. "Did it regulate it? Yes it did. " You forgot that last bit of the definition again. "regulated by the community as a whole." So is now every economy that is even slightly regulated a socialist economy? "Was it representing a community (albeit a very particular one)? Yes it bloody did." Ah, and there we have it. Even you can't twist the definition enough. According to you, the "workers *as a whole*" bit can be utterly discarded, as long as they were representing "a community." So, again, someone like Reagan, who redistributed some means of production into private hands, held over a somewhat regulated economy and called for regulation himself (Mulford Act) and was representing a community of white, rich republicans and private property owners... was socialist. This is why you can't pick and choose when it comes to definitions. "Was it done under a particular political and economic theory? Yes, as outlined in a book I can not legally read because of the other sect of socialists." Like, come on man. You didn't have to make this point, i'm pretty sure we all know fascism is an economic theory. One, that, unsurprisingly, rejects the left and socialism! "A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century. " And you know you can find PDFs online, right? Stop blaming socialists for all your problems. What i'm debating here is why you somehow think your argument is at all solid. You all but admitted it, the nazis do not fit the definition of socialism. The reason I "avoid association so desperately" is because none exists. What I would ask you, in turn, is why you try to push that nonexistent association so desperately? Why is it so important to you that the nazis were socialists, even when asserting that makes no reasonable sense?
    1
  1157.  @Reriiru  Because you literally, not figureatively but literally, managed to prove your argument wrong in just a few sentences. It's truly amazing the lengths you'll go to to deny this. I know you cannot answer to your own hypocrisy, but at least make it less obvious that you're a biased hack. So why do you push that association? Well to narrow it down, it's because you, (like TIK) have no clue what socialism actually is. You literally call Reagan a kind of socialist and then spend time complaining about me not showing the ideology being consistent with itself. No, it always has been. It's always been about "the workers" and to define it as broadly as you do makes the term meaningless. You are, already, denying history. It very clearly wasn't marxist, but it wasn't socialist as well, because you people seem to have no idea what the hell marxism actually is, or where it differs from socialism to begin with. What i am telling you is not about marxism, it is about socialism itself. And no, by any definition, Reagan was not socialist, and nowhere close to the left. That notion is utterly baffling, i'll be honest. And then you literally just go and say it, you call everyone a socialist who calls themselves socialist. No, that isn't how it works. I cannot advocate against a system under said system's label and be taken seriously. This takes your argument to a whole new level of moronic. Now, you're trying to put a moralistic spin on it. "If you deny the crimes of your past, you'll never learn from them." Sorry, when the hell did I call for ethnic cleansing? The system modern socialists propose is utterly incompatible with nazi ideology, and the system the socialists of the time of the nazis proposed was as well. Your statement makes no sense, and i'll give you an example why. The USSR called themselves "state capitalist." Mussolini called himself "state capitalist." The modern Chinese system is often referred to as "state capitalist." Ok, you're most likely a capitalist. So i'll be expecting an apology for your atrocious and criminal acts of trying to distance yourself from mussolini, the USSR, and modern day china.
    1
  1158. nobody calls hitler capitalist. They say he isn't socialist.
    1
  1159.  @kitsuneoga  There's a hell of a lot of difference between "hitler is a capitalist" and "capitalism can lead to fascism under certain conditions." I mean they literally say "in decay."
    1
  1160.  @JeffPenaify   @Jeff Boxing   @Jeff Boxing  ok, first off, what? No, sweden isn't socialist, and TIK agrees with that statement far more than any actual socialists. in any case, first off, socialism is not at all when the government does stuff. Hell, some of the first proposed version soft socialism were stateless, and that's a branch of socialism that continues strong to this day. In any case, socialism means the collective ownership of the means of production, and it's kind of hard to lay claim to that when you're collecting all power in the hands of private backers and government officials while throwing huge percentages of your population in death camps. Also, what the hell are you describing nazi germany as? "Welfare state?" They literally elected over fearmongering over government spending, and then ran a eugenics plan to get rid of disabled and elderly people. Not at all a welfare state. The union you talk about? Was under direct control of the workers bosses, and was only put in place because doing so made all other worker organization illegal. that doesn't represent a majority of the workers at all, especially since most of them were currently undergoing mass political censorship and ethnic cleansing. Oh, and did you ever wonder why they called themselves socialists? Well first, why the hell would you trust a regime known for lying about everything from eugenic "science" to the state of their war? In any case, maaaaaybe look into how hitler actually defined his version of "socialism." I'll give you some quotes if you'd like, but they all follow the same lines. "Leftist socialism is actually not socialist at all, in fact, the only real socialism is (insert whatever was politically convenient)" like, hitler literally called himself an individualist, and then said that the individual was a myth. He said he wanted to stop greedy capitalists, but then allied with a shit tone of them and called the private market the most efficient method of production. The man was a liar, and damn good at it.
    1
  1161. have to agree
    1
  1162.  @nicholascastellano5106  Sorry, that just isn't true, and we both know it. The first socialists didn't even believe in a state, how could socialism be about state power? The issue of class was always a part of socialism, but the methods of addressing it varied for a while until a more concrete set of actions was later formed. Mussolini openly rejected Marx and called his ideology right wing. He openly said he wanted to leave socialism behind and create something new, fascism. He didn't care about socialism in any form, he showed that, and said it. Hitler, again, learned instead from the same revolutionary traditionalists that Mussolini did, like Schmitt, Evola, Spengler, ect. He created national socialism based off of the conservative "Prussian Socialism" of Spengler, which again, openly said it was not related to any other socialism, and was right wing. Socialism is not, and never has been, about state control. I "claim" hitler was not a socialist, because Hitler literally defined socialism as being synonymous with nationalism, and being against everything the left was for, because he also said he hated the left. Oh, and he also said he respected private property. How... "socialist" of him.
    1
  1163.  @nicholascastellano5106  That isn't even close to true. For one, the place you're thinking of was called "New Harmony," and it wasn't in the 1600s, it was in the mid 1800s. While it was before Marx's time, they still very much had an ideology based in the dissalusion of private property and collective control, not state control. They also did their best to minimize class differences within the community, long before Marx began to speak on those issues. It also wasn't the first socialist community/experiment, not even in America, the Shakers take that title. The town failed because, well, it was a colonial town. Most of those failed, it just didn't have the backing it needed. Marx's ideas of class were not just shared by Marx, and did not start with Marx. Neither did communism. Or socialism. But they have always dealt with collective control and the issues of class. While Marx did want Communism through Socialism, he didn't come up with Communism, nor was his the only kind of communist. He also didn't have a wholly unique take on socialism. You really need to brush up on your history of the development of socialism and socialist ideals.
    1
  1164.  @l3v126  No I certainly agree generally, it's just that i've been talking about this with TIK forever and have addressed many of his claims many times, so I feel I am at least somewhat justified in that I saw both sides of the argument, and determined which one makes more sense.
    1
  1165.  @l3v126  Oh yeah that's fair, TIK's takes are pretty fun for that. Anyway, my point is just that yeah, anyone can give their opinions, but not all opinions (especially historical ones) are correct, and should probably be addressed.
    1
  1166. It is neither, but still falls on the right most likely, and I say this as a person who means no ill against the average conservative, which has no connection to them.
    1
  1167.  @Norralin  I don't disagree, fascism historically has been highly opportunist and willing to take from any ideology it thinks can help its goal. It wasn't capitalism nor socialism, certainly, and I can wholeheartedly agree that it was an absolutely awful thing, but it really is important to understand where it came from, at the very least so it doesn't appear again. Learning about the social darwinism, traditionalism, nationalism, ect, that it came from is imperative to that goal.
    1
  1168.  @Norralin  Ok then, that's good to hear :)
    1
  1169. @Hugh Mongous get it all out bud, come on
    1
  1170.  @AverageAlien  you'd think that one day you might have grown out of this childish insult-slinging... I suppose not.
    1
  1171.  @AverageAlien  And what would that be, proof that you're perhaps the worst person one can go to in terms of finding any sort of intellectual counter to socialism? You're not giving socialists what they "deserve," you're giving into childish impulses.
    1
  1172. It doesn't though, you just say that because you can't actually prove shit, something we've all been painfully aware of for a while now
    1
  1173.  @jacques9515  and you've yet to come up with a single one of meaning
    1
  1174. Horseshoe theory is long debunked.
    1
  1175.  @infinitelegion3318  But he was both anti-marxist and anti-socialist
    1
  1176.  @alexmuller1680  1. The problem of course is that the system you are describing, and attributing to socialism, is not socialist. While it was an ideology that certainly centered around giving to the state to eventually give back to the people, that's hardly socialist in origin, the monarchists had a similar system. The problem is that socialism as an ideology has bases in promoting the well-being of the workers as a whole, as well as giving them control of the means of production. And yes, that does include pre-marx socialism. The nazis achieved, and even wanted, nothing close to that. They didn't even want the workers of their nation or their race to own the means of production, they still gave it to the state or private interests over them. And for equality? As a concept, it was despised by the nazis. Hierarchy was a natural part of life for them, and that extended to from the rigid racial hierarchies they tried to impose onto the world to the constant political hierarchies of the dictator's power being broadened and challenged. Equality, as a concept, was despised. Certainly there was a tiny degree of it, but when people are being tossed into camps daily you can't really call it equality. The problem is that hitler's ideology wasn't just "socialism in one country" or "socialism but with nationalism as well." As I already said, he didn't apply the rules of socialism to his own people, so that discounts that idea. He held up private property as a good, worked with conservatives and capitalists, threw socialists in camps. Of course there isn't one "pure"form of socialism, but every form has the same things in common - they want the workers, as a whole, to own the means of production. How we get there, how that society is structured, what else they want, that's where socialists differ. But hitler didn't want that.,so he could not be a socialist. The problem with many of your examples is that yes, they don't fit the definition. That doesn't mean we broaden the definition of socialism, it means we apply it consistently. 2. Corporatism is a concept that, no offense,has more in common with capitalism than socialism. It's a system where the wealthy private property owners are compensated and rewarded by the government over the workers, which ironically, was something very similar to the system that the first socialists united specifically against. Of course socialism wasn't a concept or word yet, but even then, this idea of "socialism" does not line up with the actual founding of the socialist movement, and what it stood for. Was socialism created from absolutely scratch? Of course it wasn't, but again, it was based not on pro-private systems, but on systems specifically made to combat the problems with an intermingling of private and governmental power to the detriment of the people. The fascist doctrine, while it did take from socialism partly, also took from capitalism, and other ideologies. That makes it a unique ideology. I'll quote Mussolini here: "A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right,” a Fascist century." So again, are there multiple forms of socialism? Of course, Democratic, Marxist-Leninist, Libertarian, Green, ect. But all of these systems have that base thing in common. And fascism absolutely does not have that thing. They took from socialism, certainly, but did not take the whole thing, or even most of it, and could not reliably be called socialists.
    1
  1177.  @ImperiumSerama  "mainstream historians and the academics who studied these three ideologies." It's pretty apparent that this is who I was referencing. Because TIK specifically calls these people marxist hacks or something.
    1
  1178.  @ImperiumSerama  I actually have, which is why I know you're objectively wrong, as is TIK
    1
  1179.  @ImperiumSerama  You're right, I am objectively correct, and you are objectively wrong.
    1
  1180. ​ @ImperiumSerama  http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf "Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics." "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf "It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)." “'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45). "According to Roger Griffin, fascism can be defined as a revolutionary species of political modernism originating in the early twentieth century whose mission is to combat the allegedly degenerative forces of contemporary history (decadence) by bringing about an alternative modernity and temporality (a ‘new order’ and a ‘new era’) based on the rebirth, or palingenesis, of the nation. Fascists conceive the nation as an organism shaped by historic, cultural, and in some cases, ethnic and hereditary factors, a mythic construct incompatible with liberal, conservative, and communist theories of society. The health of this organism they see undermined as much by the principles of institutional and cultural pluralism, individualism, and globalized consumerism promoted by liberalism as by the global regime of social justice and human equality identified by socialism in theory as the ultimate goal of history, or by the conservative defense of 'tradition' (Anton Shekhovtsov "Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir" ‘Fascism and the Far Right Series’ p. xxi-xxii). https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Western-Far-Right-Routledge-ebook/dp/B075GY37XM/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Russia+and+the+Western+Far+Right%3A+Tango+Noir&qid=1597817814&s=books&sr=1-1 "Roger Griffin sees fascism is a form of ‘populist ultranationalism’ which aims to reconstruct the nation following a period of perceived crisis and decline—he uses the Victorian term ‘palingenetic’, meaning ‘rebirth from the ashes’, to characterize fascism. This attempted national resurrection amounts to a revolution, in that fascism compensates for the destruction of tradition through the promotion of a modernizing, utopian ideology" (Kevin Passmore "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" 'Oxford Press' (2014) p.16). https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00K4VCCRE/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Fascism%3A+A+Very+Short+Introduction&qid=1597817972&s=books&sr=1-1
    1
  1181. ​ @ImperiumSerama  “Meanwhile, some journalists writing for the ‘quality press' assure us that China has mutated from a communist into a fascist state (e.g. Becker 2002). The most serious effect of such sloppy use of the term ‘fascism,’ whatever is cathartic effect as a pejorative or expletive term, is that it has contributed to the profound confusion that prevails about how to describe the advocates of particular Right-wing forms of democratic politics who attack multiculturalism, the free movement of labour, the Islamization of society, big government, and international bodies such as the EU and the UN, but do so democratically, from within the institutions of representative government that they have no intention of dismantling. The prevailing term for this increasingly important current in contemporary politics, ‘populism,’ raises problematic issues of its own, not least because it is frequently conflated with ‘fascism’” (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 5). https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Key-Concepts-Political-Theory-ebook/dp/B07DPB3X7G/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Griffin+Fascism&qid=1597818106&s=books&sr=1-1 "'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1). "After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251). The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 253). For [Giovanni] Gentile, history showed how the rise of secularism and individualism had destroyed faith and heroism. He saw fascism as the continuation of the struggle between the idealist spirit of [Giuseppe] Mazzini [an Italian nationalist, rejected the liberalism of the Enlightenment period, & an anti-Marxist] and the materialist scepticism of [Giovanni] Giolitti [a moderate liberal], the two souls of Italy" (Robert Eatwell "The Drive Towards Synthesis: Natural History" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 192). "Almost immediately after his expulsion from the Socialist Party, Mussolini noted that the war had crystallized whole populations into national units in which intragroup class distinctions had been by-and-large obliterated. In effect, Mussolini began to argue that national rather than class units constituted more adequate subjects of analysis. …‘Class,’ Mussolini maintained, ‘is based on the community of interests, but the nation is a history of sentiments, of traditions, of language, of culture or race.’ One could not plausibly argue for the priority of class interests as opposed to national interests. …He spoke of a reassessment of the European situation from a national as well as a socialist point of view—and gave the first intimations of the possibility of a ‘national socialism’ that would better accord with the evident realities with which socialist theoreticians were compelled to contend. …By January, 1915, he could maintain, ‘The Working Class International…has not only demonstrated its impotence in the face of events and its inability to prevent the war, but its literal nonexistence as well.’ The reality of then current conflict made it obvious that the peoples of Europe were striving to fulfill their national and not their class aspiration. In view of such a realization, the advocacy of class war was a vain prescription. What the circumstances demanded was national unity. The consequences of this re-orientation were obvious. Mussolini advocated a return to the nationalism of Mazzini and a rejection of Marx if the reality, complexity, and urgency of contemporary events required it. By May 1915, these convictions were firmly established” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 142-144). https://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Fascism-Rationale-Totalitarianism/dp/0029130301/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Ideology+of+Fascism%3A+The+Rationale+of+Totalitarianism&qid=1566136080&s=books&sr=1-1 The minoritarian governing class of the nation must govern. It must mobilize the efforts of the nation in the service of victory. It was in this capacity that the governing class proved itself, in Mussolini’s judgment, incompetent. He declared himself anti-parliamentarian because parliament had failed the nation. Parliament in Italy had become ‘a plague that poisoned the blood of the nation.’ It was necessary to extirpate it. His objection to parliament was no longer based upon a conception which construed it as representing special class interests; it turned on the judgment and defending the vital interests of the nation” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 146).
    1
  1182.  @ImperiumSerama  “Given the constellation of ideas that had developed since October 1914, Mussolini’s class-oriented socialism had become increasingly diaphanous. It was certainly no longer Marxist. On the eleventh of August 1918, he changed the subtitle of his paper from ‘A Socialist Daily’ to ‘A Daily of Combatants and Producers,’ and in inaugurating the change indicated the designation socialist was no longer descriptive of the ideas with which he identified. So many of the categories of what had been orthodox socialism, ‘class,’ ‘class struggle,’ ‘surplus value,’ and ‘economic determinism,’ had been either abandoned or so extensively revised that the term socialism no longer had cognitive significance” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 147). The most authoritative narrative history of all fascist movements and regimes is Stanley G. Payne’s prodigiously learned A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), but it describes better than it explains" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" digital loc. 4,302). (Stanley G. Payne “Fascism: Comparison and Definition” 1980). https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009NZH6VO/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i6 "In 1980 Stanley Payne entered the fray with two seminal publications (1980a, 1980b). They showed the influence both of his colleague George Mosse and of the sociologist and political scientist Juan Linz, who at the time was also making important contributions to fascist studies (Linz 1976, 1980). Payne offered for the first time a coherent taxonomy of fascism as a distinctive category of the extreme Right" (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital Ch. 3 pp. 8-9). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Kp-wevSGo “Though the nineteenth century was the time of the greatest expansion of civic and personal freedom in world history to that point, individualist liberalism was increasingly contested by two new forms of political collectivism—nationalism and socialism” (Stanley G. Payne “A History of Fascism, 1914-1945” 1995 digital: loc. 725). https://www.amazon.com/History-Fascism-1914-1945-Stanley-Payne-ebook/dp/B00ECIB76C/ref=sr_1_2?crid=15IPXB4GN5I2H&dchild=1&keywords=a+history+of+fascism+stanley+payne&qid=1597859656&s=books&sprefix=A+History+of+Fascism+%2Caps%2C846&sr=1-2 "Most people of the current generation lack a sense of the historical sweep of the intellectual side of the right-wing collectivist position. It represents the revival of a tradition of interwar collectivist thought that might at first seem like a hybrid but was distinctly mainstream between the two world wars. It is anti-communist but not for the reasons that were conventional during the Cold War, that is, because communism opposed freedom in the liberal tradition. Right-collectivism also opposes traditional liberalism. It opposes free trade, freedom of association, free migration, and capitalism understood as a laissez-faire free market. It rallies around nation and state as the organizing principles of the social order—and trends in the direction of favoring one-man rule—but positions itself as opposed to leftism traditionally understood" (Jeffrey Tucker "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty" 2017 digital: loc. 105). https://www.amazon.com/Right-Wing-Collectivism-Other-Threat-Liberty-ebook/dp/B075MRH3W5/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Right-Wing+Collectivism%3A+The+Other+Threat+to+Liberty&qid=1597788924&s=books&sr=1-1 "Perhaps the best definition [of fascism] comes from Robert Paxton professor emeritus at Columbia University and holder of the Legion d’Honneur, despite all the books he has written on wartime France’s pro-Nazi Vichy regime. Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism analyzes the stages by which 20th century fascisms rose and fell. It should be essential reading for any student of fascist movements, and especially for anyone thinking of founding one. Fascism, Paxton says, is a dynamic process, rather than a fixed ideology like socialism or communism. There are five steps on Paxton’s road to hell, and not all fascist parties made it past the second step" (Dominic Green "The Elusive Definition of 'Fascist'" ‘The Atlantic’ 2016 web). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eB07s3PGG5I "Robert Paxton, an outstanding expert on the Vichy regime" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 14). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S8xsaMqturA Unlike them [“liberalism, conservatism, and socialism”], fascism does not rest on formal philosophical positions with claims to universal validity” (Robert Paxton “The Five Stages of Fascism” ‘The Journal of Modern History’ 1998 Vol. 70, p. 4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/235001?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents "Fascism, by contrast [to conservatism, liberalism, & socialism], was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. …Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. …Fascism is 'true' insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other people's in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16). "This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214). https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton-ebook-dp-B000XUBE6G/dp/B000XUBE6G/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me&qid=1545809207&fbclid=IwAR3IIQu2dH2K5-keTFNXlzvBwej2HFuh7Eon_E2oek6VrEnuu1osxiU-YpY
    1
  1183.  @ImperiumSerama  “The German Right had traditionally been völkisch, devoted to the defense of a biological ‘people’ threatened by foreign impurities, socialist division, and bourgeois softness” (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" p. 37). https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Fascism-Robert-Paxton-ebook/dp/B000XUBE6G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=38NXXKFYDXU5B&dchild=1&keywords=the+anatomy+of+fascism+robert+o.+paxton&qid=1597860555&s=digital-text&sprefix=The+Anatomy+of+Fascism+%2Cdigital-text%2C1101&sr=1-1 “Ian Kershaw, a major expert on Nazism” (Roger Griffin “International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus” ed. Roger Griffin ‘Arnold Readers in History Series’ 1998 p. 11). "[Read] Ian Kershaw's chapter 'The essence of Nazism: form of fascism, brand of totalitarianism, or unique phenomenon?' in his seminal work The Nazi Dictatorship (third edition: London, Edward Arnold, 1993)" (Roger Griffin “International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus” ed. Roger Griffin ‘Arnold Readers in History Series’ 1998 p. 325). "[A] world expert on the Third Reich [...] Ian Kershaw was now prepared not only to classify Nazism as a form of fascism but to assert that ‘The quest for national rebirth lay, of course, at the heart of all fascist movements’" (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 54). "The preeminent biography of Hitler is now Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1889–1936: Hubris (New York: Norton, 1999), and Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis (New York: Norton, 2000). Kershaw relates the dictator to the society that imagined him, and that 'worked toward' its leader without needing to be forced" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital, loc. 4,302). (‘Remember This’ “The Most Compelling Biography of the German Dictator Yet Written (1999)” video [lecture by Ian Kershaw] ‘YouTube’ 03/30/2016). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=udJZogklcZI&t=1147s "Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031). https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-ebook/dp/B01AVKWG5K/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Ian+Kershaw+%22Hitler+1889%E2%80%931936%3A+Hubris&qid=1595299044&s=books&sr=1-1 “It is thus worth stressing that, in academic analysis and properly researched journalism, ‘populism’, or more precisely ‘the populist radical right’, is generally used to designate an illiberal but democratic and non-revolutionary form of politics driven by widespread (hence ‘popular’) mistrust of ruling political and economic elites, both domestic and international. This mistrust is compounded by concerns about the impact on national identity and sovereignty of globalizing forces such as multiculturalism, international trade, the export of manufacturing jobs, and mass immigration” (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 95). https://www.amazon.com/Fascism-Key-Concepts-Political-Theory-ebook/dp/B07DPB3X7G/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Griffin+Fascism&qid=1597818106&s=books&sr=1-1 "This book is not concerned with the so-called 'mainstream right,' such as conservatives and liberals/libertarians, but only with those on the right who are 'anti-system,' defined here as hostile to liberal democracy. This is what I call the far right, which is itself divided into two broader subgroups. The extreme right rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule. The most infamous example of the extreme right is fascism, which brought to power German Führer Adolf Hitler and Italian Duce Benito Mussolini, and was responsible for the most destructive war in world history. The radical right accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law, and separation of powers. Both subgroups oppose the postwar liberal democratic consensus, but in fundamentally different ways. While the extreme right is revolutionary, the radical right is more reformist. In essence, the radical right trusts the power of the people, the extreme right does not" (Cas Mudde "The Far Right Today" 2019 digital: p. 6). “As I finish this manuscript, in May 2019, three of the five most populous countries in the world have a far-right leader (Brazil, India, and the US) and the biggest political party in the world is the populist radical right Indian People’s Party (BJP). Within the European Union (EU), two governments are fully controlled by populist radical right parties (Hungary and Poland), another four include such parties (Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy, Slovakia), and two are held up with support of a populist radical right party (Denmark and the United Kingdom).” (Cass Mudde “The Far Right Today” 2019 digital: p. 1). (Cass Mudde “Why We Should Study Populism” ‘The Wheatley Institution’ ‘YouTube’ 03/23/2016). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE9RkfRqGcE "First, populism is by definition antielitist, but key liberal democratic institutions inevitably include many people with high levels of education and specialized knowledge. So populist voters scorn institutions in favor of direct relationships with charismatic leaders, who, history suggests, threaten liberal democracy. Second, populists believe these leaders should be free to act on their behalf, unrestrained by institutions designed to protect individual liberties and minority rights. Populists typically are hostile to liberal democratic institutions such as constitutional courts, independent agencies and the press—unless populist leaders can bring them to heel. Third, ethnonationalists distinguish between the ‘real’ people—defined by descent, ethnicity and religion—and the rest. This contradicts a core principle of liberal democracy—that our shared civic identity as citizens overrides our differences—without which the U.S. could never have thrived as a nation of immigrants. Ethnonationalism may work in countries with nearly homogenous populations, but it means an ugly politics everywhere else. If the citizens of diverse societies don’t unite against it, repression and strife are inevitable, and liberal democracy will be in peril" (William A. Galston "Liberal Democracy’s Threats from Within" 'WSJ' Jan. 21, 2020). https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberal-democracys-threats-from-within-11579651613?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR3ESCZtpYkEcRn2EXeMAa1T8REuvUVJN4MhtdpRBUjXCLMeFD0VXqSQnHQ (William A. Galston “The Populist Challenge to Liberal Democracy” ‘Brookings’ 04/17/2018). https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-populist-challenge-to-liberal-democracy/ "History also shows that conservatives should be particularly wary of embracing right-wing populists. Mainstream Republicans who make bogus claims about voter fraud, rigged elections, and the questionable patriotism and nationality of President Barack Obama in order to appeal to the extremist fringes are playing an extremely dangerous game, since such rhetoric fans citizens’ fear and distrust of their politicians and institutions, thus undermining their faith in democracy itself" (Sheri Berman "Populism is not Fascism: But It Could Be a Harbinger" 'Foreign Affairs' November/December 2016). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-10-17/populism-not-fascism
    1
  1184.  @ImperiumSerama  Also, got to love how the vast majority of your quotes are one of three things: 1. Them agreeing on basic things, like problems with society, but disagreeing wildly on why those problems exist and how to solve them 2. Assertions by ideologically biased figures 3. Quotes from historians that actually disagree with your conclusion, as I showed. Is that enough for you, hm? Are you ready to stop lying?
    1
  1185.  @ImperiumSerama  1. You deleted your response mate. Might want to man up and post it again. 2. From what I did manage to see, you took issue with me posting the "against the mainstream" source which TIK attempts to critique in this video. You do not however once consider that perhaps TIK's criticism didn't warrant the abandonment of the source,or in fact any consideration at all. I'm well aware that he seems to consider the nominal privatization of land as technically nationalization, and I have argued against that view before, as well as his characterization of the source in question, which I assume you have not read. In other words - you know that just because a criticism was made by someone you agree with, that doesn't mean a source can be discarded, right? As for the rest of it, I have no idea what fallacious tirade you were going on, so I expect to be pleased by your reposting of the comment.
    1
  1186.  @ImperiumSerama  I'm saying that you're abandoning the source by claiming it can not possibly be correct, and outright dismissing it.
    1
  1187.  @ImperiumSerama  Yeah, youtube does that. That's why I had to post my sources about ten times each. And sure you did buddy, anything you say. After all, you're always right and actual professionals can never be, it seems.
    1
  1188.  @ImperiumSerama  Yeah, i'm sure dude. You realize those are bots, right? Like, youtube automatically takes those thing down? If I reported them it would take several days for them to even care, but the bots get on it ASAP. Come on now, no need for paranoia. And I just woke up right about now, so I have to say I couldn't be doing that even if I wanted to.
    1
  1189.  @ImperiumSerama  That's my point. You're dismissing the actual conclusions of the paper, not based on data but based on semantic differences in the way you perceive their actions. That doesn't really change what the author reported, and how they justified it, it just means you didn't care for their results, or agree with their portrayal.
    1
  1190.  @ImperiumSerama  The problem is, you're already trying to replace them with even crazier semantics. One could criticize the freedom of said private property, but to go down the TIK route and declare every bit of property nor owned by a single person or a family is technically a state? That's insane. I am aware that you don't disagree with the data, yes. But the issue is, you're arguing these semantics make no sense... while pushing absurd semantics of your own. Semantics that you're only pushing for because you ideologically disagree with their objectively correct placement your ideological opposition to reality is not a stain o reality, but a stain on you.
    1
  1191.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Mises called capitalists socialists. Frequently.
    1
  1192.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Child, you really haven't heard of this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkQfK8hn0ds
    1
  1193.  @TheImperatorKnight  Right, because there is no difference between saying "hey maybe we should stop discrimination that exists" and "hey, not enough discrimination exists." God you really just compared the fucking democrats, a center-right party, to the nazis.
    1
  1194.  @birgaripadam7112  oh yeah, no problem, good on you.
    1
  1195.  @Pangora2  Sadly, the sources do reiterate my point. Even the sources TIK uses, which he is happy to admit. However, you'd need to do individual research to figure that out, and we all know you haven't. Because if you had... you'd know they weren't socialist.
    1
  1196.  @fattony638  Well, that's the thing. First off, it isn't as much the "majority" that counts here, as it is the collective of people. Could that be the majority, and will it be in most cases? Yes, probably, but that doesn't mean that the will of the 51 will always take total precedence over the will of the 49, in most cases you wouldn't reach that kind of disagreement. In any case, the other thing to mention is that in this type of socialism, there really only is the proletariat. Marx defined the classes by their relation to the means of production, which means that if private property was abolished and put in the hands of either the government or people directly, the proles would be the only class to exist, and thus there would be no "rest" to disenfranchise. That's the point, not to replace one power-hungry oppressive group with another, but to raise everyone up to the same level of political, economic, and class power.
    1
  1197.  @dfmrcv862  ...what? That's about as strawman-y as you can get. How about TIK's "If you just redefine any system to be socialist, they must be socialist!" How about you actually educate yourself on the truth, the fact that the nazis weren't socialists.
    1
  1198.  @dfmrcv862  You literally didn't though, which means you're lying, wich we already knew to be fair. And we've already been over this. Fascism isn't an economic syste, fascism is far right, fascism values hierarchy, fascism ultimately protects the powerful rather than shift the power, and on and on and on. Socialism can claim none of that. Fascism and socialism are practically direct opposites, child.
    1
  1199.  @Zionvile666  Is that supposed to be an insult?
    1
  1200. ​ @sonderweg9927  Ah, more projection! You claim I didn't acknowledge any of your points, and yet I literally went and responded to every point you made, line by line. You, on the other hand, can't respond to a single thing I wrote. Because you can't, because your positions are incorrect and indefensible. The point is that saying that there is no difference, functional or rhetorical, between a society where the people as a whole have power over their workplaces and political lives, and a society where only the strong have any power at all, is just wrong. Clearly there is a difference, one you just refuse to see. And I know you want to call me a fascist, despite me not being a fascist or a socialist, which kind of shows how ideologically driven your supposedly objective argument is. It's you who is proposing a system in which you allow a select few people to seize the work of their fellow man and micromanage their lives and productions because it is somehow "efficient." Is this you admitting that you have the same moral outlook as fascists? Your strawmen fall flat, again. You're a liar, who by your own admission holds a contempt for humanity stronger than what you attribute to socialists. And again - strawmen and projection. As I told you, in a point you refused to respond to. Socialism carries no contempt for human beings, in fact nearly every strain of socialism prides itself on granting the individual more autonomy, more protections, more rights and political power over themselves and their work. People like you, on the other hand, hold contempt for those individual freedoms, and base their ideology on long dead idealism, and thus by your own admission, you are more morally similar to fascists than socialists are. . Fascists are hated for the reasons I gave you, not your subjective notions of "inhumanity" and "dignity." Nobody cares how dignified the fascists were, they care about the goals and actions of fascists, and the millions of bodies that you seek to sweep under the rug. You can call me a communist all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are again, lying. Where did I say my primary concern was with the fascist economy? No, I care about the fascist social view, you know the one you share with them, where humans are fundamentally unequal and society should be built around the strong dominating and forcing out the weak. I agree, no reasonable person, when asked what the problem with fascism is, would primarily object to their economic policy. Which makes it weird that you attribute that opinion to me. So go ahead, quote where I said that. I'll wait. You can't, can you? Fascism and socialism are not the same, not in morals, not in goals, not in actions, not in history. Historically, they have been viewed as opposite movements that fought eachother at nearly every opportunity. The fact that you ignore this in favor of your own biased personal opinions towards the two speaks volumes. Capitalism is a system. This isn't false, this is literally the definition of capitalism and economic systems. Hell, Adam Smith called capitalism an opposing system to absolute monarchy, is he a socialist now? Fascists, on the other hand, do think of the driving force of capitalism as an inescapable part of nature. Something you agree on. The people who own things literally do dictate economic activity, this is something that capitalists first proposed as the primary method of economic mobility. Its common sense, the people who own production decide how production is used. Fascism is pro-capital. You can insult the ideologies you disagree with all you want, but when your entire "point" is just saying "this is wrong" without providing evidence, you are a liar. Fascism doesn't believe in a community, fascism believes in the domination of groups and individuals over others. Socialism doesn't believe a community is one entity (as I corrected you on previously) socialists believe that their system would help people as individuals. ...This is literally pulled out of your ass, and its more commonly peddled by anti-democracy capitalists than any other group. If socialists thought the people were brainwashed, why the hell would they base their entire economy system around giving power to those people?? Fascists never believed value comes from labor, champ. This is another lie you have told, backed up by nothing. Can we go on? Can we? Because please, go ahead, i'd be interested to hear it. None of the things you listed were remotely true, most of them were more true of capitalists than any other group, the rest of them were strawmen that I already addressed. The point is, fascism and socialism are dynamically opposed, and the fact that you have to so transparently lie to find any supposed similarity between the two is perfect evidence of this. As I told you last time, and as you are continually proving - it isn't the actions or words of the people you oppose that need to change. It's you. You keep saying that I have so much in common with fascists, because I "talk like them." Tell me, which fascist talks like an anarchist? I'll wait. Just let that sink in. You are saying an anarchist talks like fascists. While saying fascism is about the rejection of individuality. The truth is, you just want to call me a fascist. That's why you have been strawmanning me this whole time, all while showing the many similarities you and fascists share.
    1
  1201.  @sonderweg9927  Admit you're a liar. Do it. I proved you're lying, admit it. You've never read my responses.
    1
  1202.  @sonderweg9927  If that was true, then why do you specifically say things that I refute? I'm waiting.
    1
  1203. ​ @sonderweg9927  Ah yes, the individualist anarchist talks like a fascist. In other news, up is down, left is right, and the past is in the future. It is plain that after me taking hours to deconstruct every single one of your points, time and time again, you've realized that you don't actually have any factual information backing a single one of your prior claims. That's why you abandon them so quickly, why you leave behind you a trail of discarded "points" and conceded arguments - because you know i'm right, and because you don't have the knowledge necessary to even try to address a single one of my points, much less refute it. That's why, to this date, you have not addressed my points. I'll be waiting. This is also why you despise actual evidence based reasoning on things like the human condition, and human nature. This is why you despise objective historical fact, and seek to dismiss it. It is because, like the preachers before you, your ideology is not rooted in fact. Rather, it is rooted in your hatred of your opposition, which is why all you have left are insults. You, like the preachers before you, have no facts to back up your beliefs. So you call your opponents "heretics," (or in my case, somehow a 'libertarian fascist') and then attempt to deflect. Sad. Let's address some of your strawmen and attempts at arguments. First off, let me remind you, and quote my last response. I wholly reject the idea that the worst or most opposable part of fascism is its economic theory. This is a position I have never espoused, and you have ignored my requests to quote me on. This is, of course, because you are an admitted liar who is more willing to strawman me than address a single one of my points. Now, let's move on to your cultish usage of "inhumanity." Inhumanity is a subjective term, that hundreds of different people have used to mean hundreds of different things. The preachers before you called it inhuman to indulge in basic pleasures, and before that, it was inhuman to not commit to blood sacrifices. Your version of "inhumanity" is just as vapid and ill-defined as your past religious counterparts. Yes, bad things are bad. Yes, genocide, racism, brutality, and repression are bad. But they aren't just bad because you label them as "inhumane," just as murder isn't just bad because christians think God said so. They are bad because they impact real people, people you want to ignore, deaths and whole lives you want to sweep under the rug. by calling this behavior "inhumane," you are apologizing for those who conducted it. Sadly, bad things are a part of humanity, and blaming them on some "other" is what a child would do. And just to remind you a fourth time - you are the person who seems to take issue with fascism for a wholly arbitrary reason. Not me. If a fascist was to convince you that their view of the world was "human," (which they thought it was,) you would be a proud fascist. We are already aware you refuse to define socialism in any sort of rational or historically accurate way, but this takes that to a whole new level. No, I do not subscribe to marxism or socialism of any sort, as I have told you time and time again. You seem to be unable to grasp basic definitions. The following prove only that you seem unable to recall any basic definitions or economic theory, and that you seem to think of... yourself as a marxist socialist. - This is false. Marx never touched on "Social" class, he only ever dealt with economic class - This is the definition everyone from capitalists to egoists use. Because it is literally true. Yes, the system is defined as the owners actually owning things. Sorry that triggers you. - Again - another belief held by many groups, most of them having nothing to do with marx. - And again - something not Even marx believed, and this one in particular I have corrected you on two times prior. You refused to address them both of these times, and I have no faith you'll even read down this far. Half of these views aren't even held by marxists, and the other half are held from people who don't care about marx, to people who hate marx more than you. Again - you prove yourself historically illiterate. And ironically enough, now you might as well be quoting marx! Uh, yes. Workers need to combine their labor with capital to actually make things. Lucky for you, marx agreed. He just thought the workers should own their labor and the capitol they create with it, unlike you. According to you, however, some unnamed person "owns" their work simply because they say so, or perhaps because they were given a few pieces of marked paper that claim so. Sadly, this system has no basis in efficiency or reality, and yet you adhere to it as your own personal religion. You call people owning their own work "stealing," of course. However, there is one line that stands out to me as correct - "the workers must ask the owner for permission." Well, at least here you admit that capitalism is a system only upheld through force or violence. That's a good first step. The capital owner doesn't play a fundamental role in creating the wealth, that's the thing you seem not to understand. If a CEO goes missing, the company chugs on. If the lowest workers all go missing, then the company can no longer operate. Yours system is rooted in an unfair and coerced power dynamic that defies all of human nature, and you're well aware. Ah, and of course this argument, the idea that no matter what, capitalism will always exist. If this was the case, why do you seem to oppose socialists so much, according to you their ideas won't change anything anyway. What you seem not understand is that, by definition and historical fact, capitalism is a system, one that has not existed forever, and will not exist forever. Breaking out of capitalism is not only possible - with things like automation, it is inevitable. And what? I don't think that people are entitled to the work of others, i'm not a capitalist. You think that a boss is entitled to the work of the laborer siply because they have stamped their name on the land, how is that any less than basic robbery? I'm glad you seem to understand that the system you espouse is inhumane, though. You explicitly claim that some people who own things are superior, and thus, should be able to control the lives of us little folk. I think people should own what they do and what they produce, while you seem to think that you have a right to confiscate what they produce in the name of the rich. I don't want to speak "for the people," I want to let people speak for themselves. You seem to not understand the depth of your theft. After all, that's all your ideology is. A smokescreen for repression, murder, and genocide. At least fascists are a little more honest about what they want to protect. Your outlook is about as rooted in consent as a gunpoint rapists is. In your system, people need to work. But not only that, they need to work under somebody, they need to give up their work to someone who likely hasn't worked a day in their lives, just because you feel that's "Fair." When you are faced with me, an actual person who has a hundreds year old ideology based on mutual aid, consent, and the ultimate emancipation of the individual, you call me a fascist. I have nothing fundamentally in common with a fascist, whereas you share their contempt for individual rights, idea in natural hierarchy, and adherence to mythological nonsense. You are free to ignore every response I post, as you no doubt will. After all, you haven't even read the whole posts, have you? You seem to think you're justified in calling an anarchist a fascist, all while doing the very things you accuse fascists of, and now why is that? But I just want you to know how clear it is that the only thing separating you from a fascist is a title and a set of morals. And as you've proven, your morals shift very easily. It's a good thing that the vast majority of people are aware of your historical lies and rhetorical propaganda. They know what fascism looks like, and it doesn't look like an anarchist.
    1
  1204.  @sonderweg9927  Amazing projection. I'm waiting for you to even address a single one of my comments, much less refute it. You have called an anarchist a fascist, said I only disagree with fascist economics (which I have asked you to provide proof of several times, still waiting) and have lied countless times, all while not once addressing my arguments. You can run away all you like, but it is plainly obvious to anyone reading just how willing you are to lie in a transparent attempt to distance yourself from your own criticisms. the problem is, you are unwilling to read. If you were, you would realize that I had addressed lies of yours from even hours back, and you simply tell them again without a second thought, preferring insults to argumentation. So we are done.
    1
  1205.  @sonderweg9927  I agree, everybody here can read, and just in case not, i've been sure to bold out specific sections you might want to pay a bit more attention to. One thing i've noticed in your writing is that every paragraph is based on a false assumption - when you say something, you don't attempt to explain it, or give examples, or even give a coherent thought. You simply state it as if it is fact, and when it is addressed, you ignore it. And then, when called out in a clear and simple way... you can't respond, even then. It's quite sad to watch. I'm sorry you're such a liar, and i'm sorry that you're such a poor debater. I'm sorry that you have devoted supposedly hours to writing down paragraphs upon paragraphs which wholly deflect from our actual conversation, in favor of baseless insults. Potential solutions: - Read the comment you're supposed to be refuting - Actually read it, address it line by line, even mirror your opponents organization, like I do - Learn when you're wrong, and instead of shifting the goalposts, concede - Read a book once in a while, then you might not call anarchists fascists And then perhaps you won't have to bow out of your next embarrassing loss upon me or another pointing out how easy it is to refute you.
    1
  1206.  @sonderweg9927  Which statements? quote me.
    1
  1207.  @sonderweg9927  Ah, so we've reached this part, eh? A typo is now considered an argument, whereas you can ignore my argument for paragraphs on end and somehow its me who doesn't read. Why are you projecting your own faults onto me? Is there anything else I should be worried about? Inhumane is what the fascists thought they were doing, because it was only "humane" to put the 'powerful' at the top, and the 'weak' in their 'rightful place.' I of course do not support this ideology, unlike you, but its worth pointing out how shifty and subjective your moral system is. Oh wait, I already did. And you never responded. And again, let me remind you - the fascists considered what they did "humane," on a moral basis. Just like you do. Which means the only substantial difference between your ideas and the ideas of fascists is a slight shift in moral code. A shift you have proven yourself more than willing to make. You'll notice, despite you saying that I have not read nor interpreted your responses, I have said all this before. which means, again, you're lying. But i'm happy to correct you... again. And yet another case where you seem to be unable to actually read what i've wrote - I don't claim you "think" that, in fact I pointed out how you've deluded yourself into believing the opposite of the truth many times before. What i've shown is that the result of your ideas is a system in which the owners feel unjustly entitled to the labor of their workers. Of course, you ignore this, not surprised, but then you ignore the fact that the property owners don't actually have a justified reason to "own" what they say they do - the workers do. Of course, you seem unable to address any of these arguments i've presented before, and do exactly what I said you do - present your "Arguments" as facts, without explaining or expanding on them. Your only "example" here is nonsense. What actually happens: - A rich person gives professionals slips of paper to signify he "owns" their work - A worker, who actually does the labor, wants to create a product - The rich person decides, despite doing no work, he is entitled to that person's labor. Your solution is that the rich person takes from the work of the engineer, simply because they decide they are entitled to that work. My position is that the engineer should own their own work, and not be restricted or stolen from simply because someone else claims they are entitled to it. You claim the rich person is entitled to the drill. Prove it Give me an actual reason that they "deserve" that drill, and that despite them not working with it, or knowing how to use it. The thing is, only one of these people is needed to extract a product from the earth. Even if the rich person "owns" the drill, if they disappear, the drill stays right there. If the engineer disappears, the drill is useless. Funny, I already went over this. Oh well, another thing you never read. It's a simplified form, yes, but one that shows your simple thinking. Simple as in... well, not realistic. Not what actually happens. If you assert that the core logic remains the same... (and I would agree) then the core logic is fundamentally flawed. It makes no sense, isn't efficient, and translates into pretty much all of the unnatural force behind the system of capitalism. At least you admit that the owner holds unjust power over the individual worker. And here's another constant mistake you make - you assume that just because I am able to see past your rhetoric and point out your system for what it actually is. You don't even disguise it that well, you are an admitted proponent of the theft of property and labor, and you only justify it by worshipping the most successful thieves. Ah, and you admit it! you take no time in these responses, which is entirely because you do not actually reply to them. No, rather you skim my responses and then in a fit of rage post your own. Which is why you still have yet to address my claims. What we have established: -You cannot read, as shown by the aforementioned failures in reading comprehension and your lies -You cannot write, which is why you constantly work yourself into rhetorical loopholes. I know you can't copy an actual distinct writing style, i'm well aware, trust me. Your text boxes of nonsense don't even come close to the quality or quantity of what you write. Of course, you admit this freely, as you have with your other lies. I know you are making excuses for your own lack of attention paid to me effortlessly debunking your arguments time and time again. I do understand what you said, which is why I respond in such detail. You, on the other hand, seem to not even be able to respond to what is said in any amount, which is why, like usual, you leave off your response not with a point... but an insult.
    1
  1208.  @sonderweg9927  Ahhh, and another lie! So, where's the proof? According to you, it has been my own statements that show I am somehow comfortable with authoritarian socialism... despite me opposing both of those things upon them being brought up. You, on the other hand, have argued plainly in favor of a system based on authoritarianism and inhumane theft. You are, in everything but title, a step away from fascism. That is no longer the topic in dispute. That has already been established, and conceded to by you. I know you want to run away from that fact, which is why despite you bringing it up for the first time here, you say it's somehow "not in dispute." I think the only thing left in dispute, as in the only point you haven't admitted i'm right on, is why you seem to think lying is ok?
    1
  1209. ​ @sonderweg9927  Oh, i'm aware the word has a different meaning. In fact, I was so aware of it... I addressed it in my previous response. You know, the one you didn't read? I quite literally said that every point I made works against the definition of humane, and brought up said points again. You, of course, didn't read that far though, and thus like every other one of my points against you, you concede your "arguments" to me. And again, I have already criticized your made up and constantly shifting definition of what is "inhumane," and how much said definition can shift and be abused by different groups with only minor differences in ideology with you. So it must be repeated - you refuse to read my arguments, and reply back to me with points I have already not only addressed but refuted. You insult me, rather than actually attempt to rebut my points, because you know you don't actually have any ability to disprove what i'm saying. You blame me for your own actions, and yet it is me who continues to argue with you, and you who refuses to address my actual posts. Hence why this conversation is the way that it it is. Of course you aren't trying to prove anything - you can't. You couldn't prove it in an academic setting, you can't prove it here, and you couldn't even make a good argument for it on a school playground. You seem to forget that words carry arguments. Well, my words do at any rate, yours are just filled with insults now, a fact you've admitted to. Another problem - you seem to presume things are "facts" simply because you say they are. I've told you this time and time again, but of course you've either not read it or refused to respond to it. You have a problem of presuming things to be facts with no evidence, examples, or explanation, and then using those statements to "back up" even more absurd statements. The problem is, your arguments are only ever based on your own statements, and in every case, those statements are easy to address and disprove, completely removing the foundation and legitimacy of any attempted argument. You have failed to adhere to actual, material reality in your arguments, and instead presume I have some knowledge of your magical fantasy world that has nothing to do with this one. And of course, as I've already said, your "points" consist of insults because you know you have nothing else. And again. When did I say that it was impossible someone could "own" a drill under your system? In fact, I literally used an example in which someone "owned" that drill. No, the point I brought up, that you plainly misunderstood, was that your very concept of ownership under a capitalist system is flawed. And again... what do these examples have to do with your supposed point? They are examples that, again, rely on your own presumptions. For example, you presume that your concept of ownership is just (it isn't) that it is based in material fact (it isn't) and that it actually exists in anything but deed. (it doesn't.) I've pointed out this problem of yours four times prior, and here we go again. In fact, you continue to do so over and over again in this very response showing just how you don't understand how to format basic debate. Well, at least we can both admit you've dropped your more absurd claims, such as that i'm some capitalist theif or authoritarian like you. I love how this whole paragraph, your longest by far... is based off of the fact that you couldn't read my response. I'll say it again - I even used an example in which there was a rich person, and he had already exchanged money for the drill. I never nce said that there was no reason for anyone to own a drill, literally not once. I said that your concept of ownership is flawed. Of course, you do nothing to address this, which i'm not surprised about, but that's just how you are I suppose. And of course you try to justify your inhumane system of greed and theft again, by saying the worker is somehow better of being stolen from! Well I suppose a man carrying a back-breaking amount of gold would be "helped" if someone were to take enough gold for him to stand, but that isn't really a good help to the man in the long run, is it? And Right here, you touch on how absurd your notions of property are - you seem to think that somehow, under any other system, people would have to... build up industry from scratch? Without actually cooperating, the one thing I said they were most likely to do in literally my last response? I swear, sometimes you write these things just for me to pick out and make fun of. Capital is what workers need to work effectively... good thing capital doesn't need bosses to exist. And here's another example of your contradictions - you say that one thing that isn't a factor is the theft of drills, but the drills are being stolen - they are labor that is handed over to a boss, a theif... only because said person believes they are entitled to it. And uh, yes. I think that if people make money... they should work for it. Your system is entirely unconsentual, but we've been over that. Your rejection of morality in place of laziness and strife is duly noted, and it seems that you really do support an inhumane system. Of course we've been over this, and I repeat myself... because you have not yet addressed a single one of my responses. You admit here that the person who "owns" the drill doesn't work, and rather than concede the inefficiency and absurdity of a system in which those who don't work are the richest of them all, you try to defend that system... by again falling back on your unproven and preconceived notion of "ownership," based only one who transfers bank notes to who. Of course, i've said this all before, but you seem either unable or unwilling to read it. And sorry, how does buying from workers and not bosses at all show a contradiction or hypocrisy? I agree, there is no beneficial relationship between those that simply own things, and those that actually work. Finally, a good take from you. Bosses, however, provide nothing of value - they only exist to take away thing as an incentive for you to provide value to them. Basic economics. Oh, and as we've been over, your system is about as consensual as a robbery, but you knew that.
    1
  1210.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Which is false.
    1
  1211.  @randomnerd9088  Mussolini was not a socialist, he was a right winger, and saw himself a such. Fascism is anti-socialism.
    1
  1212.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  ...amazing response as always, dude.
    1
  1213.  @alexjones3511  This... is nonsense. What? You quite literally show off how the only points the right can make are utterly nonsense lies filled with propaganda. North Korea isn't a democratic state, by any definition, much less a socialist's. Communism is a system with no state, it abolishes it. Are you saying that communism abolishes humanity? And i'd like a citation, because no socialist has ever said anything like "anything the state does is democratic." All you're doing is proving how idiotic the lies TIK tells are, and how the nazis were more anti-socialist than you by far.
    1
  1214. Nah, they're right, because they know that he was not.
    1
  1215.  @chopperking007  Right. Like buffalo wings were made from were buffalo, right? Wake up, dude. Stop swallowing the propaganda.
    1
  1216.  @chopperking007  Except that isn't even true, antifa doesn't claim to be socialist, and they don't use violence against "their own."
    1
  1217.  @chopperking007  amazing point.
    1
  1218.  @Mounstrum  Oh i'm aware, that's why the definition is trash
    1
  1219.  @Mounstrum  Essentially, the economy of nazi germany shifted a lot, they had no core economic policy or ideals, there were cases where they would apply one policy to one group and another to another. Their goal was warfare, and they would nationalize and privatize based on what they thought would best win said war. All fascist economies take on this to an extent, but hitler was notorious for not caring about any sort of economic plan. There is no one fascist economy, but given the social views of the fascist (social darwinism, things like that) certain economic plans always seem to rise up. Is that a good answer, or can I answer more?
    1
  1220.  @Mounstrum  I would say that in terms of social views, they follow the fascist model of nationalism, social darwinism, hero worship, ect.
    1
  1221.  @Mounstrum  Ok, sure
    1
  1222.  @Mounstrum  Well, there is no core policy, that's the problem. They have inclinations towards policy, but no unifying certain policy.
    1
  1223.  @Mounstrum  Again, there is no core policy. I just said this. They have inclinations and biases towards certain policy, mostly to do with subjugation, hierarchy, and competition, but there isn't a single "fascist" policy.
    1
  1224.  @Mounstrum  Yes, about fascist states and regimes, more than the ideology. also, your other comment got deleted so I don't know what you were asking.
    1
  1225.  @Mounstrum  Ok, well first I would ask this, by core policy do you mean a literal policy (higher taxes, more spending on x, ect) or a driving motivation or goal?
    1
  1226.  @Mounstrum  I was primarily using Eco's definition, but why does that matter?
    1
  1227.  @Mounstrum  Ok, I would say like a "core policy" of, say, a socialist country would the the transfer of collective ownership to the collective of people, that's both a concrete policy and a key of the ideology.
    1
  1228.  @Mounstrum  Sorry, I made that quick mistake, but it isn't necessarily private to collective. Anyway, I would disagree, many different capitalist ideologies have different goals, from social democracy to more pure libertarian capitalism, usually centering around how the market is treated.
    1
  1229.  @Mounstrum  I mean capitalism with minimal government interference in the private market, free market capitalism to a much higher extent than, say, social democracy.
    1
  1230.  @Mounstrum  I... what? That just isn't at all accurate. First and foremost, fascists don't care about class, the entire basis of their ideology is a rejection of class as a socially relevant factor, they instead measure based on race, nation, ect. One could argue that they accidentally achieve class solidarity by that metric, since they don't "actively" promote the idea of class warfare, but that isn't true either. Fascism has always allowed for class divide, and has always allowed some to be rich and some to be poor. Yes, they suppress the workers and the rich that go against them, but that doesn't mean everyone left over is somehow equal. If we go by the metric that all ideologies that do not promote class conflict, instead promote class solidarity, then capitalism also fills your metric there. That goal of yours isn't really apparent in actual fascist countries either, most didn't follow a single guideline, or hell, even follow eachother's guidelines, they each had different goals and methods. Some were far more friendly to the rich, some not, ect. Now, as for the last bit, i'm going to need some elaboration. If we count social democracy as a soft fascism simply because it promotes class solidarity, how do all other forms of capitalism not do the same, as they also try to discredit the social measurement of class? I get that you're saying they obviously aren't the same and really that related, but your framing of that still doesn't make much sense. As well as that, I have to say that of all the examples, Mussolini really didn't "balance out" class conflict so much as he shifted attention away from it and made a bigger fuss elsewhere to distract from it. In any case, thanks for your answer.
    1
  1231.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  I mean, you literally just did. I proved you wrong, so you got pissy and then tried to insult me. You don't have an argument, I disproved you there, so what? You just cry, then?
    1
  1232.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  the thing is, by continually insisting that you didn't get proven wrong, you only manage to make my point stronger. You're clearly unreliable and biased, have no idea about this subject, and are more than willing to lie. Your assertions here are a last ditch effort to regain your post dignity, after you lost an argument. Of course I know the basics of proof, that is, after all, how I proved you wrong. Or did you already forget?
    1
  1233.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  and ill ask again, though through your continued ignorance you've already given the answer to me - do you even know what a vanguard party is?
    1
  1234.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  god, the irony is intense. You complain about my supposed "ad hominem," and yet your only response to me proving you wrong is to deflect and insult me. A bit sad, but not in any way unexpected. Of course you don't know much at all, that was just a rhetorical question, not surprised you didn't get that though. I get it, you're annoyed, but there's a reason you never responded to my points against you. I get it, you hate me, doesn't make me any less right. If i'm stupid, and lacking basic logic and reasoning skills, that makes it even sadder that you so handily lost a debate to me.
    1
  1235.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  "I haven't lost the debate. This is because, despite not having provided anything beyond petty insults and strawmen, I feel entitled to say I won because it hurts my feelings to admit I didn't." Thank you for proving to me that you believe that sentiment exactly. I mean, after all, what is in your response here? You claiming that you provided accurate historical context, when you've done nothing of the sort, and even the historians TIK himself cites disagree with the lies presented in this video's conclusion. You accuse anyone you don't like, or who knows more history than you, of being a "tankie," seemingly unaware of what the word even means. Of course hitler wasn't a socialist, he knew that, the world has known that for decades, and there's a reason that all of the top historians in that field have come to that same conclusion. All arguments proclaiming otherwise are from politically motivated idiots who are ashamed of the history of the right wing, and wish to deny it. All the supposed "proof" of hitler being a socialist is long debunked, and we both know this. You, in fact, are likely far more socialist than hitler. This is an objective historical fact, and i'm sorry that it brings you to tears and insults to have it told to you.
    1
  1236.  @InhabitantOfOddworld  I'm sorry, "long and rambling?" That was like a paragraph champ, what are you in second grade? Oh, and here's a stunning piece of cited historical argumentation! "It's just not true." Reasoning? None given. Of course they weren't capitalists, nor were they socialist. They are called "third position" for a good reason. What, did you really only think that there was only capitalism and socialism? You really are silly. I get it, you're a conspiratorial nutjob. And I agree, of course the world has known for decades, and it will know for decades more. The funny thing is, the Nazis did the same thing with their history. Whenever someone came along to correct them, they simply called that person a jewish or bolshevik spy, and had them killed. In trying to pin the blame for the nazis on anyone but your own side... you simply prove my point yourself. And I agree again, all the top historians. See, this is conspiratorial talk. If a historian doesn't agree with you, that must be because there's some massive conspiracy. Not, of course, because hundreds of historians with decades of experience and indifferent sociological, political, and economic background all came to the same conclusion. The only difference between nazi historical conspiracies and your historical conspiracies is that you blame the left only... the nazis thought the jewish people funded the left. Of course the german economy wasn't capitalist, nor was it socialist. This is a simple fact that those studied in the field agreed on... until the right found out that it was politically beneficial for them to deny that basic history. I get it man, you hate the truth, but don't you see the problem? The nazis called everything they didn't like a bolshevik lie as well. You say "The history of my ideology is a bolshevik lie." A nazi would agree. The only difference is, as I said earlier... the nazis blamed jewish people as well. One step away really isn't that far for you, huh.
    1
  1237. I mean he's still wrong tho
    1
  1238.  @sslave7815  Then you would be wrong, and also privately owned means of production was a well known classification even back then, so i'm not sure what you're talking about. But those are quite literally a fundamental shift in the way private property is viewed, implemented, and generally exists in the modern world And yeah, most people don't know about specific economic terminology, but that doesn't mean that said definitions and classifications hold no value or are not correct in their distinction. And no, that's false. There is much more difference between ownership of a toothbrush and a factory. When you own a toothbrush, you can use it. When you own a factory, you can tell other people to use it, and make profit. Private property being defined as property one profits from with other people's labor is far from vague, nor does it make sense to apply it to any of your examples.
    1
  1239.  @sslave7815  Private property isn't determined by the individual functions of an item, but the broader way it is used. A house can be used to live in, in which case, it is personal. It can also be sold out and rented, in which case, it is private. The distinction is not just of items, but actions. A toothbrush exists for individual use, and while you can sell it or lend it out, you don't profit from other individuals brushing their teeth with it. A factory, on the other hand, is something an owner doesn't even need to step foot in to profit from it. Sure, there are points of commonality between them, but they are very, very far from the same. Private property requires one individual to own the labor of others. Personal property does not. At least you agree that private property only exists because it's state enforced though.
    1
  1240.  @starcravingmatt  Are you... joking? Like actually, really, are you joking? TIK blatantly suggests that some of those who point out his historical inaccuracies are some sort of paid agents by a government, just because they don't agree with his worldiveiw. He can't actually address their facts, so he tries to attack their characters. Do you see the irony of your comment yet?
    1
  1241.  @starcravingmatt   @Star Craving Matt  god you really are just latching onto him. TIKs statement was conspiratorial piece of nonsense meant to discredit his opponents by merely attacking their character or supposing their intentions. Also... Yeah? I look for holes and flaws in people's argument, because that's how you argue. i call people out on their shit, and I'm sorry that pisses you out so much, but that's how arguments tend to work. Is that all you have, or...? TIK is notorious for what you accuse me of, after all.
    1
  1242.  @FenrisulfrSkarr  yes, go ahead and call the anarchist who watched the video a far right nazi who didn't. I'm sure that makes sense in your tiny brain. Give that TIK himself admits that his "books and actual sources" directly contradict the argument he's making, nope, i'm still correct. Why would I care about Venezuela, a social democratic country with a 70% private economy that has been destroyed by international capitalist trade policy? Or did you not know that one either? Its funny how all TIK fans don't know how to argue. All they can do is insult and cry when you point out how wrong they are. And you, child, are no different.
    1
  1243.  @MintyLime703  already have. Perhaps you should watch it and do your own research. It falls apart damn quickly.
    1
  1244.  @wd6405  in other words - you don't have any facts. Insults will do in your mind I suppose
    1
  1245.  @chrisreed5463  so says the person who, like a true ideologue, automatically attempts to discredit all that disagree with them without once attempting to engage them. It is an objective fact that you don't know what you're talking about, and thankfully in the real world conspiracy theorists like you are rightfully disproven, laughed at, and dismissed. Perhaps stop being so ideologically possessed, like your buddy TIK there? Maybe one day you can both learn how to engage in rational argumentation together! Until then, I'm happy to remain on the side of facts and reality.
    1
  1246.  @chrisreed5463  I agree. So maybe you should stop attempting to "argue" with only assertions and insults? The left right dichotomy, regardless of whether you use it or not, exists. The notion of some mythical individualist vs collectivist line however, does not. They're made up terms that have no concrete meaning or application in the actual real world. Perhaps you should stop having such emotional reactions when somebody corrects you on your mistakes. Well, it's either a mistake or malice. Again, individualism vs collectivism is a false dichotomy, it doesn't exist. Bit that would take basic political knowledge. Maybe argue with facts instead of feelings next time? Works wonders.
    1
  1247.  @chrisreed5463  it isn't gaslighting when I'm just telling you the facts you refuse to hear. And I really couldn't care less about your peterson-tier revisionist nonsense, nor your unsubstantiated dismissal of basic age-old categorization methods such as left and right. Same with your inability to dismiss your buzzwords. Politics aren't derived from personalities, and can't be labelled from such. If your best piece of evidence for such a fundamental restructuring of our knowledge and learning is based on a parable that you individually and subjectively have decided to broadly interpret, you have no evidence. I dont care about what you "think." I care about what is. And what you allege is, simply... Isn't. And if you have any arguments otherwise you're going to have to speak up eventually
    1
  1248.  @chrisreed5463  well, you can try to run away from reality, yeah. I mean, I have no idea how anyone could do their own research, watch the video, and see it as anything other than what it is - a blatant attempt at ahistorical ideological propaganda which openly admits its own citations disagree with - but I suppose if you're similarly ideologically inclined that little fact might be hard for you to stomach. My "ideology" is adherence to the truth. Yours is adherence to your feelings. I don't dismiss arguments, I disprove them. All you do is off handedly dismiss objective facts because you are immersed fully in your propaganda. If you want to run away, go ahead. It only ever proved my point - idealogues like you would rather be ignorant than incorrect.
    1
  1249.  @wd6405  All of this just proves my point. I was right, I only adhere to the truth, and I disprove arguments. If you don't like that, feel free to run off like so many before you. Its the truth. And thanks for admitting you have nothing but insults.
    1
  1250.  @wd6405  well you see, that's the simple problem. You can deflect and insult all you want, but it's an objective fact that TIK is wrong, and I have pointed this out time and time again. I was far from the first to disprove TIK, his own sources do that, but I guess I'm the one that has to break the news to you. I'm sorry that me pointing out the simple truth to you has resulted in such hostility on your end. Feel free to run away, TIak disproven in your wake. Its pretty damn pathetic.
    1
  1251.  @defaultdude269  you ok dude??
    1
  1252.  @defaultdude269  I'm sorry that you don't want to accept the truth, and call well sourced arguments gaslighting just because you disagree with them. I'm sorry you don't have an affinity for the truth and don't care if lies are spread constantly. I, on the other hand, do care about that. And I'm sorry, but you really don't have a right to talk about my life. I mean, TIKs comments are swarming with nazis, shut ins, conspiracy theorists and extremists, but I guess I'm the bad guy for daring to try to disprove them. All you guys have are insults. You have fun with everything, I'll be busy upholding the truth.
    1
  1253.  @TheImperatorKnight  Except actual socialists, not capitalists you call socialists, are advocating for the removal of companies. But sure mate, keep on your nonsense.
    1
  1254. and then they fought a war killing millions of their own men. So much for that.
    1
  1255. The problem with that analysis is that largely those points went either unimplemented or unenforced. Take point #12 for example, he says that he would stop war profiteering, but he himself invited over foreign industrialists, and even praised them/rewarded them for their support of the nazi effort.That's one example of many, but it's worth pointing out even the system you describe could not be called socialist.
    1
  1256.  @HiddenOcelot  The right wing supports the state because this is a state that they created. The vast majority of history shows the left protesting for the abolishment or fundamental restructuring of the state, while the right defends and grows the state. The ideology of the right is authoritarian by nature, and they have never sought to abolish the state in any form. It is a mainstream idea specifically because they made it one.
    1
  1257.  @HiddenOcelot  The right wing supports the state because this is a state that they created. The vast majority of history shows the left protesting for the abolishment or fundamental restructuring of the state, while the right defends and grows the state. The ideology of the right is authoritarian by nature, and they have never sought to abolish the state in any form. It is a mainstream idea specifically because they made it one.
    1
  1258.  @HiddenOcelot  I'm telling you, quite openly and to your face, that the right has never managed to make a truly anti-authoritarian branch of itself, and it has shown time and time again that the right wing ideology and movements derived from it cannot help being authoritarian. You can insult me all you want, it will not change this fact.
    1
  1259.  @HiddenOcelot  I'm trying to say something about political ideology that isn't going to show up on any values or compass test, dude. If you think i'm wrong, feel free to actually provide examples, not just keep asserting so with no backing.
    1
  1260.  @promethium-145  I understand that you despise the objective and correct teaching of history, but you can do well and keep that to themselves. The nazis were not socialist, the state did not control the means of production (nor is that the definition of socialism) nor did the nazi party control business. TIK quite openly and easily contradicts his own sources. For example, here's a quote from a historical source he and others use: "Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031). So before you assume nonsense with no proof, try actually understanding the facts.
    1
  1261.  @promethium-145  But... they didn't. Or are you denying the validity of TIK's sources? The economy was not controlled or managed by the state, but by private businesses, which controlled their wages and prices in non-war essential markets, like the rest of europe. Of course they didn't nationalize the businesses, they openly professed their support of german private industry. Hitler's anti-unionism is only a single part of his far right anti-socialism. He was an anti-socialist. You assert that he believed in racial collective control, but he actually openly praised private control of germany. What you describe is not socialism, nor is it accurate to hitler's reign. Of course, you can neither define marxist socialism nor the nazi's anti-socialism, but this does not surprise me, it's a common behavior of the denialists.The nazis were a flavor of socialism like an chalk is a flavor of chocolate icecream. As in, they weren't.
    1
  1262.  @Zero41sv  Labeling random people as aggressors and insulters isn't helping your case.
    1
  1263.  @Zero41sv  I involved myself because the way you behaved didn't much line up with your assertions
    1
  1264.  @promethium-145  I'm sorry that someone fooled you into believing those clearly ahistorical things. He was against international capitalism, as he thought it would benefit "lesser nations/peoples" while taking resources away from Germany. However, he had no problem with, and even praised, the processes of private property and competition within his own nation. He believed that, conversely, socialism, Marxism, communism, and even leftism itself was a conspiratorial product of "the Jews" and felt that they would lead to the end of civilization. He was never anti trader he openly encouraged competition and trade within his boarders, and even participated in a courted international trade and industry agreements. Again, what he opposed was systems of international trade the he felt benefitted those he hated at his country's detriment. The industries, businesses, and property of nazi germany was not controlled by the state, again, it was by far majority private and was openly encouraged to compete between eachother, even for government contracts. To call this state owned is absolutely false, and similarly false is the nonsense assertion that socialism is defined by state ownership, when in reality it is defined by collective ownership. The Nazis never wanted any sort of socialism of race or nation, as if such a thing is even possible. No, they pushed not only against the people of "their race" and nation, subjugating and taking power away from them, but he also encouraged private ownership, which is not the collective ownership of socialism, and served only to further divide and promote hierarchy among his people. None of this fits even remotely with any sort of hypothetical socialism. What you have repeated is nearly word for word verbatim the assertions of right wing think tanks and YouTubers who have attempted to push an ideological narrative not based in reality, as shown from your absurd claims. What I've tried to expose to you is the conclusion of actual accredited historians and we'll known supported experts in the field, which even TIK cites. You're welcome.
    1
  1265.  @promethium-145  Hitler was against *leftism because he viewed it as a jewish scheme. Leftism, of course, including the socialism he despised so much. As for his "anti-capitalism," "Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214). Your problem is that you seem utterly unwilling to accept the actual fact and internal "logic" of hitler's policies, instead just naming things you dislike and projecting them onto him. Why would he be against any and all trade when his very ideology was based on social darwinism, and necessitates the domination of people over other people, including in issues of trade and competition? The point is, you have no logical basis to actually promote these "points" as true, and rather than deal with that, you accuse me of "defending socialism" for bringing up historical facts you don't want to acknowledge. You really can't handle that your points are only pushed by those with an ideological goal? So, bye. I'm done with your nonsense.
    1
  1266.  @promethium-145  So again - your entire "point" revolves around a misunderstanding of hitler's policies and ideology, a redefinition of the term socialism, a misunderstanding of basic history and economics, and a push for the far right to ideologically absolve themselves of their more fanatical adherents, those being the nazis. Socialism isn't a beehive, and the war of stalin and hitler was not a "socialist civil war." Calling hitler a socialist is utterly ahistorical.
    1
  1267.  @promethium-145  Socialism, according to actual economics and economic history, is defined as: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Not state ownership, as we've been over. Hitler didn't want the "Aryan Race" to control production, he wanted private control of the means of production backed by an anti-socialist state. Hitler's goal was anti-socialism, hence, his constant anti-socialist rhetoric, policies, and actions. TIK openly admits his sources disagree with his conclusion, as you would know if you actually watched the video, and I have already cited two of TIK's cited historians saying that the nazis were not by any definition socialist. You only agree with him, and accuse me of "excusing the soviet union" (how???) because you can't deal with the fact that i'm right.
    1
  1268.  @Blackninjafox13  You seem nice enough so i'll engage with you on this. First and foremost, the assumption that the public school system has an explicit or implicit desire to legitimize the state as a result of its funding isn't really based in fact. First, coming from the perspective of a US citizen, a lot of our education system is actually monitored and decided by private companies, like College Board, so the statist funding assertion doesn't really make sense. But besides that, as a person who worked as an assistant teacher for a number of years and is currently working towards a secondary education degree, alongside degrees in english literature and history, the goal of teachers is generally not to enforce compliance or push a narrative, but to allow students to make and discuss their own narratives. In any case, as a final addition, I will say that I agree with your statement on government and private sectors having the same problems, however, I disagree on wealth being better than voting. You say that "it gives the most amount of voting power to those who currently provide the most value or perceived value to society.," but what if that isn't the case? What if it's a lottery winner, a lucky inheritance receiver, or someone that cornered a market/created a pseudo-monopoly? Why should their "vote" have more power if their contribution is not beneficial? Furthermore, why should say, an oil billionaire, get a greater "vote" in terms of other industries? And why does helping society earn your opinion more credit, even if the work you did was good, you can still have disasterous opinions. In any case, thank you, and I look forward to your response.
    1
  1269. Both being radical doesn't mean they're the same
    1
  1270.  @osmosys808  That just isn't true. For one, TIK isn't just calling socialism totalitarian, he is calling socialism and totalitarianism identical concepts that always equal eachother. There can be no totalitarianism without socialism, according to him, which is absurd. Totalitarianism dates back thousands of years, socialism at most a few hundred. And I could go into how socialism is not by necessity totalitarian, but i've already addressed that somewhat in this thread. And the creator of this video doesn't deserve kudos for much of anything, he would call you a socialist, just like he calls businesses and groupings socialist. He also calls random people racists, fascists, anti-semites, ect just if they disagree with him, while praising literal holocaust apologists that agree with him somewhat. It's absurd to hold that kind of person in any high regard.
    1
  1271.  @osmosys808  Not really, that's what made those places huge failures. Most sects of Socialism require a dictatorship of the proletariat. That is not a literal dictatorship though, because a dictatorship is just a system where a group has absolute power, and the proletariat just means the non-rich (which would be everyone in socialism) so the DoP literally means "a system where the people as a whole hold absolute power." More commonly known as direct democracy.
    1
  1272.  @osmosys808  Historically they were also 3rd world countries that had just had a revolution and were in between two world wars, so of course they were unstable. The story is similar with most socialist-attempting countries, especially during the cold war era. As for how you get people to give their wealth away, there are a bunch of solutions ranging all the way from reform to revolution, but here's the thing - they, themselves, are only holding on to the property because a higher authority is telling them to. What happens when the workers, the group that actually maintains said property, don't feel like giving the owner that right to own their labor? Why do they deserve it? That's the logic, at least, that i've seen.
    1
  1273.  @osmosys808  Ok, but I already explained how that wasn't the goal, and wasn't the intention. Hitler wasn't a socialist, but even so, socialism is collective ownership. If the people are not represented, you cannot claim it was socialism.
    1
  1274.  @osmosys808  I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. Hitler wasn't a socialist. He took marx, openly rejected him, and decided instead that socialism meant nationalism (something he actually said) and pushed that as his platform. I agree that socialism hasn't had the best track record, to understate it, but there have been successes. Anyway, this conversation isn't about the actual quality of these ideas. It's about the classification of them.
    1
  1275.  @osmosys808  But again, government control isn't intrinsically socialist, it predates socialism and sometimes goes against socialism. All of hitler's efforts tkae power away from the worker, which is the exact opposite of socialism. It makes no sense to correlate the two, but then again, here people are doing just that. I've been over this.
    1
  1276.  @osmosys808  Most likely not, no, so i'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I'll just leave this last response to what you've given me so far. Hitler just didn't have socialism. The problem is, no socialist before hitler had advocated for the ideas he praised, and no socialist after associated with him, though that last one is understandable. Among the first socialists were those that didn't even want a state, who are they now? Capitalists that hate capitalism? And again, it already requires government force to grant those people that land. Taking that away would be a removal of force, and a more even distribution of power. Again, hitler not liking aspects of capitalism (while praising private property and industrialists) doesn't make him a socialist. And a system not working doesn't mean it's the same as any other system that doesn't work, but hitler's goal wasn't to benefit the worker, but to benefit the strong, which he saw as his race and the elite among them. But sure, I suppose we can agree to disagree. It was nice talking to you, and have a good one.
    1
  1277. The issue there being that hitler wasn't a socialist. Like come on, there are so many better things to criticize socialism on, why make stuff up?
    1
  1278.  @Isclachau I am aware of what you said, yes, but it doesn't exactly apply considering the only way to call hitler a socialist in the first place was to be uneducated on the matter yourself. That, or lying, perhaps. The evidence is clear.
    1
  1279.  @Isclachau  ...what? You could have just said "I don't agree" or "I don't understand this topic" and have been done with it. I agree, being wrong does not make you right, which is why its absurd to suggest the nazis were socialist.
    1
  1280.  @Isclachau  I have watched it, yes, and of course I knew enough on the subject, and looked into it further, to realize how plainly he was lying. TIK, that is.
    1
  1281.  @Isclachau  And why is that? Because I disagree with you? You guys need to work on better insults.
    1
  1282.  @jussim.konttinen4981  Venezeula isn't communist, not because there is some famine, but because they have a 70% private economy and never claimed to be communist. And now you're just saying words with no connection to eachother, and really, why am i surprised. They are the opposite of ancap, really. And again, I have no idea what you're trying to prove here, we weren't talking about nazbols, but thanks for the link I guess? ok then, interesting.
    1
  1283.  @jussim.konttinen4981  Well sure, but it doesn't make the nazis socialists, there were many other different policies they held
    1
  1284. Mussolini called himself right wing, and he, like Hitler, despised marx. NAzi propaganda had many of the same conservative leanings we see today.
    1
  1285.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  1286.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were. This quote: “National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1] In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact. Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out: "Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. " He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought. Sources: [1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159. [2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
    1
  1287.  @walkerh.7851  Hey dude, you've probably seen my response here as well, but while I certainly admire your effort to reach out to TIK, I wouldn't expect much. Mostly because he seems far more prone to just linking his own videos and raining down insults than discussion, and to show that, i'll link a youtube thread in which he accuses me and a few others of anti-semetism, somehow. In any case, it's also worth mentioning that TIK defines socialism as state control, and defines any collective of people with a common goal as a state. And that means, in no uncertain terms, that he himself directly said that he considers corporations socialist entities. Anyway, I don't mean to put you off from reaching out to him if you want to, but i'm just warning you about the stuff you may have to deal with. My example is linked right below. IF you'd like, I can also link some of the previous arguments I brought up against him and others, which he pretty much just ignored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugxq5hy2qYweopgLcjB4AaABAg
    1
  1288.  @sandshark2  Hey, thanks! I'm always happy to help, and it feels nice to be recognized. However, I just want to offer a quick correction, just to clear things up, if you don't mind. First off, while there can certainly be intersections between socialism and capitalism, such as worker coopts/communes under capitalism, and there can be fusions of the systems, like social democracy, they can't really perfectly overlap. The goal of socialism is to have the workers have control of the means of production, private enterprise. The goal of capitalism is to have private individuals or entities in charge of said property. It's kind of hard to have both a single boss, and a democratically run workplace. Again, they can go together in small doses, but not really fully overlap. As for this, it's pretty much right, but a quick correction - communism is an idea somewhat separated from socialism, as the hypothetical utopian end goal of socialism, and liberalism in terms of economics means Libertarian capitalism, but liberalism in terms of social policy would be things like generally progressive non-economic policy. As for communism, I called it utopian because it was kind of planned that way, a stateless, classless, moneyless society which I have to agree with you in that hitler was nowhere close to wanting that. Hitler wasn't a socialist for so, so many reasons it's crazy to say otherwise. Anyway, I didn't mean to sound like a dick or anything, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page, but I have to agree that it's amazing to see actual sane people in here, and not just more 12 year olds screaming about marxist sjw conspiracies or something.
    1
  1289.  @walkerh.7851  Yeah. I think plenty of people have shot their shot, and it's probably not worth it. It's a shame, I actually did come into this with an amount of respect for the man, and I still try to keep it somewhat civil, but after all the things he's called people, me included, and his utter lack of receptivity, it might be a lost cause.
    1
  1290.  @auo2365  Sure, happy to help. Which comment specifically? I've made quite a few in this thread, can you give me the first line maybe so I can summarize it? I could do the whole comment thread, but summarizing that might be a long response in and of itself. As for my own beliefs, I try to keep them out of historical analysis, but I would consider myself a somewhat anti-socialist libertarian leftist, if that makes any sense. It's not my title to defend here, but still (I think) an argument that needs to be made.
    1
  1291.  @sandshark2  Oh yeah that's fair, no disagreements there! And i'll stay here a bit longer mate, but have a good one.
    1
  1292.  @auo2365  Alright, fair enough. I'll list down my points as concisely as possible, though I will warn you that a lot of my arguments and supporting information might be left out just so I can get the basics out to you, though i'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to. Hitler was not a socialist because: - He did not want the workers to have the means of production, which is a pre-marx socialist positon, and has always been socialist. - Socialism is not just state ownership - He was right wing, and allied/associated with the right far more than the left - his ideology was inspired by anti-socialists who wanted to redefine the word - he was a fascist, not a socialist - He pandered to big business over the workers, and even small business. And so on, but I think that's the big ones out of the way.
    1
  1293.  @TheBluntNinja  I mean, would you care to define socialism for me? I would agree that his definition of capitalism is off, but how were the nazis socialists? They didn't give (or want to give) the workers the means of production (which was a thing before marx and was used by anti-marx socialists) their ideology came from an entirely different area, they downright said that they didn't have anything to do with socialism. It's kind of hard to look at the actions and rhetoric of the nazis and then somehow conclude they were socialists. Also, one more thing - I have never once seen the nazis called capitalists. But there isn't a binary between the two systems, it isn't just capitalism and socialism.
    1
  1294.  @TheBluntNinja  They didn't "socialize" production, nor is taxation a socialist policy. I would call the systems the nazis had not capitalist, not socialist, but fascist. And that's the definition we've used, forever.
    1
  1295.  @TheBluntNinja  What is with the "seethe" comments? Dude, I just answered your post with a simply-posed question. He accused me of far more than not having honest arguments, including being racist and anti-semetic, but he did it because he didn't want to address them. Exactly where am I wrong here? Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, supported taxation so it can not be considered socialist. Socializing the people is a thing TIK made up to sound like socialism, when in reality it was just a kind of totalitarian control of the people and genocide, which is far from exclusive to socialism. Where am I wrong? Where am I "caught up in semantics?" TIK is the one out here calling companies and the concept of totalitarian socialist, how is that better than what I said? I'm genuinely curious here, because you seemed perfectly reasonable, and then when I responded you switched instantly to "seethe," rather than addressing it.
    1
  1296.  @TheBluntNinja  So this is what you're doing then. Fine, ok then, great.
    1
  1297.  @TheBluntNinja  Mate I literally just asked a good natured question, and then responded to yours. If you really despise talking so much, you could have stopped ages ago. Sorry for trying to discuss the issue with you? Nobody is triggered here, perhaps except the guy who refuses to engage.
    1
  1298.  @TheBluntNinja  And yet that isn't what I was doing. I asked you, specifically, what I was doing that was supposedly showing me being hung up on semantics, and you just replied "words words words." That's hardly a good-faith tactic.
    1
  1299.  @TheBluntNinja  Mate I last responded 4 hours ago. If you don't want to talk, you can just... not.
    1
  1300.  @TheBluntNinja  Ok. You're free to go at any time no one is keeping you.
    1
  1301.  @TheBluntNinja  Ok then, good to hear.
    1
  1302.  @TheBluntNinja  yeah unlike you I don't really care about some dude online enough to request, or create, a response video. I can rest assured knowing that even many of the historians he cites disagree with his revisionism, and not much more needs to be done.
    1
  1303.  @TheBluntNinja  Not really, I just pick the ones that are particularly wrong, and come back from time to time. But don't worry, i'm probably going to be leaving soon.
    1
  1304.  @TheBluntNinja  ...what? You guys really need to work on better insults, jeez.
    1
  1305.  @Hustada  Yeah I don't much care, sorry mate. I don't care if you don't like the two ideologies, good for you, but conflating to two for that reason alone is nonsense. I don't like socialism, I don't like fascism, and I don't like capitalism. Three things that I don't feel like calling the same things. I don't care if you assume i'm taking some moral high ground, I was under the impression I was writing abut history not morals. Sorry for trying to teach people. And yeah, when you go over definitions, you actually have to look at these "vague theoretical concepts" to figure out how to classify certain things. That's kind of the point, you can't just call everything you don't like socialism and be done with it. And here's a pro tip - if you really think that something is impossible, you can't also think that it's happened before. You kind of have to argue one or the other. And if it is impossible, then you have to look at those vague theoretical concepts to even talk about it. The reason I don't feel like talking about my own ideology here is because it has no place, it is none of the major ideologies being discussed, and I have no reason to bring up the potential future in a conservation about history.
    1
  1306.  @OntologicalQuandry  That's your way of saying you didn't read it, right? And yes, it's plainly obvious, you already tried to pull this. "Capitalism is good thing, socialism is bad thing. What's a 'nuance'?" I know that you seemingly despise socialism more than the actual manifestation of fascism as it exists, but try to keep up with this. Capitalism is not the "furtherance of individual rights," especially if you consider capitalism statelessness, as the government very much has to step in to guarantee rights, and sometimes movements that do so are explicitly or implicitly socialist. Socialism is the collective control of the means of production, but I like how you try to define it to mean "when government/group does stuff I don't like." Fascism, while it's a bit harder to define than the two above, is far right, generally ultra-nationalist, and draws heavily on the ideas of traditionalism and social darwinism. Socialism and fascism differ in literally hundreds of ways, and I think you'd be more hard pressed to find sustained ideological similarities, to be honest. The things you can really find is that both had totalitarian manifestations in the 20th century, but even that doesn't fully work, because plenty of socialist movements weren't totalitarian at all, and socialism retains the ability to even be conducted without a state. Obviously, there were many similarities between the totalitarian regimes of the USSR and Nazi germany, however, the similarities began and ended at their totalitarian and at times genocidal cruelty. The way they conducted themselves, the motivations, the goals, the eventual fates of both nations, their economic and social policy, all contained a host of differences. Perhaps more importantly though, most people, from Orwell to Lenin, didn't call the USSR a socialist system. Collective control of the means of production, remember? Saying socialism can "use" fascism is like saying capitalism can use socialism, it's nonsense. Now this kind of proves my theory from earlier - I don't think you actually watched the video, or even read my points against you, and I think this for a few reasons. For one, if you actually had watched the video (as I mentioned above) you would have noticed some very different conclusions you and TIK came to. Furthermore, if you had, you would have been able to refute all of my points with ease, since I apparently didn't comprehend the video, right? But you didn't. Now I can chalk that up to lazieness on your part, not everyone has the time to actually back up their claims, but this kind of cements it. You seem to worship this video, literally, without once actually making a point the video expresses. It's like you push it as this divine being solely because you know you're going to have to fall back on an argument to authority when your nonsense inevitably gets called out. Anyway, you've been corrected on this before. Hitler was not a socialist, fascism is not socialism, and obviously hitler was not a capitalist. The two ideologies are not part of some binary, you can not be both quite easily. If capitalism was completely counter to how he operated, despite a few small capitalistic tendencies, then I think we can safely say that socialism was also counter to how he operated, despite a few small socialistic tendencies. This is particularly ironic. Not once did you actually address what they said beyond "wow that's long" and then just leaping into a rant about how little you understand the source material or ideologies in question. And yet, you feel justified with ending your statement with "address the actual points?" Alright bud. You first.
    1
  1307.  @juanpaz5124  Just, no. It literally is the collective, as in the collective amount of people. In capitalism, you work at a restaurant with 20 employees and one boss, who manages it. In socialism, you work at a restaurant with 21 employees that have equal control over the business or industry, and as such, can vote on what to do with their production. You don't need a group of people at all, you don't even need a state. Certain companies already do this.
    1
  1308.  @sadslavboy  The issue is that you're calling ice cream a "flavor" of yogurt doesn't make a lot of sense.
    1
  1309.  @OntologicalQuandry  It's amazing to watch you historical denialists ignore all of the counter evidence and run away from your own inability to prove the points the video supposedly set up so well. Collective control is not state control, you idiot. For one, they were still very much private even with state influence, but they at no point were owned or operated by the collective, but by individuals either withing or operating alongside the state. Regulation isn't ownership, much less collective ownership, and that's basic definition. You're really proving that you either didn't watch the video, or the video is utterly inept. Have fun with that.
    1
  1310.  @OntologicalQuandry  Yes, The ideology of the nazis was not socialism. I'm glad we could agree there buddy. But your argument doesn't follow logically from your statement. Obviously it wasn't capitalism, just as obviously as it wasn't socialism. The existence of trace amounts of both ideologies could be found within, but it traced it's lineage to none of them. Fascism, which is of course about as far from socialism as one can get right up there next to capitalism, is entirely different from socialism in more than just who controls the means of production. If we only cared about that, well then capitalism is just socialism, but instead of the workers or collective owning the MoP, it's the rich. And this is your problem. You and I both know that you don't have an argument, which is why you don't actually, you know, argue. You just lay out the three terms, capitalist, socialist, fascist, and then try to hammer socialism into the position of fascism, not with relevant arguments but rather with attacks on the ideology itself. What have I proven, since I am right? I have proven that fascists are not socialists. I have set out to prove or advocate for nothing else. You evidently don't know much about socialism. Socialism was meant to come about after a period of capitalism. Marx never thought that socialism would arise in places like China or Russia, he thought it would start in England, the most industrialized place in the world at the time. When, say, the Russian Revolution was over, they figured that they couldn't rightly jump right from feudalism to socialism. So what did they do? Well, they put in place the NEP, to simulate the economy with market reform. Now, how is that different from what hitler did? See, hitler wanted his system. The soviets for the most part disliked the NEP, they saw it as just bringing back rabid capitalism into their economy. They saw it as a step, one to quickly move past. The nazis, on the other hand, saw their system as a goal. They weren't socialist in the slightest, they just saw an advantage in the managerialist economy for their wartime needs, so hopped onto it. They didn't need more time, they got what they wanted. And where are your numbers coming from? Combined socialism and fascism have maybe killed about 200 million people, a large amount of those being from the war. Saying Socialism is bad, and Fascism is bad, and Capitalism is good does not prove any sort of correlation, and you know it. That's why you didn't post an argument. Hitler's policies weren't socialist, they despised socialism of all forms and they moved as far away from socialism as one really can. To say that the only different making them socialist is class vs race is again like saying capitalism is socialist because it's the rich vs class vs race. The video, like you, has been objectively disproven.
    1
  1311.  @OntologicalQuandry  Uh, no. Fascism is third positionist, it's equi-distant from both capitalism and socialism, in terms of policy. As I said, it takes from both, but claims neither. If you're going to make up some utterly unsubstantiated horseshoe theory nonsense, at least try harder. Nope. Remember, third position is equidistant from both of the normal positions. accountability
    1
  1312.  @OntologicalQuandry  Yes, that is my quote. Well, tell me bud, what do you think third positionist means? It's off the compass, it's about as far away from the other two positions as you can realistically get. The only reason you say this is simply because I don't agree with you, and won't conform to your revisionism. You say you don't agree with relativists, but you literally just made up a fake chart to explain your irrational desire to lump in socialism with fascism and got annoyed when I applied your same logic in an area you do. That seems pretty relavatistic to me. My argument is one from reality. Yours is one from spite.
    1
  1313.  @OntologicalQuandry  Well now that just isn't true, but you don't seem to realize that fascism is just cronyism taken to the next level, with conservative social policy. As we both know as a fact, hitler was not a socialist, and only railed against specific types of capitalism while he praised other parts. That's something you miss out on. You also forget that hitler didn't want socialism, he wanted fascism, which is incompatible with socialism. I think hitler for example understood capitalism a little bit better than you, because while he didn't like perfectly free capitalism, he was fine with a "capitalism" (cronyism) that worked directly for the state. Socialism cannot be established with the use of cronyism, that is an objective fact. Again, for the third time just this night - saying you do not like something is not actually evidence of it being the same as other things that you do not like. Capitalism always descends to cronyism, yet it is cronyism that must first be combated to but in place socialism, while fascism thrives off of croynism. The "line" you have constructed is, as usual, relativist nonsense. Capitalism creates croynism, by itself, every single time. There has not been a single period of prolonged perfect capitalism for that very reason. I am not a socialist, but socialism combats cronyism far more efficiently than even capitalism does. As I continue to say, I don't care if you don't like them, we're talking about classification. And that has nothing to do with your revisionist nonsense.
    1
  1314.  @OntologicalQuandry  Simply asserting that you have prove some sort of point where at every moment you have floundered and been rebutted is a glorious thing, but it doesn't actually mean you are right. Fascism and socialism are not the same thing, by any metric, and this is a fact. Saying "when bad thing happens they're the same" means absolutely nothing, as I have continues to tell you from the first second. Yes, it does come down to intentions. You proclaim it to be arguing in the favor of socialism if I simply correct your false definitions and history. You an pretend I don't understand capitalism, but you haven't done a very good job so far. I keep telling you this, I don't care. I have no desire to attack or defend ideas based on their merits, I am here to discuss the classifications and titles of said ideas. Saying you like something doesn't erase your revisionism. I am not a socialist, as as I continue to say, don't care about your deflection from the argument at hand, but I continue to have to remind you to perhaps not rewrite history with tho evidence. I don't think hitler was a capitalist, he was a fascist, which is an extreme right wing ideology based in nationalism, social darwinism, and traditionalism. If I was to call them capitalist though, your rebuttal would be pathetic, because it would only prove to me that they were terrible capitalists, not that they weren't capitalists at all. But sure, that's totally the same things the soviets did. I'm sure bud. And here's more revisionism! Was it a capitalist country that fought on the front lines for years while the countries surrounding it were breaking down? No, it was literally the soviet union, that lost tens of times more than the americans at the same time, and who managed to beat them into submission. The soviet union was a weaker country overall, but to say "capitalism" won the way when your examples were readily found in nazi geramny is quite ironic. Fascism and socialism are not the same thing, as you and I both know. The systems that lead to suffering, toil, cronyism, corruption, and institutionalised order can be capitalist, fascist, socialist, ect. Nothing is perfect. Ironically enough about your quote there, orwell called the nazis nothing more than conservatives and said the USSR wasn't socialist.
    1
  1315.  @OntologicalQuandry  I know exactly what i'm talking about, which is why every time it's so easy to rebut your historical revisionism. I know you didn't read it, just like you didn't read the others, because it proves you wrong. I have proved, objectively, that socialism and fascism are not even close to the same thing, and do not work for the same ends at all. I have proven you to be wrong, and you ignore it. You yourself have acted as a baseless relativist,and now you run away. You can assert that all you want, but when i'm the only one so far to provide objective citation, you make a fool of yourself Back to the point: Hitler described himself as a nationalist, as he said nationalism and socialism were the same thing. He had no socialist policies, as he didn't give the means of production to collective hands. He had no socialist platforms, because he was protecting the upper classes. He never even came close to giving, or wanting to give, the people collective control of the means of production. He didn't have any socialist goals, as we both know. He didn't just decide marx was the wrong kid, he decided the left itself, as well as socialism at large, would never work, and so he put in place far-right fascism. It's amazing, you continue to call me a socialist, but not once have actually provided any reasoning. We get it, you don't like socialists. And yet every socialist alive and dead agrees that hitler was not one, which you miss out on. Such a fractured ideology should only be able to agree on the most fundamental truths, eh? I don't care what you think works or not, I care about classification of systems, something you happily ignore. Not everything you don't like is the same thing champ. You know that, as do i, your you ignore it completely.
    1
  1316.  @OntologicalQuandry  Again, you say all of this after utterly ignoring our previous points, and openly admitting that you aren't actually arguing against the point. We you openly ignore me, and yes you did that, then the true answer is open to see. If you want to fit in "to history," you can try. But you haven't had much success so far. You're welcome, and have a good one.
    1
  1317.  @OntologicalQuandry  " [Hitler] had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." - George Orwell I don't care to defend or promote any idea here, and your losing jabs prove as much. I care about classification, and the truth, and all of your silly attacks cannot change that. But most importantly, I care about those like you, that embolden the ideological descendants of the nazis by pointing the blame at anyone but those responsible. If that isn't sympathy, it's apologism. Only you yourself know, I suppose.
    1
  1318.  @TheImperatorKnight  no, just thousand year old ones.
    1
  1319.  Jamie Horn  Are you an actual fucking moron. You just called half the united states a terrorist group or a communist. It's people like you who make up this utter nonsense, with no proof, that are destroying this country. Either put up some facts, or stop accusing your fellow citizens of thought crimes.
    1
  1320.  @juanpaz5124  Exactly how is that?
    1
  1321.  John Smith  ...and socialism.
    1
  1322.  @skeletalbassman1028  Nope. He was a fascist, which is pretty far from socialism. Calling him a socialist over and over again doesn't make you right.
    1
  1323.  @skeletalbassman1028  Well first a lot of those things are bi-partisan, totalitarians of both left and right. Things like a lack of free press, or genocide. However, the rest don't make much sense. While repression of minorities is seen as a more conservative thing (and given many of the USSR's social policies it was quite socially conservative for a while) party ownership of the economy can happen a hundre different ways across many different non-socialist ideologies, so I don't really see your point. Are you trying to argue that hitler wasn't far-right because... stalin did bad thing too? As for them being indistinguishable, I don't doubt it seems that way to the "average person," but then again your average person doesn't know much about them besides the fact that both were bad, and totalitarian. Further research separates them quite a bit. They only walk and talk the same if you cover one eye and squint with the other, as while their obvious surface qualities were similar, most other things were not.
    1
  1324.  @skeletalbassman1028  I said that it was associated with the right, not that it was right wing. That's what you were talking about, and so what I responded to. IS that why people hate communism? Because they can't read? Look dude I don't care about your insults at all, they don't actually contribute to any sort of conversation here. Communism is literally a stateless, classless, moneyless society and I don't think you need to give up your freedom there. If "free food and x" means ideologies were similar than nearly every ideology is similar, and you can throw the USA in there. In fascism, the good man is straight, white, non-disabled, a fascist. In communism it's literally everybody. That's the worker. Your myth of the only difference being a focus on nationalism or internationalism is blatantly incorrect, as the nazis despised socialism in all form, in more ways than just internationalism. Where did he give the people of his nation collective control of the means of production?
    1
  1325.  @skeletalbassman1028  He very much, explicitly, was a fascist. You don't get to redefine terms you don't understand. Hitler was a fascist, and that's pretty well known. Mussolini wasn't a socialist when creating his policies, he was kicked out of the socialist party for being anti-socialist and Mussolini himself called fascism right wing. They "came out of socialism" in no way, shape, or form. They came from conservatives like Evola, Spengler, and Schmitt. All fascists were right wing and conservative by design, but I think in your little example you've forgotten about Engelbert Dolfuss. You're also forgetting that Hitler defended property, religion, family and his own little capitalist industry, but whatever.
    1
  1326.  @skeletalbassman1028  Did I say it was capitalist? No. But one can not be socialist and also not be capitalist. It isn't that hard at all really, because politics isn't a random forced binary. I don't see why, considering that's literally the definition of communism. There have been no communist countries, for that reason and others. It's why the USSR and China never called their systems communist.Evidently, that's something you have yet to pick up on in this regard. Communism can't turn into fascism, nor has it ever. And as I literally addressed in the last post, fascism was created primarily by conservatives, and was based to be a right wing ideology from the start, someone previously being a socialist doesn't change that.
    1
  1327.  @skeletalbassman1028  We're talking about the ideology itself here dude. Not the successes or failures of said ideologies. Yes, I judge the nazis by what they did because they did what they said they would do, openly. And similarly I will judge communism based on the actual definition of the ideology. If that's "letting the mask slip" I don't know what else to say. Hitler didn't want anything close to a classless utopia, their entire ideology was based on a constant struggle of race that had nothing to do wirth class. Self sufficiency isn't classlessness. And what I do remember is hitler's concern with being called a socialist. Yes, that's exactly what happened in nazi germany. If you didn't fit that specific group, then sorry, you couldn't be a part of that society. And considering "the communists" were some of the first countries to include gay people under protected categories, not your best point. But nice whataboutism And I was referencing things like military benefits, like having your college paid for, as an equivalent to "free food" in this situation. And you clearly have no idea what I want.
    1
  1328.  @skeletalbassman1028  Communism has a definition. If that definition is not properly kept to, then it isn't the system in question. Calling any of these systems communist would be historically incorrect. Again - they didn't even call themselves communist, nor do you have to be a marxist to see any of this, as I am not.
    1
  1329.  @skeletalbassman1028  You know that he was happy with his results, right? He openly advocated for exactly what he did, real fascism has been tried, and it's manifested. Sorry for using correct definitions? If we want to talk about the death toll of failed ideologies, do you want to discuss every pro-democracy or anti-monarchist revolution before the first few worked? Or how about the first few societies, most of which failed. Perhaps we could go over the hundreds of millions dead as a result of capitalism. No, sorry bud. Not happening. If it's only us "pathetic westerners" who say communism hasn't been implemented, why did the soviets never call their system communist? Your strawmen are honestly pretty weak. Welcome to reality, definitions matter.
    1
  1330.  @skeletalbassman1028  Oh so now you're peddling more myths and nonsense. Beautiful. Franco, like all other fascists, was an open conservative, so of course he sided with the right. Fascists generally didn't like eachother, you can see as much between mussolini and hitler. Hitler sided with capitalists over workers as well, and was actually elected due to their efforts, but I suppose you'll ignore that. Again, ignoring other fascists of the era and their associations, but I suppose you'll ignore that. Franco was an ally to hitler though, and like hitler he was a fascist, which is the important part. Trying to excuse for the conservative tendencies of fascism, and the capitalist allies of hitler, isn't a good look. Hitler wasn't a socialist in any form, no matter how often you spam your old same debunked talking points. When you have to call all of contemporary history a marxist hoax, you're closer to the nazis than anyone you want to accuse of being nazis. Those three men were all fascists, and while all were moderately different, all pushed the same nonsense.
    1
  1331.  @skeletalbassman1028  That isn't why they were fascists, champ. Wow, you're really good at winning arguments you made up. So your argument is that they were authoritarian, all the people you mentioned. And? That doesn't make them fascists, or socialists, not by a long shot. I've already been over how your liberal politicians have done terrible things, but you seem to not remember it. Modern liberalism is the single biggest cause of death in the world. We have them to thank for the economic conditions of today. Most liberals know that communism is different from far right fascism, be it of Mussolini or of Hitler, but people like you presume your ignorance speaks fro the crowd. If you say they didn't mean a word of what they said, then not a single one was socialist, and not a single one communist, which kind of disproves your point. You ignore all the cases of the success of socialist, socialist driven and socialist backed movements, but of course you would. I would agree, the examples are bad, but your argument is absolutely awful for justifying why you would equate them. Liberals don't care about a single thing you mentioned, not if it doesn't benefit them. If we're talking about mass death and warfare, then you have to add capitalism to the list, that's just a fact. But please, continue to ignore the point and try to convince everyone that your dead ideology is anything but. Liberals did give into that nonsense, that's why the nazis rose to power. Liberals don't care about power relationships or unjust hierarchies, they just want to be free to oppress further. Hell, most liberals do all they can to restrict rights. I'm not a collectivist, but your description of collectivism fits liberals perfectly. Just switch the theoretical masses with fake numbers on a graph.
    1
  1332.  @skeletalbassman1028  And i'll say it one more time as well - I don't care what your absurd justification for your self-contradictory point is, it's nonsense. As for the nazis, most of the privatized land didn't go to direct party members, but it would be wrong to say that the state had no control over it. However, this was true of most wartime economies of the time, and was by no means exclusive to hitler or the nazis. It was still private, they still owned it and operated it, but did so within the bounds of what the state allowed. It's a bit like lending out an item, the person you're lending it to doesn't fully own it, but that doesn't mean that they can't use it while you have it lent out. Most private individuals didn't oppose the state, why would they? They got a good deal of wealth from the nazi economy, and the nazis had certain incentives that kept the companies working with the party. Anyway, nobody here is calling the nazis capitalist, not at all. They just simply weren't leftist, or socialist. But they certainly were, in their misguided way, trying to protect "the west," or at least continue on with what they thought it represented. Spengler was a huge influence on the nazis and italian fascists alike, after all.
    1
  1333.  @skeletalbassman1028  Well of course you'll try to find some imaginary self contradiction in my ideology, because you're acting as if i'm a communist, so every time I act against your perception of communism you must get right rustled. That's your problem though, not mine.
    1
  1334.  @3rdblindmouse544  who even knows anymore.
    1
  1335.  @skeletalbassman1028  "I'm sure you aren't a communist... which is exactly the kind of thing a communist would claim!" Oh really bud? Well, you called yourself a liberal... sounds like something a fascist would do. I mean, you haven't once acted outside what I've come to expect from fascists. You see the problem with your idiocy?
    1
  1336.  @MarcF.Nielssen  So in other words it wasn't socialism. Good job.
    1
  1337.  @MarcF.Nielssen  I know they were allies, and I agree that they weren't socialists, either of them. Does that clear it up?
    1
  1338.  @TheImperatorKnight  So you would agree that you are a state-run entity?
    1
  1339.  @lastcup3641  Hitler opposed all socialism, dude.
    1
  1340.  @admontblanc  Do you even care about what the words you say mean?
    1
  1341.  @KameradVonTurnip  That comparison is far from fair. What teachers "admitted to" was far from brainwashing, but encouraging critical thinking. The problem was that the critical thinking in question went against what conservatives like to take for granted. All the teachers said was that they don't like parents infringing on the freedoms of the students to learn about difficult concepts, and of course conservatives instantly turned it into some sort of cult... of critical thinking? What? Teaching isn't brainwashing, nor is it the same as a cult. Trying to stop teachers from teaching difficult or sensitive subjects is indicative of cultish behavior however, which is what PreagerU is pushing.
    1
  1342.  @TheImperatorKnight  No, you get heavy flak because you're a proven liar. That's... about all
    1
  1343. You mean he's been disproven time and time again, and yet refuses to see the truth? After all, that's why he's "attacked" (With factual information) and why he plays the victim so that ideologues like you will take his side
    1
  1344.  @AnthonyHunt77  You... know TIK is an ancap, right?
    1
  1345.  @AnthonyHunt77  Because, I hate to tell you this... the political opinions of the person who creates the content tends to influence the content itself. Quite a bit. Have you actually heard the words TIK has said? His history is nonsense, his definitions don't make sense. According to him the only non-socialist ideologies are ancap ideologies... which heavily influenced his arguments. Open your eyes, his videos are only made because he agrees politically with the false conclusion they come to.
    1
  1346.  @johnbowles5399  Why hitler's classification ideologically matters is largely because its what modern ideologues will use to push or refute ideas. However, if we classify him correctly, we know where history's next potential "hitler" may come from.
    1
  1347.  @johnbowles5399  Sure, most people don't know much about politics, and i'll readily admit many will use hyperbole and invoke the name of figures like Hitler for their own political ends. However, it is undeniable that many of the movements under trump - some of which explicitly endorse him, most of which would not exist without his greater right wing populist movement - are where those who align most with figures like hitler currently are.
    1
  1348.  @AnthonyHunt77  Why do you only have insults left? How am I censoring "freedom of thought" by trying to prove you wrong in debate? And why should I care about your feelings?
    1
  1349.  @AnthonyHunt77  God, more assertions on top of assertions. In honestly no I am not a communist, thought talking to you i'd love to become one simply to prove you wrong. After all, you seem to not understand communism. And what do you mean, "non controversial?" If you mean that it isn't controversial in that no actual historians care about it and all of recorded history when viewed objectively contradicts this video fully, then you'd be right. It is uncontroversially incorrect. So is every historian alive, including the ones that TIK cites, a communist? Not everyone who understands history and disagrees with this piece of propaganda is even on the left. And i'm sorry, what? Are you a communist then? Since you seem to hate freedom of speech and open debate? You are useless in terms of critical thinking, all you have are mccarthy-esque accusations with no basis. If correctly disagreeing with this piece of propaganda that has no care for history makes me a communist, a communist I am.
    1
  1350.  @AnthonyHunt77  What do you mean "what assertions have you made?" You continue to make more even in this response. And i'm well aware you're not a communist and have certain very strong options around socialism, and of course contradictory opinions towards free speech and freedom in general, but yeah, I get it. I know you didn't come here to argue either, you wanted an echo chamber where ahistorical opinions could be shared without any sort of pushback from rationality. And I agree that Mikey there is a bit unprofessional and rather willing to insult, but that doesn't make them any less correct on this issue, and you attacking their method of giving information does not in any way disprove said information. I know you don't want to talk to me, you've made that clear. I don't agree with it... because its wrong. I challenge you because you're sharing inaccuracies. And I don't claim to speak for historians... I only tell you what they've found.
    1
  1351.  @AnthonyHunt77  ...what are you talking about. What you seem not to understand is that this isn't just some silly matter of subjective opinion. If you left this comment or another comment of praise under something that was actually subjective, I wouldn't give a damn. Bit this is history, and history happened. History is objective. And when you share falsehoods about history, you are lying. That is what TIK is doing here - not sharing an opinion or viewpoint, but bring a liar. I don't care if you want to deal with me or not, as long as you walk away with that fact I'm mind I am happy.
    1
  1352.  @AnthonyHunt77  and that's all you have. Insults. It's sad really, you seem to be the perfect embodiment of what you hate most here and yet can't even tell You're an ahistorical, anti intellectual moron who uses insults because they know they're wrong. Which you do. You call everyone who knows more than you w communist or socialist because you're scared of reality. It's sad, it really is, but sadly not unexpected for people like you.
    1
  1353.  @AnthonyHunt77  Good thing that they didn't have opinions... but facts. And you know it.
    1
  1354.  @patmccall4647  Well that's just a genocide denying lie.
    1
  1355.  @owningdishonestshills7435  I wouldn't bother with that child. He keeps claiming to have found some "Favorable and positive" comments but seems unable to present them.
    1
  1356.  MIT Mathematica  again you have conceded in your previous posts that the supportive , positive , favorable and praising statements on far-right anti-Socialist ideology by Hitler are authentic as proof via the the original 122 Hitler speeches that are housed in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408. Website - Archives.gov Phone: 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272. Stop evading the original question with your circular attempt at distracting from the original fact that you can’t disprove the authenticity of Hitler’s favorable and positive statements on far-right anti-Socialism. It is uncontroversial fact they are authentic as per the is indisputable evidence provided by the most credible speeches, definitions, and experts i provided to you. You keep deflecting from both my correction on the missing context from your quotes, and the additional quotes I provided that quite clearly prove you wrong instantly. I agree, the National Archives are accurate, the problem is, your quotes are missing the surrounding context and definitions. Which makes you someone who wants to twist the facts of the National Archives (which readily hold proof of hitler's far-right anti-socialism) into your own ahistorical ideological zealotry. So why do you continue to defend your anti-socialist ally hitler? And why do you pretend to be a new person? but I've already proven you wrong time and time again. These quotes are taken out of context, are propaganda, and are missing the context of both his actions and his definition of socialism. Hitler had no favorable or positive comments on socialism - these are all on nationalism. You have not yet addressed that fact, because you know it proves you wrong. So let's add some context, shall we? Quotes from Hitler - Quotes regarding the nazis - "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew." "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” “Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf "Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics." "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from." "However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies." "The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵" "During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare." http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf And there are many, many more quotes to be given. So, will you attempt to "disprove" the basic reality of hitler's favorable , positive and supportive comments and actions on far-right anti-socialist ideology? Or will you simply run away and ignore your higher functions in favor of ignorance and propaganda?
    1
  1357.  @patmccall4647  Oh sure native americans, but not only that. The indians under Churchill, the Belgian Congo, in fact most of modern imperialism is a direct result of capitalist interests and capitalist economics. When a capitalist government puts restrictions and sanctions on a country so tight they can do nothing but sit still and starve, what else could you call that but an attempted genocide?
    1
  1358.  @patmccall4647  ...these acts are still continuing to this day. Like, yeah no shit the USSR and Germany were horrible but have you seen what the US has been doing to any country that claims to lean slightly socialist? It still isn't over.
    1
  1359.  @TheImperatorKnight  "everything I don't like is the marxist narrative."
    1
  1360.  @TheImperatorKnight  Of course, you're still going along with the myth that everyone who disagrees with you is a marxist. Jesus.
    1
  1361.  @Matt_History  What? No, the amazing thing about history is that while we may always keep learning and understanding more, there is no way to "change" it. There's a reason that the top respected actual historians all differ from TIK, and if you're trying to construct some alternate history, well... that's called dishonesty.
    1
  1362.  BenjaminTheRogue  god of course you're a mauler fan.
    1
  1363.  @oslier3633  Yep. They know they're far right.
    1
  1364.  @clutrike7956  wow, that's a dumbass buzzword
    1
  1365.  @oslier3633  That is literally false, marx said no such thing, ever.
    1
  1366.  @TheImperatorKnight  Why would anyone watch that long refuted nonsense?
    1
  1367. @wakenbaker-uk Because he isn't. Because hitler was a far right anti socialist, like most of this comment section.
    1
  1368.  @oslier3633  Marx didn't even distinguish between socialism and communism, and advocated for a stateless system with the workers in direct control. You're a liar, admit it.
    1
  1369.  @oslier3633  nope. He literally didn't want a state. He wanted the workers to have control over their own production. The workers are not the same as a society, nor is a society the same as government. So your false equivalencies don't add up. Oh look, he abhorred the idea of totalitarian government. You're a liar.
    1
  1370.  @oslier3633  Go on, explain your ignorance! You can say "aka" all you want, it doesn't make it true, or at all correct. Workers can't own shit if private property exists. Then, their boss owns everything. You do realize that there are more types of ownership than the state or the powerful owning everything? For example, the workers could directly own and control their contribution to production, as individuals... which socialism proposes. Have you ever read a line of socialist theory, or even talked to anyone other than far-righters about what socialists actually want? Grow up.
    1
  1371.  @oslier3633  marx didn't invent socialism, champ, but you still haven't quoted him saying that the state should do everything right now, you might be in a situation where you own the means of production, but most people aren't. Some people can own the means of production under capitalism, but not everybody can own a factory, because factories employ people. In a socialist system, every person owns their own production, not the production of others just because they claim to own the factory those people work in.
    1
  1372.  @oslier3633  There is no "guy who invented socialism," there were hundreds of philosophers who helped to create it. Marx was the best known and did the biggest job, but that's it. You're bad at this. Most people don't own means of production because they can't. A mill needs space, and obviously a big expenditure. Not everyone has that. Same with every job. And even if they were easy to start, if everyone did them, they'd become useless. Entrepreneurs don't give anyone a choice, they take their labor in return for a small amount of the money said labor produces. Why work for someone when everyone can work for themselves?
    1
  1373.  @oslier3633  are you seriously that dumb. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it contradictory, i've explained it to you over and over again. You don't understand any of this.
    1
  1374.  @oslier3633  Which still, i'm not sure you understand, most people don't have. Nor do they have the time to learn how to operate one, and how to turn a profit from it. Same with setting up a website, for that you need to educate yourself on how to do that, as well as have access to a device, internet to connect it to, and a shipping service. None of which is free. Besides all those things, the thing stopping most people from buying a mill is that if everyone did it, it wouldn't be profitable. There's only so many people willing to buy from you, champ.
    1
  1375.  @oslier3633  What reality do you live in where most people have iphones? What sort of strawman bullshit is that? Many people have phones, most are low price, used, and old. Mine cost $43. Most people aren't factory workers, but even if they were, industrial machinery needs to be manned by many different people, and needs much more space and energy than the personal machines you're talking about. And when did I say workers didn't know how to operate their own means of productions? Obviously they do, that's why they have jobs. You're suggesting they learn totally new skills for little to no payoff. You learned how to make a website online? Great, most don't know how to make it professional enough to convince people to use their business, and the best tutorials are behind paywalls. A computer costs a shit ton, a stable internet connection costs a shit ton, the cabling costs a shit ton, and so on. And I hate to break it to you, but when people want to buy screws, they go to a home depot. They're not going to trust some random person online, and also, not everyone needs screws. You're making up a lot of bullshit to justify the fact that your system does not allow everyone to own the means of production. Your system restricts, which is why we're at this point. The people who work in factories, janitors, sewage workers, ect? They work 100x more than any CEO, and yet look at where they are. You assume anyone with the willpower can succeed, then tell me... why hasn't everyone succeeded yet? If it was that easy, literally everyone would do it, or at least tens of millions more than are right now. What's the explanation? You're a liar.
    1
  1376.  @oslier3633  My own. Like everyone does. Like your system prevents in all cases.
    1
  1377.  @oslier3633  How many factory workers own the factory they work in? Give an answer, i'll wait.
    1
  1378.  @oslier3633  ...so they can't own the means of production. And since under capitalism not everybody can own their own businesses and enterprises, some people need to actually work in them, under capitalism most people won't own their own production. However, you bring up an interesting point. Why don't the people who made the factory have any say in it? What about the people that developed the technology the factory uses? According to you, ownership is everything, so why does their labor not matter? Why don't the workers buy their own brick and mortar? Because they can't afford them, because they don't have the time to learn those skills, and because not everyone can do the same jobs. The very system is stopping them, something you have thus far failed to realize.
    1
  1379.  @oslier3633  Nope. You literally can't. Not everyone can be a factory owner, there has to be employees. Otherwise, the factory won't run. I don't want anyone but my own's means of production, i'm not a capitalist. People dont own their own tools because they can't, someone always has to work with someone else's tools, under someone else's employment. At least under your system. The people who made the factory don't have a say, you're saying? But it was their work, their labor, their tools. Why do you want to steal that work from them, all because of some imaginary title of "ownership" with no physical backing? Yes, most people can't afford the materials and space in order to make their own establishment. I hate to break it to you, but under capitalism, land costs money. Capitalism isn't the system that lets you do whatever you want, it never has been, and never claimed to be. Which still makes you a liar. The internet? You realize educating yourself requires time and effort, right, which many people would prefer to actually spend making money the way they know how. Why do you not understand the realities of the working class? It's painfully obvious you don't understand that capitalism is extremely restrictive, and it is a system of theft. And, as you show, a system of violence.
    1
  1380.  @oslier3633  I'm not a capitalist, why would I try to steal any of your things?
    1
  1381.  @oslier3633  I hate to tell this to you, but modern day industry requires workers to be at all competitive. No business has any sort of widespread success with only one person working at the place. Not everyone can be self employed, that's the very point of employment. And I heard you the first time... which is why I refuted it the first time. Why does a slip of paper with a number on it give someone the right to revoke the labor of another? Why do you want to separate the work from the worker so bad? Nobody. Wants. To. Buy. Your. Screws. If I want screws, I don't go searching online for a website shoddily put together by one person, half a country away, who would make me pay piles upon piles for just shipping. Why wouldn't I just go down to the home depot? Capitalism is the system you espouse, and a word that was created and owned by capitalists, stop making things up you economically illiterate child. There is nothing free about the system you advocate for, and you cannot do whatever you want, as you have been told time and time again. excuses
    1
  1382.  @oslier3633  You don't want to actually let people own their own work, you want their bosses to own the worker's work. You are a thief Paying doesn't mean anything when currency is made up. You're lying again.
    1
  1383.  @oslier3633  "more double think" Well yeah when you make up my points of course you'll find contradictions. Because those aren't my points. Where did I say everyone should be self employed? And yes, if you want to eat, if you want to sleep, if you want medicine, you work. The "free market" is backed by force and coercion. Nobody knows about your business because why should they bother trying to find out? According to you, the majority of people are lazy and will do what's easiest, so they're just going to head down to a local hardware store. Capitalism was a word coined by an anarchist, child. Why do you have such an obsession with lying? The capitalist system rejects freedom and individuality. It isn't free at all, you're forced to work and sell your time and body to even survive, to eat, to drink, to make it another day. That is force. No, you can not, and never have been able to do whatever you want. If you could, why are so many poor? You refuse to answer. Of course, you think its because they're lazy, but if that was the case, then why do they work the hardest?
    1
  1384.  @ThatDrummerFrank  As for the arguments before this point, I'm not a huge fan. He rests pretty heavily on the definitions he put forward in his public vs private video, which doesn't really work. He defines states as any collective, and any collective/state as socialist. The issues with this are numerous, mainly that he relies on much, much older terms instead of the ones that socialists actually used, with the meanings they espoused. In doing this he's more projecting his view of these terms onto the meanings that socialists generally pushed for, which means that he's misrepresenting the definition of socialism. That makes his whole video a lot shakier.
    1
  1385.  @ThatDrummerFrank  It really isn't. For one, Marxists aimed to do a lot of things, because Marxism isn't a specific economic or political doctrine, it's a historical lens based on materialism and dialectics. But anyway, hitler really didn't want to socialize the aryan race, He didn't want to remove any sort of class inequalities, give them democratic or direct control of the MoP, and if they didn't align with his ideology or his idea of a perfect person, he didn't even want to help them. His point on socializing people didn't make much sense, and it seems like he was just trying to use the word "socialize" to draw a connection to socialism. Because even if you do create an ethnostate, that doesn't mean that the race in question has socialized control or collective control of the MoP. It means members of that race exclusively have control of the MoP. We already had a system like that according to marx, all people were workers, yet all workers did not own the MoP. Hitler's attempt to kick out all people he didn't like wouldn't have caused socialism, but just new class inequalities and semi-private ownership within the single race. It's a bit f a word play, because while the race would technically be in control of the means of production, it would be members of the reace individually, and not the race as a whole. But socialism has never really been about race anyway, it's also worth mentioning that socialism was about class and workers before marx, and that hitler didn't learn from other socialist movements but new, revolutionary conservative movements, but I think I already said that. Anyway, I hope that answers your question. :)
    1
  1386.  @mitscientifica1569  No, as they were not right wing :)
    1
  1387.  @mitscientifica1569  Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. " His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it! Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view. Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx. Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
    1
  1388.  @mitscientifica1569  Exactly, nice try trying to rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis: "For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were. This quote: “National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1] In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact. Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out: "Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. " He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought. Sources: [1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159. [2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1. //:/
    1
  1389.  @mitscientifica1569  The source is several orwell quotes that you split in half and entirely removed from the context that so easily destroys the illusion you tried to create. It's amazing, truly amazing, the lengths you'll go to in order to pretend your arguments aren't soundly debunked by your very citations, a running theme I am starting to notice...
    1
  1390.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  1391.  @mitscientifica1569  Collectivism doesn't mean "(socialism)" and individualism doesn't mean "(capitalism.)" Congratulations, you've just preformed a basic category error. Did you see the whole "culture" part also? You seem to not understand the actual subject of the study...
    1
  1392.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were. This quote: “National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1] In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact. Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out: "Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. " He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought. Sources: [1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159. [2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
    1
  1393.  @samuelboucher1454  Just because you disagree with objective fact doesn't mean its suddenly any less objective. The second you realize that, the better off you'll be in life.
    1
  1394.  @samuelboucher1454  Because they're facts. You have yet to present a single argument or fact so far.
    1
  1395.  @samuelboucher1454  Its really sad how you think the video is at all accurate. Just because it supposedly "addressed" the truth, doesn't mean that it actually presented a factual or convincing argument. Your own comments and ignorance on things like apparent "non-international socialism" shows this perfectly.
    1
  1396.  @samuelboucher1454  Good thing i'm not just calling it a fact, i'm telling you something that has been an objective for a while.
    1
  1397.  @samuelboucher1454  That's a lie though? You've only ever tried to deny basic reality and then treat that like an argument
    1
  1398.  @samuelboucher1454  "you and your alt account." You're joking, right?
    1
  1399.  @samuelboucher1454  ...So you are a liar, then? One that doesn't even have a convincing lie? The nazis weren't socialists, and you really don't have any arguments otherwise. "They were fighting for workers rights against capitalists?" They were literally throwing millions of workers, of all ethnicities, genders, nationalities and races into death camps, while allying with overseas capitalists to fund their expansion. They didn't consider themselves socialists either, they pretty clearly rejected any past meanings of socialism and tried to apply the title where they now it didn't belong. TIK's definition of socialism is incorrect, but even if it was correct, they did not aim for or achieve "collective control of the economy," they wanted the economy in the hands of the state and corporations. The problem is, you don't actually know what socialism is, and think that the vast majority of socialist ideas are just some strain of "international communists." The only way to think they were somehow socialist is to take all of socialism and pretend its simply a branch of a larger whole, and lump in far right ideologies that have nothing to do with socialism, all while redefining words and misusing labels, which would be a stupid and historically inaccurate thing to do. And yet, you just did it.
    1
  1400.  @samuelboucher1454  But nobody "knows" that, it isn't true. And we've know it isn't true for decades now, since the nazis first took power. I'm not making a claim, i'm stating a fact that has been known to be true for longer than you have been alive.
    1
  1401.  @samuelboucher1454  Ah, amazing argument. Instead of dealing with the facts, you simply assert the same lie again, and this time admit you have no ability to argue in favor of it. The nazis weren't socialists. This is a fact. You can try to assert things about my argument all you want, but you know that you haven't actually addressed a word i've said, and on some level you realize that's because, mentally, you can't. You can't argue for your lie above the truth. My "word salad" is called an argument. I take it you haven't had to deal with one before.
    1
  1402.  @samuelboucher1454  I get that you dislike me being correct, but your annoyance isn't an argument, it is simply further proof of your immaturity.
    1
  1403.  @samuelboucher1454  Yes, the nazis, the far right anti-socialist regime, what about them?
    1
  1404.  @samuelboucher1454  Yes, actually. Time and time again I have. And I still have no response from you, besides you continually not understanding what a word salad is. :)
    1
  1405.  @samuelboucher1454  You say you've "explained," but all you've actually done is asserted. When faced with the facts of your assertions being incorrect, you simply repeat yourself again. This is the mark of someone who has conceded their point. You know you're wrong. And this video, this work of fiction, won't change that. The nazis weren't socialists.
    1
  1406. So few people "realize it" because it is objectively untrue. The nazis themselves said they were right wing, they associated with conservatives while purging socialists, it's pretty obvious.
    1
  1407.  @chriswysocki8816  yes, sadly, I did waste my time watching and referencing this video. And yes, I listened to TIKs arguments all the way through. They don't work. But, seriously, why can't a right wing person nationalize something? They didn't even do much of that, but what's your reasoning? That isn't inherently left wing, and the Nazis were openly right wing
    1
  1408.  @chriswysocki8816  And that definition doesn't really work. First, because the very idea of left vs right was invented to describe those who wanted a republic, and those that wanted a monarchy, with the monarchy being on the right. So the idea of left vs right being state intervention vs libertarianism doesn't make sense. Also, the word "libertarian" literally used to describe leftists, anarchism is a left wing ideology, and socialism doesn't even need a state to operate. So what's a better definition? Well, here's one that's been proposed, that works a bit better. And that definition is hierarchy vs equality, right vs left. In other words, look at some left wing ideologies. Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy, Anarchism. In the moderate section, Social Democracy, the left wants to minimize hierarchy and maintain equality. As you get more extreme, you can get things like statist socialism, which guarantees and enforces equality by the state, or communism and anarchism, which guarantees equality as a collective, mutually, without a state, The right, on the other hand, has Libertarian Capitalism, Corporatism, Ancap, Monarchism and Fascism. On the moderate side you have capitalism, which allows people to climb the ladder of hierarchy so to say, and while it allows for equality, it does not strive for it. Corporatism strives for a hierarchy of strong corporations at the top, enforced by the market and the state alike. There is monarchism and fascism, where the hierarchy is rigidly enforced and those on the top stay on top,either through inherent racial hierarchies, or a divine right of kings. And then Ancap, where there is no government interference and hierarchy is free to spring up. Obviously, that's not to say that one side is better than the other, I think you would say that too much of both is bad. But that is the most comprehensive and solid definition I have actually heard for left vs right. The concept itself is flawed, but obviously saying more vs less government doesn't wok at all. One more thing to mention - the nazis and italian fascists allied with the right constantly, and called themselves right wing.
    1
  1409.  @chriswysocki8816  You can easily research the definition as well, it isn't that hard. Fascists, objectively, were not socialists, and in the founding texts of fascism they decried their hatred for socialism and capitalism alike. They were not socialists, but conservatives, social darwinists, and traditionalists. The nazis sent socialists to the camps first mate, they allied with conservatives and capitalists while doing so. That isn't socialist in the slightest. The nazis not only weren't leftists, but by any objective metric cannot be found to be socialists. Of course they're a shit ideology, but lumping them in with socialists does no good but to deflect from the actual rise of fascism in the world. Also, as I keep reminding you, the fascists called themselves right wing, and cannot be considered socialists according to even you. That much is evident.
    1
  1410.  @chriswysocki8816  And I hate to be frank but it isn't something you can really disagree with, (though feel free to say that you do, you have the right) it's out best understanding of history. The nazi regime did not take over the entire state nor the economy, but even then (as I keep explaining) that would not be a socialist or leftist system. Was it totalitarian? Of course. Was it socialist, or leftist? Not by any rational definition. And that's your personal bias. Let me ask you this, if the true danger is on the left, then what do you imagine the left wing vs right wing terrorism rates are? In, let's say, the past decade. 76% was far right. I would reccomend really reading into the start of the nazi movement, they allied with conservatives and capitalists frequently, then they surpassed them. That's not to detract from the regimes of the left at the same time, but to call hitler a socialist is to try to write off the right as perfect historical benefactors, when in reality they were anything but. Yes, Stalin and Mao were monsters.But the problem is you're weakening your argument by including situations that don't logically follow. Take Venezuela, for example - 70% private economy. Hardly some massive socialist undertaking. But more importantly, take hitler. His movement did not come from the same place, did not want the same things, did not do the same things as those other regimes. To act as if they were all "socialist" is like trying to barricade the door with an open window behind you. You focus all of your effort against the socialists, but when the fascists come from the opposite direction you won't see them coming. Hell, they might help you take care of the socialists before they turn on you. I know this is somewhat dramatic for something that seems unbelievable, but it really can happen here, and when it does, it won't do you any good to try calling the warring left and right all "socialists." It doesn't make much sense, and you're only hurting your own argument by trying to lump them all together when categorically it doesn't make sense to do that.
    1
  1411.  @danielbowman7226  So you haven't watched the video, then. You could have simply admitted as much, it makes this whole thing so much easier. After all... he says the opposite of you. And i'm sure you did child, despite the fact that you haven't even grown up yet. If that's what you think, you may want to check again. It was the conservative parties who the nazis allied with to usurp democracy and eventually turn a republic into a dictatorship, not leftists. But knowing that would require a bit of historical context, which as we both know, you are lacking. I'm sure minarchists and libertarians were in concentration camps... that's why mises was the head of a fascist economy, right? Oh, no, did you forget that part? Again - educate yourself. And ah yes, another assertion. Yes, kid, i'm sure that neonazis loved the man who wants to cut back on border security and has a black woman as a vice president. I see no reason ethno-nationalists would have a problem with either of those things, at all! Again - break out of your bubble. Try to apply actual logic to your statements, not just buzzwords and constantly-repeated talking points from your echo chambers.
    1
  1412.  @danielbowman7226  And yet, the video is baseless. TIK himself admits that the only sources he offers that agree with him are biased and non-historical. The historians he cites, all of them, disagree with his conclusion. The nazis quite literally only got into power because conservatives got them there and capitalists were more than happy to fund their political party. The conservatives quite literally were given high level government roles because they were instrumental in the nazi's rise to power. This is a basic fact, one that you seem not to have been taught, which is odd. Fascism is based off of traditionalism, nationalism, and corportatism. That's the basic fact. And Mises, quite literally, ran a fascist economy, working directly under a fascist dictator, with whom he considered himself a friend. Again, guess nobody even taught you that. I know, kid. You want to pretend you come from a "socialist" country because its easier than actually learning to debate. Lucky for you i'm not a socialist, but I don't think you even know what a socialist is to begin with. Ahh, and here you are repeating actual neo-nazi talking points. Wow, interesting that someone who claims to be opposed to that is repeating their own words. You refused to address my point, but instead brought up how Richard Spencer endorsed Biden. Of course, you don't actually know the reason for this, like I said all you can do is repeat talking points. Do you want to know the reason? It's quite simple - Spencer quite literally said it. He thought Biden would have more conservative policies relating to borders and the BLM protests than trump, and in fairness, Biden's political record doesn't do much to disprove that. So your evidence is a man who fooled himself into endorsing someone because he thought that the man was more right wing than he was. This is, of course, ignoring the four years of political endorsements trump go from the KKK, neo-nazis, white supremacists, modern monarchists, ect.
    1
  1413.  @scalisque5403  call me a hypocrite all you want, doesn't make me any less correct. Your buddy there is lying about the holocaust and the soviets to try to absolve the right of political responsibility for the worst reign of terror on this planet, ever.
    1
  1414. No offense, but that's like saying democracy or republicanism doesn't work because monarchists crushed those types of rebellions hundreds of times before one actually took hold. Maybe don't compare burgeoning 3rd world countries to the most powerful empire in the modern world?
    1
  1415.  @cjd2889  I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't consider things like the czar's russia a thriving first world community. And um.. you really don't know much about history, do you? Like the fact that capitalist countries literally led a policy of containment, got into multiple wars, and ordered the assassinations or coups of several democratically elected leaders? did you not know... any of this? Like is is basic history, and probably why you didn't understand the argument you were having to begin with. Like this is a new level of ignorance. Hell, capitalist countries led efforts against socialist movements in their own countries. You absolutely should know this.
    1
  1416.  @cjd2889  God, I'm loving this conversation so far. Because it's so apparent that you really didn't know about this. Yes, the policy of containment was usually enforced by the US trying to bring about the end of a nation, either through open proxy war, or assassinations/coups. It was also a preemptive effort to combat socialism, long before any such nations could have actually felt the so-called adverse effects of it, and when most nations were actually hugely benefiting. And I do really love how little about this you know. Would you say that union leaders, free speech activists, and democratically elected leaders were despots? Or were you confused, because it's the despots we replaced those people with. And as for movements, not against (you should read what I say) but for socialism or conducted by socialists in their own country, of course they did their best to put them down violently, or at least slander them, regardless of if it worked or not.If you want to talk about regimes disposing of protesters, or torturing millions of people, well then welcome to the US, where we purposefully installed regimes that did exactly that, supposedly in the effort to combat authoritarianism. Ironic, right? I know you don't know this yet, and should have asked, but i'm not a socialist. I'm just not a child who was fooled into thinking the US has never done anything wrong. If i wanted a bullet to the back of the head, i'd just speak out against the United States Government in some other country. Of course, you don't know what socialism actually is, but that's to be expected. When you want to talk about failed states, we can talk about the regimes imposed by the US. Until then, you might want to bush up on your history.
    1
  1417.  @cjd2889  Oh jeez, you're really teaching me a thing or two, eh? It's almost like you can't actually address my arguments, so you strawman them to shit, and then address those. So let's deal with that. First off, I don't go by some subjective definition., I go by the one that's been used since the beginning. I know you all don't like it, because you call anyone left of Reagan a socialist so of course the definition doesn't work, but it's the one I use. As for "revisionist history," I love that you all, and I mean you all, have this idea of "Marxist academia." Now where have I heard that before? Hm... No, can't think of it. Anyway, I couldn't care less what you think of experts, or your own historical revisionism. First off, you'll notice that not once did I mention Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, or China. China did put down a socialist movement, however, so you've got at least that running for you. See, the thing is, there's a reason I didn't mention them. Don't get me wrong, the USA had ways of fucking with all of those countries, like proxy wars, trade restrictions, embargos, ect. By the way, when did you all start calling venezuela socialist? Was it before or after you found out about the 70% private economy.And I would agree, largely the leaders of those countries and movements are to blame for the later abysmal conditions, although again, the US certainly had a role to play among many. However, this entire point, as you may notice, doesn't once address anything I actually said. It's generally just you ranting about the corruption inherent to authoritarianism, not once actually addressing the authoritarianism the USA put into power. Of course these leaders were bad, did I say otherwise? But your hypothesis that the USA and other capitalist countries had nothing to do with the spread of socialism, or lack thereof, is insanely wrong. The only examples you actually give were Libya and Iraq, which were far from the only ones. We can go into, say , Chile. Where the USA not only sponsored the Coup, but sponsored the next dictator, even as he was coaxing rats into orifices and throwing people out of helicopters. Did you know that the average nutrition of Chile after a few years of Pinochet's rule was worse than the average nazi concentration camp's? You attempt to write this all off as just "career politicians trying to increase the power of the state," which is again, wrong. Politicians aren't eldritch entities that feed off the state or something, no, if they do something it's because they benefit. And how did they stand to benefit? Well, the wealthy elite didn't like socialist takeovers, so of course they called up the USA to help them resist it. Oh yeah, and we know, you don't know what socialism is, because you're now trying to say that Richard Nixon was some kind of socialist-adjacent figure. As for anti-socialist movements in the US (again, not what I said) we have multiple red scares, and no I hate to break it to you, but they weren't justified. They sent off my great-uncle in a boat to freeze to death on the Siberian wasteland because he dared be a union leader. Not the most justified stuff. The idea that the Russians were trying to propagandize Americans is somewhat true, but there was a growing leftist movement anyway, because the USA has just now begun to openly suck ass, which politicians pretended was some huge conspiracy. Oh, and the anti-civil rights movement was certainly partially anti-socialist. And isn't it funny, your lack of introspection? You accuse me of siding with socialists, before once considering that it's possible that it has nothing to do with socialism, but it's just history?
    1
  1418.  @cjd2889  Oh, i'm well aware of that. The fact that you didn't address my arguments is what proves that, not what I say on the matter. Making something up implies that it's false, which my point wasn't. I brought up my great-uncle to point out a real event, and while you are correct in that the internet, anonymous as it is cannot prove that I was related to this person, the event did happen, and was widely recognized. That event being the sailing of the Red Ark. You can choose whether or not to believe my familial ties to it, but it did happen. And i'm sure you don't want to delve into the history of that "Marxist Professors " things, so sure, we won't get into them. The reason I brought up Nixon was that he was a big part of the anti-socialist effort, and personally called for and permitted the coup in Chile, which was my later example. While politicians do gain from increasing government power, that's largely only because they can leverage that power for more out of the private market. And I would argue giving the government the ability to just kill people they don't like is a bit worse that public property, but that's just me. I used "eldritch abominations" to draw attention to the fact that they aren't just irrational beings we can't understand that like the state for some reason, no, they do things because they personally will profit from them. And yes, I do think that for the most part some of these countries would at least have done better if the USA had left them well enough alone. Why? Because, for example, Allende wasn't torturing people to death. He wasn't tossing free speech advocates out of helicopters. And, best of all, he could have been voted out. Like it or not, that's better than Pinochet's rule. In any case, I am aware that the vast majority of their wealth came from the oil industry, which they did nationalize, but that hardly makes them socialist. Socialism isn't "when the government owns one industry that did well before the USA put sanctions on them. Socialism is, and always has been, when the workers own the means of production. And yes, by "always," I do mean both pre-marx and anti-marx socialism. And I would agree that there was a certain amount of strongarming in regards to the other buisnesses, but certainly not enough to be considered unofficial nationalization by any means. I said teaching sarcastically obviously, but I knew that you weren't here to try to impart knowledge in a good faith way. After all, to you, pointing out the history of the USA and other anti-socialist efforts is somehow "defending socialism," despite my previous comments showing otherwise. What was that line you used? Oh right. "Or do you think that you saying something just magically makes it true?" But I guess that doesn't matter as much. Sure mate, have a good one, and best of luck in everything.
    1
  1419. The issue there is that you've stumbled onto exactly why hitler isn't a socialist. TIK considered there to be a binary between pure capitalism, which he says is stateless, and everything else, which he calls socialist. Hell, he even calls corporations themselves a socialist invention. All he does is prove that Hitler was totalitarian, but he openly admits that he just thinks totalitarianism, in all forms, is socialism, which is absurd. I thank you for your nuance, but the entire argument is based off of definitions of socialism that are as oddly constructed as the definition of capitalism, which you correctly point out doesn't really fit our traditional understanding or usage of the term. I'd be happy to debate this further, but from what i've seen the amount of redefinition in this video and others by him kind of prove the opposite of their point, that in order to call hitler a socialist, you have to redefine the term into something no socialist calls for, or something even anti-socialist entities like businesses could be qualified as. It's absurd.
    1
  1420. @Victorian Spiritualist They aren't, though. They're private structures, like it or not. You can seethe at that fact all you want, but they are private alone.
    1
  1421. @Victorian Spiritualist First off, you absolutely can get rid of hierarchies, sorry. I know the right loves them, but they are far from a natural part of this world. Oh, yeah, and hierarchies are mostly private. That's, you know, how the private market works, since its built entirely off of hierarchy, and people becoming stronger or more successful than others. While hierarchy can be public, it is not exclusively so, as economic illiterates like you might suggest. Public is not just "structures by which society are organized," and in fact, neither do hierarchies adhere to that definition. Therefore, private hierarchies are commonplace. And, of course, none of your nonsense goes against the objective truth that most if not all corporations are private entities, at all times, like it or not.
    1
  1422. @Victorian Spiritualist That is far from what determines private, having an individual leader, but even companies controlled by large collections of people, like cooperatives, are still private. I see you have bought into TIK's unproven "individual = private" claim and have decided to run with it, unquestioningly.
    1
  1423. @Victorian Spiritualist It's people like you who really need to do some more research here, socialism isn't just everything you don't like.
    1
  1424.  @alecideas  I already have, so many times. Its on you to prove your point rather than deferring to authority.
    1
  1425.  @lance8163  not really.
    1
  1426.  @chuckles1954  You know that the democrats used to be right wing, correct? I know you're an ignorant child, but you really should know that pretty simply. After all, the democrats used to complain that everything they didn't like was communism, just like republicans do today, while the republicans used to have actual socialists in their party. Everything you are talking about proves my point, that the right is fascist. It's amazing how little self awareness you have, but of course, that's to be expected from a supporter of fascism such as yourself. The republican party in early years was a fan of big government, they were northern, left wing, liberal,industrialists. The early republicans even called themselves liberals, and as I said, used to have socialists in their party. Of course the first few black people in congress were liberal republicans. You seem to somehow be an idiot if you think that there were zero republican slave owners, but i agree, the conservative democrats did terrible things, while the liberal lincoln (who even was endorsed by karl marx ) freed the slaves. Of course right wingers back then loved republicans, they do today as well. Wilson was a cultural conservative, which is why he sided with the KKK, who openly admit to being a far right conservative organization. Right wingers wanted FDR to do that, and didn't want FDR to join the war in the first place, because they sympathized with hitler. Eisenhower had an >90% tax rate, while his more right wing counterparts didn't like his left wing efforts. Martin Luther King openly called himself a socialist, and it's incredibly disrespectful for you to connect him to the part he said reminded him of the KKK. The group that refused to vote for the civil right bill was conservatives, while liberals proposed (and carried) and signed the bill. Robert Byrd, unlike the modern republicans, gave up the KKK when he was younger and admitted he was more conservative when he joined. Meanwhile, right wingers commit the vast majority of all terror attacks and hate crimes, and support the KKK and the racist police. Socialists fought to free the slaves and give people equal rights. Hitler didn't want to call himself a socialist, his party made that decision without him, and he went on to say he despised all forms of socialism and said that the left would end the world while the right would save it. He was right wing. You seem not to realize that not only was the democratic party mostly right wing back in those days, but they were (and still are) capitalist. You just disproved your own point. Considering the right wing of the time literally gave hitler the idea for racial laws, and it's republican owned organizations today that defend those same racial laws, it's clear how they're still the same. FDR beat hitler in a war, while the right wing didn't want to join, because they agreed with hitler, while FDR and hitler agreed on essentially nothing. I know you're a propagandized idiot, but at least try to keep logically consistent. You realize that the democrats are capitalists, right? Saying they are similar to hitler proves that hitler was not a socialist. The right hates freedom, we know this. It's priceless to get information from the modern day right, who worship figures like hitler, because even though they deny it hitler was the perfect embodiment of everything they wanted from society. It's amazing when republicans see the light to their fascist ways, and move leftwards, as has been happening for years now. And yes, the New York Times, a capitalist paper, supported Hitler. What does that say? Liberalism means capitalism, child, and yes it's killed hundreds of millions, we know this. But you seem not to realize that you are a liberal, and that all this response has proven is that you deny what hitler actually wanted so you can ignore the fact that you agree with him on pretty much everything. There's a reason conservatives loved (and still love hitler.) It's because they can recognize one of their own.
    1
  1427.  @lance8163  It's because you know i'm right, trust me, I know. I've seen it before. Welcome to reality
    1
  1428.  @lance8163  You literally just compared fascism to closing down the economy for a month so that people didn't die. If anyone, it's you who has the problem here, of not only downplaying fascism but deflecting attention to economic restrictions of all things with accusations of fascism. That's not at all accurate.
    1
  1429.  @lance8163  Oh, i get it. you're so propagandized you don't know what's actually happening.
    1
  1430.  @lance8163  Yes, I do. Which is why I know so much more on this subject than you.
    1
  1431.  @lance8163  You're brainwashed because you invent hypocrisy where none exists.
    1
  1432.  @lance8163  The USA certainly has a growing fascist presence, but it isn't because you got told to stay home for a month. It's because they're throwing random people in unmarked vans after grabbing them off the street for next to no reason.
    1
  1433.  @lance8163  Yeah, sorry, that's pretty much what it was. That isn't fascism champ.
    1
  1434.  @lance8163  And yes, I am, and I am. You don't get to call random thins you don't like fascism, especially when much better examples exist pretty much everywhere. What you are describing is not fascism
    1
  1435.  @KameradVonTurnip  Well given that doesn't matter too much, given that the nazis weren't socialists, and TIK's arguments are easy to disprove.
    1
  1436.  @KameradVonTurnip  I already have. Time and time again. Hell, that's part of where we met the first time, champ. What I say doesn't matter to you, we both know that. Just for once try some individual research and stop trusting the guy who calls professional historians marxists.
    1
  1437.  @KameradVonTurnip  Oh, not in this thread yeah. But this thread isn't where I know you from, is it? And here's a question - why do you spend so much time defending TIK? If his beliefs were reflected in real history, why would you bother staying here?
    1
  1438.  @KameradVonTurnip  Oh, and I did delete my comments in that other thread.
    1
  1439.  @KameradVonTurnip  And just as I thought. The reason any of TIKs viewers are here... is the same reason you are. Entertainment. Not because you think his points actually matter or will get anywhere or change public opinion, but because you found some ideologue that tells you you're right, and you're entertained by that. And why do I stick around? Because I actually care about the history. Because I care that people like you watch his videos, and may come away not thinking of it as ideological argumentation, but somehow an actual source on history. I know you hate that my arguments hit home, but that isn't a rebuttal. And there's that same NPC line again. "refuted in the video." Have you ever considered that they weren't? That TIK made arguments against them that don't actually hold up, and that i've addressed his comments time and time again and yet he refuses to do anything more than say "already refuted!" I watched the video, and at this point i'm questioning whether you did at all. After all... TIK is a liar. He's said as much. And you're just repeating his words. Have you even watched the video? Done individual research? TIK is wrong, and nothing he said has proved otherwise. I know. The last time we "scuffled" you ran away because it hurt too much to admit that I was right, and that you hadn't put in a second of research yourself. TIK is a liar. Prove me wrong.
    1
  1440.  @KameradVonTurnip Did you... read their responses to me? They admitted they have no more arguments. And I left them alone with that realization. I do find it funny how you jump straight into bad faith arguments though. Just kind of proves my point.
    1
  1441.  @KameradVonTurnip  my comments were true, and they remain true. Why did I delete them? Because they fell on deaf ears, and I have no desire to waste even more of my time with children like yourself, which can't even understand the truth when they see it. I said as much in the comments. Do you even know what my comments said, child? Obviously not... So your goal here is to insult. Not critique. "Now after that opening, I'm picturing you as the boy's Teacher from The Incredibles when he goes "See you see that!!! He is Guilty!" " At least try to take this seriously. You accused me of not even believing my own words, and then instantly go off about how you see this as nothing more than a game. It's deeply sad, really. And I hate to break it to you, but I'm not here for entertainment. Defending history isn't entertaining, it's necessary. That's why I deleted those comments - because I find no enjoyment in arguing, and when it is no longer necessary, I see no reason to. Is it that hard to understand?
    1
  1442. Ah, and TIKs hearted the comment. I really live rent free in his mind, huh. If I was the troll he wanted me to be, he would have given up months ago. But yet, he still responds.
    1
  1443.  @KameradVonTurnip  And why do you think that? You haven't actually explained your reasoning there.
    1
  1444.  @KameradVonTurnip  ...but that logic doesn't hold up. You say that I have no reason to delete them, so the only reason must be that I feel ashamed of a loss. But that isn't true, I do have a reason - I don't feel like responding to comments. I don't feel like making myself a figure for people to respond to in a giant thread that's the pinned comment on a video. And I realize it's pointless, so in a way to symbolically finalize the acceptance of this fact to myself, i deleted them. That's my reason. You assert that the only reason I would delete them is because i'm ashamed of them... but i'm not. In fact, I said the same to you earlier today, and that comment is still sitting proud. I've said the same before, time and time again, even TIK will tell you. So how am I afraid of a loss when i'm still making the same point elsewhere? If me deleting my arguments, to you, seems like the "knee jerk reaction of a fool," it seems like you're trying to project your own opinion of online arguments onto me. And I don't actually agree with your logic, so why would I follow it? Like, your whole "point" here is that according to your outlook, a deleted comment is an admission of failure. But I don't have that outlook. So why would your views be applicable to my actions?
    1
  1445.  @KameradVonTurnip  ...what? Again, the logic doesn't follow.
    1
  1446.  @KameradVonTurnip  So I don't like your "logic" and thus i'm not "logic minded?" We've been over this, you think about things one way, I don't. And... I don't care how people perceive me? Especially in this comment section, people have insulted me, tried to guess my ideological leaning, hell called me slurs, all without actually caring about the statement of my words or characters. You already thought I was a liar, and thought I was being dishonest, so why would I care what you glean from my actions? Hell, they don't even see my responses or my account, and TIK was slandering me in the same comment section, why do you assume that they would have had a favorable or even neutral perception of me anyway? You can see the whole conversation, and there's nothing in there of substance. I don't care about "defending myself" as to why i deleted the comments, because i'm confident in my reasoning, and those who disagree wouldn't have liked me anyway. And here's exactly my point. You would have disagreed anyway, TIK would have slandered me anyway, I would have been insulted and looked down upon anyway. And, I hate to break this to you, but literally nobody is going to see those comments and then recognize me in another thread. That isn't how people operate. You can smile all you like, but you already admitted you were wrong. Oh, and i'm pretty sure i'm living rent free in TIK's head ;)
    1
  1447.  @KameradVonTurnip  "If you were confident you wouldn't of deleted them." Already addressed this - and you couldn't respond to it. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true for you, champ. And yeah, they lied about me, insulted me. I'm here because I feel like it. And... yeah. People will see a name. But I hate to break it to you, again, most people won't pay attention to that. And those who do most likely won't engage with me, and the few that do, likely won't remember. Why would someone with no profile picture, no comments to reply to, and no presence in the thread, be worth remembering? and So, again, I really don't care. This isn't an "argument." This is me explaining my reasoning, and you being annoyed when I don't share your same perceptions on online discourse. So, in conclusion - I don't care.
    1
  1448.  @KameradVonTurnip  ...the proof of them lying wasn't in the comments, though. So it wouldn't have mattered if i kept them up? And yeah, I still don't care about people's opinions of me, personally, which is what that thread was apparently on. I'm not sure what that's so hard to grasp. I do care about history though, which is why i'm still here. And again - this isn't an argument. I've been explaining my thought process this entire time, and for some reason you want to argue that you know how I see the world better than I do? Why are you trying to argue my own thoughts and beliefs, and what I do and don't care about? I don't care if you think that my thoughts are "excuses," because it was objectively my thought process. I don't want to waste my time, yes, and yet you keep trying to bait me into doing so. Which is why i'm here. I do think its intensely funny though, that you're trying to treat this like a debate, with excuses and contradictions. No, i'm telling you about myself, and if you don't like what i'm saying or how I think... too bad?
    1
  1449. ​ @KameradVonTurnip  "yet you complain about people making slurs about you? Again contradiction. " Ah yes, the contradiction of... not caring but still pointing out it happened to talk about the people accusing me of those things? How is that a contradiction? "Which I don't care about." Well at least you admit it. I don't care about your own projections onto my actions and thoughts. If you think I failed, or made a fool of myself... great? good? continue thinking that I suppose, because I don't. "Yet you are. " Yes. Good job with that. " What you're telling about yourself is irrelevant, your actions are everything." And there's your problem. You see my actions, and then project your own reasoning and justification onto me. When I point out how I don't think about, what do you say? Oh right., "I don't care." Amazing "argument."
    1
  1450.  @KameradVonTurnip  I "throw around" projection because you're projecting, and this response only proves my point. You write for an absurd amount of time just to end up back where we started. The problem is, you don't realize that perception is influenced by your own personal beliefs... which one can project onto others. You can call me insane all you want, but this is basic fact. Take your shooting example. If someone was shot, someone else may perceive it and assume self defense. Someone else might see it and assume murder. And yet another might see it and assume it might have something to do with conflict from a failed marriage, because they pick up on certain details and project their own expectations and beliefs onto the occurrence. And again, this proves my point. You are inserting and projecting your own feelings onto my behavior, by asserting that somehow I follow your internal logic with my actions. I, for example, don't see deleting a response to be an admission of anything, anyone can delete a response at any time for whatever reason they want. However, you seem to think that if you were to delete a comment, it would be an admission of failure. And what you've done is project this belief onto me, and assume that I operate by your logic, and that me deleting a response has the same motive as you doing so. Your "clear difference" misses your own actions. The problem is, you aren't all people. Your perception is warped by you projecting things onto others. You say you're discussing the "perception" others will have on my actions, but you don't speak with any objectivity in that. Rather, you project your own views onto everyone else and assume everyone thinks exactly like you do. In other words - your projections warps your perception. Which is the point i've been making this whole time, but I doubt you'd understand that, given your own desire to go off on tangents not at all related to the subject matter. It's kind of sad how you don't realize this basic fact about your worldview, and the arguments I literally presented to you. And it is your fault for not understanding how your individual bias is projected onto your perceptions. Which, sadly, doesn't help your other arguments in the slightest. I mean, if you don't understand how non-objective and biased your "perceptions" are, my god, what other terms do you try to project upon and warp because you can't conceptualize anyone thinking differently than you? Well, we already know the answer to that, don't we? After all, i've seen you do that exact thing time and time again. In short - your problem is that what you think is logical, or how people respond, is based off of how you think. Not how others think. And you're projecting your thought process onto me, to try to glean my motivations.
    1
  1451.  @KameradVonTurnip  ...and yet I explained it to you. In full detail. Did you miss that bit? I'm guessing so. "Projecting is when you attribute something you're going through with someone else, and I already explained that.: uh... yes. Which is exactly what I said. For example, someone with a failed marriage making jokes on the subject matter, someone who is gay doing the same, ect. Oh, and someone who is insecure about their points and ability to debate online because they view debate through a certain lens... accusing me of doing that. You see the point, the one i've now had to explain to you three times? You have a very specific set of beliefs and views regarding online debate. You think, (and you said as much yourself) that if you deleted a comment, you would see it as a loss. And so, you are projecting that viewpoint onto me, when I don't think that way at all. You tried to guess at my motives based on your own motives, and failed. You don't seem to realize, as i've explained to you time and time again, that your perception of my actions is warped by you projecting onto them. You say deleting my comments proves i'm insecure in my arguments? Prove it. What arguments? What did I say in those comments that I did not say to your face, right here? Well, nothing. But that doesn't line up with your projection, does it? Perceptions is based off of how someone views things and events, as a person. And I hate to break this to you, but as people, we have biases. And some of those biases can manifest in us projecting our mindset onto someone else. I'll repeat it again - I had my reasons to delete comments. I've told you those reasons. None of them have anything to do with me not feeling the points are valid given i've said the same things I put in those comments elsewhere, and even to you. So, in conclusion - you are projecting your own views onto me. Sorry, I don't agree.
    1
  1452.  @KameradVonTurnip  Ah, but that isn't true, is it? You started this whole thing off by attempting to paint my actions as some sort of sign of my motivations towards deleting those comments. When you failed at that, you then failed at this new goal, calling the old one "irrelevant." I know my reasons are good, and I really don't care what someone like you thinks of that. And. We've been over this. At least you admit you're a person who will never listen, no matter how objective or logical my statements. You have been trying to "argue" what people see my actions as, and when I either tell you that I don't care, or showing you my actual motivation, you insult me and deflect yet again. You keep trying to call out "contradictions," and when I point out that you seem not to know the meaning of the word, or are making incorrect assumptions and ignoring my actual words, you simply reassert said points, usually with added insults. My actions line up with my motivation. As i've told you. And yes, you're projecting. We've been over this, and you haven't been able to even address that point. And I know you're trying to deflect away from your prior point of attempting to paint my actions as motivated by some sort of insecurity or guilt, but this new angle is just as bad if not worse. I'll give you a hint here - people don't care about that thread. Those who read it likely won't remember or internalize more than a word of that. I don't care about justifying my actions to people like you, who ignore reality in favor of projecting their own views onto me. And that's how you know that i've made an impression on you. When someone in an argument starts talking about how they're laughing, or smiling, in an attempt to show confidence or security... you can usually tell that they're really acting exactly the opposite.
    1
  1453.  @KameradVonTurnip  ...what does that have to do with anything I said?
    1
  1454.  @KameradVonTurnip  "Attempted to deny starting the conversation." Yes, i'm sure you have any proof of that, that's why you said it after all, right? So... provide some? Oh wait, no, I get it. You decided to purposefully lie about my statements because you know i'm right, and you don't want to have to deal with that fact by actually responding to my statements. And I agree, the evidence proving all my points is right there. You can step around the fact, try to weasel your way out of it, by lying and flat out denying. But that wouldn't change that fact. Again, your actions prove a lack of integrity, just like you lying now, and denying your clear projection this entire time. This whole argument in circles about this issue is entirely on you. If you have a problem with reality, too bad. I don't care.
    1
  1455.  @KameradVonTurnip  Amazing 'comeback' as usual. Not really surprised. And god, your arguments elsewhere haven't gotten any better. At least they can't get less factual, you've already gone rock bottom there. It is a good thing that you're admitting to the conspiratorial mindset inherent to TIK's revisionism though, thinking that historians are somehow as a group are somehow all lying. And of course people have bias, yes, but it seems that your bias is overtaking historians, and your own refusal to admit to factual information is somehow used as a bludgeon against history. For example, you seem to think that historians know less about classifying state capitalism and socialism, despite the fact that they clearly understand terms much more than you. And given how TIK lies about pretty much everything Marx said and meant, I would doubt you understand what at any point he advocated for. Oh, and TIK has nothing that's "properly cited." And again, this is putting your bias before facts. You assume that a historian long credited with creating a comprehensive overview of the subject he studied... knows less than a youtuber. And what's your reasoning? Well, you agree with the youtuber. So you don't know what you're talking about, and took other people's words for it. Shameful.
    1
  1456.  @TheImperatorKnight  So your hope is to educate them... by lying to them? nice strategy.
    1
  1457. Mate, this is the problem. The "5 hour video" doesn't rebut a single argument, and the sourcing you're talking about comes primarily from biased takes on economies he doesn't understand, or literally just right wing public speakers and alt-right youtubers. That is not researched, or sourced, but we know you just like the long list and don't want to actually deal with the logic. Also, your definition of socialism does not work. At all. By your definition, many capitalists would be socialists, and many socialists would be non-socialists. Because it doesn't work. If you try to blame literally everything you don't like on a single ideology by redefining it, like TIK does, you have admitted that you aren't even talking about the same thing. Expanding the government is not socialist. You are literally advocating for, in your words, Crushing a group you don't understand because you built up a strawman of it in your head. You know that our current government is the one rounding people up off the street, not identifying themselves, and not reading people their rights, right? IS trump a socialist to you? Stop larping, for just one second, and realize that your fantasy definition of socialism isn't accurate in the slightest.
    1
  1458.  @fresatx  How? By offering to debate you, all while you spew easily disprovable nonsense in the comment section? Hell, you proved your own point in reverse here, by showing that you (like religous fanatics) are willing to overlook and ignore anyone who actually tries to present logic to them, and attempts to generalize and strawman their position.
    1
  1459.  @fresatx  Sadly, leftism is not a religion. It's an ideology. I know that you despise debate and being confronted with your nonsense, but it happens mate.
    1
  1460.  @fresatx  You really don't realize the irony in you accusing me of somehow being a part of an illogical "religion..."and then instantly jumping to the idea that you'e be willing to grab your rifle to oppose my ideas? That's the definition of illogical and arguing. I'm not the mad one, I called for a debate, you called for a gun. Stop projecting the inherent failures of your ideology onto all those you don't understand. The only tyranny I see comes from the right, and we both know it.
    1