Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TimeGhost History"
channel.
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Bluearmy76
Let me attempt to correct this with actual historical fact. Hitler himself noted, multiple times, that his ideology was right wing, that he loved private property, and that he disliked the title socialist, but was forced into it when a part of his party that he would later purge chose the name. That same part of his party led the effort of, and created, the 25 point plan, which hilter openly stated that he had no intention of following. You know, the thing you call "socialist ideology." Of course, they didn't nationalize, they privatized. They allowed more private individuals to gain more and more personal wealth. They hated the greater good, and thought society should run on competition. The few other things you note, such as big government, land grabs, and strong central power, are all about as right wing as you can get, and were proudly supported by the right at the time. "Certainly not right wing?" In your dreams. They were anti-socialists/leftist ideology, and they were all about their nationalistic, conservative views.
Hitler himself confirmed they were socialists…. Along with the National Socialist Program 25 point plan, full of socialist ideology! All about big governemnt, working for the greater good, nationalisation, share and confiscation of personal wealth, land grabs, strong central power in the Reich, etc etc etc. Certainly not right wing. They were anti capitalist/free markets, all about the motherland.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wessd Quick problem with that - it's all incorrect. The nazis themselves didn't want to be associated with socialists, hell, socialists were the first to go to the concentration camps. This isn't an issue of association for me, nor anyone who argues they weren't socialists. It's an issue of definition. When the nazis actually defined their ideology, they make it exlicitly clear that they aren't talking about socialism. They hold up wealth, private property, and class differences as good things, all while saying this is "real" socialism. That's the point, when they say they are socialists, what the mean is that they are their version of socialists. Which is to say, not socialists at all by any definition. Today's dems aren't called socialists for an equally good reason... they're capitalist. TIK is wrong in that the systems of russia and italy/germany at the time were identical, they were so radically different that the comparison doesn't even make sense. They didn't do the same thing, at all, unless you describe what they did so vaguely as to render it meaningless.
4
-
4
-
@wessd They just didn't, though. Again, for one, the state controlling something does not make it socialism. For two, the state did not control everything, they set out guidelines and made government contracts to be filled, but that isn't even relevant because even if they did control everything, if they distributed none of that control it wasn't socialism. I also take a bit of issue with your definition of left vs right. Yes, in either party there is a far left and far right, but the issue is in america we don't have a centered overtone window, our window is substantially to the right. That means that the far right of the republicans really are far, and the "far" left of the dems, as rare as it is, isn't really far left at all. Easily the most far-left popular dem is bernie sanders, and the policies he advocates for are already in place in most of the world. Nearly every dem is capitalist, and bernie's platform is social democratic, in other words, capitalist. Most far left types despise the dems, because they prefer the corporate centrists over people like bernie, who they feel represents them more. The dems literally made a huge deal, this election, of denouncing the far left (or what they assumed was the far left) rather than the right. There is no solid left, because the dems just capitulate to the republicans whenever possible. Neither side is a cohesive front, but the issue is it's much easier to get mainstream support being far-right than far-left. In any case, no, socialism is not just the state, nor does it even need to have a state in the first place. Statism is not socialism. They weren't socialist at all, just totalitarian. And the west, in many cases, was far more socialist than them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mountedpatrolman Oh, so you're one of those types. First off, ad hominem is not "when you are insulted." To engage in an Ad Hominem argument means to use insults as arguments. For example, saying "you're wrong because you're stupid" is Ad Hominem. Saying "you're stupid, and here's why you're wrong" is not. Also, proclaiming somebody "has already lost the argument" because you think they engaged in a fallacy is an example of "Fallacy of Fallacies," which disqualifies your nonsense as well. Add that to the fact that within the first line your insult me, (glaring indoctrination) well that makes you a hypocrite. Of course you know who TIK is, you watched his video, as did I. If you would have actually watched the video, though, you would remember that he devotes a surprisingly small amount of time to actual historical arguments, and he openly admits his sources do not agree with his conclusions. So thank you for admitting you did not actually watch the video.
the NSDAP having a government position does not mean that position held any power, or was even used. No, in fact historically we see that businesses were free to refuse the orders of the nazis, and often time only listened because the nazis offered guaranteed profits to businesses that helped their genocidal, anti-socialist regime. If nazi price control existed, and was so strict, why did so many international industrialists come over to do business with them? Why did the majority of rich germans only grow their wealth? Can you make a single factual statement?
The fact that you cannot argue against Mises' connection to fascism, and instead attempt to rebut it with an Ad Hominem argument, proves my point further. Mises was well aware what fascism was, after all, he was a high ranking government official in a fascist country for a time, and he viewed it as an indispensable weapon against leftism and socialism. The fact that you think a praising of genocidal fascism is simply "contemporary commentary" tells me a lot about you. And of course the man had dealings with Rand, it makes sense. Rand, Mises, and Fascism, for example, all had core similarities, including mainly their hatred of the poor and weak. Rand, after all, was famous for praising serial killers, and Mises for praising fascism. But thank you for providing a quote from Mises, where he openly admits that anti-socialist fascist movements have, in his eyes, "good intentions," and while he personally does not want a dictatorship, he thinks they are a necessary tool to use when the poors and leftists get a bit too... uppity. How "libertarian."
The NSDAP economy was crafter by anti-marxists, anti-socialists, and major contributions from conservatives and capitalists alike. In nazi germany, the name of Marx was used to fuel antisemetic crimes, to the level that even jewish children would be labeled "marxists" to justify their execution. Communism and Nazi ideology were in direct competition, yes. Socialism and anti-socialism always have been. However, to claim they were "two sides of the same coin" proves that you can only regurgitate half-remembered lines from TIK. Fascism rejected any sort of class analysis, openly. Fascism did not want a socialism of a race, as they openly said, and showed. Have you tried actually reading any of TIK's sources themselves? I can tell from your statements that you have not written anything hitler has written, or anything written about him. You only seem to have watched the TIK video.
4
-
@franks450
By "bullshit" I must assume you mean "a truth I am not willing to address?" Like it or not, the nazi's right wing economic opportunism was openly in service to their right wing cultural goals. Now as we've been over, the nazis weren't socialists in any form. In fact, hitler openly said that his term, "national socialist," had nothing to do with any socialism, could have gone by any other name, and calls for right wing, conservative, pro-private policy. They didn't desire they actual merits of socialism, nor did they seek to apply them. Even if we take your definition ("the actual merits of socialism could only be achieved through the chosen race.") this still applies neither to the nazis actions, nor the definition of socialism. Socialism is defined as collective ownership by the community as a whole, and thus ownership by one subsection of the community, a race, does not fit the definition. If we were to stretch the definition a bit, we could come up with the idea of social ownership for one race, but this isn't socialism by definition, and of course hitler despised the notion of the average citizen having more power over industry than the private owners that funded his army. Class struggle, and "leftism," for that matter, are intrinsic to socialism, and find their roots in it long before even Marx's work. The nazis hated socialists, leftists, communists, liberals, and their allies and so on so much, precisely because the nazis had right wing goals to be met with right wing policies, and of course, the left gets in the way of that. The Nazis hated jewish people for the same reason that modern conservatives hate immigrants, or the poor, or minority groups that dare speak out. They see these people as parasites, opportunists, as cultural and economic threats that want to subvert dominant nationalist values with multiculturalism and changes in economic systems. The only true difference between the way that modern conservatives see minority groups like immigrants, and the ways the nazis saw jewish people, is that conservatives keep their calls for mass killings subtle. The nazis didn't want utopia, they wanted endless competition, hierarchy, nationalism, conservatism. Ring any bells? Hate to break it to you - there are. Love how people so willingly expose their ignorance, when they think of "all marxist nations" as the USSR, and maybe China. I also hate to break it to you but it's a simple fact that hitler's "demonizing minority groups," and marx's economic analysis and calls for the abolishing of class, are hilariously opposed. It's pretty silly that you assert that every leftist out there is as racist and antisemetic as you can get, given that many of said leftists are poc/jewish people, and of course, the right is openly calling for white supremacy and waving nazi flags. Yes, despite hitler despising the term socialist and actively making known his love for private property and the right, they called themselves socialists. In their own literature, they make note of their hatred of socialists, and their allegiance to the right, but you haven't gotten that far. They were all about their nationalistic, right wing cultural impulses. You may not like it, but their favor of socialism really wasn't that different from yours, which is to say, they actively despised it. And, of course, their ideological intent was about as far from marxism as you can get. And no, socialism and marxism are not equivalent, but distinct and sometimes overlapping concepts. Your ideological stupidity is, of course, relevant to your claims, ideologue.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wessd And i've had the misfortune of watching TIK's videos a few times, only to find out it takes three seconds to debunk his core claim. The german companies at the time were capitalist, and your version of events didn't quite happen. The companies in some areas couldn't make choices, but in some areas not relating to the war, they absolutely could. The USA at the same time had more central control over it's industry than the nazis did. The government didn't control all you said they did, often they just bribed the companies to do their work more efficiently, and even set up deals with other country's capitalists to get things done. The companies even got bailouts and financial assistance if they began to fail. What you're describing isn't socialism, it's just a wartime economy. TIK isn't detailed at all, he rants for hours about how little he understands socialism, and then pretends to prove anything. His sources include a right wing public speaker and an alt right youtuber. That isn't detailed, that isn't sourcing. There's a reason these conceptions are normal, and that's because TIK is wrong.
4
-
@markanthony3275 Tell me, do you actually read the words before you write them, or afterwards? Yes, I frankly do not care what the USSR did, because what is or isn't socialism is the same, no matter what they called themselves. The whole point of socialist collective bargaining is that every worker is represented, and if they are not, it is not socialist. Hitler didn't actually want everything to serve the state, he wanted everything to serve his people and race, which is why he also abused the private market to help in his conquests. But finally, what I was referencing earlier... actually read the words "dictatorship of the proletariat." Examine them. You see the problem? A dictatorship is a system where an individual or group has all the political power over the country. The proletariat are the working class folks, and after a socialist revolution, the citizenry at large. So when you combine them, you get... a system where the citizenry at large have complete control over the government. In other words, a direct democracy. Does that sound like what soviet russia had in place?
4
-
3
-
@rcvisee74 Ok, well, a few things. One, you can be an anti-fascist and be all of those things. Especially anarchist, I mean... how would you even argue otherwise? I know you want to call those groups fascist, but that just doesn't make sense. Second... there are probably like, 2 unironic nazbols. In existence. It's a joke of an ideology, same as posadism. However, most of these people don't much care about the ideology as a whole, they care about the people, the individuals, proposing it. I, and many other anti-fascists, aren't calling the nazis capitalists. They weren't, neither were they socialists. But the problem is, idiot fascists will hide behind one of those names so it's harder to identify their actual views. So if someone who calls themselves a capitalist gets labeled a fascist, there's probably a reason. And I mean, that is literally what happened to weimar germany, mate. But sure, throw them in a helicopter. I'd love to see that happen again.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@burstingwizard975 Two things. One, something like a worker co-opertative is a method of socialism, just on a much smaller scale. I wouldn't be socialism, because it's still done under the constraints of a capitalist system with the profit motive in mind, but it is one method socialism would be achieved. Like if a socialist country had a black market, you wouldn't call their socialism capitalism, right? Even though there are some capitalistic elements. That doesn't mean those capitalistic elements aren't real, either. However, stock ownership is very different from social ownership. Because even if every worker of the facotry owned equal stocks, they would not ave control over the production. Most don't even have that, some have ome tiny stock benefits as part of their jobs.
And I would agree that it was far more disjointed, especially the further back you go, but that's just the nature of etymology. However, socialism as i defined it was still very much a thing back then, but the people often called it something different. You would be right again, that socialism as a term was define in several ways, but the ideology we now attribute that title to very much existed, which was my point. Plato never called his work socialist, but one could apply that title years later. We can do the same with various other people.
3
-
@burstingwizard975 I would disagree, at least with your first statement. To substantiate that, I would recommend reading some figures like Proudhon, and really for the descriptor "unnatural," kropotkin. Just to give some context, Proudhon was probably the first recorded libertarian socialist, and was highly against the state, against capitalism, and especially against monarchy and nobility. He makes a good case for a "decentralized" socialism. And again, just because the descriptor "unnatural" caught my attention, I would recommend reading Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Kropotkin. He was an ex-prince and a revolutionary biologist, both in that he largely discovered/formalized the idea of linking "human nature" and economic systems alongside putting forth several new biological/societal thesis, and also revolutionary because, well, he was an anarchist. The book I mentions basically puts forward that the idea of a natural state of competition doesn't work out well, and that by far the most advanced and successful animals (and societies) are governed by a principle of mutual aid rather than a darwinian "everyone for themselves" idea. He also, like I said, links this to societies, and how it seems natural for people to settle into a tendency for mutual aid, and thus, mutualism. In other words, the system described isn't entirely unnatural. Even then, statist socialism doesn't have to have to be what you described. For example, obviously, the socialists want workers to be in charge. That means that if the state did own everything, that state would have to be representative of the people. That means some form of republic or democracy. Or, perhaps the state could give ownership of factories to the people directly. The MoP could be run by a representative state, by unions, by syndicates, by communities, by the country, by the individuals, ect. There are plenty of ways to achieve it, both withing and without a state, that I at least think would be worth consideration. I would say that yes, the tendency to totalitarianism of socialist movements in history must be examined, and their mistakes corrected, but I would disagree that socialism is by necessity totalitarianism. And same for the case of slavery, after all, one could make an argument that we're in a sort of state of coerced slavery right now, but that's something else. Anyway, yes I see your perspective here and why you think that way, but I would disagree.
And I'm happy to hear that we could agree on something here, because it really does seem like no political ideology pops out of the ground, then and there. I don't remember it off the top of my head, but I do know that many socialists went by another comprehensive name, which was eventually discarded for "socialist." I'll add it if I remember it later. But thanks for the civility.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@slnwrk Im sorry, what universe did this argument take place in? Clearly not this one, because that isn't what happened here at all. What happened was I asked for a definition, and you provided one that proves you wrong.
Why don't you Google Socialism champ. It's not that hard, I assure you.
Oh but of course, you're so smart that you think you can just rewrite basic terms, like marxism, without anyone noticing.
But it's ok, because in the end you proved me right, you proved that Nazi germany and fascist italy never acheived nor wanted any form of Socialism
But of course, again, it seems like even that basic truth had alluded you. After all, you seem to think fascist cared about class warfare. How silly.
But of course you would even deny that a basic offshoot of fascism in its ourest form is actually Fascism, most likely so you can attempt to defend Fascism
2
-
@slnwrk Except... that isn't the definition. As we've been over, in fact. Of course, that definition has never been advocated for by a socialist, and existed in empires and rulers long before socialism as a concept was created, so how can it define socialism? Do you see the lie i've caught you in yet? And of course, your lie about the nazi economy is also just that - a lie.
And, yet again, I have to tell you that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, and words do not take on different meanings because you want them to. Prove your assertion.
I have given you a definition, one you tactfully ignore. Oh, I wonder why. Wait, I know. We both know.
And I literally just gave you a quote, can you not read perhaps? Or do you think that pro-industrial capitalism right wing "socialism" is actually a system that can exist? As we've been over, your definition of socialism is fundamentally flawed, as is your "understanding" of history.
2
-
@rcvisee74 To be honest, a few most likely are run by lib-dems. Not all, certainly, and probably not a majority, but a good few. Hell, the chapter I used to run with was filled with right wing libertarians and liberals. So i'm going to have to disagree with your anecdotal evidence here, a good number of these people aren't larping for the revolution, they just don't like fascism, at all, which I think is a fair assessment. And maybe you should be targeting the nazis first, not just getting them by surprise
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Real question - what would the police even do? Seriously, you argued to send in the military. The police, for as underfunded as they are, cannot keep up with literal military tactics. Furthermore, the police would operate under the same government, and would most likely just be providing military backup. If anyone were to survive, they would hate the police and government even more, perhaps to the point of real violence. The problem is with what you're saying is that it wouldn't even work, and that's of course ignoring the sheer stupidity of it. You don't convince people that government is a good thing by running them over or shooting them. Also, one can not recognize the state and absolutely be recognized by it. Why wouldn't they? Every political person seeks to replace the current system/leaders with their system/leaders over time, no one is satisfied with things as-is. So yeah, not only is your plan highly immoral...it wouldn't work.
2