Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TimeGhost History"
channel.
-
@rcvisee74 Ok, so your entire last point was worthless. Again, a government taking military action on it's own civilians has never ended with those citizens doing anything other than despise that government. You aren't going to find security in cracking down on random people, no matter how much you want to declare them revolutionaries, pillagers, or vandalizers. The problem is, the public is well aware of that shit, they just only don't care when it's done to foreigners. When you start getting PMCs and Death Squads on American land, well, that's when they start caring. I guarantee that 90% of those calling for actual federal action against those people would bac down the second the feds actually did something. They would get annoyed by it, but they'd rightfully know it was state intervention from the start. Trump isn't letting anyone do anything, he's fooling his base into thinking they're doing something. The police are already shooting them, and I hate to clue you in, but your hypothesis is incorrect. People are only getting more angry at the state. Even your last lines don't make sense, it's the feds and those calling for state action who got us to fascism, not the protesters. I feel lie you would unironically believe in Operation Himmler if it happened in the modern day... and it is. But, as I keep saying, I guess have fun calling for political genocide. Should be a good time, but honestly, count me out. We're trying to avoid a dictatorship and extrajudicial executions mate, not speed them up.
2
-
@rcvisee74 Most of them, really. But nope, specifically the point where you said that cracking down on people through illegal means would make anyone like the government more, which is utter hogwash. Any sort of electoral reform (as if that's what this policy would be) would end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and likely be entirely unconstitutional, so good luck getting that through. And you really think they have no way to defend themselves? Well against the biggest military in the world, maybe, but against individuals? Absolutely. And I don't think you realize, theres this little thing called history. Because we can see that whenever nations crack down without good reason, the people keep rising up. Over and over and over again. So it's time to leave your echo chamber and look at history as it is, not what you want it to be. There's a reason nobody likes Pinochet anymore, mate. He didn't live long enough for his people to rise up. But now they are, in his memory. Oh, and of course right after that you decide to rewrite history. I should have guessed. No, but if we're talking about figments of imagination that are used to justify your lust for power, let's talk about those "revolutionary" protesters, hm? And you'd be right, many of the trumpers and white americans who are screaming that protesters using their first amendment right is actually oppressive really do want power, so they can oppress. Kind of like what you are doing, right now, with these scary little leftists making you grab your guns. It's ok bud, one day you'll be able to stop complaining about how much you hate people who are actually doing something with their life. Remind me, are you out there, protesting or counter-protesting? Oh wait, no, you're typing to me from your parents basement while denying history. Well, good luck with that bud.
2
-
@rcvisee74 Is that what you think counts as a good political speech? Pointing out the flaws in your argument and insulting you because of them? Wouldn't surprise me. No, that is not a good political speech, and I would know, i've had to write a few. Thanks for the compliment to my rhetoric though, that is after all how I make my money. And, to quote Shapiro, ""Right side of history" may be the most morally idiotic phrase of modern times." But i'm sure buddy, because... anarchists... are well known for taking state power and throwing people into... anarchist... gulags. Brilliant observations as always. And of course you've donated a few pennies to your local fascist militia. Just remember not to get on their bad side, then you're the "marxist" that need to be stomped out. And, pardon my corections friend, but as a man so plae he glows in the dark I think i'm allowed to talk about how a majority of white people voted for trump. Unless that's racist too? Do you need a safe space from the facts? But then again, oh, what was it you said? "It has come to my attention that many who scream "oppression" just want Power so they can oppress. Something akin to Nazis who keep blabbering on about how Jews are oppressing them." Interesting.... Well then, good luck, buddy. Just hold off the police-sanctioned genocide for a few weeks and we'll be alright, you and I.
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Oh, buddy. This is the best part. We can all see how you have to so purposefully misconstrue my words to even think that your hypothesis is in any way correct, which inadvertently proves your point wrong. But it's ok bud, it's not like when you lie about my words, people can literally just go re-read what I actually said, right? We both know that your strawmanning and blame shifting, as well as tendency to conspiracy, is a fascist tactic, right? Friend, if you'll recall, I literally said that in the context of civilians not liking a violent dictator, like Pinochet. And I'm sorry to remind you, but yes, citizen revolts are what happens after that. But let me remind you that this whole time you've been advocating for public executions, the removal of rights from citizens you don't like, a police state that upholds your every desire, and your opponents to be raped and sold into slavery. Wasn't it you who defined fascism as a lack of a liberal democracy? Well, I hate to break it to you, but you can't vote in rape and slavery. So, i'm sorry to say it, but your little attempt at a moral high ground built on lies falls right through. We know you're as violent as a fascist, well, because you are one. The fact is that antifa is far less violent than you psycopaths. However, of course, now that you feel me pointing out historical trends to you is somehow me agreeing with that methodology, let's bring out a quote of yours, hm? "It has come to my attention that many who scream "oppression" just want Power so they can oppress. Something akin to Nazis who keep blabbering on about how Jews are oppressing them.""
2
-
@rcvisee74 And that's the best you have? I point out to you voting records, and you call me a racist? Oh, that's funny. So is now saying the word "white" racist? Is that how much of a victim you have to make yourself? You don't seem to be getting the point, so let's repeat your quote. "It has come to my attention that many who scream "oppression" just want Power so they can oppress. Something akin to Nazis who keep blabbering on about how Jews are oppressing them." What I said had nothing to do with racism, in fact, it wasn't even a negative comment. But of course, since you're a small fascist child that is being oppressed by the mean angry youtube commenter, you have to bust out your buzzwords. No sad little insult of yours can deflect from that. So, sorry, the reasoning isn't the same. And your thesis, as unfounded as it already was, has been handily disproven. But of course you'd think the dude who was not a nationalist, not a social darwinist, and not right wing (who also doesn't want a state) is a fascist, right? After all, newspeak is another fascist tactic, one you seem quite fond of, especially after accusing me of being violent because I pointed out the tendency of history, all while advocating for rape, slavery, and public executions of those you deem undesirable. Oh, that and blatant deflection. After all, to quote Goebbles, "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty." But, speaking of that, you seem to have a lot of hate inside of you. The nazis certainly despised civil unrest as much as you. They despised free speech as much as you. And best of all, like you've literally admitted, they wanted a strong police state and executions at all time, just like you. Oh, and of course if you were to replace the word "anarchist" with any race, we find that you're just as tending towards racism as the nazis. So my thesis that you're a racist fascist is long confirmed. However, you're very open about that, so who would be surprised?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Again, this only gets funnier and funnier. Yes, unlike you, I actually do think that dignity, natural rights, a progressive social policy is a good thing to implement. But you see to have an issue with those. Now, like all other things, you're trying to manufacture a version of events that anyone who just reads through the thread can disprove in a heartbeat. What told you that I was no better than the average nazi? Was it the part where I said we have natural rights that shouldn't be infringed upon? Or where I sad I don't want a state? Or how about that tie I called public executions and genocide bad, something you were unwilling to do? You never had any interest in talking seriously, you just wanted to insult. And, of course, now you're full on animal-backed-into-a-corner, acting like my words are attacking you. Do calm down there, chap. Because we know what constant self-victimization means, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mountedpatrolman I'm sorry, but that isn't true. I love how all of you TIK cultists have to pretend people didn't watch the video, its your only way to rebut their facts, and frankly its pathetic. The nazis in no way, shape, or form nationalized all of manufacturing. Private business owners were given free reign to decline orders from the nazis, and hell, a large amount of companies the nazis worked with were international and existed outside of nazi jurisdiction anyways. "The NSDAP Set prices, decided what the companies would produce, how much they would produce, and when." This statement is false, and has no backing. Private business owners did work with the state, but mainly because that was the most profitable thing to do, which is why so many business owners supported the nazis. That's in no way socialism. You can argue it wasn't free-market capitalism, but it was objectively not socialism, it was a far right anti-socialist system. Also, Mises was an open fascist apologist, and worked for a fascist government, so not sure why you cited him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rcvisee74 Ah, ok. Well, like I said earlier, it's important to treat every ideology with nuance, even if it might seem ridiculous or historically infeasible, when defining it. I mean, after all, there are batshit crazy ideas like posadism out there, but it does no one any favors to pretend they are something they are not. (not accusing you of doing that, by the way.) And I would still have some problems with applying that definition to the nazis. I mean, again, they believed in a type of social darwinism where the weak, either by race or by material conditions, were worthless. Here's a quote from Hitler that I think exemplify that pretty well. "Thus it must be admitted that in the economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal value or of equal importance. And once this is admitted it is madness to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in value, but that is not true in the political sphere. It is absurd to build up economic life on the conceptions of achievement, of the value of personality, and therefore in practice the authority of personality, but in the political sphere to deny the authority of personality and to thrust into this place the law of the greater number — democracy." He didn't really want equality, in any form. In fact, i'd say he wanted a state-mandated hierarchy, with his germans (which is to say aryan, fit, non-disabled, straight, nazi) on the top, and all other people, even citizens of his, either in slums or mass graves. But I would agree that by your definition, one could make an argument that they were socialists... but at least from how I see it, it doesn't work. In america, as you might know, it's socialists who tend to call for things like an end of conservative social restriction, a lowering of funds to the police, and to the military as well. You can argue if these are good policies or not, but they are undoubtedly taking power away from the state. And that's just including socialists who want a state to begin with. And if a definition doesn't include all by the most uncommon outliers... is it really a good definition at all? You point out something interesting, that after the tarnishing of "socialism" many previous self-labeled socialist parties changed names, because they felt that it more accurately defined their beliefs. And that's what socialists now are doing again, finding new names and denominations, because they know they don't want soviet totalitarianism, so the association doesn't really work. Same with the nazis, and i've already laid out my points there. So yes, I would agree that they were more totalitarian, both of them, then they were ever socialist. And I would disagree with the idea that socialism always leads to totalitarianism, hell the socialists have been at the head of some of the biggest civil rights movements of America, but that's another debate.
The thing is, in America, we don't really have a Stalin figure. The last one we had on the left, the Dictator of Louisiana, was Huey Long. Even then, he was less of a socialist (no class lens) and more of an incredibly effective political dictator. Since then however, we've been moving further and further away from that. I mean, arguably the furthest-left mainstream politician is Bernie Sanders, and he literally built a platform off of taking away from the military to give back to the people. But yes, I would say the road Trump seems to be going down, that I really hope he does not, is one that is far more likely, and far more dangerous, than any sort of soviet-style america. And for antifa, I have to reveal my bias, i've been a chapter organizer for the last seven years. We're utterly non-violent, as are most chapters. There are roughly 317 cities in america, each has one or more chapters, yes most go utterly unheard of in the mainstream press, because all they do is stage counter-demonstrations a few times a year. I wouldn't even say we're close to civil war, the only reason the protests have gone on this long is, well, in a protest about police brutality, the protesters keep getting brutalized, giving more reason for them to protest... and so on. So this might serve to kick up flames more then put them out, but who knows. And you would be right, it's an incredibly complicated situation and I myself don't quite understand all sides, I couldn't expect someone who wasn't in the thick of it to do that.
And honestly, thank you as well. I think, per your recommendation, i'll look further into the connections with Rousseau and state-socialism and also more on the common European understanding/attitudes/definitions of socialism, because to be perfectly honest I hadn't heard much about it in my own time learning political theory, which is a bit of an oversight on my part.. But aside from that, i'm glad to have been able to point you in some interesting directions, I thank you for offering the same to me, and most importantly, thanks overall for just remaining civil and keeping an open mind during this discussion. I understand these are some pretty controversial issues, so it's always nice to meet someone so willing to actually sit down and chat about them, and like you said, the best parts of life are learning about and understanding new perspectives, and adding them to the "mix" that makes up your understanding of the world. So, thank you again for the interesting perspective, and Greetings from Connecticut!
2
-
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Oh god, another right wing moron who doesn't understand what socialism is and wants to pretend the most anti-socialist far right regime in modern history besides the US is socialist. Go figure.
I love how you guys all have the same regurgitated talking points. "socialism predates marxism." Yes, and? You can't define that term either! He didn't embrace socialism, nor marxism, nor any form of leftist thought. Your bizarre ad hominem attack does not thing to prove this. Your strawmans of his argument are to be expected, after all, no person could actually prove that hitler is a socialist, so in order to seem like you have any credibility, you have to lie and make things up. Also, again, you don't know what socialism is, and it's painfully apparent. Socialism does predate marx, and does not demand communism, but you seem not to understand that even by pre-marx terms the nazis were in no way socialism. You literally have to label random things socialist to even try to make the comparison. did you know that even the fascists said they were right wing, they frequently allied with conservatives, and that hitler said he despised the left? You do not know what the term socialist means. This video, and many other, prove you wrong instantly, and you only seek to prove yourself wrong further by continuing to talk. We know they weren't socialists, it was the conservatives and capitalists who loved them, and the socialists who ended up sacrificing millions of lives to defeat that right wing threat of fascism. It truly is embarrassing that you, like so many others, can pretend to know anything about history while spouting off nonsense like this. You should know better. The problem is, you want to pretend like the only definition of socialism, the correct one, is just marxism. It's pathetic.
Again, socialism is not marxist, yes. He also does not fit any pre-marx, post-marx, or anti-marx definition of socialism out there, at all. The only people who even can define him as a socialist are idiots like you guys who don't even know what the term means. Hitler worshiped hierarchy, he was anti-modernist, he was highly conservative and traditionalist. He hated socialism, and hated the ability of Jewish people to get rich in capitalism, so he makes up newspeak terms for both of those. He, like you, calls anything that follows the traditional (and only) definition of socialism "Marxism," for the purpose (lie you said) of connecting it to, and blaming it on, a Jewish figure. Even though he finds himself in league with many capitalists and industrialists who came from all the way across the ocean to work with him, he still claims to hate capitalism, yet works with capitalist both foreign and local. Nazism is not third way because it's to the right of marx, and trust me, there are things to the left of marxism. Hell, even people like August Willich, an American Republican, were calling marx far too conservative on this issue. Nazi economics were third way because they steal elements of many systems, capitalism, socialism, monarchism, and mix them all up into one thing. Their philosophy however, of traditionalism, hierarchy, and social darwinism was right wing. The nazis were not socialists, and were not right wing.
And again, I agree. Marx was used as a target because he was ethnically jewish. However, it was not just marxism that hitler targeted. He targeted all socialist thought, he just pinned it all under Marx's name as an excuse to do so. And I ave to disagree here, as germany was not swinging left after the left wing Weimar Republic fell. Looking into the actual positions of the time, and especially the nazis electoral strategy which involved distributing films much lie Erbkrank, it was a right wing social movement that toppled the Republic. It was, after all, concern for the failed welfare system darning the state and the failure of democracy. Hell, it was a concerted effort of conservatives like Franz von Papen that even got hitler non-democratically elected in the first place. The capitalists didn't lose under hitler, that is, if they weren't jewish. Take Ford, or Koch Sr, or IBM, or GE, or GM, ect. Those were all companies that found themselves dealing with, selling to, and making trades with the nazis, completely of their own volition. Hitler didn't want any socialism to gain power... HE just wanted power. And as for Hayek... I mean, the man spent his whole life talking very similarly to Carl Schmitt, decrying the failure of democracy and the need of a purge of authority. He praised fascists in his own time. Not the best example.
2
-
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Oh god you guys are doing this again. You know I... addressed these arguments already, correct?
What I said was not an opinion backed by nothing, it was historical fact, like it or not. And if you want to make up bullshit in order to respond, just don't bother with a response at all. That was pathetic.
I did explain it simply. Again, it's a multi-century old political ideology, which has had several thousand books written on it, by thousands of different people. Literally more work than can be gone over in a single lifetime. Three paragraphs is fine to explain that. You shoud not expect anyone to have to simplify things down for you so much, because it shows utter laziness on your part. And again, I already addressed that claim, that that definition is marxism. Not it is not, it was around before marx, it was an opinion shared by anti-marx socialists, and long after marx is dead non-marxists still believe in that definition. As I said earlier, I already addressed this nonsense. It's sad that you have the ego to pretend I don't know what i'm talking about, when you so clearly don't even know the definition of socialism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@burstingwizard975 No, you have not. The road to serfdom proves no such thing, and you cited it in relation to an entirely different argument. The gulag archipelago is in no way centered on the ideological definitions of socialism and marxism. The communist manifesto not only proves you explicitly wrong by citing socialist theory prior to marx that goes long the lines of what you call "marxism," but is also a short political pamphlet made for illiterate factory workers. None of those citations actually prove what you allege to be true. I could cite to you the works of Plato's "Republic" as an example of early socialist thought, or Aristophanes' "Ecclesiazusae." I could bring up Mazdak and his early proto-socialist religion, or Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice," or Charles Hall's "The Effects of Civilization on the People in European States." I could use socialists in the growing movement, like Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc and Saint-Simon. Hell, I could bring up socialists that detested Marx, and agreed with him on nothing, like August Willich, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. And every single one of these figures and works, even the earlier ones, proposes a system in which the workers own the means of production directly. But of course, you don't know what socialism is.
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Well, I already gave works by some of these people in my longer response, but ok then.
And that's my point, those that seek to use the "state control" definition, like TIK for example, aren't really using the actual definition, and that's the problem. Even besides, and before marx, they didn't advocate for a system resembling full governmental control of the means of production, they in fact argued against that, specifically. So I would agree, those definitions are not at all indicative of the actual definitions.
And I have to ask how, really. The means of productions being owned by the workers collectively, the workers as a whole. In capitalist systems, theoretically a single person can own the means of production, and the full means of their own labor, yes. Marx wasn't even opposed to that, he thought things like Art could and should belong to those who contribute, and if it's one person who "contributed" towards making it, than that art is their personal property. The thing socialism focuses on is owning the work of others, and why that's bad in capitalism. A socialist isn't going to take away your painbrush, they'll take away your factory. If you have something that already requires the work of other people to maintain, to function, and to gain profit, then that is the "means of production," that is the things the workers should fully own. So while the systems you describe do exist in capitalism, they are not uniquely capitalist, they don't really deal with private ownership. They are also not uniquely socialist.
2
-
@burstingwizard975 Oh yeah, sure. By the way, you can probably find some PDFs and what not online, for example, here's one of Mutual Aid (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution) but I can understand not wanting to stare at a screen for hours on end to read it, so a hard copy might still be preferable. And if i've learned anything personally, it's that when ideas tend to stick around for a few hundred years,they at least know what they'redoing. They can still be wrong of course, but at least some real thought has gone into explaining/justifying them.
And I would agree, I always prefer civil conversations to shouting matches. I'm afraid I haven't quite broken your streak with socialists, as i'm personally ex-socialist, but trust me I appreciate the compliment nonetheless. I just have a lot of time to spend, so I read into a lot of different ideas. But still, thanks, it's rare that something like this starts off a bit hostile, and thanks for turning it around to civility where I didn't. I will say, after this I have a few more avenues to look down and some more things to consider, so thank you for that as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slnwrk Oh you gave me a definition, sure, but you don't seem to be adhering to it in the slightests.
It's ok, you can admit even your own definitions don't at all support your argument.
And it's right there, you assert that marxism (a method of analysis) and communism (the utopian end goal) are simply the same, with no evidence.
Oh, and there you go, calling anyone who dares disagree with you a communist.
Again, it seems that not even you adhere to your own definition, nor do you make a good case for it
https://g.co/kgs/tJ9srD
And your argument so far has been: lol listen to the dictionary even though it disagrees with me.
And I thought you said you had read into their works? Hitler openly declared that the left would be the end of civilization, and Mussolini declared that the era of fascism was "a century tending to the right."
1
-
@slnwrk *you're
And I know, you say that because you're losing the argument.
And here is here you are lying, as I literally linked the corrected definition of socialism, which you proceed to ignore.
You just say that your definition is right, despite it not actually lining up with the one you provided.
I gave you a quote, one you refuse to acknowledge, and I can see why - because it utterly proves you wrong, amazing. What a good reason for you to keep lying.
Hey, it's not me doing that here, you're the one that can't even deal with reality.
And uh yeah, pointing out fallacy is kind of important. But of course you would try to deflect from that.
And i'm sure bud, keep on lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franks450
Oh I quite agree, right wing ideologues like yourself love to redefine words around their arguments, using whatever you feel like in the moment to justify your frankly laughable claims. Anti-socialists always try to say that any failure in the modern world is a result of socialism, their only explanation being the words "it clearly is," and more often than not, a willingness to lie about the figures/countries in question, and of course, the definition of socialism itself. These figures will try to argue that, despite the nazi's openly right wing and anti-socialist sentiments, the failure of their economy must be a failure of socialism, and not a failure of the right who openly embraced said economy. On this at least we can agree, market economies can see good or bad conditions, Hitler's for example saw horrible conditions, hence his failing economy. The type of system of course doesn't change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1