Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TimeGhost History" channel.

@oslier3633 so Nazis weren't aligned with socialism... but they're somehow socialists? They destroyed leaders of enterprises but openly allied and praised private enterprises and their leaders. They openly rejected Marxists terms but were somehow associated with Marx. I think you are suffering from double think. "Leading capitalist industrialist" This is how right wingers talked about the Jews so you might want to check your anti semitism.
1
@Mob135 You don't know what fascism or communism are. You literally think everything, including open capitalism, is communism or fascism
1
@Mob135 Fascism isn't public, though.
1
@Mob135 When you genocide a whole race, you are on the a loser there. The Nazis were horrible. However Fascism is objectively more far right on the left to right spectrum than communism or conservatism even. People have some ownership rights and there is some possibility of choosing for example, under fascism, the type of foos i like to eat or the shoes i wear, through the price mechanism and supply/demand with the backing of the nation.You seriously seem not to understand the basics of nazi economics, in the slightest. There is no excusing the nazis behavior but under no certcumstance was hitler at all even near the left. He was an anti-socialist, angry militant nationalist, right wing conservative traditionalist racist.
1
@elimgarak1127 Sorry you can't disprove history, no matter how much you try.
1
@briansearle6868 The people don't need a governing body to represent them, though, and not all state ownership is state representative ownership. And yeah, sorry, the nazis protected private enterprise.
1
@tomfu6210 Evidently you don't, given that their system was according to all objective measures anti-socialist.
1
@starkat70 Regardless of your denial, random people pointing out your ahistorical nonsense doesn't make them socialists, and you seem to not understand the basics of socialism.
1
@oslier3633 private ownership of the means of production
1
@oslier3633 That isn't what private ownership means, though. Why am I not surprised you don't know the basics of capitalist economic terminology.
1
@oslier3633 Private property is the form of production in which the private property owner takes possession of anything that another person or group produces with that property
1
@oslier3633 Yeah I hate to break it to you, but there is a definitive distinction in those modes of production. The fact that you don't understand basic economics is, again, not a surprise, but your resistance to accepting any sort of education is even sadder. Real definition: Already given to you. Your nonsense definition puts socialism as a pro-capitalist ideology, which is quite silly. There is no individual under capitalism. Which individual owns it? Every individual? Clearly not, because you just gave an example in which a worker did not actually own the product or tools of their work. Do you understand yet?
1
@Mob135 Communism doesn't equal central planning, though, communism is literally stateless. Fascism comes from reactionary conservatism. Fascism is antithetical to communism, socialism, and trade unionism, as shown in history and ideology. Your "studies" most likely consist of trolling online and watching videos like that of TIKs, who openly admits that his "100s of books" disagree with him fundamentally. So you, according to TIK, would be a socialist. And yet, you take his word as gospel, never daring to question it in the slightest. I know you can't deal in facts, only emotion, because your response didn't actually address or include any sort of factual information, just sad insults.
1
@Mob135 I'm sorry child, but the simple fact is that fascism is right wing. You can see it in their historical and modern political alliances, you can see it in their rhetoric, their policies, their symbiology, and like you, their defenders. Citing a random subsection of ideology that existed before the name fascist ever had a meaning, and that died when fascist ideology cemented itself as far right, does nothing. What is left wing about “Socialism is dead?" Denying their political origin only allows you to happily ignore the spread of fascism, most likely because it benefits you to do so. Why do you defend right wing fascism?
1
@oslier3633 Here's what even you have to admit happens: You work and someone else gets the resulting profit What you say "happens in reality" in no way contradicts this fact, funnily enough. Funny, the creation of a screw has nothing to do with the supposed "need" for private property. You can try to make it yourself, but to actually industrialize, you need a force of workers. Paying for something doesn't negate the labor that went into it, nor does it justify taking labor from others. Sure, you can funnel your money into someone who does none of the work in a multitude of ways. However, none of these ways are as fair or efficient as... letting the workers own the product of their own labor. Either way, the concept that some vague concept of "ownership" transcends your right to your own labor is silly. Funnily enough, your definition of private property puts most socialist ideologies in favor of it, so you might want to reconcile that internal conflict. Socialism is not "state ownership of everything," and never has been, hence the majority of socialists being anti-state to a degree, or totality. Central planning, of course, is not exclusive to socialism. Of course you have "flavors" of socialism, like libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, marxist-leninist socialism, ect. However, your "flavors of socialism" are not at all socialist, according to the definition of socialism. "Race socialism, nation socialism" cannot exist. What you're thinking about are the flavors of anti-socialism, like nazi anti-socialism, fascist anti-socialism, capitalist anti-socialism. Of course, you have no idea what socialism is, but then again i'm not surprised, you seem to think marx was a hegelian after all. Your rejection of logic is quite impressive, but sadly for you facts will triumph over your nonsense in the end.
1
@oslier3633 "No, socialism is not "pro capitalism". Socialism as defined by his "inventor" in the french revolution is the state ownership of everything and it is called central planing. Then you have "flavors" of socialism like class socialism, race socialism, nation socialism, etc." Thank you for so eloquently pointing out your pro-fascist propaganda. Socialism is not "State ownership of everything," nor is it "central planning." Those are some of the most absurd strawmen i've ever heard. Socialism 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." Your "flavors" of socialism seem to put nazism and fascism as socialism, which is funny, given that they neither fit your nor the actual definition of socialism. Your definition of socialism is so broad, one could include capitalism as "owners-socialism." You seem to have a problem including your nationalist and racist anti-socialism with the very ideology it despises.
1
@oslier3633 The capitalist in question is making you do all the work, and not even letting you own the very product of your two hands. You notice how the functioning of labor has no necessity for the intervention of capital or private property, as we've been over time and time again. And, as the basics of capitalism tell us, not everyone can be an owner. Not every mill can go in every person's hand. You are not entitled to the labor of your workers, no matter how much money you threw at their tools.
1
@oslier3633 "Was" being the key word, as in, past tense, given he gave up marxism in favor of far right fascism.
1
@oslier3633 It's ok, you'll cope with your lost some way.
1
@oslier3633 Why do you boil it down to the single individual you ight be working for, rather than that which supplies them their power? Do I not need currency to eat, to drink, to sleep in shelter, to clothe myself, to heal myself?
1
@oslier3633 The capitalist in question only "owns" the thing they never operate and have no idea how to operate because they say so. They only need to be the one "paying you" because they take your work and sell you back a fraction. Your concept of "ownership" makes no external sense.
1
@oslier3633 You mean the woods that are already privately owned? Those woods? Who are these "many," champ? Where are they? When did they become able to provide the basics of medical care, shelter, food, ect.
1
@oslier3633 You don't know what communism is, and you seem to project this false sense of bravado rather than acknowledging your ignorance and failure to actually substantiate your story. Why am I not at all surprised.
1
@oslier3633 Tell me, how cheap is 5-10 acres for someone with no money? And how good was medical care in the 1800s, again? Not very good it seems, and even then, it was preformed by a trained doctor with actual implements and resources at their disposal. You don't have those. did you forget that calling 911 still involves money, either to buy a phone or buy clothes to go into public to borrow someone else's phone? Jesus you're out of touch.
1
@starkat70 Child, you don't even know the historical definition of left and right, and yet you claim I don't? The historical, and modern, definition of left and right deals in adherence or rejection of hierarchy, not "small vs big government," those meaningless terms. The first labelled right wingers were authoritarian monarchs. The first labeled left wingers were liberals, socialists, and anarchists. Your definition is not historical. The more right wing you go has nothing to do with the less government, given the right, including you, loves authoritarianism. And, given the left's long history of anti-authoritarianism, your propaganda is revoked. You can easily go left without going socialist, and the nazis were openly not only anti-socialist, but anti-communist and anti-leftist. Child, communism is literally stateless. You really don't know what you're talking about, huh? Calling both equally evil is a defense of the nazis. You should be ashamed for so easily leaping to the defense of those you claim to oppose.
1
@oslier3633 So where's the destruction then? all I see is you pitifully losing argument after argument and blaming it on me. Oh child, you don't even understand the basics of the labor theory of value. The goal isn't to predict value in capitalist systems, child. It is to point out the discrepancy in worker profit/owner profit.
1
@oslier3633 I'm sorry but again, like most of the things you're saying, that is false. They actually were in dire need of modern luxuries, hence why they pushed to invent all they could that eventually got us here. Most of them lived packed in tiny "homes" inches from eachother as a result of the capitalist system.
1
@oslier3633 *past. Thanks for admitting your ignorance and lack of rebuttal. And child, you know Marx wasn't the first person to propose that theory, nor did he even call it the "Labor Theory of Value," right?
1
@oslier3633 ...Child, how in any way is that doublethink? I hate to break it to you, but the industrial revolution kicked off in the western world between the late 18th and early 19th century. As in, those living in the 1800s... had to innovate to get out of capitalist hell, capitalism spawned by the industrial revolution they had just lived through. I'm genuinely confused at how you think this is remotely contradictory.
1
@oslier3633 I'm sure you have some citations for those claims, right? Right? Of course not. And how much work does that owner actually do to justify taking that money, hm?
1
@starkat70 So, in other words, not the historical definitions of left and right. Not even the historical american versions of left and right, which also feature the same authoritarian rightists and anachist leftists. No, you just want to make up your own version so suit your own agenda, that has no basis in history. Liberalism was declared left wing, as in, to the left of monarchists. The overton window has shifted, I agree. Liberalism does not, however, emphasize anything for the individual beyond their life of servitude to capitalism. Socialism and Leftism don't even require a state and can openly be quite anti-state, but again, your assertions are not based in history, but in your own ideology. Am I a leftist, though I am loyal to no state? The fact that you so openly lump in the private market with the public sector proves my point exactly. You are now calling the natural, eventual, inescapable end reality of capitalism some sort of statist authoritarian echo chamber. And yet, this is what right wingers defend. Interesting, isn't it? I really wish you would realize i'm not a socialist, and that you would stop defending far-right fascism.
1