Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
41
-
@Kainis80
First off, that isn't even accurate? Land and resources were not "communally shared," especially not among the serfs. They worked for a boss, a dictator, that extracted wealth from their labor. There was nothing communal about it, the community had no power. And I do have to love the way you warp history. A regime by definition is an authoritarian government, so yes, most socialist "regimes" were authoritarian. However, not every socialist government has been a regime, nor is socialism confined to just government, when there is a long and storied history of socialist movements and anti-state socialists. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, the existence of a strong central government leader in two different cases doesn't make those cases the same. Your assertion that "Not a single one of any "socialist" attempts have been without an iron-fisted ruler at the top and his nobles there to keep him propped up" is utterly false, in several ways. First off, because you're happy to list countries that have no desire for socialism, or do not fit the definition of socialism, an example of both those things being the far right anti-socialist nazis, or the 70% private country of Venezuela, hereditary dictatorship of North Korea ect, which shows clearly you have no idea what socialism actually is. Including the nazis is especially disgusting, not only because it so openly proves that your attempted accusation of "hypocrisy" comes not from genuine observation, but from casting such an oversized ideological net that you've managed to call anti-socialism "socialist," but also because to even casually attempt to conflate far-right nazism with your other examples is utterly ahistorical, and leads to nazi apologia. Second off, because none of the countries you name have ever had a system of nobles, proving yet again your historical and economic illiteracy. Third off, I hate to break it to you, your list is far from the extent of historical socialism, especially considering the list's anti-socialist elements. Child, there are other socialist countries that do not fit your definition, not to mention socialist movements, organizations, communities, ect. And then, as if to prove my point, you go ahead and try to spread the nazi talking point of public education being overrun with leftists and socialists, rather than actually addressing the economic and definitional reality of a term you are unable to understand. Hell, you can't even admit the education system is built to make obedient capitalists, nor can you admit that your understanding of socialism is worse than any child who has attempted to do cursory research on the subject. Who "lived through socialism," champ? Come on, let's get some examples. I'm absolutely sure you don't have even the most basic understanding of basic history or economics, but hey, thanks for the empty nazi talking points, I guess.
25
-
18
-
@ttthttpd
Yes, TIK had the "smarts" to recognize that his point made no actual sense, so he raced to attempt to disqualify those that proved him wrong before they could be listened too.
And of course, his argument is nonsense. It attempts to paint an equivalence between Marx's socialized man, and the nebulous concept of "socialized race." Marx wanted socialized production, and he described society under this mode of production as "socialized man." He did not seek to "socialize" a group of people, but rather, to put production into social hands. Now of course this statement makes no sense when turned to a racial lens, because one cannot control a race collectively. We can twist the meaning a bit to get to TIK's point and attempt to make it make more sense, but what we are left with is that "socializing a race" means to put said race in collective control. First off, removing jewish people did not put "aryan" people in any more control of the economy, in fact, as TIK will readily point out, it put them in less control. Add that of course to the mass execution, repression, and imprisoning by the nazi regime of even "aryan" citizens, and it is clear that hitler wanted nothing to do with the race of people having collective control. Furthermore, as we've been over, saying that "group control means socialism, the only difference is the group" is absurd, given that it would qualify capitalism as a form of socialism. In any case, TIK's argument is nonsense. "Socialized man" does not mean a group of people banding together into a society, it refers to the mode of production in a society with socialized means of production. Marx didn't want a "Worker's Society," he wanted worker ownership. Hitler did not want a society ran by that race, so even by TIK's own definition, his words are inaccurate nonsense.
TIK's simplification further shows the blatant, ahistorical assertions that his argument rests upon. Marx wanted a society in which the means of production were collectively owned. Hitler wanted a society in which his ideology held power, not the collective of people, even the people of one race. Marx wanted a worker collective. Hitler never believed in a race collective. Marx didn't call for a dictatorship of the proletariat, that was Lenin. Marx wanted socialism, and justified it through marxism. Hitler despised socialism, and justified it through reactionary conservatism.
The problem with TIK's attempts to utterly construct an ideology out of nothing, with no historical backing, is that it is hilariously easy to disprove when actually examined.
I don't think you understand the history behind TIK's attempted arguments, nor do you seem to understand the arguments being made to oppose his ahistorical assertions.
17
-
@Kainis80
Well... yes? I hate to break it to you, but when you list a bunch of different countries from different time periods with vastly different social and economic policy, most of which do not fit the definition of socialism... i'm going to point that out? You complaining about that is like me calling nazi germany pacifist and then trying to mock you with "bUt tHeY wEreN'T REaL pAciFIsTS!!" when you try to correct me. Yes, sorry, some countries aren't socialist. Not because they didn't fit "my" definition of socialism, but because they didn't fit the 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." So no, you aren't right. And you certainly aren't right in asserting that 3/4ths of the population has lived under socialism sometime in the last 150 years, which is why i'm not surprised you give no source on that. Again, you're casting a net so large that most types of anti-socialism are socialist to you. There's no need to tell people they were living a lie, as the vast majority of people you're talking about don't care about the name of the regime that they lived under, or what ideology it claimed to practice, and many are just fine with correctly pointing out that they didn't fit the definition of socialism. I'm sorry you don't have the balls to admit that. And again, your ignorance shines through as always! Of course the nazis weren't socialists, if you'd have actually watched the video you would know TIK's own sources, his "extensive bibliography," asserts this very fact! You would have to have been paying attention to notice that, though. Of course, TIK decides he knows better than actual historians, and so do you, I suppose. By hitler's own words they were anti-socialists, despising equality, defending private property, and rejecting the left in all forms - something you'd know, if you ever bothered to check. Stalin never recognized the nazis as socialists, hell, he ciuld hardly even recognize them as allies in their tentative, temporary peace agreement. Their "different end game" was not a socialist one, put plainly. And put plainly again, you know nothing of the history of socialism as an ideology. Where did historical socialists "never agree on the definition of socialism unless it ended up with them somehow being the monarch equivalent"? Do you actually have a source for this bizarre assertion? Of course you don't. Little history lesson for you here, kid. The nazis weren't socialists - there's a reason why the vast, vast majority of historians recognize this fact. And it's the same reason you can't refute it - it's true. There wasn't communal sharing of any form, there were basic market practices and serfs were sometimes allowed a fraction of their own product, but no examples of any systems of "communal sharing" could be found. The reason the merchant class rose wasn't because of a communal system, quite the opposite, it rose because an immense shortage of workers meant that the serfs could now sell their labor for better prices, not share. What you're describing, and trying to relate to what you call socialism, is literally just people trying to profit from their situations. Why bring up Cuban taxi drivers, when taxi drivers in the USA are a far more apt comparison? Chinese manicurists, when there's one just downtown from you doing the same thing? Why Cambodian prostitutes, when Chicagoan prostitutes are a better example of the circumstances you describe, taking advantage of a bad situation to profit? A nazi miller fits this even better, as they'd likely be working directly under a private boss. What you've described is nothing unique to what you call socialism - why not throw the USA into the mix? Very similar characteristics, indeed. But hey, you can't even be bothered to actually watch a video that you claim proves me wrong, and watch how TIK admits that the very historians he cites point by point refute everything he tries to say. Instead, you try to do anything to justify your hatred of socialists and ignore your similarity to nazis, and this seems to have manifested here in a rabid attempt to ignorantly defend your lack of understanding of the world, of basic history and economics, and about the very subjects you so fanatically argue for or against, in the comment section of a video you've never watched. Bravo kid, bravo. Your little rants and ahistorical tirades don't change any facts, but hey, at least you've given me a great opportunity to educate you.
16
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
Marek Kac
But that isn't the topic of conversation, it never has been. I didn't come here to debate the applications or specifics of modern ideologies, I came here to debate their historical meanings and significance. You've asked me to participate in an entire other activity, and have yet to justify why.
Assertions aren't the same things as points. Saying "no it's not" isn't a valid point, you have nothing backing it. One doesn't need to assume "law=capitalism" to recognize that capitalism is a system that just could not exist without statism, and forced, coerced, unnecessary participation in it, as well as the ideological purging of any anti-capitalist sentiments. In capitalism if you don't want to work, you don't eat, drink, have a home, and that's just if you're lucky, in reality you're most likely going to have a bunch of private institutions take even more from you because of your debt. In communism, a system without a state, without classes, without money, how can you be forced to work? Who forces you? Just saying that communism has to have labor camps doesn't make it so. I don't think you can define tyranny, or communism.
Ok, and again, just saying "a classless society has classes" doesn't make it true. How can there be a ruling class with no state or money to actually give it power? Why does this system have to be "managed?" Do you know what communism is?
I'm sorry, how is that the case? How is me saying that socialism is the social ownership of the means of production proving that companies with private ownership of the means of production... don't have that? That is capitalism, and it exists in plentiful amounts around the world, especially in the USA.
11
-
@Kainis80
Oh it's far from a "claim," it's an objective fact, one you are unable to address, much less disprove. Why would I need then to fill in those who lived under said regimes, when the majority of them are well aware of this fact, and had made it known in the past? I'm pretty sure they, they who openly profess the non-socialism of their regime, know better than some fatass named Kainis slurping at macaroni in some costal apartment. And oh gosh, your misunderstanding of Proudhon is just painful. Alright, first off, of course he knows better than you, i'm glad we agree on that. After all, his, and all the other definitions of socialism at the time, do not fit with the vast majority of countries you call socialist. It's especially funny when you assert that the nazis somehow got their program from Sidney Webb or the fabian socialists, given that the nazis rejected socialism, openly disputed the fabians, and got more policy from their monarchist and capitalist cousins than any sort of socialist source. Your attempted "point" is also funny because you attempt to assert that Proudhon didn't consider state socialists to be socialists, or that he had a different definition of socialism than them, when this is plainly false. He openly called both socialist, and while they both used the same definition, the difference between state socialism and anarchism is the methodology of collective ownership. Pretty simple stuff, and quite the opposite of your "they couldn't agree on a definition" assertion. And now you oppose the assertion of your previous comment, where you claimed that the end goal was different, but the means were the same. Now you say that the means are different, but the end goal is the same. Sadly for you, this is false. The reality of the situation is that, of course, both the means and the end goal of countries like nazi germany did not align with socialism, and hell, they didn't even align with other countries you compare them too. What you assert hasn't been true in Hitler's Germany vs Stalin's Russia, not true in Stalin's Russia vs Maoist China, and still absolutely false in Maoist China vs Pol Pot's Cambodia. None of these comparisons you try to make are even between countries with similar economics or rhetorical ideology, how can any of them be true when they not only contradict socialism, but eachother? You don't even understand the basics of say, Venezuela's economy, which is majority private and by no definition socialist. Do you even know what you're saying, or do you just pick random countries you want to be socialist and hope I don't notice? Oh, and why do you keep including Hitler's far right anti-socialist germany? I also find it odd that you try to call the statement "the workers do not have a right to the product of their labor but rather satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." one that supports feudalism, because... how? First off this isn't a definition of socialism but a description of one socialist system, second off, this has nothing to do with the central, right wing monarchist government that didn't satisfy the needs of the serfs or other subjects. It's like you just take random examples and then do everything possible to warp them to fit your predetermined opinions, not caring if the "evidence" actually fits. It must be pointed out of course that you haven't read a single author you mention, nor can you accurately describe their ideology, nor the contents of their works. After all, you call Marx a state socialist... with no backing, of course. First off, Marx was a communist, second off, he opposed the state and said that the best socialistic experiments were those lacking one. Marx and Proudhon did have their fair share of differences, but those were in methodology, not definition, and both at other points praised the other's works. Tucker is another example of that same thing, an American anarchist and proudly-identified socialist that worked with state socialists, marxists, communists, ect all the time as their definitions and ideologies aligned in key aspects. I'm not sure if you understand this either, but bringing up that Marx and Proudhon disagreed, or that they helped to found major aspects of their respective ideologies while still feuding, doesn't mean much. I hate to break it to you, but intellectuals feud. For example, the leftist group The Young Hegelians, which included state socialists, communists, and anarchists, from Engels to Stirner, were in an almost constant state of intellectual disagreement. And yet, they maintained the Young Hegelians, because they knew that they had ideological agreements. In any case, Proudhon's statements on the commonality between his definition of socialism and state socialism quite literally disproves your point, but of course you don't recognize it. And, as if to prove my point, you show that you've not read the works of either Proudhon or Marx with your following statements. No, Marx did not want to "nationalize everything," in fact he called for a stateless transition to his socialism, based off of his observances of the Paris Commune. Proudhon advocated for much the same thing - the means of production in collective worker hands. Both called for violent revolution, Proudhon never called for some form of democratic reform in any way, he openly said that mass democracy was a state to be abolished. So no, Karl Marx was no more a father of state socialism than he was of anarchist socialism. Proudhon and Tucker also disagreed immensely, a point you miss, but they still called for the same definition of socialism, collective ownership of the means of production. The thing you miss however, is that none of these systems have anything to do with the nazis. Even state socialists use the state as a means to an end, that end being the collective ownership of the means of production - a system the nazis never called for, never desired, and of course, never put in place. Similarly, it wasn't anarchist socialists that allowed for the rise of the nazis, but a weakened capitalist state, taken advantage of by political sabotage by conservative figures like Franz Von Papen, which allowed for Hitler's popularity and eventual election in the first place. Your attempted "arguments" are quite literally just stitched together talking points even you don't understand. You accuse Bernie Sanders of being "a lazy jackass" and "getting kicked out of a russian commune." Sorry, when did this happen? Sanders never worked for a Russian commune, he visited one in America for a time... as a journalist. He didn't live there, he didn't work there, how did he get "kicked out" again? You have the same arguments against anarchism that fascists have, that doesn't surprise me, but your "evidence" is horrible. "CHOP?" Sorry, how is that an example of "anarcho socialism?" They were literally a block-wide protest, where's the economic system? The closest thing they had to that was the merchandise sold for capitalist currency within. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but anarchism is far from dead as a species of leftist thought, and is more popular in places like the United States than ever, save perhaps the early labor movement. As well as that, the reason state socialists even existed, and why they still exist in some numbers today, is not because they call for a state to manage resources and products, but because they call for a state that protects the worker's ability to do this collectively. So your idea that socialism needs a king, (as in a far right leader) a feuhrer, (another far right leader) or any sort of dictator is utterly unfounded. Socialist have no desire to "make themselves kings," hell, they want to tear down the modern kings and level their playing field. We saw this with Lenin and the bolsheviks, creating a revolutionary party system, not a monarchy. And by god, your counting "abilities" are about as bad as your economic knowhow. Um, no, the majority of the world has not lived under socialist states. Your problem is, of course, that you name random countries you want to be socialist, and completely ignore any historical definition in order to label them as such. For example, far right, anti-socialist nazi germany. Not very socialist, and yet you list it twice. You call China, the modern hub of capitalism, innovation, and billionaires "socialist." You call india, the long right wing and proud nation, socialist. You call venezuela, the 70% private economy, socialist. You call cambodia, the country quite literally paid by the US government to purge socialists, socialist. You call North Korea, the hereditary monarchy, socialist. And so on. Do you see the problem? You call random systems and countries socialist in order to bump up the numbers, numbers you know are false. You're just a little guppy in some small global backwater that feels like they have the right to tell anti-socialist countries with anti-socialist populations that they're wrong. Hell, you can't even define socialism, and neo-feudalism is an ironic title, given that it better describes your system than any other. Ask anyone from any of those countries we've been over listed - the Germans will be particularly interested in correcting your denialism.
11
-
10
-
And what talking points and tactics might you be referencing? I constantly hear the right using the same rhetoric as the nazis, to the degree that many of their catchphrases are just mild rewordings, their modern rhetoric near interchangeable. Hell, many just openly fly Nazi flags. The right uses the rhetoric and facts of the Nazis, the Nazi we're right wing, simple. That I unless you're willing to argue that the Nazis represented some push of tolerance and inclusivity?
Child, child, what are you even talking about? This is blatantly and absurdly false. The nazis rose to power constantly talking about some threat from migrants, about the disabled and old draining the state, about the supremacy of individual domination, about the failures of democracy and central control, about the supposed success of traditionalism, the importance of conservatism, conspiracytheories regarding communism/marxism/leftism in academia, the natural aspects of inequality, the 'crime' of abortion, "Germany First," and so, so much more, I could go on for paragraphs. The modern right literally waves their flags, shouts their mottos, and holds their beliefs. How can you claim that the ideology of martin luther king shares more in common with the nazis than the ideology of Evola? The right literally has all of the same talking points and tactics as the nazis, and you somehow blame this on the socialists?
10
-
10
-
@AppliedMathematician
But that wasn't Hitler's system. At best, Hitler's inclusion of the title socialist in rhetoric could be seen as an attempt to conflate his movements with others and gain support, but more realistically it was the result of the genuine political pushings of a part of his party he despised, and later purged. They decided his name and early promises, and none of those ever came to something meaninful. In any case, TIK doesn't cite his sources particularly well, one only has to look at the fact that most refute his conclusions to see that.
Again, if you want to criticize socialists, have at it, i've done that more than my fair share of times. But doing it by trying to associate them with an entirely different movement makes no sense, it's like asking a drug addict to get better at driving, as if that will solve the problems of their addiction. Asking socialist to atone for the actions of anti-socialists makes no sense.
And I would argue that yes, his narrative is dangerous. first, because it conflates forces of society with opposing goals. According to this, MLK Jr and Hitler were both socialists, and thus, socialism is dangerous... or is it? How can one claim the two had the same ideology, the same problems? The other problem is that it obscures the actual political nature, and origin, of fascists. In an age where political violence is ramping up, we see people comparing random politicians like Sanders and AOC to hitler, while swastika-carrying nazis murder in the name of the right. How is advising we blame the first group, rather than the latter, not dangerous?
9
-
9
-
@Kainis80
Sorry child, but that's what we call a "strawman argument." I never said anything like "bUt ThEy wEren'T sOcIAliST bEcAUse tHeY wEren'T MY bRanD oF sOcIAliSisM." What I actually said was that the countries in question were not socialist... because they didn't meet the provided dictionary definition of socialism, which I quoted previously. And that was far from my only argument or refutation, as well as that, you haven't provided any facts to speak of as of yet. Strawmanning and deflection seems to be all you have as an answer. For example, you attempt to "refute" the fact of Venezuela's decidedly non-socialist, 70% private economy, by... incorrectly assuming those numbers were gotten from before Chavez or Maduro, when in reality they came long after Chavez's term, and while Maduro had been in office for a while. So, yeah, either you don't know a damned thing about Venezuela or have been sleeping under a rock for almost 20 years. That's not ok at all, you should at least attempt to keep up with the facts of the nations you accuse of random things, but I now that's too much to ask of you. 've found that most anti-socialist advocates have only ever read propaganda about socialism in coloring books or listened to some online right winger that never even got their education, and try to convince ignorant rightists with cartoons- instead of actually speaking to people that have supposedly "experienced it," people that would happily prove you wrong. I mean, you aren't even willing to read a definition of the term, how am I supposed to take you seriously? But no, I guess according to you they couldn't have possibly lived under non-socialist systems, because that makes your fanatic hatred of socialism look bad. You really do need to leave those online echo chambers and go off into the real world, find a job, a life. Get an actual education, not by talking to random right wingers that agree with you, but by studying the issues and coming to the correct, objective conclusions. Not an indoctrination by regurgitating the same tired, brainwashed right wing bs.
9
-
9
-
9
-
@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
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.
//:/
9
-
9
-
9
-
@farmerchick3040
Yeah, that isn't true though. On any level. Hitler was a right wing fascist dictator with right wing ideals, one cannot be left wing and a fascist. You can claim "all sides are bad," but you can't even correctly label a single one of those sides, and it's honestly disgusting. He was right wing, not only because of his belief of "Aryan supremacy" or his persecution of minorities (most importantly jewish people) under his regime, but because he proposed, advocated for, and put in place a violently right wing economic and social system. Being a "left wing terrorist" doesn't mean advocating for violence in favor of socialism or communism, and hitler despised both of those ideologies anyway. He had a violent takeover in favor of an anti-socialist and anti-communist regime. He was right wing through and through, and your assertion that he "did both" is utterly absurd.
8
-
8
-
@josephkempinger
Yeah but socialists don't call to unify against an enemy, they say that the absorption of that "enemy" into the unifiers is inevitable, and a good thing. In any case, that isn't core to socialism, it's just a populist rhetorical strategy. The problem you have here is that you're implying this is something to make note of, when in reality, it's something found in literally every ideology. If it's central to socialism, nazism, and fascism, it is also central to conservatism, capitalism, libertarianism, anarchism, monarchism, and so on. If the only difference you care about is the ingroup in question, and you think ideologies that value an ingroup are all similar, your analysis isn't going to get far.
8
-
8
-
Marek Kac
Yeah, that tends to happen. In any case, I hate to break it to you, but that (A.) is false. Not only did the first capitalists, people like Adam Smith, proudly and openly called for some state owned land, psuedo-progressive taxation, and social programs, but the most successful modern capitalist states as well, the Nordic states, are also places with high levels of regulation and social programs. Calling a basic historical and economic fact "insane and delusional" isn't a counter, nor does it actually disprove my statement. The purest capitalism is not "0% tax," capitalism has always needed a state to function, and most modern capitalists advocate for far more than 5%. Ergo, real capitalism is all around us and has been for decades, and the USA is capitalist. Your assertion of 0% tax being capitalist is not backed by reality, or even your own arguments.
B. I never claimed people are bad, though. I claimed that people will look out for their self interest, and historically, the best way to help one person is to help many. Again, calling me delusional isn't an actual rebuttal in any way. And why do you have to manage people, authoritarian? You do realize workers understand their own jobs and duties, right? Insults aren't arguments, champ.
And what rationality is in that? How is a system of mutual cooperation dystopic? Why would you steal beds when you have as many as you need for free? How could you profit from stealing beds when anyone who needed them already has them? Nobody needs to stop you, because the utter uselessness of your own actions would do that first. There's no need for force, such as the type you constantly advocate for. There's no need for law, and no need for workers or "police officers" to be violent in any way. Sure, you could try to steal all the beds from the bed factory... and then die of old age on a massive pile of beds you never profited from, because everyone already has them. You seeing the problem yet? Let me explain this basic concept yet again - everyone needs a bed to sleep in, right? So, when someone decides to start making beds, and they need wood for the frame, the wood-cutters give them wood, knowing that the bed-maker now has the ability to make bedframes, which they and others will get. The bedmaker needs cotton, cloth, shoes, clothes, food, ect, and all of those other industries support the bed-maker, because they need beds, and the only way to get beds is to make sure the bed-maker has the resources they need. In turn, the bed maker provides the beds back to those helpers, because if those other industries have no beds, they get no sleep, and are unable to work as efficiently, and unable to provide the bed-maker with the necessary resources for him to survive. Everyone works together because it helps everyone, including themselves.
C. Um...no. God no. Getting a car for a small amount of money is not social ownership of the means of production. Getting a car made by other people, in a number of years, is not social ownership of the means of production. Do you know what the means of production even are? Do you know what socialism is? A person owning a car is not private, cars are not capital, and you genuinely don't know what the means of production even are.
I hate to break it to you, but you disagreeing with socialism as an ideology doesn't change the definition of it. You don't want the workers to have direct control of the industries they work in? Ok then, you're not a socialist. How does that do anything to change the definition though? It just proves you don't know what socialism is. People don't need a math degree to work their job, and nobody is forcing them to take that job in the first place. And education is about education, not some inherent intelligence. Also, education isn't a class? Especially if it is equally available for all citizens?
Um... yes. "Their," as in multiple people, as in from the context of the sentence, the workers as a whole. Not sure why you felt the need to quip there. And why is voting over the use of their own labor "nightmarish?" Is the thought of emancipation from constant servitude that disgusting to you? And once again, where is the other class?? How is doing something that is available to all people something that creates a class? We've been over this, there is no need for enforcement, you're just trying to come up with strawmen and then using them to justify your nonsense.
In communism the government doesn't exist, yes. I was talking about socialism in that passage though, something I explicitly state. Socialism very much can be a system with a government, though it too is defined by social/collective ownership of the means of production. And I mean... yes? If everything was owned directly by the community, there would be no need for some external vessel to push for political change, the people could do it themselves. Sadly, that is not the society we live in, so we must appeal to the government.
8
-
Marek Kac
First off, why ask this, why to me, why does this matter? We're talking about history, not the ideologies of the people in this conversation. Why are you asking me, i'm not a socialist. And what are you attempting to prove? In any case. Socialism is a system defined by the social, or collective, ownership of the means of production. This can be done through a state that either represents or grants direct ownership to the workers as a whole, or through a stateless society of direct collective ownership. Note that in every case, the goal of social ownership is there. As for socialist countries, what do you define as a socialist country? One achieving socialism, or one striving towards it? I would argue that a few small communities have achieved the system of socialism, but yes, some countries have strived for socialism, for some amounts of time. In any case, your assertion on communists is also pretty funny. Like, you realize that capitalism is a system in which physical force is inevitable to keep capitalism in effect? And that communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, devoid of countries and the force you apply to it? See the problem?
8
-
Oh my god you are actually a literal child. There is no concentrated attempt to "pressure" TIK, as can be seen with his older videos on the subject, it is largely his own previous fans that are criticizing his new move into political fanaticism. In reality, his supporters are new to his channel, and come primarily from outside right wing sources, seeking to integrate his video into their echo chamber. In other words, they're attempting to silence those offering genuine criticism, by presenting an overwhelming horde of people that don't even take the time to watch the video, but leave comments of support and likes merely because the video looks like it falls in line with their political ideology. Literally "if we gather up a few people, and make our voices loud enough, the opposition will believe they are outnumbered and thus - shouted down". "What [TIK] does" is propaganda. Those that criticize it are largely those who used to see him as a source of history, but simply cannot any longer, due to his fanatic beliefs. Those who have "liked" the video are those who agree with said propaganda, who have a vested interest in spreading said ideology, and who would rather spread the video among those that already agree with it, than those who can open it up to objective debate, debate that instantly destroys TIK's narrative.
So sure, let's let the numbers speak for themselves. Let's watch as TIK turns away from 6k historians, previous fans of his, and towards 30k ideologues, who have made sure the video's criticism is never shared openly, but who integrate the video into their echo chamber. After all, if the video left the echo chamber, TIK would have to deal with the overwhelming majority that protest his fanaticism, and the mindless ideology of the few that champion it. Academic dishonestly and echo chamber ideology aren't things I think are worth "thanking" someone for, but you do you.
Let it be known, however, that you are so insecure in his points, you (and him, having lent his support) openly advocate for the dismissal of academic criticism... as if we didn't already know that.
.
8
-
8
-
TIK, this is the end result of your nonsense. Convincing people that the nazis are equivalent to random liberals. The nazis weren't socialists, and by your logic, I could say this:
Capitalists - Wealth/Property Ownership socialism, preferred: Business owners, CEOs, capitalists, enemy: socialists, communists, leftists, ect
8
-
@TheImperatorKnight Yeah, this is the problem. In order to even come somewhat close to rationalizing your choice of terms or language, you either have to horribly misdefine everything, or define it to be so broad that the word itself has no meaning. If a hierarchy is always a public, and public control is always socialism, then socialism is just a form of hierarchy. The problem with this is that you've just destroyed the term, and reformed it in your image. The problem then with that is that if this is how you describe socialism... it isn't what a socialist wants. So now you're taking about two different systems, but relating them under a common name. That would be like me calling any kind of fruit an "apple" and a person just talking about a normal apple, and you assuming that the two must be interchangeable because you use the same term. The way you describe socialism and the way they do are fundamentally incompatible, or at the very least highly misleading, so now one of you has to come up with a new term to describe the ideas they Actually are talking about. This logic is so flawed, making up a new definition for a name and then trying to use it to compare fundamentally different ideologies is where you will always run into problems.
What you are doing now is again, fundamentally incorrect. For one thing, not everything that isn't your perfect capitalism is socialism. Again, what you're showing me here is that you don't care about what the terms actually mean, you're applying them to everything you personally don't like within a semi-consistent framework. A dictatorship can be capitalist. A state can be capitalist. (even though, as I explained to you, that is not what the term "state capitalism" is referencing.) When you take a socialists critique of capitalism, and pretend that socialism is actually to blame, you destroy the meaning of the term socialism. It's like a child who points at every inequality in the world and shouts racism. Imagine if we decided to re-define racism as all of those systems? How useless would the term be? Socialism is not power. Socialism is not hierarchy. What you are criticizing socialism for are things that most socialists do not want. So as I keep saying, to use this term in this way is useless, and socialists will simply adopt another to explain their actual beliefs. To literally say that a corporation, yes a corporation is a form of socialism... well it explains a lot about you. No matter how much you call socialism everything bad in the world, the actual meaning behind the word will not vanish, it will simply change appearance.
Capitalism is not just "an individual on their own, without the hierarchy." That is not an economic system nor an ideology, though judging from what I have seen from you, you are probalby under the imperssion that capitalism is simply the natural state of being, right? In fact, i'd say the closest economic theory to your assertion would be anarchism, but that cannot be true, as anarchism is incomparable with capitalism. After all, "even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines." as according to milton friedman. According to your definition, literally everything bad in the world is socialist, and literally everything good is capitalist. Therefore, it seems that critiquing business... has become a capitalist action. A whole bunch of socialists will sure be surprised to learn that, huh? Oh, and apparently a whole bunch of trump voters are socialists. I'm sure they'll be happy to know that as well. Well, i'm off to spread the news then!
I mean seriously dude, you know that the line "socialism is when the government does stuff" is a joke, right? You using in that way strips away all of the meaning, and the system you are talking about is no longer socialism, bud. You've taken your utopia, labeled it capitalism, and everything outside of that tiny bubble is socialism. Yeah, no. Sorry, just... no.
As an edit, looking back on some of your other works I notice that you try to dissuade the association fallacy that comes with definition and applying socialism as you do, but it isn't working. There are people in your comments, people it seems that your fan base or even you agree with, that will go on to say things like that bernie sanders is comparable to the nazis. I understand that you probably heavily disagree, and certainly don't call for that comparison in any form, but the fact is that using the term "socialism" to describe all of these this will inherently lead to people thinking these are ideas that can be compared with what socialist and self proclaimed socialists actually... want. Which, in most cases, they aren't. I know you also distinguished between the political and historical debate between why a country is or is not socialist, and i'd like to ask something - why is tit so objective that these countries were historically socialist? Is it because they called themselves that, advocated for ideas they often didn't put into practice, what? Or is it the definition you use this time leading you to that? similarly, do you think we should use another word either for contemporary socialist ideas (which you say might work in the future) and the past actual policies of what you call historical socialist regimes? Is there a word for contemporary theory that differentiates that kind of socialist from the socialists of history? or do you think that isn't necessary? In that case, I would disagree, because it seems many are happy to use those terms with glee interchangeably and seem all too ready to call all modern democratic socialists, or really anyone, a nazi. In any case, thanks for your time, and hopefully an answer.
Just as a sidenote, i'm not a socialsit myself, but I know that public perception and association hurts people who do have those beleifs, even if they are incredibly watered down and they;re just trying to refomr the problems out of our current system. That's kind of why I care about the issue, not because it effects me (because no one will be calling me a nazi anytime soon, hopefully) but because I can already see the tangible impact this is having on some people. Again, not trying to insinuate you are to blame for that or are at even ok with that behavior, I just wanted to let you know i'm not doing this because i'm some butthurt socialist, i'm asking this specifically and debating this issue because i've seen the impact of similar cases, and if there is another way to describe it that you think might work, i'd love to know. Anyway, thanks again.)
8
-
8
-
@TfuckyoutubeC
You heard it here first, apparently responding to someone's points in full, while providing citation, is just a "meme," or a "rambling wall of text." I must assume you open history books and say the same. Where was the "spiraling," hm? Is that just your excuse for why you neglect to respond to the quotation and citation I provided that proved your uneducated assertion completely wrong? So yes, let's address what I said in my own statement here: "Of course a "racial collective" can't be socialist, 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." As a whole, of course, being the key terms, given that any system that artificially excludes members from this community as a whole cannot be considered socialist, as they don't represent, again, "the community as a whole."
Now, I must ask where's the "redefining?" Community as a whole is pretty self explanatory, the community as a whole, everyone. Your problem is that you can't actually accept this idea, so you attempt to deflect to something utterly unrelated, that being that people form their own communities, and that a number of these communities exist, mixed in with a good deal of american exceptionalism propaganda. I'll simply point out that you're missing the whole point. If we decide to redefine socialism to now be one grouping or community, rather than the community as a whole, everything becomes socialist. Monarchism, technocracy, capitalism, all ideologies where one loosely defined group is in control. this is what sets socialism apart, rather than advocating for one group to control with the exclusion of others, it advocates for all people regardless of grouping to control the means of production, the formation of one group of all people. You're attempting to ignore that, it isn't working.
The problem then being that your assertions just don't make sense. Adolf comes along, siphons away the policies of the authoritarian right, and runs with them. Hitler was a populist, yes, but he never claimed to work for all german people. Even in his propaganda, he made it clear that those who opposed him, the lazy, the unionists, the old, the gay, the trans, the immigrant-citizen, the jewish citizen, and so on had no say, and would get no benefit. It becomes even worse when looking at his actions, where we see a concentrated effort to harm "the whole german community" in order to help a concentrated, small grouping of people. At no point did hitler enact or even desire "redistributing their wealth to the german people. the WHOLE german community." Sure, they attempted to justify attrocites any way they wanted, but they never claimed that they were for the equal distribution of even benefits for the few that remained official citizens. So even from your own attempted redefinition, he could not be considered socialist.
And what happens if we substitute the variables? Well, we find that the nazis resemble their modern counterparts, right wing, authoritarian, populist, and so on. It's not even like these groups try to keep it a secret, they literally wave nazi flags. The fact that you don't have a single argument to present... is sad.
8
-
@TfuckyoutubeC
I've made "how I come to this conclusion" abundantly clear and your hostility towards having a simple question answered proves that you never asked it in good faith. Of course a "racial collective" can't be socialist, 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." As a whole, of course, being the key terms, given that any system that artificially excludes members from this community as a whole cannot be considered socialist, as they don't represent, again, "the community as a whole." I'm not entirely sure why you're asking my nationality. In any case, my point is explained, but your further comments are... well, silly to be honest. Hitler didn't like any "brands" of socialism, given that he was a rather open far right anti-socialist. Child, your assertions here are sad. You assert that my statement on hitler attempting to redefine the word "socialism" for his usage is in fact just "peak copium nonsense." I hate to break it to you but this is not a rebuttal, and hitler openly declared his attempted redefinition many times. "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." You're free to insult me, as long as you're aware of how immature it makes you look. I've already defined my terms, but let's be honest, why would I want to continue with you? You don't care about the truth in the slightest, you're an angry child that had their ideology called out and thus has turned to insults when arguments failed them. What could I possibly gain from that?
8
-
8
-
@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.
8
-
8
-
Oh, this is hilariously ironic. Primarily because you, like TIK, love to blame the "butt hurt socialists," rather than egage with opposing arguments, because you can't address their arguments. But even funnier, you point out exactly why TIK's definition doesn't work.
You would be right then to say that "...the confusion in academia comes largely from a complete misunderstanding of capitalism, as much as a misunderstanding of socialism." I would actually agree with that fully, as well as the notion that Hitler was not a capitalist. However in calling him a socialist, you do the exact same thing you complain of these people doing, just with your term instead. You adopt an incredibly broad definition of socialism, that just doesn't historically make any sense. For example, for some reason you, TIK, and Hitler think that "marxism," or "marxist socialism," means socialism based on class and giving the workers the means of production, and that is simply not true. Those concepts and definitions of socialism existed long before marx, and they also existed among those that were heavily critical of Marx himself, and later marxist figures. What you're doing here is taking all of known socialist history, putting it under a single name, and then trying to pretend that there is room for more socialisms. That historically and definitionally just doesn't make logical sense. As well as that, you're also participating in a misunderstanding of what capitalism is, and heavily narrowing what capitalism can be defined as. Capitalism means "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than the state." There is no mention that the state cannot interfere, or that the ownership by the private market has to be absolute. Adam Smith himself was in favor of an early graduated tax,basic welfare, and the ability of the government to hold public property. Does that make him secretly a socialist? But none of that matters, because it shows the clear hypocrisy in your comment. After that, you go on some random rant against the strawman you made up which I really couldn't care less about, but do you really not see the inherent contradiction in you doing exactly what you claim the "others" are doing?
8
-
@waltermh111
Sorry, literally all of that is false. The nazi party openly insulted systems of government ownership and control, they thought that said systems were disasters that would destroy the german economy, and so instead, they advocated for systems of private control. Furthermore, no, the government is not "considered to be the people" under communist or socialist systems, the people are quite literally the people. The government can represent them, but it is not them. In nay germany, private industry was not controlled by the government, but by private owners. While China and Germany at the time have some similarities, they also did not adhere to the same economic theories or practices. In any case, china too does not fit the definition of socialism, nor does the state actively control the economy, rather the state and private market are both smaller parts of the ideology, of one bigger group as a whole. The businesses do still remain private whoever, because the government collaboration is a voluntary choice of both parties, most often at least, and is done for explicit purposes of profit. A case that breaks a trend does not itself make a new trend. Restrictions aren't total control. China's system is dominated by private interests being projected onto government bodies.
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@AppliedMathematician
I'm not complaining about some narrative simplicity, I'm pointing out the fact that TIK's conclusions, his definitions, and his argument as a whole is not based in history, so calling him a historian is a title without basis. Trying to get back at the socialists by wrongfully attempting to connect them to hitler is silly, and ahistorical. One can absolutely criticize the socialist movement, ideology, or aspects of either of them without invoking such ahistorical nonsense. If you want to criticize socialists for falling for the words of power hungry dictators or malicious movements, go ahead, just do it with actual history in mind. Furthermore, I have to break it to you, but precise, concise, and most importantly, correct wording is always important, even with broad audiences.
7
-
7