Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@chloeturner1414
Do you know what "left wing socialist" means? Apparently not. There was no "misunderstanding" here, you were simply wrong, and when corrected, didn't much care. You agree with TIK because his narrative benefits your ideology, and because you agree with his fanaticism, despite the readily available facts disproving your assertions. You can't "know" something that isn't true, and evidently, you don't know the basics of even the terms you're using. Of course, the nazis were not left wing, nor were they socialists, a fact easily shown by any research into their rhetoric, policies, goals, and so on. They made it loudly known, and yet here you are, pushing a narrative over facts. The nazis were right wing totalitarians, opposed not only to socialism but to the very ideological and moral assumptions that build a foundation for socialist thought, and thus, they were opposed to the left. The point of your comment was to further cement TIK's echo chamber, and further justify his fanatic dismissal of any facts he didn't like. TIK doesn't need to be "reassured," he needs to act like what he's claiming to be, and thus accept and work with criticism. You can clearly see his ideological fanaticism in the way that he promotes this shutting-down of debate, this self-righteous constant need to continue to assert that those who disagree don't matter, and must not be listened to. People corrected his beliefs with facts, and thus, people like you are urging him to not listen, to ignore them. It's not "hate," it's reality, and he doesn't need assurance, he needs correction.
The very problem with your assertion is clear from the first line - one cannot claim to be a "left wing socialist" and yet purposefully and unapologetically set up a private economy while pushing notions on the supposed superiority of private property. Allowing private industry means he ain't a socialist. Your reasoning, similarly, makes no sense. How is appealing to private weapons companies and manufacturing industries at all trying to hide the goal of rearmament? How would his massive privatization program hide his obvious military-industrial buildup? Your statement is a non sequitur, your conclusion does not follow from the information. How would privatizing industry, and yet still using it to rearm and expand the german military, at all an effort to not alert the allies? Hitler was pretty transparent with his goals, even before he was elected, and part of the reason that the german army became so powerful in that time is specifically because the allies knew he was rearming and thought that by not intervening, they could appease him, and stop an eventual war. To put it simply, your statement makes no sense. It doesn't line up with anything, not the allies knowledge of hitler's goals, not those goals themselves, and certainly not the economic and political reality of privatization at the time Hitler didn't privatize because it somehow hid his actions (because that doesn't at all work, and they already knew his goals and were aware of the rearmament) but because he saw private property as simply and functionally superior, according to his ideology. This is why, when actually studying the nazi economy, we find that the vast majority of it was not under "strict regulation," but in fact were allowed to compete, produce, and profit much as they had before, now without any interference from the labor movement, which hitler had repressed, abolished, and purged. The way that the nazis actually ensured that these private companies were working within their interests was through guaranteed profit contracts, which the companies would then compete over. Hitler praised private property, and noted again and again that a state management of the economy would severely diminish the economic power of german industry. His greatest deviations from this happened near the end of the war, when german industry and military had been hit so hard that there was little other option, and yet was still treated as a temporary, necessary evil. In any case, i'm not actually sure if you know what the 1933 Cartel Act actually did, given that it didn't "regulate" or direct the economy, just allowed massive corporations to further centralize their own private power and form their own "cartels," monopolies.
The problem is that you just don't understand the basics here, what you're saying is about as far from socialism as you can get. A pro-private state working with massive private corporations against the average person, the unionist, the worker? What is left wing, what is socialist? Even if what you described was wholly accurate, it still fits almost exactly to the modern right's strategy regarding companies, as in, are they pushing right wing social and political goals are not, and what is the punishment if they fail to push those goals. Hitler protected and gave privileges to private industry as a whole, and provided opportunities to profit, to ensure nazi goals were met. Those that declined were few, and even then they were rarely punished for these actions, and were instead either offered greater incentives, or ignored in favor of the many other companies willing to do the job. Your "probably" says a lot about your lack of knowledge in this field, but its worth noting that the vast majority of his "political opponents" were those that posed the greatest threat to private profit. Interesting, hm?
2
-
@Paciat @Paciat yes, the very point of Socialism is to do away with a purely meritocratic system. That's like, point one of the scale. You're right, none were 100% Aryan, which is why their ideology doesn't work. Because the natural racial merit that they tried to base their entire society off of didn't actually exist. Still, they perpetuated those myths as best as possible, even when they were not true. National "Socialism," in this way and many others, was not at all Socialism to begin with, as they thrived on hierarchy. They killed based on that hierarchy. Pointing out a crime done by the Soviets, who didn't even call their society communist, in no ways disproved the hierarchical and contradictory way that the Nazis structured their society, in a strict, traditionalist way.
2
-
2
-
@nathanweber4829 Are you an actual idiot? Well, what am I saying, you agree with TIK. Of course you're an idiot. I don't mean to insult you, but this is just so hilariously wrong, and I have so many better things to be doing, I have to get it out of my system before I start the response. You understand, right? For one, like most of the TIK cultists, you seem to not understand that just saying something isn't proof of it. Which is a damn shame, because that's all you do in this response. Assert, say it's true, but cite no proof. And it's hilariously wrong from the get-go. First, before I even get into your arguments, have you even read das kapital? It seems not, because you have yet to realize it's literally an examination of capitalism. It has nothing to do with marx putting forward socialism, or communism, it's literally him just laying out why capitalism works, and where it doesn't. That meals Das Kapital is wholly uncomparable to Mein Kampf, which is an actual book that sets out to promote an ideology. Anyway, on to your argument. I can't believe I have to say this, but when you literally replace words, of course meanings changes! Holy shit. If I said "I love my wife" and you replace "love" with "hate" of course the passage and the meaning change along with the change of those words. If you replace the above terms, for one it wouldn't make sense, and for two you'd be talking about entirely different things. By this logic, I could proclaim Adam Smith was secretly a communist, by replacing every time he says something like "free market" with "communist system." It makes no sense, on any level. And again, if we look at the policies of soviet russia and nazi germany we find literally nothing in common, besides both being totalitarian dictatorships. The USSR was isolationist, the Nazis expansionist. The Soviets promoted forced equality, the Nazis promoted forced hierarchy. The soviets were kropotkinites, the nazis were social darwinists. They were on opposite ends with so many things, it's hilariously wrong to say they were the same. If you look at the structure of government and legal system, they are both somewhat similar... because they're both dictatorships, no shit. But even there they had differences. However, in social planning services they were not at all similar by any metric. The soviets poured money into infrastructure and benefits, the nazis into warfare. The fact that they called themselves mother/fatherland is literally just a case of popular terms at the time, nothing to do with socialism. So in fact they did not act the same, they did not look the same, and they did not sound the same, because they were in no way the same. And here you go, taking hitler on his word. do you not see a problem with that? This is the same guy that claimed that the world was operated by jewish people, that you could measure intelligence by head size, and that he could win WW2. So, after all of those lies, he makes up one more and you just say "oh, looks fine to me, that must be true." Socialism, even before marx, had always been about class, not race. Replacing class with race is like replacing "women" with "men" in feminism and saying it's the same thing. Literally is not, on any level. He also differed from the socialists in other areas, like being expansionist, pro war, pro meritocracy, traditionalist, hierarchical, ect. His definition of socialism, as Defined by him, literally says he thinks private property is good. That is fundamentally anti-socialist. I've actually read the works in question, as well as many more, so I really have no need to watch yet another ahistorical biased youtuber by the name of "razorfist" misdefine socialism and take hitler on his word. You've proven yourself with this response to be only capable of repeating basic talking points, to the point that it seems you haven't even read, or even read a synopsis of, the very works you name drop in this response. It's shameful, it's lazy, and it's intellectually dishonest. But sure, if you want a response filled with facts that cannot be refuted, here you go, I just delivered. And here is a pro-tip - next time, when you're about to post some dumb shit, don't sound so cocky at the end. It makes your inevitable fall from grace all the more painful to watch, and I assume experience.
2
-
@nathanweber4829 You literally didn't listen to me then, huh. Well, no surprises there. Again, like last time, your first sentence proves you wrong. I have to ask, did you actually read any of the sources you claim you read? Or, were they cited in one of these shortened ahistorical arguments you keep recommending to me, and you just took their word for it. Das Kapital is not condemnation of capitalism any more than it's a condemnation of socialism. It also never proposes what you say it does, a transitory path from socialism to communism. Marx was not a utopian, and most importantly, he never actually outlined how to get to communism. It was later thinkers like Lenin who tried to put the pieces together in that order, and who said that it went capitalism->socialism->communism. And the point of you substituting words, as I said previously, is wrong on the same two counts. One, the two works cited are not at all the same. One is Hitler's, which is trying to push an ideological narrative and come up with a framework that is meant to implement his desired system. Marx's source, on the other hand, does not include him pushing any ideology, but is merely an overviews (again) of why capitalism works, and where it doesn't. That's the entire point. If there really were similarities to be found when replacing terms, that would speak more of capitalism than socialism. In any case, there really aren't many similarities to be found, and as well as that, when you change the words used in a sentence, the meaning literally changes. Feminism is not feminism if you replace women with men. Hitler never says that "all private property is state property," you can actually hear in quite a number of his speeches with some of his supporting officers that he reviles the idea of taking private property under the management of the state. He thinks that the private market has seen considerable success, and should be allowed to remain. He literally says the opposite of what you think he did, he thinks the state is terrible at running businesses, and in all cases possible the businesses should be under private ownership. That's why he's so notorious for his privatization policies. Here is one such interview.
In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books):
https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of National-Socialism?’
‘ I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’
At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism.
‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’
Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP": https://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php
Gregor remained in the party but continued losing influence at a catastrophic rate, until he and the remaining part of the socialist wing were purged during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.
When I mean cultists, I mean (no offense) people like you. People who ignore all of actual professional understanding of history just to forge forward with a narrative, putting opinion before facts. Ironically enough, it seems it's them who are usually the most willing to project that narrative onto other people, in most cases where it does not exist. TIK as a source is terrible. He says that corporations are socialist, society is socialist, hierarchy itself is socialist. I am not joking, I am not exaggerating. Those are his opinions, and can be found easily by watching his "public vs private" video, or looking for his comments on this very video. The reason I claim you and two "internet historians" are ahistorical is, well, because you are. Have you actually looked at say, TIK's citation? Half of them are opinion pieces of radical ancaps complaining about socialism, a huge part are from people like Mises (actual fascists) who tried to deflect fascism onto the left. Hell, he cites a Sargon stream as a source. Meanwhile, I can only assume this Razor fellow somehow convinced you of the meaning of Das Kapital was to promote socialism, so yes, he is being ahistorical as well. IF you would like my citation, i'd love to provide it over and over again, but all you've been doing so far is simply asserting that your side has good evidence, not showing any of it. You have not shown any proof so far, because to show actual proof instead of just name dropping books would mean opening up your narrative to reality, and thus shattering it. If I were to say nazism was a form of socialism, i'd be lying, and following a far-right historical denialist narrative, which I don't want to do. Nazism has nothing to do with socialism, and this was an established fact before the right tried to rewrite history otherwise. This isn't even a case of "my agenda," I am not a socialist, this is a case of history. You are not citing your own works, merely critiquing the works of others in an effort to appear knowledgeable and disinform others.
But here's a few videos for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHAN-RPJTiE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnyZvsR1kDk
2
-
@nathanweber4829 And again, I have to remind you, you proved my point. Not once in this response did you actually, you know, respond to the facts I spent time putting forward. Rather, you lied, insulted, and asserted the same false narratives as you did in your previous response. If the first part of my response seems familiar, that's why. It's because you just repeated the same little nonsense. The fact that you cannot cite any historians, any books, or any definition of socialism tells me all that I need to know. As I said before, you are literally arguing that random people online know better than the actual historical researchers who spent years of their lives combing over the data and speeches of nazi germany to come to the conclusions they did. I have no interest in listening to another random person with no credentials bring up long debunked points, because it's a waste of my time. If you actually have any real sources, articles, books, speeches, ect, then give them already. I addressed literally everything you said here, and you're ignoring it all. The problem isn't that i'm somehow afraid of doing more research, it's that i've done too much research to put up with this nonsense. Again, why should I trust random people on the internet over actual historical professors and figures that have dedicated the greater part of their lives to defining these ideologies. Why should I trust TIK's definition of fascism over, say, Eco's definition of fascism, when he literally survived fascist italy and TIK can't even survive criticism. The fact that you put so much pride into videos and not like, actual sources, proves entirely too much to me. Because you, and them, have a narrative to push, one that just can't be pushed professionally. If you cited actual sources, like again, books, or non-biased articles, or even some firsthand words of the people you are claiming to understand, I would love to see them. But the problem is, you won't do that. You'll just keep calling me a socialist for no reason and citing far right random people on youtube rather than either make an argument yourself or cite a professional.
And trust me, I am unfortunately well aware of Jordan Peterson. The lobster guy, Mr. "clean your room," the guy who admitted he hadn't read marx until the night before a debate with a marxist, ect. The same man who preached personal responsibility and self improvement before societal improvement, and then had to get trucked off to a russian hospital because he had a drug problem, all while he was telling people, on stage, to not worry about convincing others or changing society until they fix their own issues. Ironic. I'm aware of his many videos on youtube, like the ones where they claim he "DESTROYED" college level children in a professional debate (no shit or the ones where he preaches self help, which is ironic. And, sadly enough, I used to watch a great number of his lectures, including the one you mentioned. However, there are a few issues with it. For one, he focuses far too hard on conformity, and does not mention the fascist movements that actually started the regimes, just the regimes themselves. He also, conveniently, forgets to go after the actual beliefs of nazi germany and their rhetoric. Like how they claimed western civilization and tradition were under threat, and they must be protected. Like how the nazis claimed there existed a "cultural marxism/bolshevism," which they used to justify their genocide. Like how the nazis preached a heroistic ideology (again, Eco's definition) in which people have to work their way up the societal ladder to mean anything. He did not mention these, of course, because they have uncomfortable modern parallels on the right. My point being, for one with no offense met, actually take some time beyond public speakers and youtubers. There are books on the matter, and if you don't have the time to read them I understand, but they are much better sources than youtube videos. And finally, like above if you prefer to watch youtube as a source, i'll link a few "theatric" criticisms of Peterson here, which you may or may not have heard of. Have a good one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEMB1Ky2n1E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas
2
-
@padraicburns9278
"I doubt Mises considered the US completely Marxist as opposed to moving in a Marxist direction. Being opposed to government intervention in the economy (a criticism he also had with fascism and socialism) of course he'd be opposed to FDR's policies for extending the Great Depression. The fact that the Austrian School had a presence in the US is evidence of the US being more liberal than other countries. Economic systems are not black-and-white, it's possible for an economy to be "more liberal" or "less liberal" without being "completely liberal", "completely fascist" or "completely socialist". What are the far right authoritarian figures you're referring to?"
In the very passage we've been talking about, his first line starts with "Only when the Marxist Social Democrats..." He saw the entire ideology as Marxist. I doubt he would have the nuance then to support the US as it was only "moving in a marxist direction." It is also worth mentioning that this is the Mises who called Friedman (another notable libertarian capitalist) a socialist, Mises' definitions were more than a bit off. However, again, I would recommend reading into the history of the Austrian School a bit more. The US was not more liberal because it simply existed there, in fact, the Austrian School had existed in the US for a while then, even as it was moving away from liberalism. And the idea that something can be "partially one ideology" is nonsense, and irksome. If you have something that incorporates policy from capitalists, socialists, and others, it is not "more capitalist, less socialist" or vice versa, it is just a new system. As for far right authoritarians, we have cases where students of the Austrian School, say, defended Mussolini, propped up Pinochet, allied with David Duke, ect.
"He criticized the ideology of constant warfare and literally fled fascist genocide (and socialists have committed genocide too, you know). Do you need to be reminded that he said, "because it is far from practicing the senseless and unrestrained destructionism that has stamped the Communists as the archenemies of civilization"? Communists have committed far worse atrocities than fascists. If two monsters are fighting, I hope the lesser monster wins. Socialists explicitly want every person to be a slave owned by the government. Fascists also want to enslave everyone but pretend they don't. Socialists control the economy through outright ownership of the means of production, fascists control the economy by forcing the de jure owners/de facto managers to obey the fascist's commands making the government the de facto owner. The leftists who would "compromise his power" also want to kill people for owning property, people like that should not have power and defensive violence is justified to protect oneself from them."
I know you've seen the line before, but let's say it again. Agreeing with his opinions does not diminish the meaning of them. He criticized fascism's "constant warfare" in terms of socialist suppression, and he fled fascist genocide only because it posed a direct threat to him, all while advocating for fascistic methods of violence. He views the communists as enemies of civilization, and thus celebrates when they are killed, and turns a blind eye to the crimes committed in the name of stamping out leftism. Communists, for all their flaws, have never attempted the utter, endless ethnic genocide of fascism. If you see the history of both movements, and decide that it is fascism who is the lesser evil, you are unshakingly wrong. Socialism, and socialists, don't want "every person to be a slave owned by the government," hell, plenty of socialists don't even want a government. Socialists push for collective ownership of the means of production, as in, a societal tool that has been explored under capitalism and found to be more effective than individually owned or managed businesses. Fascists uphold private ownership, in fact, they defend it, and violently. The fact that you think wanton murder and suppression is "justified as self defense" against an ideology you don't even understand is sickening.
"Facts are facts, fascism is a tiny bit less bad than socialism. You say he built his career in a fascist country but his career had already been built before it became fascist, it took longer than one year to build his career. Your criticism hinges on the fact that he was an economic advisor to a fascist government for one year of his life when he had also been an economic advisor to the Austrian government before it became fascist. How did Mises' movement return to fascism? In what way is the Mises Institute fascist? Their slogan is, "Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market". Fascism is pro-state, pro-war and anti-market (favoring government intervention that moves it away from a market economy and closer towards a command economy)."
Facts are facts, and fascism is without a single question the worst, deadliest, and most horrible ideology humanity has ever devised. Fascism did not start in austria when the fascist dictator took power. Your denial hinges on the fact that you can't handle that the man you are defending was a direct economic advisor under a fascist dictator, a position he had first been given under that same fascist dictator, and he managed a fascist economy. Mises' movement, to this day, defends fascism, and you are perfect proof of that. For being "Anti-State, Anti-War, [and] Pro-Market" Mises' ideology actually defended and justified the state and war quite a bit. Furthermore, fascists despised a command economy, preferring to hold up a system that interlinks the state and private sector.
"You must be daft, he only said defensive violence was justified and criticized violence being its highest principle making war inevitable. Your view on "the economics of fascism" is absurd when the track record of fascist economic policy means government interventionism which Mises explicitly opposed."
He defines "defensive violence" as any violence against those he disagrees with, which he calls socialists. He criticizes violence only when he feels it is not effective for pushing his ideology to the detriment of all others. His economic views lined up with the fascist economic views for most of history. This is basic.
"He said it was a fatal error to consider fascism anything more than an "emergency makeshift", that means it's contingent on there being an emergency. Socialists have killed far more people than fascists, just based on body count alone they're worse. Socialists have also allied with fascists, like when the USSR and Nazi Germany agreed to split Poland between themselves."
He called fascism an "emergency makeshift" in the context of it being a useful weapon against socialism, which he praised it for. Socialists have only "killed more than fascists" because they've been around and in power far longer, capitalists have killed far more than socialists have for this very reason. Fascists find their most common allies with the right, and smaller alliances with the left have always ended with conflict.
Let's review:
Mises believed that violence was justified, and only criticized fascism because he believed its violence was not effective.
Mises believed that "defensive violence" was any violence directed at those who pushed ideas that he disagreed with, which he then considers a form of violence.
Fascist economies are always defined by a rigid adherence to corporatist systems, which Mises promoted and put in place.
Austria had Mises working directly under a fascist for years, pushing policies that fascists agreed with. He was only granted this position under said fascist government.
Mises did not disagree with the economics he was promoting, that were being implemented through fascism. Calling him a "liberal economic advisor" is in conflict with your previous definition of fascist economies.
The Mises institute doesn't reflect Mises' ideas, and Mises' ideas don't reflect that motto.
This statement is not the fascist motto, but a single line said by Mussolini, who himself employed classical liberal economic advisors, who you claim his ideology opposed.
Capitalists have killed by far the most, but Fascists have the most potential for death, and have only killed the amount they did because they were shut down and defeated quickly
Capitalists and Fascists are both guilty of the social darwinism that lead to fascist eugenics.
Fascists and Capitalists both want control of the economy in private hands, fascists simply also create a government that is meant to support and nudge these private entities, to both party's voluntary profit, while socialists support nothing of the sort.
Your lack of understanding on the basic history of your ideology, and the basic definition of fascism, socialism, liberalism, ect, explains why you contradict your own definition of those terms, and explains how when given an example of a fascist economy, you simply deny it or call it "liberal," further asserting more ahistorical nonsense.
Mises was a man who praised, participated in, and defended the ideology of fascism.
I'm not a socialist, but an anarchist. You are an ahistorical revisionist that doesn't care about the mountain of corpses your ideology has caused, nor do you care about the possible death toll of fascism which was thankfully cut short. You push your ideology on others, even historians, because the idea that you could be objectively wrong on your nonsense ideologue narrative is impossible for you to understand. You call others socialists, much like fascists did, to shut them down. Your ideology is deadly, millions dead at the hands of it, and your denial perhaps more so. Your lack of shame makes you disgusting.
2
-
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 Try again.
You mean how h*tler rejected marxism utterly, and used its spread to justify his horrific purges? You do realize that denying h*tler's hatred of marxism is denying his stated reasoning for the murder of millions of people, right? Why do you wish to push denial of the greatest crime on this earth, and why do you do it with no shame? The man flew banners that endlessly called for a forceful and bloody death of marxism, he fought a war of propoganda with marxism on the other side. Why do you hate history?
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
After all, one of the stated reasons he gave for the supposed failure of the Weimar republic was their reliance on marx. It was, after all, the marxist parties that the nazis had purged first. In reality, the man was far more anti-marxist than you could ever be. "The... doctrine of Marxism denies the noble goal of Nature and sets mass and dead weight of numbers in place of the eternal privilege of strength and power. It denies the value of personality in man, disputes the significance of nation and race, and deprives mankind of the essentials of its survival and civilization. As a foundation of the universe, Marxism would be the end of any order conceivable to man. The result of applying such a law could only be chaos. Destruction would be the only result for the inhabitants of this planet. "
His differences with the communists, he explained, were at the very backbone of his ideology.
And I agree, he revealingly added that he despised marxism, felt it was the bane of a civilized world, and was quite open about it supposedly devaluing the personality in man, denying the things hitler based his entire ideology on. Why is it that you hate the simple fact that the nazi cause was about as opposed to marx as one can get?
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 Yeah, sadly for you literally not one of those points is true.
The Nazis Government did not control 87.6% of the economy, and you have no citation otherwise, as they did not in any way mean they controlled the means of production in all major industries including non-military and agriculture , and this is true in in 3 major ways you ignore:
1) They never placed Nazis Government Functionaries on all Corporate Governing Boards and in Senior Management Teams to insure their directives were carried out, instead preferring to give monetary incentives for companies to compete over
2) They didn't control pricing and wages of all German products, services and employees , and did not play major role in hiring and firing of employees, they left those up to the companies themselves
3) They did not set production targets for all industries and companies, allowing them to compete instead.
In essence the Nazis Government was never the owner of the means of production for their entire economy, they allowed private business to do the majority of that. Furthermore, government ownership isn't socialism. Again.
None of what you asserted accurately describes the nazi economy in any way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HannoBehrens God that's a whole lot of nothing. 90% of it is you ranting like the religious fanatic you claim me to be.
First off, yes I did watch it, but the thing is TIK pretty clearly neglects to actually address the reality of what happened, and rather tries to deflect from the actual historical occurrences. He tries to point to them killing socialists as some form of "ideological infighting" between marxist socialists and national socialists. The issue of course is that Hitler defined all socialism prior to him as "marxist" socialism, and utterly rejected every piece of it. Your statement then makes no sense, and here's a better example. Let's say a new sect of "Christians" rose up, except they didn't believe in Jesus or God, and thought in fact that the character's referenced in the bible are alien demons. They often killed Christians, and allied with modern pagan movements. Does that sound christian to you? That was the nazis and the socialists.
The issue of course is that not only is the idea that the economy was under full state control not even close to true, but it wouldn't make them socialist. The monarchy did that, do you think that they were socialist? No, socialism has always called for worker ownership of the means of production, not state ownership. And here is something I feel I will have to keep telling you, but here it is - i'm not a socialist. But it's clear you know very little about socialism, history, or even humanity as concepts.
There is a black market today, in America, not even counting the worldwide black market that exists on the internet. The issue is that the availability of a black market has nothing to do with the ability of a free market to exist. The EU isn't socialist at all, they're quite clearly capitalist, just as we are. You pretty clearly do not know what socialism is.
It is obvious that Hitler was not a socialist, and ever fact, every definition, every connection and every piece of data you can find proves this. I am not a socialist, but even I can see how he doesn't fit at all. You clearly don't understand my position, and are arguing against the strawman version of it you have made up. In fact, it's far closer to your position. "but i'm right wing, totally not like hitler, and my far-right politics won't kill millions of people this time I swear! Just give me more power and i'll happily do it." And you lie, and say that hitler was a socialist, and history proves you wrong.
If something screams like a goat, walks like a camel,and starves and kills like someone on the right, it sure as hell isn't a duck.
You can yell all you want about how your murderous far-right political ideology is totally different from the other ones which was totally on the other side, but no one believes you. Mainly becase you act like a religious lunatic when you do it, all while accusing those you don't like of exactly that. Of course you call all of "us" the same, because only the "you" can be good, right? Which is nothing like what the nazis did... The modern american right is literally holding up swastikas. They are literally singing nazi songs and chanting nazi slogans. They are literally, not figuratively, literally, still heil-ing hitler.
You have the same nationalistic policies, the same hatred of an outgroup you blame all of your problems on, the same restless xenophobia and hatred of the outside. You blame those you don't like for everything you are doing, which just perfectly encapsulates the nazis. You, like the people you claim to be talking about, will utterly ignore the death toll of your ideas, even as it increases daily, as every year millions more will die of preventable causes under capitalism. You then disrespect the lives of those who actually died under oppressive regimes by making up numbers like 150 million, drowning the very real tragedy in tens of millions of imaginary corpses, devaluing the cost of human life.
Historians have already made their points clear - hitler was not a socialist, and the danger of the same far right which gave raise to him still exists today, no matter how much you try to cover it up. You chant "look the other way" as you continue to spread your evil.
You of course have no idea what socialism even means, and you seek to call all you don't like or don't understand socialism. You can bet that if jesus was alive today, still saying the rich can't get into heaven, you would call him a dangerous murderous socialist. You don't know what socialism is, or even what atheism is now it seems. You seem to hate the idea of a system that you refuse to understand, which is the very same problem you attribute to the socialists, perhaps because you truly do lack the self awareness necessary to point out the failings of your ideas.
Even now, you deflect from the problems of your own ideology. Millions starve every year, millions more die from medicine that they nor their country can afford, yet you seek to blame me for the failures of your system, the one that actually regularly brings out the worst of human kind? You can't even go a few lines without somehow brining islam into it, despite the fact of christianity's higher death toll. You call the socialists what hitler called the ews.
Most historians actually don't agree with your conclusion, at all, which is why it has been common knowledge for literal decades that the nazis were not socialists. But you, like TIK, and like the nazis, blame the ideological discrepancies between your worldview and history on some form of "other." The nazis did it on the socialistic jews and it seems you are doing the same, just without the jewish part.
The "better world" you claim I fight for, the one you claim is hidden under the hills of dead bodies and the bones of millions, that is the world we live in now, and the one you fight to drench even further with the blood of millions, and hide even further from history or empirical fact. You do it right now, by calling all you don't like a cult, by refusing to understand the world you actually live in. You deny science and history with every breath, and project it onto me, all while your death toll piles higher.
And you do it again, calling all those you disagree with a cult, all while clinging to the superiority of a system you clearly want to cover up the bad parts of, and want to worship like the second coming. You want to hear about a "socialist" movement? The civil rights movement of america. Hell, you don't even seem to understand what internationality is. It's an idea predicated on the internationality of identity and class, but of course that is somehow demonic to you. By the way, cultural marxism was an idea that the nazis came up with.
All that's been "replaced" in the world is your long outdated idiocy, and it's been replaced with actual research and learning.
The future is dead if we don't change, not even figurately,but literally. People like you will deny the capitalism death toll, deny climate change, and will continue doing it until we are 10 feet underwater.
Science is science, like it or not. You are literally now using newspeak, a system the nazis were famous for using and empowering. You use the same conspiracies that they did, just replace "jew" with socialist or marxist, and they line up perfectly. This is what I was talking about when I said that all connections point to hitler not being a socialist, because people like you in the modern day line up far more with his rhetoric and views.
2
-
@HannoBehrens The problem is, you don't know what the flag even is. You yourself wave it right now, but I can tell that when that next holocaust actually happens, you will somehow pin it on everyone else, just like you do now.
You never even touched my arguments.
What you say next is, I cannot stress this enough, something that the nazis quite literally might have said. They might have agreed with it, and many modern day neo nazis still might. But it's wrong. Nationality is not society. Society is not the state. There is no supernation, and it isn't controlled by the socialists. Hitler wasn't a socialist, he wanted no connections with the socialists, and peddled much of the same conspiracy theories as you do literally right now. And he was a fascist, but as usual you seem to apply your nuance in all the wrong places and seem not to understand that fascism isn't just about nation, but about ingroups and outgroups, and that can be based on race.
The thing about socialism is that it is not a religion, nor is it one of hate. Your ideology on the other hand seems to embody that perfectly, with your mindless unwavering hate for a group you attribute to all you don't like, and one you so clearly don't understand. Of course, you refuse to see the Ursunde of capitalism, the idea of intrinsic merit, and also neglect to ignore the fluid nature of classes as defined by marx, which completely undermines your whole "point." But of course, everything is about religion, which is perhaps something you should reflect on. You seem to actually see socialism, an ideology that you don't understand and attribute to all you don't like, as evil. That is a religious kind of hate.
Socialism could not care less about Christianity, no matter how much you try to draw some sort of religious connection between the two. There need not be a leader under socialism, but of course you would not know that. The connections, like most of your points, matter little and are of no use to the conversation.
Perhaps before going on a rant worthy of a puritan preacher you should have asked if I actually followed this "evil cult of socialism," yes? Because half of this response has just been me saying to you, "No, I am not a socialist." You have this bizarre idea of reality, where all those you dislike seem to represent this oppressive, demonic entity, one you wholly seem to think truly is a force of only evil. Again, i'll remind you that it was partially the work of socialists that black folks were first freed from slavery, and then given equal rights, but i'm sure you'll ignore that. You cannot help but look at your fellow citizens as nothing but a "cog in the machine." The only people still using the "following orders" defense are those like ICE agents, who are a favorite of the right.
You don't know me. You don't know who I am, what I am, or what I believe in.
And you seem to have nothing to teach me.
I have to remind you bud, you have no idea what I even believe in. You came into this whole thing with an assumption of socialism, an assumption of marxism, but every time you come out with a new unfounded accusation I have to remind you that not only are you wrong in your initial assumption of my supposed socialism and marxism, but you are wrong in your description and understanding of such ideologies. You call everyone, and I mean everyone, you don't like a marxist. I may very well say the same with you, it's impossible to convince you of the truth - you are a "believer," and you hold that one aspect of yourself above all others when it comes to discussion.
You even use the same buzzwords, not only of the nazis, but of those who simply don't understand them. The word cognitive dissonance was first invented to describe those who were exposed to outward evidence that they were wrong, and instead of arguing against it or forming new ideas, they simply attacked those that proved them wrong. If any such label is to be used here, it should be applied to the "nazis are socialists" crowd. You are the one quite literally calling socialism the devil here, not me. Perhaps think on that for a bit.
And here, you show said dissonance perfectly. You just went to complaining about a group who sees all that they are not as the same thing, as a system of absolute evil, and then start your next line with "for me there is no difference." Classic. You seem to really have a religious view of this whole thing, of somehow repenting or seeing a past that doesn't exist. I have to tell you, only you see the world in that lens. The rest of us? We just see it normally. The socialist history with the nazis is about as deep as the capitalist history. You clearly don't care about any of that history, it's just that to you socialism has become some sort of term to mean the literal devil, and nothing can change your mind. You try to point to them being some sort of cultish religious group, all while perfectly exhibiting the symptoms of said groups yourself. You call all that you do not like cultists, non-believers, those who have not repented. And you don't see the irony.
You cannot expect to convince me that after that entire rant in which you specifically target opposing religions and praise Christianity, as well as turn everything into some sort of allegory, that your are not religious. If you truly are not, then I have to say you're very good at emulating a religious person. You can pretend to see your themes and similarities all you want, as I see them in you as well. But it's not people like you who will convince others that they are wrong. How can you expect otherwise? You literally are insulting me before even asking me on my position on the issue. I am here talking to you, not for my own sake, but for yours. And I ask you, as a fellow person, as a citizen, and as a skeptic... is this truly how you see the world? As black and white, good and evil? I'm afraid that just isn't how the world works. Add some nuance to your life. It's amazing.
2
-
@slashdotbeckett6020 Sorry about that, I just wanted to address the essayist above first. In any case, sure, i'm fine with setting aside the whole postmodernist thing, I just thought it was something being pointed out.
The reason the "worker" title was specified was because I just wanted to give a rather short version, but essentially the original ideas of socialism did largely revolve around those who worked within or for certain businesses and industries managing said industries collectively. While what counts as a worker, and how that statement is meant to be applied will change, though. For example, you rightly point out that the idea of a worker as we understand it in the modern world wasn't really around in the origin and pre-origin of socialism. However, the sentiment still largely stood, that the means of production was to be managed primarily by those that operated it. As for your examples, while those groups certainly did stand as inspirations for later movements, from socialism to anarchism, they existed in a time before "socialism" as a concept even really solidified. One could still call them a socialist, but I generally hesitate to call people by names that did not exist when they did. Just like one wouldn't really call any pre-smith proponents of market systems like Josiah Child "capitalists."
In any case, your next question. I would consider a worker normally just one who works, and that can be on any variety of things, anywhere up and down the chains. There are some industries, or enterprises, that don't really fit the idea of worker ownership. And within socialism, there are plenty of different concepts for how that ownership would be managed. In terms of you question, I would consider all of those you mentioned to be workers under a socialist system, though the method of a collectively-owned farm and a collectively-owned hospital would undoubtedly be different in terms of how said entities would be run.
As for this next question I certainly think it's an interesting one, and one I have not seen addressed that much, though I do believe I have seen it answered before. First off, I would hope in such a society that those people would not need to work to survive, and that they can benefit without it, but that doesn't quite answer your question. To that, I suppose it would matter the industry in question. If these people were seasoned experts on certain things I have no doubt that their input would be a kind of "work," and one which would obviously necessitate their ownership in the industry. But if it's a case of strong manual labor or something of the sort, they most likely would not carry ownership of that industry, that is if they're not impacting it in some other way, such as training or recording data.
And while I would not object to socialism being defined as ownership by the collective, the issue then is that different but related ideologies get put in. Anarchism, for example, would largely be a form of socialism now, not just a tangentially related ideology. Same with communism. Again, I don't wholly object to your definition, but from what i've seen of socialism it tends to target the industry and production far more than the community as a whole. I hope that all satisfactorily answers what you asked.
2
-
2
-
@HannoBehrens I'm not sure if you're aware, but i've been here for more than the time you've seen me here. TIK himself alluded to it, but i've been on-and-off arguing in this comment section for a few weeks now. So yes, I have watched the video in question, as well as a few others of his, including his video on defining public vs private, his first and second video on NS, ect. And yes, while I haven't had time to individually read through the entirety of every one of the longer works he cited, I certainly did make sure his facts were included within them, and checked them for reliability. The issue of course is not entirely with the facts, and let me explain why - let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am someone who legitimately thinks that capitalism is the color black, and everything that is black, or everyone that wears that color, is capitalist. With this logic, I could easily point out the hundreds of pieces of evidence we have of the nazis wearing black, coloring things black, or even talking about the color, such as what it represents on their flag. If you were to bring up that the color black is not capitalist, I could do what TIK does, and then find some obscure centuries-old quote or definition that loosely correlates the color black with a facet of capitalism. And if that doesn't appease you, well i'll just call you a racist, a fascist, an anti-semite, a troll, a marxist, a postmodernist, ect as TIK has called me. Do you see the problem with that? Undoubtedly TIK has lots of sources, but they go towards proving the nazis wore black, if you catch my meaning.
My job is not to argue with you on the facts, because the facts are plainly obvious, and hitler was not a socialist. You know the facts, the issue is, you're either letting your own bias get in the way of your understanding of said facts, or you're mistaken in key areas on issues that can easily be explained. As I told you, I am not a marxist, but it seems like the very parrot you seemingly insult you like to repeat that idea, over and over, until the end of time.
There is, of course, no doubt that hitler was not a socialist. In the beginning he did not want to go by that name, but as his part adopted it and he was forced to, he found himself redefining socialism to mean nationalism, as was the very first argument I showed you. So we know that whenever he called himself a socialist, the rarity that it was, that's what he meant. He didn't act as a socialist, certainly, he seemed to despise the idea of equality, forced or natural. And, finally, you should know that socialism is not just (or even) state control of the economy. These are all things I have already pointed out to you, things that you should have known better than to bring up again. It is though, very telling that you try to excuse the ownership of private property and existence of markets under hitler. First off, though this really does not matter as plenty of non-socialist ideologies do not allow for property rights, just because your unimpeded right to something is revoked doesn't mean that you no longer have it. If, say, a parent were to say that a child could only play games if he did his homework, his "right" to the sole ownership of those games is taken away, yet he can still play them. There is a difference between removing people's guarantee to something, and actually removing that thing from them. Obviously, industrial leaders controlling it at all makes it not socialist. And I see how even now you try to slip in an insult, but really, it only detracts from your argument. I know your position. And again, not only does the existence of a market prove it really wasn't socialist, but the action of state ownership in that market cannot prove it was socialist. Did the workers own the means of production? No? Not socialist. Just so you know, by the way, it's usually a good rule of thumb when looking over history, but you generally don't want to take the Minister of Propaganda's word on anything, especially when those words are delivered in a speech to the public. You have actually stumbled on a part of their anti-socialist ideology though, many of the nationalizations and state controls were not done for ideological reasons, but for the purpose of total war, not just against the enemy nations, but against huge swathes of their own population. Like it or not, the markets still existed. People still owned private property. And the state's ability to take that all away doesn't make it socialist.
Now of course there is one more thing to be brought up - TIK has not prepared you for the actual counter-arguments that you will face. Because, as me and a few of his other critics have pointed out, very few people earnestly argue that the nazis were capitalists, and for good reason. TIK, however wants to convince you that those are the opinions people like me hold. Doesn't that annoy you a little bit? Shake your faith in him? Because the nazis were not capitalists, just as much as they were not socialists. Politics is not binary, as I hope you know by now.
Nazi germany was not capitalist. Nazi germany was not socialist. Those statements are equally true.
The problem of course is that you've decided that the pebble I kicked up was actually a brick that fell on my foot, and are trying to argue that it really was. My foot is still there, and the pebble is a few feet away, but you're already calling an ambulance and trying to figure out where to get me a cane. So stop for a second, let that inner skepticism come out, and question if you even saw the brick falling in the first place, and if so, where did it fall from? From how high up? Why is my foot still there? Obviously this is unrelated, but my point is that you really ought to introduce more nuance to your life.
Ah, and finally, an argument! This is good, it's progress. So, first off, socialism is not taking control of the means of production for a collective. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production as a collective. This can be done by the state, but that state has to accurately represent worker interests. Does that sounds like the nazi economy to you? I mean, disbanding the right to collective bargaining is the direct opposite of that. Second, the nazis didn't do that, they couldn't care less about the collective. Do you know why? Well, the collective included black people, jewish people, disabled people, gay people, people that disagreed with them, people who fought against them, bolsheviks, the list goes on. Now you might say "well they were talking about the aryan collective!" but they didn't even care about that. After all, not only were their anti-nazi aryans, gay aryans, disabled aryans, ect, but they never actually gave the means of production to the direct control of even just the aryans that fit their criteria. Rather, they gave it to the control of the state, and industrial leaders. When you're putting thousands of people in camps because they disagree with you, you couldn't care less about the collective. And finally, obviously, they didn't even take full control of the means of production. If there is private ownership of private property, and not collective ownership of said property by the workers, it cannot be socialism. To take your arguments and use them against you - the state owning something does not mean socialism if the workers have no control over the use of it, neither are the allocations of said profits decided by them. The system you are describing not only does not exist as you described it... but wouldn't be socialist even if it did. As I said earlier, the argument that they are socialist is disproven not only with the definition of socialism, but with the associations the nazis themselves harbored, with capitalists, conservatives, and industrialists, all against the socialists. And that's the key, that while in the best of occasions you do have aspects of the truth, you are trying to prove not that they were socialist, but that they were authoritarian. What you're attempting is to prove that the nazis wore black.
2
-
@HannoBehrens Why do you have an obsession with making long posts that are just 90% moral judgments and fanatic insults? You could at lest pretend to address my arguments.
Also, my name is spelled "Aidan."
I do find it funny that right after complaining about me supposedly strawmanning your arguments (and not telling me how or correcting me) your feel the need to instantly strawman socialists, by saying that they make decisions solely based on ideology. I'll give you a hint - there's a reason it's called "Dialectical Materialism" and "Scientific Socialism," and while you may disagree with their conclusions, you cannot write off their observations so easily. You also further strawman by saying all socialism is authoritarian, which i'm sure that Proudhon would have disputed, or even really marx, who wrote papers against taxation and in favor of the right to bear arms. In fact, the only time I can remember him actively calling for government interference is the time he called on the american government to free the slaves. As for mass starvation, oh buddy, that isn't socialism. That's happening under capitalism, right now.The issue is that everyone "waving the flag" does know what they're calling for, they do know the associations - you just don't. You want to punish people for your imagined crimes, all the while blaming it on them. Of course (as I've said) you would call them evil, from a 100 year history you largely don't understand, but you refuse to take even a smidgen of accountability from the own historical,and genocidal failures of your ideology.
I am not a socialist, but even I know they are not evil.
The issue is, all while you're attempting to condemn hitler, you're empowering his ideological descendants. After all, as I said, if you blame the actions of Hitler on socialists, you're deflecting from the actual perpetrators of those actions, and blaming an unrelated group. You're also, to a letter, following his propaganda of the murderous, secretly-supported socialist in the media. And those narratives didn't turn out well to the millions of innocent people that the nazis labeled as "socialists," only to be thrown in camps that would end their lives.
You also seem to be falling into the very real trap of defending hitler by association, because I can tell you this - there is not a person alive or dead that was more close to pure evil than Hitler. Stalin, Mao, Xi, they are all terrible people, no doubt, but they all received their comeuppance and largely their work has been abandoned and reversed. But Hitler? Hitler's influence still exists. The right still calls for genocide in his name. Those countries, those regimes, for as evil as they were they didn't push an ideology of racial superiority, of constant warfare with the races of those they deem inferior. To quote a historian: "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union. The more you compare Communism and Nazism, the more the differences are obvious. When Stalin's successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution. Courtois' comparison of 100 million victims of Communism to 25 million victims of Nazism leaves out out most of the 40-60,000,000 lives lost in the Second World War, for which arguably Hitler and not Stalin was principally responsible." Or, perhaps to put it into perspective - "Supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book to India, the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone." ("Russian Terror/ism and Revisionist Historiography", https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm)
Your narrative of somehow the others being worse not only ignores the vast majority of hitler's deaths, and his ideology, as well as excusing your own ideology. You, right now, are helping the resurgence of those who want to finish what hitler started.
There is a reason society does not despise the red flag as much they do the swastika, one you seem not to understand, and I don't think that is something that I can change in you. But I will tell you this - if you want to ban those flags, or celebrate both s equally evil, I will call for you to do the same with the flags of the American and British empire.
Hitler is not a socialist. That's for sure.
You, right now, are defending the very same conspiracies and notions that the modern fascists rely upon to spread their ideology and propaganda. It's intensely ironic that TIK has the gall to say that denying Hitler's supposed socialism is akin to denying the Holocaust, because TIK himself has a habit of denying genocide, and in fact in this very same comment section found himself praising and taking the side of a real Holocaust denialist against a jewish america. To call hitler a socialist not only denies the holocaust, but hastens the journey to a new one.
You don't get to spend hours typing up responses about my supposed irrationality after calling all those that disagree with you evil, deluded, conspiratorial, and utterly devoid of morals. That is not something I can accept in good faith. I have built up my ideas, unlike you and TIK, from the acceptance of facts that contradict my worldview, and internalizing them. I used to be in your position, with your opinions. I grew out of it. You assume I am a socialist or marxist because it is your ideology that is incompatible with facts, with history, and with objective data, and your ideology that needs to justify itself with the accusations of conspiracy in others.
I believe what I believe, and that system is unimportant to this conversation. Your near-religious fanaticism, however, is.
The reason I continue to argue is because, put quite simply, I am not wrong. I am right. And your inability to prove otherwise makes me only feel more and more as if this is the case.
Madness is to repeat something over and over again and expecting different results even if that never happens, never happened, like saying hitler was a socialist.
Your ideology, your historical revisionism, is madness. It's an ideology revolving far more around the hatred of others than the pushing of any concrete ideas, which of course allows for that movement to be coopted by those who really do want to commit genocide again. National Socialism, as TIK and you have definatively proven, cannot be associated with socialism. Not only is there a different good guy, a different bad guy, but a different... everything else. And you know that, of course, you point it out. According to your logic, capitalism is a kind of socialism.
Your entire responses have been nothing but insults, moral judgements, accusations of irrationality and evil.
You see, the problem is, I responded to you with a factual argument. You know that, you must have read it. But how much time did you devote to disproving my points? A whole paragraph. And since then, you have yet to respond to a single one of my points. How can you claim to represent the path of sanity and rationality when you so clearly cannot do anything but pose as morally superior and rain down insults? Every time you do so, you only strengthen my convictions. As i've said, it's not people like you who can convince others. It's people who are, first of all right, but most importantly can actually address my arguments. Neither you, nor TIK, can do that.
I am not a troll, as both you and TIK know. And why do you call me a troll? Well, simply because I am a heretic to you, an unbeliever. And it's easier for you to pretend I have engaged and written the equivalent of professional essays for the goal of bad faith tear-wrenching, and not because I care about the misconceptions this video pushes. I cannot in good faith reccomend this video to a single soul, not just because it utterly fails to prove its hypothesis, but because the person who created said video is utterly unable to contain his disgust for us "heretics," us who actually apply skepticism to our lives. I don't care about provocations, nor tears. I care about history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paulroberts117 Oh, child. You really are like, what, 10 right? You seem to have no vocabulary besides buzzwords you learned on reddit. So yes, you did play the virtue signalling card, because you and I both know that you're objectively incorrect. You also have no real evidence, because of course you don't, why would you bother with something as silly as empirical fact? I have done objective research, which is why it's easy to point out that Spengler was just an an angry capitalist who didn't like the idea that capitalism was fading away. You can cry about your mythical right wing socialism all you want, it won't make it true, and neither will your reddit links. But please, keep crying in my notifications about how you're totally the rational one, while using words like "leftiods" and calling leftists liberals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yohannbiimu Gosh, incorrect on all counts. First of all, here's the thing bud - you can disagree with socialism, you can hate it, you can objectively think it's the worst idea ever made and objectively (think you) know it will fail over and over again. That will not, and can not, change the definition. In this entire response, you show about two seconds of argument, and then go off on a gian tangent about how much you hate socialism. but sure, i'll address that first. First off, you're talking specifically about statist socialism, which isn't the only type. Communism is the system in which the state dissolves, but there are forms of socialism that attempt to accomplish just that. So what would you define as a government? And I don't much care what you think, it's irrelevant to the conversation. Now, here's the thing - state ownership and public ownership are vastly different things. The state currently owns the military, yet the military is not a public creation, we have no power over, that power all goes to the state. Saying the people owning something is the same as the government owning something would be like saying the people voting is the same as a dictatorship, whee the government "votes" and only for itself.
Now, about hitler. First off, his goals were not utopian, not in goals and certainly not in application. Hitler did not want a perfect world, or a perfect country even for all germans, he wanted a Strong country for all of His Germans. I mean, he literally put millions in camps. That is not looking out for your people. Nazism came into existence because left wing populism was on the rise, and the nationalists and upper classes wanted to dip their toes into the populist pool. He was not a socialist, which can be found in his writings. Socialism is defined as a state where the workers own the means of production, and hitler outright stated that he had no intention of achieving this kind of socialism, in any form. Rather he wanted a nationalist dictatorship which defied the will of the people, and in fact succumbed more to the rule of private interests. Again,he outright stated these things, and I would be happy to provide quotation if you'd like. He didn't have a socialist bone in his body, he used the name to gain voter appeal.
2
-
@kitrichardson5573 Oh my gosh, you people are in a cult.
"thak you for affirming my political views. I don't trust any actual experts, random people on the internet will affirm my point much more often so why should I bother. The fact that i don't understand how debate works is the left's fault.
Every single piece of "evidence" you have has been addressed, and yet i'm sure you'll continue to go along with you lie, because it's easier that actually having to critically self examine your own ideas and not lashing out at the perceived enemy whenever you feel like it.
You seem to have the issue that all of the right does, which is that you love to misdefine terms to create an association fallacy with those you refuse to engage with on other grounds, all while excusing your own genocidal ideas.
I can point out that figures like Hellen Keller, MLK Jr, and Van Gogh were socialists who undoubtedly had a positive impact on the world. In fact, so was Nelson Mandela, and he committed no genocides. So again, what you're doing is shifting as much blame as possible.
And then of course we have the classic rightie line where they exclaim they know better than schools which is just amazing to hear, always, and some good old fear mongering.
I actually care about learning history, not misdefining and obfuscating it with a clear ideological goal as you all are doing. It's a shame the right wants to bury their history so much.
2
-
@kitrichardson5573 No, it really doesn't. If there is a term, then the term is relating to some sort of system. You may not like the etymology of the term used, but that does not erase the actual meaning behind said term.
And again, it's really telling that you guys have such a problem with addressing critics of your false revisionism, because you can't even acknowledge the arguments, much less pretend to care about addressing them. The ironic thing is that TIK has been arguing this way to me for a while now, saying the only way you would ever actually define socialism as according to the people who advocate for it are either brainwashed people spilling marxist propaganda, ignorant, or just plain dishonest.
And mate, you said you think liberals are the same as leftists. You try to paint everyone on "the left" as holding a consistent set of beliefs, which is utterly not true. The sooner you actually dip your toe into understanding your opponents, the better of a person you'll be, and even better yet, the more effectively you will be able to debate your own point. Writing off everyone who disagrees with you as mentally deficient only really weakens your own argument.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@captainremington5109
So you've literally proven my point. No, I haven't expanded the definition of socialism at all, nor do I deal with the type of manipulation you proudly engage in, i've simply used the dictionary definition that you yourself put forward, only serving to further clarify the terms. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and you can't stand this fact. In nazi germany, social ownership was impossible, outlawed even more than it is in a capitalist society. Private owners owned the vast majority of means of production, even more than under the capitalist Weimar Republic. You have tried to redefine social ownership as "ownership by individuals within a society." Again, you prove my earlier point. Right wingers have to expand the definition of socialism so much it includes themselves. By your definition, capitalism is socialism. In a capitalist society, if you were not a part of the society, you owned nothing. If your business did not benefit the society, it would shut down. If you were apart from society, you didn't have a means of production to have a right to. So to you, capitalism is socialism. In reality, social ownership is not ownership by people living in society, and to claim the society of nazi germany was the nazi party is blatant holocaust denial. You are asserting that the society was the party, and that the party owned everything. Both of these assertions are false.
The society of germany was not one singular party, the society was all people in that country at the time, and they were ore often than not the victims of the nazis. The means of production were owned by private individuals, which were in many cases not nazi party members, and sometimes not even german citizens. On both points your attempted redefinition fails. Social ownership is not ownership within a society. Societies are not singular parties. The nazi party didn't own all means of production. According to your definition, the entire world is socialist, you among its strongest supporters. According to your definition, jewish people were voluntary actors in their own genocide. Disgusting. The labor camps weren't for show, yes, nor were they for economic reasons like your denialist narrative tells. They were meant to kill the jewish people, socialist people, unionist people, "degenerate/lazy" people of society, and so on. Social ownership includes those people, by definition. The nazis did not. Those people were a part of society, and those camps were meant to kill them, not to "control their means of production." You can't even keep your own redefinition of socialism straight. You are a holocaust apologist.
2
-
@captainremington5109
Funny how you call me an idiot, despite not knowing that more often than not, l*bor camps and d**th camps were one and the same. If you were sent to a camp you would likely l*****bor until it was your turn to be shot or led to those horrible chambers, and if you were forced into a nazi labor camp, you were just handed a d*******th sentence. No, literally anyone that knows history knows that your literal H-CAUST DENIALIST arguments are long disproven, despite you literally using the arguments of modern nazis. No, most victims were not "worked to death." A few sadly did die as a result of the constant strain that was levied on them at the hands of the nazi labor demands, but more often than not it wasn't the labor but lack of supplies, disease, beatings, chemical weapons or mass shooting squads that ended their lives. The myth that the basis of H**tler's mass extermination was only out of economic or labor need is disgusting. No, they were put there out of a deep ideological hatred for their conditions, behaviors, beliefs, religious views or ethnic identities. The pushing of the former myth in spite of the latter facts is textbook denialism. The work they did ended up helping his regime, though it was not the reason for their imprisonment as you assert, nor did his regime rely upon it
Deflecting your apologia and denialism on me is absolutely disgusting and has no place in any rational discussion. And you don't even understand your own definition of socialist. Here you assert that most of the world isn't socialist because there is private ownership over the means of production. You fail to mention, however, that your definition of socialism includes private ownership. According to you, social ownership is ownership by an individual within a society, or ownership with the purpose of benefitting society. Now of course this isn't the definition at all, but your definition includes private business owners. In capitalist societies, you are required by the society (consumers) to produce things for the society. (consumers) If you don't produce what the society/consumers want, your business gets no profit, and fails. So yes, according to you capitalism is socialism, the world is socialist, and you are too. In any case, your definitions are all wrong. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, meaning ownership by the collective/community/society as a whole. Not just one group that claims to speak for society, nor one political party, ownership by every individual, collectively. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, a system that fits the definition of socialism according to you. A system in which society requires buisiness to do something for it has nothing to do with socialism, that just describes modern society. It doesn't describe the nazis either, given that you assert their "society" was just the party (h******st denialism) and that this party worked for the people under it, which is again, false and apologia. What you assert doesn't happen "outside of socialist nations" happens in every nation on earth. You don't know what socialism or social ownership are, denialist.
2
-
@richardbonnette490
He didn't have a response though. Never did, even when he was replying to me, which is why his supposed "Arguments" are so vapid and easily refuted. Why are you so keen to run to conspiracy theories?
And if he tried to "tell" me that i'd laugh and refute him easily, as I already have - because none of that is true. Socialism is not "group control of the means of production" given that literally every economic system from feudalism to capitalism has a group in control of the means of production, even if said groups is just "the owners." Hitler didn't practice socialism, nor did he have any desire to, and while state control is obviously not the definition of socialism he didn't even practice that given his support of private property, profit, and competition. Do you think policing is "socialism" to? It's odd, you define socialism as "group control" yet only think people are socialist when it's the state supposedly in control, what about when private groups are in control? Would the Weimar Republic not be socialist according to you? This is why your arguments are so easily debunked, they make no sense from the get-go. But go ahead, try to "tell" me something I already easily proved wrong, that should go well for you.
I'm sure you have some fantasy of your buddy here "epically owning" me, but clearly that has no actual basis in reality. Both of you seem unwilling to accept even the most basic facts of history, so i'm not sure what your fantasy victory would entail, besides me instantly checking your statements to find them false.
Kid, his comments are weeks old at this point, I think it's more than fair to say he's done with this, so not sure why you're deciding to bring it up again after weeks. What a "break" huh.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@prithvisukka9271 Sorry, that's false. Hitler's policies were resoundingly the opposite, in favor of privatizing companies and appealing to said private owners with contracts and policies which would further cement their power. The state in many cases couldn't force these companies to do things, so instead, they were bribed. This, of course, is the opposite of nationalization. Furthermore, hitler made it clear that he never held the goal of total nationalization, stating numerous times that he believed that a planned economy would ruin germany's industry. In fact, he praised private property and competition, and the vast majority of his more statist economic policies were only put in place late into the war, and were meant to be temporary. If hitler won the war, those policies would have been taken back, and he would continue having no desire to "fully nationalize," or nationalize at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2