Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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 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.
//:/
2
-
2
-
@lexlex44
Capitalism is literally the system that has in the modern day profited most from slavery It was done by capitalists for capitalist economic activity..?" Capitalism is for "owning means of production", slavery is a direct result of that ! You are manipulating facts and creating problems that are not there ! Slavery existed simply due to lack of humans rights caused by capitalists, , colonialism and imperialism, and of course capitalism,Your arguments are childish, flawed and senseless. Capitalists had by far the most slaves in any historical sense, and your assertions otherwise have literally no backing.
"When horrible shit happens under capitalism, because of capitalism, people ignore it and pretend it's just happened by accident." Your brain is wither weak or you are just lying, I said that slavery was due to colonialism, lack or rights and imperialism, all products of capitalism, not by accident, you only see what you want to see to suit your capitalist narrative.
" It's literally only because a capitalist has the money to import slaves, and the power to keep them in slavery, that the Atlantic slave trade happened." Yes, you are a child, that's literally true, communists can't also have money or slaves, unlike capitalists with both. ! Just because money can be used to buy drugs it doesn't mean that money is bad, but capitalism funding slavery makes capitalism bad.
"
I'm very well aware the other guy was too much of a dumbfuck to connect the dots between the Irish Famine and capitalism.
But when all of your comebacks are "no, bullshit" for a week you get so boring to talk to that the discussion just gets cut off. There's no point in explaining that to him when he's just gonna throw it aside and continue on with his NPC dialogue tree about how I'm dumb and communism is bad." - I saw you comebacks and they were logical and historically nonsensical, you are a dumb person if you think that your arguments were anything but that ! We pointed that slavery literally happens because of capitalism, and because of the lack of rights, imperialism and colonialism + government intervention that capitalism brings with it ! This is how slavery starts and it's how the irish famine happened, but you are too much of a NPC brain to see that ! WHy don't you want to admit that slavery exists in EUROPE AND AMERICA right now ? And Japan ? And Russia ? Because people's rights aren't respected, since all these countries have capitalism and there is still slavery ! So all of his arguments about capitalism=slavery are not only absolutely true ! But you are showing your capacity when you say that the contrary arguments are NPC arguments ! All you basically said(and I read your comments) was just nonsensical crap.You had 0 arguments and proof ! You say the same wrong crap, over and over, you see problems that are not there, and accuse people and non-capitalism with things that have no relation.That guy was right, you live in your head, and that's a damn little world.
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar.
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself.
A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. "
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily.
Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch.
The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it!
Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical.
German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view.
Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx.
Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
2
-
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica.
Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "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 sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind.
The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis.
"One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians."
Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie.
Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history.
Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.
Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption."
As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word.
Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " 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."
Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it.
His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title.
The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
2
-
@paulrevere2379
Wait, i'm sorry, were you under the impression that mass political imprisonment and murder aren't happening in modern day russia, or similar right wing countries like the united states? "a cruel precarious confined existence in a Gulag work camp very likely to end in death imposed for no reason other than being accused of having independent political thoughts." Congratulations, you've just described modern russia, except the work camp is the whole country, and it's a punishment not just levied at political dissidents but the entire population, though to be sure those that resist the right wing leadership get it worse. No, i'm sorry, it's a simple fact that life before the collapse of the USSR was better for the average russian citizen, and they are happy to tell you that. If you have a problem with cruel prison systems like the one described, why are you such a fan of the US and modern russia? Why are you comparing the worst experience then to the best now? Seems a bit of a poor comparison, eh?
Sure, feel free to watch videos of russian citizens "freely travelling," (unless they're 'vanished' by the government or can't because they live in perpetual poverty) "freely speaking their minds," (unless they speak out against the leaders) "Sharing their opinions," (unless said opinions go against the views of the leadership) and "working at jobs of their own choosing. (the only ones available that they are all but forced to take in order to live and support those they love.) What about any of that is "Free?" It seems your hatred for a system you hate ideologically has blinded you to the reality of a system you defend, simply because it doesn't have the word socialist in the name. Good to know you know nothing of actually living there or being a citizen though, I could have guessed as much.
2
-
@paulrevere2379
Do you not think your time or effort can be stolen? So you advocate for their theft.
If someone is physically forced to do something against their will, it is more often than not encouraged in a capitalist economy, and thus never truly criminalized. So you admit capitalism is despotic. The very fact that you make expectations and justify use of violence and force proves my point exceptionally.
"Free"-market capitalism is a thing that exists through the continuous force of government alone. The government, under capitalism, has the key and primary goal of violently defending a "right" to private property that causes constant harm to those who don't own said property. You, of course, defend this violent intrusion on the freedoms of others as "self defense," which is why no capitalist can be trusted to write laws, they simply outlaw and criminalize self defense against their violence. Violently enforcing private property does nothing to stop infringing upon others, it only enforces it. "Criminal trespassing," or as freedom-lovers know it as, "freedom of movement," is a violent action with no positive benefit to citizens. Freedom is not a crime against freedom. There is no imposition of rights involved in your authoritarian nonsense. Citizens are explicitly harmed by your "protection" of their tormentors. Negligence of this duty has never hurt anyone but those who hurt others, and are open now to self defense.
The only place authoritarians like you believe that government imposes is when it puts in place policies that resist your authoritarianism. I should hope they reject your tyrannical ideas, however more often than not, they don't. Profit is as much theft as taxation, and a capitalist government using your taxes with the explicit goal of defending capitalism isn't socialistic at all. As we've been over, you don't know what socialism is.
It is government agencies that enforce the "free" market and impose it upon people. That's not oxymoronic, it's near synonymous.
And yes. Halting the freedom of movement, criminalizing the action of daring to seek refuge or work outside of arbitrarily drawn and state enforced borders is a case of capitalist government imposed harm. Why is that so hard for you to believe? Why do you have to make up some narrative about me mistyping something to deal with your economic illiteracy? No, travel isn't "naturally expensive," certainly not to the degree that modern capitalist states make it. We've already been over that you nothing about the history or philosophical associations of travel.
In actual history, not just your made up theological metaphors, travel was free. The only cost it came with was opportunity cost, and the physical toll on your body. No borders to stop you, no border guards to demand payment, no government to stop you. And then, the capitalists came, and the very act of stepping an inch over a line only they can see became a criminal offense. If you don't wish for travel to be expensive, perhaps you should stop advocating for the strict criminalization of travel? No, it isn't government restrictions and taxes, but the capitalists that profit off of them. It's funny how it was the early US that inspired socialists, while your ideology comes directly from totalitarianism, but being the opposite of correct is not new to you.
2
-
@paulrevere2379
Then your imagination, much like your critical thinking skills, are incredibly deficient. There's nothing free about the capitalist market. If you weren't forced to participate in it, why would you? Why would anyone subject themselves to hours and hours of labor a day that they had no connection to and no understanding of? No, they work because there exists a threat directed at them. If they do not work, they do not eat. Of course, the problem with your line of "logic" is that you have decided that your theft does not count, and that the defense of other's is theft. So you call upon the state to punish anti-capitalism. Yes, capitalism is based on envy, and yes, it is wrong. If you feel the need to force your system on the masses and call those that don't participate in your greed victims of "envy," you need to wake up.
It's more than that, it's your modern views.
2
-
@paulrevere2379
That isn't capitalism, though. Nothing about capitalism compels or rewards charity., what you're speaking about is the human tendency to look beyond themselves and their own desires and greed and help others. Capitalism hinders this behavior, makes it unreasonable and unrewarded. I find it funny how you call 70% private venezuela socialist, simply because you cannot deal with the failures of socialism. Want to look up who had the better diet between the USA and USSR?
Once again I expose you to reality you are terrified to confront, which is why your only real response is to claim your authoritarian views are naturally self evident, and run away.
People work, under capitalism, because they are forced to. They are forced to work not for themselves, but under private owners. So, yes, if one gets rid of the state that enforces capitalism, with it goes the force that capitalists impart, and they are no longer slaves to their private owners. Of course they still need to eat, but they eat on their own labor, own work, and own community organization. Where does the food come from? Rational individuals who work jobs they enjoy, beholden to nobody but themselves, doing so for the benefit of themselves and others in equal amount. You are free to pretend your slavery is necessary, but it simply, truly isn't. None of the insults you've yet devised can change that.
2
-
@paulrevere2379
No, their scholarship wasn't admirable, if you had bothered to read my respond you would have known that.
Your entire argument revolves around only listening to people who already agree with you.
To you, socialism is anything you dislike, and anything you dislike must then be socialist, the literal devil in your eyes.
Socialism is an ideology, but in order to call socialism what you do, you must deny even this basic fact, must wor to obfuscate the literal reality of the definitions of the ideologies you claim to hate.
Capitalism is not like clean air. Capitalism is the pollutants, filling our societies and our people with a constant pain and detachment from their work. To separate capitalism from pollution is to separate something from itself.
I don't much care for your mass purges. I care about reality, the reality you fervently deny.
2
-
2
-
@paulrevere2379
Child, you quite literally said that the crossing of state borders without state permission was a crime against the citizens within. Of course large tracts of private property cause huge problems with a freedom of travel, and of course capitalists use the government to do the same in the modern world. And how at all is it "common sense" to risk your lot with a potential thief or dictator than free and open travel? How is dealing with the total control of another over your ability to even more your body the "lesser harm." No, capitalists don't think that far. What they actually do, in reality, is threaten and coerce you out of your money, possessions, or even life, for daring to try to travel across a piece of dirt they claimed to own. How is threatening people with shotguns a freedom? Are you talking about the right or ability to bear arms, the thing Marx was more in favor of than Reagan? Oh boy, another fundamental concept you don't understand.
What you call beauty the rest of the world calls suffering. There is nothing beautiful nor free about having your free passage forcefully stopped, and money, time, and property compelled from your hands. That is, after all, the way capitalists "work things out." And as we've been over, capitalism is impossible without government intervention. The government defines, enforces, and protects capitalism. Adding capitalism to this equation necessitates statism. No, this doesn't work out at all, hence the coercion and exploitations inherent to these exchanges. Given that capitalists have caused most of the serious problems where the "productive" land of civilization is concerned, you might want to think twice on that statement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theowlfromduolingo7982
The definition of collectivism is, again, something that is fluidly used and rarely correctly applied by those that use it most frequently. The word collectivism is used to equate all things that the right dislikes into one large group. What, for example, is collectivist about feminism? How are right wing ideologies, which deal with groups, collectives, organizations and abstractions over the individual not collectivist nd thus equated with these ideologies? It's hypocritical to an extreme. I don't much care about your opinion on fascism given the redefinition and association fallacies of the term you're actively defending at the moment. And yes, saying they are all part of the same ideological grouping is clearly equating them, saying they are bad while this person's equally (though unadmitted) collectivist ideology is somehow better. He gives examples of ideologies he wants to equate without considering if his examples are true or if he falls in right next to them. I don't presume the worst intention, I just actually read what people write. Nothing emotional about it, i'm just spreading cold hard facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@16vjtdalfa
Obviously I read it, given I cited it back to you before you even knew more than point 13. Hell, you don't even know the name of it, I have to keep remining you it's the "25 Point Program," at no point is the word "rule" mentioned. If you actually read it, you wouldn't have used your "arguments." Hitler did not support any mass nationalization, not just one form of nationalization, because he supported private industry. Again: “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” And as we've been over, specifically in the case of point 13, hitler split with a part of his party that actually did support that policy. When asked if he would actually put in place point 13, and if they should take over or leave private gernany's business, what was his response? "‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’" I'll remind you that TIK's sources openly proclaim hitler was not a socialist. And again, as we've been over time and time again, statism is not socialism, there is nothing intrinsically socialist about point 13, nor anything in the program. Taking "averages" in terms of political beliefs doesn't work, because then you deny some of their policies in favor of others. Rather, we look at their reasoning for their policies, and with the nazis we find solely right wing reasoning. How does "my logic" suggest there has never been a capitalist or socialist system? And as we've been over, hitler openly rejected point 13. I quite literally cited to you how this was the case, and you did not rebut the facts I presented, merely said "it was implemented." It wasn't, child, hence the nazis private economy. Maybe you should start reading my response, because I openly pointed out other parts of the 25 point program (not rules, you still don't even know the name) that hitler openly rejected, like equal rights and voting rights. If you have rarely seen a program implemented better than one that was not implemented at all, you might be blind. As we've already been over, points much further ahead in his program were outright ignored, so your order of the points nonsense is just that, nonsense. Point 15 wasn't pension, it was "old age welfare," which obviously didn't impact the young men in the german army. That too was a lie, because in reality the nazis called for a removal of old age welfare, as shown in the nazi propaganda film Erbkrank. And i'm sorry, this is just false. Point 19 doesn't have to do with racial tension, but in any case, the assertion that socialists think the same is utterly false. The germans saw jewish people as conspiratorial, and accused socialists and marxists of being a part of said conspiracy. The only people who see jewish people as evil tend to come from the right, and your denial of that is disgusting as always.
I'm sorry, again, what does propaganda in education have to do with the medalist total at the Olympics?
And as we've been over, the rules further up he completely ignored as well, which is a fact that you are doing your best to deny with very little success in the matter.
I already looked into the program and told you exactly how they didn't apply it, with citations and examples, and you failed to rebut that. The program did not state his desire to go to war, nor is war necessary to attain equal rights, unions, ect. Hitler didn't want to execute this program, he didn't like nationalization, he didn't like state backing, he didn't like equal rights, he didn't like unions, he didn't like welfare, and he didn't like socialism. All facts that, again, you refuse to respond to.
The simple fact is, in the last response I gave you citation, quotes, examples, ect. In this response, you ignore all that and ask me to give you the same things again. Read. The. Response.
2
-
@MCCrleone354
Well no, what you actually said was that you didn't dislike them, just they didn't work. Not "I don't believe." But again, if this was a problem of poor phrasing on your part, you are free to admit that. It's not a lie, a simple observation you have yet to do the simple effort of dispelling.
And yes, people tend to rightfully assume that "I don't dislike" is pretty similar to "I like."
No leaps in logic present, just a mere understanding of the english language you will do anything to jump over. What does the english language have to do with "hubris," child? I have presented your argument exactly how you have, and all it would take is your simple apology for misphrasing something to get on with our lives. You also call my statement "At least you admit that you oppose them because you dislike them" a lie. But that is quite literally what you said. You said " I oppose/ wouldn’t support them because I don’t think they work." As you have previously on multiple occasions denied the assertion that you like policies that don't work, this quote is openly saying that you oppose them because you dislike them, and you dislike them because you don't think they work. Pretty simple, so yes, you've told another lie. You seem to be unable to keep track of your own statements. And child, please. Where's the "meltdown?" I've been nothing but calm. You're the one that can't help repeating themselves, all-caps spamming, random sealioning and insults, and so on. Is that another one of your classic cases of projection?
2
-
@mitscientifica1569
Of course, as we've already discussed, marxism and fascism are in no way similar, and to try to equate them serves no purpose but to minimize the crimes of the nazis. Of course, I would never agree with this apologia and in fact easily refuted it, but MIT is used to lying, so he'll say otherwise anyway.
Ah, MIT came up with a new copy-paste spread of nonsense! Of course, all of it is false.
You really need to stop equating random ideologies with fascism, it just proves how desperately you want to defend your ideological legacy. Child, what is utopian about the goals of fascism? Endless struggle, constant domination, hierarchy and authority. The goals of fascism specifically reject utopianism, in favor of constant struggle. Neither erased traditional concepts regarding good or evil, you just consider both evil from your own perspective. Fascism is specifically against the idea of any sort of international order, fascism facilitates the existence of the upper economic classes, and fascism specifically rejects utopia, though recruiting individuals into an ideology is about as baseline as you can get. Not to mention that marxism contains no mention of utopia, but you don't care.
You consider both on the same level because you understand that the nazis were horrific, evil right wing ideologues, and in order to attack the left as well, you need to minimize the crimes of the nazis by attempting to equate them with things that cannot be equated. Your assertions are, historically, false and serve only to benefit those in favor of nazism.
So let's try this again.
Here is why conservatism, capitalism and fascism are similar.
These three deeply unequal, murderous abhorrent and vile ideologies promised a return to a tradition, and a natural human hierarchy, vision that would ensure infinite happiness. They both stemmed from a political, social, and cultural construct that erased traditional ideas regarding good and evil. Both believed in the destruction of the old world, to build a new international order; each deplored what they saw as the left, progressivism, and any movement against their hierarchy; each ideology’s shared purpose was to recruit members of the new utopia.
Both evil ideologies brought an orgy of violence, killed millions, and led humanity to its darkest hour, where the final destination was deplorable mass starvation/forced famine and the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
Of course they are opposite, but to claim that they share similarities such that you assert is quite ahistorical.
Jeffrey Tucker, American capitalist economics writer of the Austrian School, noted frequently that even as members of the American right tried to declare their ideology one wholly separate from fascism and nazism, the matter of right wing collectivism was one that mirrored nazism in all but name, and gripped onto many who claimed to hate collectivism in all forms. He noted that this deeply authoritarian form of collectivism relied on the state to spread right wing ideas, and that it opposed many of the things that right-libertarians claimed to stand for, all while relying on the radical right, traditionalism, statism and hierarchy to spread its ideological goals, in constant conflict with leftism of all forms. This one man hierarchical rule is further explored in "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty."
And of course, we both know that this is not the only figure to point out the similarities between the modern right and fascism.
Robert Paxton, for example, a world-renowned historian of the foundation of fascism, detailed in "The Anatomy of Fascism" the forming of the ideology, and how it took from the right, from traditionalists and conservatives, to construct its whole ideological foundation, noting again the spread of right wing collectivism in the interwar period and how exactly this influenced the burgeoning ideology of fascism, one just as authoritarian and right wing as its founders. This is how he proves, quite openly, that to consider fascism closer to communism or the left than its foundations in conservatism and the right is a fundamental error.
So, MIT, i'd recommend you stop stealing from sources that prove you wrong.
2
-
2
-
@jonnybgoode7742 ah, the issue with that is that, of course, tik is the one cherry picking here. Tik is the one who does not have adequate sourcing for all the claims he makes. Tik is the one who is ignoring all of recorded history, for tje sole purpose of lying about it, and you are following along blindly. Most economists and historians actually disagree with tik, mainly because he does insane things like call Capitalist systems (like companies) socialist. As I said, tik can't back up his claims. Tik also has problems structuring arguments so he tends to call all those that disagree with him anti semetic Marxist post modernists, rather than address their points. Your own statement here proves your cheery picking. Because, objectively, Hitler was not a leader of a Socialist party. He did not enact socialist policy. And he barely ever called himself a Socialist, in fact on numerous occasions speaking out against the left and Socialism as a whole. Itd also hilariously ironic that your entire point here is, in and of itself, and argument from authority. Why do you assume that evidence doesn't matter more than your opinions? Snd why are you so willing to deny history in the pursuit of your incorrect revisionism?
2
-
2
-
@jonnybgoode7742 Well I know it's not a debate, that actually requires even the smallest amount of engagement from both sides here,not just one. But sure,if you want to leave, nobody is stopping you. This isn't really a case where you can agree to disagree, it's objective history, but if you mean we both agree to stop posting and both leave civilly I have no problem with that personally. And I keep saying this,over and over, but if you have a problem with how someone represents you or one of your points, just say it already, don't keep complaining about a problem you refuse to explain. But sure mate, if you want to end it here, I have no issues. Take care, have a good one, and for the love of god learn how to act in good faith, or make more of an effort towards it.
2
-
@iain5615 Since most of this is an argument for capitalism and not against what I said, i'll keep this short. "the right" is not just capitalism, in fact, capitalism still resides on the left in ideologies like social democracy. The right (as a classification) was first created in reference to the Monarchy in revolutionary France. Obviously, we now call more than monarchy right wing, so how do we define it? Well, there are a few conflicting definitions, but the best i've seen is one based on hierarchy. The left tends to be more anti-hierarchy, and pro-equality. This can range from things like progressive taxation to the much more authoritarian enforced equality of outcome of a Marxist-Leninist society, or the communal equality of an Anarchist society. The right, on the other hand, tends to support hierarchy more, be it enforced hierarchy, or available hierarchy. This can range from the ability to "climb the ladder" so to say in capitalism, to the enforced hierarchy of monarchism... or fascism. And this is what makes fascism, because looking into the philosophy behind it, even ignoring all the connections to conservative thinkers, you find the entire thing is steeped in social darwinism, enforced hierarchy, ect. That's why I say fascism is right wing. Now this isn't to say that the right despises equality, or hierarchy cannot be found on the left, but it's a general rule that seems to fit most right/left wing ideologies.
2
-
@iain5615 Yeah, i'm sorry, that isn't even close to true. For one, some of the most foundational anti-statists and individualists were in fact left wing. The right, on the other hand, was literally named after monarchies. The monarchist state is not a private entity, it owned all private entities. According to you, that should be socialism, yet here you are defending it. The monarchy had a monopoly on violence, a police force, taxation, ect. It was a system of statist control. Hell, the state interfered in the going-ons of their people pretty much daily. The parliament gave that state some accountability, it changed the rigid hierarchy to a more manageable one,so of course it was left wing. The hierarchy already existed, but now it was slightly lessened. That didn't end private ownership, that was the very thing that showed that said "private" monarchist states didn't exist. Your definition of socialism as well doesn't work. Socialism is when the workers as a whole have control over the means of production. That is lessening the hierarchy of a single boss with no worker accountability ruling it.
The right is not individualism, nor has it ever been, and the left is not just communes or non-individualists. Again, look back at monarchy. That was in no way individualist or capitalist. No form of socialism allows for private ownership or private property, that's kind of a founding principle. Yes, some right wing libertarians do indeed act in favor of centralized defense and law, but they are far from the only right wingers. Again, I can point out to you a bunch of regimes that were both right wing and very anti-individual. Private ownership is not a requirement to be right wing. Market economics is not a requirement to be right wing. And most importantly, low state control is not right wing. Socialism, in the same vein, is not just market restrictions or government controls.
The nazis absolutely were right wing. They said they distrusted capitalism, but frequently worked with capitalists and industrialists to achieve their goals. They did not fully control the markets, but even then they were right wing in that they took those at the top of their respective private hierarchies and solidified their positions within the state, ergo proving themselves to be more right wing. Societal management has always been a right wing policy. Those freedoms you're talking about have been opposed by the right in the past, and this is no different. Hell, social conformity has always been a tool of the right.
2
-
@iain5615 Literally none of this is true, mate. The right didn't want to break up the state, they were the state, and the state being as it was benefited them. That was what was in their best interest, and thus is what they kept in place. They only "broke up" that monarchy when a faction of comparatively left wingers arose. Your understanding of human nature is also wholly unsubstantiated. Humans are not naturally selfish, nor are we naturally kind, though we do tend towards mutualism. It takes a certain amount of hatred for humanity to come up with that judgement. We are not born any particular way, society shapes us. And capitalism is a system designed for molding the selfless into selfish. Hell, your critique of socialism doesn't even make sense. You know how little a worker is actually compensated for their work? Today, their boss takes all their credit. In such a system, they take the credit for their work, like the person next to them. Not all who take power are corrupted by it. You're most likely American, you should know that pretty well from our own founding. If systems like that ever came to be, and some already do, they would most likely work in harmony, because under a system that incentivizes working together, people actually want to work together. Crazy. We've known this since the 1800s, that's pretty much the entire subject of the book "Mutual Aid" by Kropotkin. What you said isn't even inherent to capitalism. Your system has already stole the humanity from humans, and yet you seem to have no issues with that. You say capitalism has succeeded, but I see that every time unmitigated capitalism has been tried it has failed, and even then, it has millions of deaths to its name. The problem is, it doesn't harvest said avarice, it cultivates it, and then germinates it across the land, all while blaming the very land itself for seeding it. And yet it's pure capitalist countries where people are the most violent and poorest, and it is socialist movements that have created the US as we know it. The problem is, it doesn't work. The most successful aren't that way by hard work alone, but considerable luck. Capitalism is it's own undoing, because those who most benefit from it have the most to gain by abandoning it. Of course it has problems, and of course it can be reformed, but it must be reformed to the degree it can no longer realistically be called capitalism. But we already went over how your definition of human nature doesn't work, but even with your version of human nature, socialism can work. But I don't much care about that, because i'm not a socialist, and none of this is the point of debate, hm?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisscott3071 As we've been over, what favorable and positive comments? You've simply posted quotes that show that Hitler defined socialism as nationalism. Yes, he supported nationalism. But where is the socialism, child? Oh, wait, you don't want to hear what the man actually thought of socialism.
“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.”
Why do you want to deny the unfavorable and negative comments but the evil mass murderer, anti-socialist Adolf Hitler on socialism?
2