Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RebelInTheF.D.G
No, what i've done here is called out a seething fanatic that will do anything to cover their ears and run from the truth. You have of course listed no evidence for a single one of your claims, because no evidence can exist. I, on the other hand, can quite easily point to right wing groups that ally with the american republicans, push their talking points, praise/defend them and are praised/defended in turn, and openly declare themselves fascists. Groups like Vanguard America, for example. I've told you the easily seen truth, but you like every other denialist want pretend it's false simply because it calls you out in a way you don't like. What's nonsensical about that? I don't care if you think I "sound intelligent" or not, I care about the truth, something you despise. Child, you are quite literally brainwashed. You're willing to ignore hundreds of proud right wingers marching alongside the nazi flag, simply because it doesn't benefit you ideologically to acknowledge reality. Child, i've presented unbiased evidence of fascist groups in america that openly ally with the "moderate" right against leftism. You, on the other hand, have provided zero evidence for your claims, because again, no evidence exists. It's not at all hard to prove my point, I could think of one example of many literally off of the top of my head. You hate the fact that i'm willing to engage with unbiased history, it scares you. You call me a "leftist" and claim I do not study history, despite me easily proving you wrong historically previously. The very world supports my point, all aspects of the history of fascism lead right back to the right, but again, you can't admit that. This is the problem, you'll pretend that history doesn't support its own point, and insult those that spread it. Child, stop assuming that the world is as purposefully ignorant as you. Of course unlike you i've researched the topic, i've seen the connections and heard the victims of both ideologies point out the similarities between the two. Child, stop running. Why would I not list far right sources in talking about fascism on the far right of american politics, supported by the "moderate" right? The far right is not shunned by the right, they are defended, praised, and their rhetoric and policies are absorbed by the greater right. I know you're scared and don't want me to talk about this history, but you cannot artificially demand that I do not present evidence, simply because it hurts your feelings. No, child, the far left and right are not identical in modern politics, as the right literally calls anyone to the left of reagan a "far-leftist" as you yourself have done. Why do you "look forward" to a historical argument that you've demanded I present without evidence? Child, child, how have I supported fascism in any form? I am not far right, not nationalist, not authoritarian. You, of course, claim i'm a fascist and that i've lost the argument, because you're afraid to continue the argument. That's why you're doing all you can to run right now. You quite literally ideologically support one of the widest spreading chains of systematic oppression in history, and your only problem with oppression seems to be that it isn't always the type you support. I agree, your oppression is morally unjust, and you cannot, by default, win this argument in its defense. I'm sorry you don't want to deal with objective reality, but it is clear that you do this out of a pathological fear of being proven wrong, so I can't blame you too much, you're only a product of your delusions. I've proven you wrong of course, you only consider my statements ridiculous because they prove you wrong. I'm sorry that you think adherence to history is a "Fascist" trait. This, of course, being an especially ironic accusation given your own views :)
2
-
@kattkatt6961
And there's where we disagree. Your comparison is one I find highly flawed, and for a number of reasons. The first being of course that "violence" doesn't equal authoritarianism. If you want to talk about movements started with threats and violence, rioting and destruction, why mention the Bolsheviks and Nazis? Why not, say, go back a century or two before to the founding of the US? In fact, you'll find that the majority of countries have violence, destruction, rioting and threats to gain power. The story of a truly peaceful transfer of power is one that largely defies the norm. In any case, even using the criteria you set forwards, how exactly is it the left and not the right that draws this comparison? After all, it is the right who have on record the largest amounts of threats to elected officials and political figures. It is the right that has a body count of hundreds due to terrorist attacks even within this one country. It is the right that defends police riots, and the destruction of life and livelihood they cause. So why use the left? Sure, i'm no fan of violence, and I do agree that many people with similar interests prefer to fight among eachother than addressing the core issues of their lives. But that doesn't have much to do with the argument.
And I must admit, I don't really care. Is calling someone "child" childish? Probably yes. Do I care? Nah. I've made my points and I think i've earned the right to include a few small snipes in between them. One thing it'd do you well to know about me is that I, quite literally, respond line by line, point by point. I've included exactly as many citations as those i'm arguing with. What's the point in providing something that isn't even strictly needed to address their argument, if they are unwilling to engage in that way themselves? The few times I have taken the first step and dumped hours worth of argumentation and sources on people, they either fail to respond or ignore it. And i'm sorry, how is that "concerning?" The modern right is quite literally swinging around the flags of the nazis. Sure, it's one way of many to disprove the ridiculous denialist assertion that the nazis were somehow socialist, but it's a good one.
This too I must disagree with. Sure, using left and right solely doesn't make much sense, but luckily there are far more descriptors that can be used along with left and right to further divide up the groups contained within those labels. There are of course leftists and rightists, doesn't mean they always get along or agree on everything, but they do comprise comprehensive political groups. Also, i'm sorry, what? When have I ever argued that hitler was a capitalist? His ideology was certainly on the right, like capitalism, his ideology shared similar foundations with capitalism, but it is genuinely distinct. Your inability to even accurately portray my argument is a huge problem. And here, we must refer back to what i've said previously. I will provide exactly what you do, nothing more. I'd be happy to link to other arguments that went over the exact same things. In any case, against my better judgement, i'll take a bit of a first step. Calling hitler a socialist is absurd, and no evidence exists to support this point. Any amount of research into the terms and history of the argument reveals, conclusively, that he did not act in accordance to or desire any form of socialism. In order to claim otherwise, you not only need to broadly rewrite the history of hitler, largely using assumptions or stretching definitions, but you also need to redefine socialism itself. If you believe the truth is "weak" I cannot help you, and I struggle to imagine what you think of as "poorly researched," tough you likely just mean "adhering to reality instead of a youtube video." And no, we both know you're incapable of changing your mind. Those that can do that would have actually looked for the answer, found the primary sources and found how absolutely fanatic TIK's version of "history." is. It's far from unclear, it's a simple fact, hitler was about as much of a socialist as you, me, or TIK.
Hitler was not a socialist, and will never be. To even presume your argument is worthy of equal consideration to the well-established fact of his anti-socialism is laughable. This isn't an even, academic ground. This is all of history against a small group of ideologues that want to erase it.
2
-
2
-
@kattkatt6961
I would disagree with that too, though on different grounds. For one, the reason these groups were violent, historically, isn't because they were "sore losers." For the bolsheviks, they did "lose," and they sure didn't like that, but their "loss" was based on the fact that the political system they existed under physically could not allow any sort of non-tsarist system to rise peacefully. They had a majority, at least of people that were fed up with the tsar, but there was no democracy to put that popular appeal to work. Hence, revolution. If not a perfect evolution of the people, a fair representation, at least in intention, of a sizeable portion of them. The nazis, on the other hand, were under a democratic system, but they were violent specifically because their ideology prizes violent conflict. How can they claim to be the "master race" if they can allow imperfections to exist unpunished, and so on. And don't even get me started on America. The point is that none of these describe "sore losers" so much as they describe vastly different ideological and material variables.
This is my point, though. It's hard to deny, but it's a big red flag for the modern right, quite literally in some cases. You just don't see that on the left, you just don't see support of the nazis. But continually you see the "fringe" of the right supporting them, taking their symbols, their policies, their rhetoric. The truly worrying bit is that most of this rhetoric is just a slightly more extreme version of modern right wing rhetoric, the quiet part out loud, so to say. In any case, do you have some other explanation that nazi ideology keeps cropping up on one side of the ideological spectrum?
Before I get to the actual explanation of my statement, I need to point out that you stated several falsehoods. For example, the nazis avoided the nationalization of industry wherever and whenever possible, and in the few cases that wartime essential industry was nationalized, it pretty quickly went right back into private hands, just like huge swathes of Weimar Era public property. The majority of the economy, however, never delt with this and was not concerned by it. You also assert that the nazis believed in "then total control of economy by the government," which is again false. Hitler openly stated that state control was inefficient when compared to private control, and that private control was to be protected by the nazi party. He also pretty openly said that the nationalization of germany's economy would ruin it. He neither desired nor put into practice either of these policies.
In any case, what foundations indeed? Well, the very foundations that define the left and right. Here's a thought experiment for you - pick one left winger and one right winger, ask them the same question. "Is inequality/hierarchy natural?" You're going to get opposite answers from the two, the right believes inequality/hierarchy is natural, the left believes it isn't. Of course, the moderate left may agree with some hierarchy/inequality, and the moderate right might push for certain lessening of hierarchy and inequality, but such is the nature of moderation. The point being, the right as one (there are others) of its core values believes in the notion of natural inequality and hierarchy. Hitler, similarly, openly despised hierarchy. The core foundation that the two share all branch out from this, and other, positions. The nazis believed in competition that determined the superior, they just believed it to exist on a racial level, not an individual level. The nazis believed in social darwinism, a long-standing theory that marked the backbone of conservative capitalism. They believed that to compete, to dominate, to bring under control was as natural as it got. Their domination was justified. Of course, this is only one part of the foundation specifically that they share, there are other similarities further up, but it is what you asked.
Also, this is a huge problem with this debate. You must understand that there is more than socialism and capitalism, they may be the ideologies that define modern history but they're far from the only economic systems. The nazi economy can only really be described as opportunist, they ideologically supported private property but ended up bribing it to follow state interests rather than naturally letting them coincide, they allowed private property to function but always made clear that they could take this away, though they never really did. Later in the war, they were fine with passing policy that they had previously spoken out against, though they made known how much they opposed this policy ideologically. In other words, it's a long recorded fact that hitler didn't really care about economics. And that's what makes fascism distinct from other ideologies, not its economic programs, which are often inconsistent and war-based, but social policy. What was he truly? A fascist.
And I'm sorry, literally all of this is false. There's nothing wrong with placing him on the right, it's far from made up and can accurately explain the basis of his ideas, and his opposition to the left. The right after all is defined, as Andrew Heywood made known in his "Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations," as "characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism." Hardly "made up." In any case, no, it wasn't "exactly what it sounds like." I mean the very fact that hitler opposed that party name should tell you that.I'm sorry, this whole next section is incorrect. As we've been over, nationalistic socialism existed, see the black panthers for example, and looked nothing like nazism. "International Socialism" is not an ideology, and the majority of marxists historically have been nationalists. Marxism is a method of historical analysis, not an economic ideology or system. So no, nazism isn't "international socialism." We can see this even more if we actually look at the definition, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole," and find that exactly zero of his economic positions fall under that title. As for his "pro-capitalist movements" as you call them, while he certainly made his government rich, the top private owners of nazi germany got rich with him. His privatization was a core part of his ideology, and nazi ideas themselves.
And this is a bit more sensible, but still doesn't take into account the simple that that left and right is more than just economics, and Hitler's views on social issues fit solely into the category of the political right.
And now I have to wonder if you've actually read the piece. This is a key citation of the very argument you're trying to oppose, detailing hitler's reluctance to nationalize and his privatization programs. I mean hell, TIK goes over it in this very video, insulting it and calling the author ignorant. I have to wonder what you actually find useful about this source as it manages to pretty conclusively prove your argument wrong.
In any case, as promised, my counter citation to your claim, another work TIK cites from the writer Ian Kershaw.
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
I mean TIK has whole sections dedicated to the numerous historians that are against his nonsense so this really isn't true. In any case, he did have major industrial support in his early years, and this mainly fell off due to the fact that his policies allowed a few private business owners to largely consolidate the small business market for their own benefit. However, up until the movement of his death he was still supported by industrialists, including those he really couldn't intimidate or force to his side, such as America-based Ford. Support mostly wasn't out of fear, but monetary incentive. Sure I mean what I say, but I'm not sure you'll like what that source says.
y.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@coyote4326
So you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is! Great! In any case, I don't think you've yet realized that this isn't the thread in which you claimed an echo chamber supporting a fanatic viewpoint makes said viewpoint popular. But of course, i'd be happy to respond to you. Of course, you can't handle the fact that I directly addressed your sad little assertion, which has yet to be proven in the first place. Burden of proof, kid. In any case, of course, this opinion is unpopular, it's always been unpopular, and there's a good reason why, notably that believing in said opinion in the first place requires the denial of history. Again, a youtube video's likes doesn't change that. Do you have any actual evidence? No? thought so.
2
-
2
-
@coyote4326
According to you, and you alone. Sure, I'm well within my right to correct things that are objectively correct, and I'm not only willing, but able, to prevent people like you from attempting to erase history with political motivation. What you're doing is denying history, not reexamining it, and you're certainly adding nothing to the conversation that hasn't already been here for decades. I'm sorry you feel that someone knowing the truth is a moral failing?
"Handpick?" Child, you can find my replies in nearly all of the top threads under this video. I, again, am more than happy to call out when people make objectively incorrect assertions, and if they are unable to support said assertions, that really isn't my problem. You have been unable to label or call out said "political motivations" in any capacity, so i'm sorry, you're yet again just incorrect. Why do you think it' so impossible to attempt to correct false "history?"
And oh yes. Hundreds of people in the comments, so much so that you needed to go through and handpick multiple threads to reply to... no, that's just because you're being the good Samaritan that you are rather than that you have a personal political motivation to do so. Sure, pal.
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
-
@No1CanEat50Eggs-37
No, child. Antifa isn't trying to "shut own anyone who disagrees with the use of violence," in fact a large part of the movement is pacifist themselves. They're trying to shut down... fascism. Something the right is really resistant too, and something unfortunately that modern democrats have not allied themelves with openly "Cancel Culture" doesn't exist, it's called accountability, freedom of speech. I have a right to support, listen to, and disagree with who I choose. The right wants to remove this. Debating with the right, making sure they know the actual ramifications of their policy and ideology, something of course the right is opposed to. I'm not sure if you're aware, but "modern democrats" oppose obama's moves to greater militarize aspects of the government... moves that have been repeated by trump, and even expanded, doing more than obama ever did. Similarly, modern democrats oppose the '94 crime bill, which passed with huge conservative support, and which modern conservatives constantly defend and seek to recreate. The problem is, your "few examples" showcase your utter ignorance of the topic, and desire to make things up instead of making arguments. No, child. These aren't "nazi tactics," nor are many of these representative of the "modern democratic party." But let's see what you advocate in this very response. Shutting down anti-fascist protest, opposing free speech and right of association, opposing open debate, denying current militarization, denying systemic racism, and so on. Now, which sounds more like "nazi tactics," hm?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jonathanstevey1748
It's funny how even with a copy-paste screed of nonsense, you utterly fail to make your point.
No, child. Fascism, by its very definition and history, is antithetical to the left. It's right wing, through and through.
Fascism is not only antithetical to the left, but antithetical to socialism, even according to your citation and own quoted dictionary definition. There's a reason the right loves fascism so much, and that's because it takes as primary motivation a desire to end socialism. Fascists killed socialists by the millions, destroyed socialist's policies and allies, and worked with conservatives and capitalists through it all, but you claim this is just "socialists killing other socialists?" So a conservative shooting a liberal is just "liberals killing liberals?" Fascism is not a form of "national syndicalism," mussolini specified this in the Doctrine of Fascism. "National Syndicalism" as a movement arose as a result of left wing economic views being mixed with right wing social views, and the coming movement to synthesize the two produced many other movements, National Syndicalism being one. However, fascism itself has little in common with National Syndicalist movements. The space the two ideologies do share, is that the acceptance of right wing social views in National Syndicalism, eventually led its adherents to accept right wing economic views, which was one common path to fascism. I hate to break it to you, but Fascism isn't a "sorelian" ideology, nor was Sorel a "national syndicalist." Sorel was favored in his early life by open conservatives for being opposed to both Marx and the current liberal order, but soon rejected the right wing nationalists who went on to form national syndicalism, while advocating communism. He didn't believe in "traditional values," he believed marxism was ineffective and political violence was a necessary instrument, which is about all he had in common with fascists. Neither Sorel or Marx believed in Hegelianism, what? Marx took certain concepts that Hegel theorized on, like dialectics, and applied them to areas that Hegel had never intended them to be applied to. There's a difference between vague inspiration and open support of an ideology. And, I'm sorry, what have you "gotten out of the way" exactly? You made a bunch of vague, unsupported statements and then refused to argue for the actual assertions you made. You only continue doing that here. To say the only difference between fascists and communists/socialists is nationalism vs globalism is, frankly, hilarious. Fascists call for a dictatorship to enforce right wing social and economic views, and enrich the private market while they repress the people. Socialism calls for social ownership, under systems from democratic to stateless, and exists all across the national to international spectrum. We know what nationalist communists looked like, from the Black Panthers to parts of the USSR themselves, and unsurprisingly, they still had nothing in common with right wing fascists. Hitler didn't just go after "the commies," he went after all ideologies of the left and of liberalism that he could, he attacked not only socialists and their organization but murdered the supporters of socialism and those that socialists protect, he disbanded labor organizations, made them illegal, and purged his own party of socialists. Oh, and again, all while working with and politically elevating open conservatives and capitalists. As a nationalist, he didn't want socialists to report to him, he wanted them dead.
Funny you mention the Doctrine of Fascism, and Mussolini, especially given how both disprove your point.
It must be noted, however, that your quote already does nothing to back up your assertion. In this quote, we see Mussolini claiming that Fascism is an ideology of freedom and the individual, so long as the individual is in line with the interests of the nation. Now, what about this is any different from any modern conservative nationalist, that cries for freedom until someone starts burning flags? This quote doesn't even speak of economics. Are you just trying to assert that "totalitarianism = socialism?" We'll get to that, but for now, some quotes you've decided to leave out.
"The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 253).
"'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1).
"After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251).
Seems he was open about fascism's anti-socialism, and right wing nature. Now, how about his economy?
"Mussolini, a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano) before World War I, became a fierce antisocialist after the war. After coming to power, he banned all Marxist organizations and replaced their trade unions with government-controlled corporatist unions. Until he instituted a war economy in the mid-1930s, Mussolini allowed industrialists to run their companies with a minimum of government interference. Despite his former anticapitalist rhetoric, he cut taxes on business, permitted cartel growth, decreed wage reduction, and rescinded the eight-hour-workday law. Between 1928 and 1932 real wages in Italy dropped by almost half. Mussolini admitted that the standard of living had fallen but stated that “fortunately the Italian people were not accustomed to eating much and therefore feel the privation less acutely than others."
- Dictatorship, Fascism, and Totalitarianism - Political and Economic Systems, Britanica
"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation...
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient"
- Benito Mussolini
And so on. Hm, really seems like fascism has nothing in common with socialism. On to your next quote.
2
-
@jonathanstevey1748
And so on. You get the picture yet?
Historians and Hitler alike, showing his open distaste of socialism and the left, and in his own words, praise of the right. We could even look at the parties that voted for the enabling act:
-The German National People's Party was a national-conservative party in Germany during the Weimar Republic. Before the rise of the Nazi Party, it was the major conservative and nationalist party in Weimar Germany. It was an alliance of nationalists, reactionary monarchists, völkisch and antisemitic elements supported by the Pan-German League.
-Centre [Catholic] Party (Ideology - Social conservatism)
-Bavarian People's Party (branch of the Centre Party, Ideology - Social conservatism, Conservatism)
-"The Christian Social People's Service was a Protestant conservative political party in the Weimar Republic."
-The German People's Party (Ideology - National liberalism, Civic nationalism, Conservative liberalism, Constitutional monarchism, Economic liberalism)
Notice a pattern? All right-wingers and all conservatives.
And now, for your utterly failed attempt at defining socialism, which includes citing the definition... and then ignoring it.
Socialism, simply put, is defined as: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Now, as we've been over, Hitler was rather open about his distaste towards community control, praising instead private individuals in control of the means of production. "Community control" is synonymous with "Social control," both being control by the community as a whole, and both of which hitler despised.
I'm not sure you know what a command economy is. A command economy is one in which a government, any government right or left, orders the economy and industry to produce something. Top-down instructions. A socialist economy can be a command economy, but only if the ruler in place is totally representative of the will of the community as a whole. A socialist economy is defined as one in which the means of production are socially owned. Now, child, regulated/owned/controlled by the community doesn't mean government control. Do you understand how silly your assertion is? You literally say that a community can control through government, so therefore community control is always state control and the two are synonymous. This, of course, is not true. The community can own the means of production as a whole, in different groups, subservient to one leader, on an equal playing field, without a state at all, even. So, no, even by your own definition and logic, socialism is not government controlled economy. "Usually" is not "Always." Marx is funny to bring up here, given that he was open about his notion that socialism is best put into practice without a state at all. He didn't call for an economy under the state, but an economy without the state. Socialism is social control, not state control. You're asserting that socialism is as old as civilization.
Of course, this is all moot given that the fascists didn't even desire state ownership, but rather, private ownership.
Literally none of your citations support your point. So, no, fascism is not a form of socialism.
Funny how the video you linked proves my point exactly, with comments full of people defending fascism.
How ironic, hm? Didn't check for that did you.
And again you seem to not know the basics of the history of Sorelianism.
Sorel, again, didn't create National Syndicalism. He theorized on a number of things, namely the failure of marxism and the need for political violence, which fascists took inspiration from. However, National Syndicalism was formed when french conservatives attempted to synthesize their anti-democratic impulses and the anti-democratic impulses of other groups. When this was happening, Sorel rejected it, and advocated for communism and works along the lines of Proudhon. National Syndicalism isn't Sorelianism, nor are they commonly known as the same thing. Sorel didn't call for "classical tradition," in fact, most of his criticism was focused on the failure of traditionalism and liberalism alike in running an economy. Those that advocated for traditionalism were, again, the french conservatives that attempted to use syndicalism to gain power and support from the masses, while openly attempting to reject the actual ideology of syndicalism, that being socialism through unions.
And again, Marx didn't call for a state controlled economy, he called for the abolition of the state.
2
-
2
-
Ok, so no offense, but you kind of admitted the fault in your argument here. Hitler was not a socialist in any traditional sense, rather he called himself a socialist and built up a new meaning around that word, as well as distinctly cutting off it's meaning from the other forms of socialism that already existed. His was a "prussian" socialist, which was already not left wing before he got his hands on it. Also, while there is no one concrete definition of socialism, they all have things that must happen, and most have certain factors in common, factors hitler did not believe his ideology should follow, at all. Here is some quotes that show that, as well as some modern right wing organizations that use similar tactics.
The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. Basically, that means to use saleable words – such as freedom, identity, security, democracy. [...]Once we're in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, 'yes, every last one must go'. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. [...]There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas, and the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable."
- Far-Right British National Party.
"Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for
consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal
of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism
"We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house."
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight."
- Adolf Hitler
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and the fields blue ought to be sterilized"
-Adolf Hitler
Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda.
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" 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... 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 chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“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.”
- Adolf Hitler.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKBN1K331J
So the question now is - how do we use the term socialism? Because the thing is, modern day socialists have no connection with this ideology, despite the implications of the title. Hitler technically called himself a socialist, but how do we define him? He had nearly nothing in common with any other denomination of socialism, even if we consider him technically a kind of socialism, he's the only right wing kind that protects private property, wealth, and nation, as well as many other key distinctions. So why is he a "socialist?"
I suppose that's more of a subjective question, but my view is that no, we should not call him a socialist. The modern socialists have nothing to do with this man, so calling him by that title only muddies the water, and it isn't even worth the effort of applying the title. We already have a word for what he was, a fascist, a far right ultra nationalist leftist hating fascist. So what would you prefer, you call him socialist as a needless attack on modern leftists because the connection between nazism and socialism is practically non-existent, or, we just call him what we've been calling him for a while - a fascist. I say the latter, makes things more simple.
If not, then they may technically be a socialist, as in a prussian socialist. But at that point, they are removed from all other socialist movements, so the name is useless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HowieHellbent
But he didn't claim "property was both public and private," he correctly pointed out that private property was left in place, just turned into a voluntary and profiting ally of the state.
Can you actually read? Have you gotten that far?
If you aren't capable of admitting historians know more on the subject than you, you aren't capable of being correct.
The historian himself says, as we've been over, "capitalism was left in place." Why do you, with no qualifications or evidence, feel entitled to dismiss this?
You do realize there is more in the world than capitalism and socialism?
And... it doesn't. What about the dictionary definition of socialism (a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole) allows for private property, sides with the private property owner, and opposes leftism and unionism?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HowieHellbent
1/
My apologies for the long response time, I was nearly done two hours ago and then my computer decided to crash. In any case, here we go.
Mhm, yes my friend?
Why do you assume I have to continue on your terms?
Why do you assume we both don't already know i'm correct?
I engage on my own terms, and you're lucky i'm bothering to respond to these points I already addressed hours ago.
1. First off, to address some reoccurring problems of your responses and demands here. Every single one of the things you ask of me here has already been explained to you, has already been rebutted, and you have yet to actually make a response to those statements of mine. If you recognize parts of the arguments in these next three parts, that is because they are old arguments you never responded upon, reexamined and put in a new light for you. Second off, you clearly need to learn some more rules of debate and logic, namely, the idea of the burden of proof. Basically, imagine an anti-vaxxer comes up to you, and tells you "Prove that there aren't human fetuses in that vaccine!" Now, obviously, the logical response is to address the assumption behind their question first - you would ask them, in return, if they can prove that said vaccines do contain human fetuses. If they can't answer that question, that's proof enough that they were wrong, and that their question is based on a false assumption. There's no need to root around the ingredients, the burden of proof is on them to prove that such a question is based in logic enough to answer. This is something that applies to you, because every single one of these responses shares that problem. You ask something, telling me to disprove a claim you have yet to prove yourself. Hell, you have yet to argue for them. I could easily, in good faith, simply turn the questions back on you and ask you to prove your assertions contained within, but I won't do that, and you're lucky. In any case, i'll be pointing out how these problems apply to your responses further as we go, but on to the main response. I will address point #1 in three ways - tackling the dishonest framing of your question, proving the question itself false, and then further answering your claim. None of these are necessary of course, i've already addressed this exact point of yours, but whatever. First off, you ask me to prove that hitler, "went after ALL socialists and not just marxists and those who refused to nationalize," yourself taking the stance that those were the only ones he went after. This isn't a honest framing of the question, you're assuming something and then asking me to disprove it, rather than attempting to prove something and then asking me to counter. In any case, your assumption on this question is false. First off, marxists. Hitler did not just target marxist socialists, though he often used the term "marxist" to describe many things that do not actually fit under the classification of marxism, such as calling j***wish liberals "marxists" as well as any and all socialists. Marxism was a tool for hitler to spread the antisemetic idea of a j***wish conspiracy designed to "destroy german traditions.” Worth noting that he placed marxism on the left, and himself on the right, saying “And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.” In any case, no, he did not stop at Marxist socialists, also attacking the SPD, other leftist and liberal parties, syndicalist organizations, utopian socialist organizations, anarchist organizations, ect, most of which answered to the title of socialist, but not marxist, and yet were ruthlessly purged by him. We’ll go over this more later, but he also attacked the allies and supporters of those parties, thinkers, and movements, which says a lot about his intentions. In any case, another amazing example of Hitler not stoping at Marxists is the oft-cited Night of the Long Knives. As i’m sure you’re aware, the Night of the Long Knives was an event in which the nazi party leadership purged the leftmost faction, who they had until then had to share power and voters with. The victims of this purge, as it is worth pointing out, were explicityly anti-marxist. This faction of the nazi party was one that paid lip service to certain leftist concepts, but at the same time, wholly rejected the teachings of Marx. For example, Gregor Strasser, the head of this faction, wholly rejected the basis of marxism and marxist socialism by denying any sort of affinity for equality, saying "Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!" It was this faction of anti-marxists who was also purged in one of the nazis most famous purges of their rule.
2
-
@HowieHellbent
2/
As for your second group... what?? "Those who refused to nationalize?" This is why I say you need to prove your statements before asking me to disprove them, because this is utter nonsense. The nazis never went after those who refused to support policy of nationalization, mainly, because it was them refusing said policy. Going back to Strasser, he headed the faction of the nazi party that actually pushed for nationalization, however, Hitler's faction openly rejected this push and denied that political direction. Strasser himself points this out in his book, Hitler and I, which I will quote briefly. "
Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of Hitler’s official programme. ‘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.’
It was the Hitlerites who denied efforts for a mass policy of nationalization, not the strasserites or other socialists he targeted, and thus, it was not those who refused to nationalize who were targeted, but those who refused to nationalize who did the targeting. In any case, finally, your question. Prove not only those groups were targeted, something I did ages ago, but oh well. In any case, to further address that question in one more way, I'll say this - Hitler didn't just target socialist parties, or socialists in his own party. He targeted communists, liberals, progressives, unionists, syndicalists, anarchists, LGBT people, workers, immigrants, disabled people, ect. He rejected not only socialist parties, but socialist and more generally leftist organizations, thinkers, and political presences all throughout his society. He also rejected their base, the downtrodden, the workers, the immigrants, unionists, ect. He rejected their policies, he called those that lived off welfare "workshy," and they were sent to the camps. Hell, the man was elected on campaigning against things like public welfare and retirement programs, such as those demonized in nazi films such as Erbkrank, a film meant to turn the public against these policies. At the same time he was cracking down on all these groups, he appealed to the conservatives and businesses, who financed his party even internationally, and in terms of the conservatives, he was only ever even elected because Franz von Papen, a head of conservative parties in pre-hitler germany, decided to conspire among said parties to subvert democracy and put hitler in charge with near unlimited power. They did this, and von Papen became Hitler's first Vice Chancellor, and helped to populate Hitler's first cabinet with old conservative party heads. Do you see how he treats the two sides? One he denies the organization, policies, and people of. The other he holds up, elevates, and defends. His allegiances are clear. As for TIK's sources, as we've been over, his historical works roundly prove him wrong, and comprehensive, long-praised and near perfect works in the history of the rise of the nazi party, such as the first book of Richard Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy, go into explicit detail about the organization of the nazi party, and their push against the left from the beginning. One cannot nationalize factions of individuals, and the only cases in which socialists joined the nazi party were either before the ideological purge, or people who abandoned socialism and turned coat. You see, fascism, as an ideology, aims to appeal to many of the same groups that socialists and other populist movements do. Both ideologies try to appeal to the estranged worker, the downtrodden, the starving. However, fascists exclude the migrants, the minorities, the "others" in this appeal, and instead include business owners who are apparently being oppressed by "international finance." They get on the worker's side by blaming nations, races, and a rejection of the idea of a common national tradition. Socialists, on the other hand, include all of those types of worker, instead excluding the boss, and get on these people's side by blaming class, inequality, the owners, private property, and a rejection of progressivism. Fascists stole socialist rhetoric, and used it for anti-socialist reasons. For these reasons, even though the ideologies are diametrically opposed, starving workers would be happy to switch between them, because both promise to fix their problems, just in very different ways. It is for this very reason that socialists often switch their allegiance to specific types of socialism, and fascists to types of fascism, ect, though the divide in rhetoric between the two ideologies has made it very unlikely for one to go from fascism to socialism or vice versa in the modern day. And before you try to assert that these socialists that abandoned socialism didn't actually do so, i'll remind you of ex-marxist conservatives, like famous economist Thomas Sowell, who you would also be accusing of being a socialist with that accusation. Moving on.
2
-
@HowieHellbent
3/
2. And this... god, just, pain. First off, i've already addressed this, and your framing is dishonest, but oddly enough that's not what i'm concerned about. This is one where i'm genuinely confused at how you reached your conclusion, as you're unwilling to provide evidence or reasoning for your claim, so i'm left to wonder if this is some misguided attempt to double down on your previous mistake with Hayek, or a genuine misunderstanding of capitalist history. In any case, the history of capitalism, as both an economic system and philosophy, goes much before Rothbard, and Rothbard is a bit of an odd choice. For one, he wasn't even the founder of his own movement, that being the American Libertarian movement, that was based primarily in the Austrian School of capitalism, founded by Carl Menger, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, ect. Note that the capitalist movement he belonged to already existed long before he got there, and that the Austrian School itself was based on modifying and spready a specific type of capitalist philosophy and economy, in contrast with the capitalism that already existed in the world. So you're taking one man, who was part of a bigger movement, that derived itself from a centuries old philosophy, and claiming said one man was the first. The foundation of capitalist economic practices, that is private ownership of the means of production, go back centuries, one can point to the various early colonial exploits of Europe, or even further back, to the Crisis of the 14th Century. The foundations of capitalist philosophy are a bit more concrete though. The philosophy of capitalism is known as "liberalism," hence capitalists in the modern day often calling themselves classical liberals, and european capitalist/libertarian parties are often called the liberal parties. While isolated strands of Liberalism existed prior to the 17th century, that is when it was first formed. It could be said to first have made a popular appearance with Richard Overton's statements on the individual, saying "To every Individuall in nature, is given an individual property by nature, not to be invaded or usurped by any...; no man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans," and later formed into a concrete ideology by John Locke, all the way back in the 1690s. Liberalism teaches that private property ownership is a basic human right, and that all human rights are derived from the idea of property ownership, notably, self ownership. That was an idea first fully formed by Locke, who directly inspired capitalist economists all the way to the Austrian School in the far future. As for those who wrote about capitalism before the 1900s, god, where to start? The idea of capitalist market forces was first popularized by Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism," who lived in the 1700s. Around the same time, the term capitalist was first used by french anarchists, to describe property owners in france at the time. These ideas were further expounded upon until the early to mid 1800s, where the subject of capitalism had become well known, and accepted by not only capitalists, but by socialists like Louis Blanc, and it was cemented as a system of government, economy, and philosophy, calling for private ownership of the means of production. Marx then wrote a whole series of books on capitalism, starting in 1867, analyzing the philosophy, material conditions, and economic theory of capitalism. (Cambridge History of Capitalism, 2014) Hell, even in the Austrian School, von Mises was writing about capitalism and liberalism even before Rothbard did, and remember, Mises is cited as a capitalist in TIK's videos. And these are just major steps on the road of the development of capitalism, there were hundreds if not thousands of smaller economists and writers in between these years that pushed the ideology forward, developed it, observed it, wrote about it, and so on. So again, my question is genuinely, why do you think this? How did Rothbard found, or help to found, the philosophy of capitalism? Furthermore, when, how, and with who did he do this? Rothbard's opinions changed a lot through his life, and while in the libertarian movement he didn't do much, he actually did found an ideology, philosophy, and movement, that being the paleolibertarian movement, which combined strong markets and property rights with a large, nationalist state, a movement he worked with KKK leader David Duke to develop. Is this the capitalist philosophy you're talking about? It's what he founded, his work as a libertarian wasn't all that notable. And how to you does he fit in with other capitalists at the time, like Hayek? The two disagreed immensely, and add to the equation Mises (who again, TIK calls a capitalist and defends) calling other people in the same movement as those two "socialists," where is the founding of capitalism here, in these feuding adherents of a centuries old ideology? I'm genuinely curious as to how you justify your claim.
2
-
2
-
@HowieHellbent
Those are terms you don't know the definitions of yes, and citations from TIK i have directly addressed and provided with my own citation and explanation, which you well know.
Or well, you would know, if you actually read my responses. What right do you have to claim I haven't cited anything, when you admit you didn't read my response?
I won the debate, and you openly admit to this fact, which is why you ran away.
I openly stated I would be happy to answer your questions, and so I did, I provided what I had to and more, just for you champ.
We're talking about history, though I suppose by this logic you think TIK is dishonest for not keeping his videos short?
It's your word VS my and TIK's citations.
2
-
2
-
2