Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight "No Mises practiced Judaism. But even if he didn't, he was ethnically Jewish. "
Just like Marx, then! Oh, wait, like I said, your logic only goes as far as one response, and then you abandon it. So your argument that you cannot be anti-semetic for supporting an ethically jewish person literally contradicts your last point. But then again, we all know you are an anti-semite by now, so that's nothing new. You participate in another ad hominem attack by claiming that the person you are replying to thinks capitalism is jewish. Do you have any proof of this? Any at all? Oh wait, no, you don't. You see, like I already pointed out, you hate the same people as marx, you just call them all socialists. And, as marx thought those people were capitalists and that's what makes them bad, that means that you are then anti-semetic, because you think what capitalism actually is is socialism, which is jewish to you
"This is a fantastic example of selective quoting."
I already pointed out how you guys try to use this excuse, bud. It's hilarious how predictable you all are. Still, let's see some evidence. He is very clearly referencing fascism not as how it sees itself, but as how he is describing it. In other words, it looks exactly like he is currently defending fascism. So the burden of proof now lies on you to provide the context you say is missing from that quotation, and to not just assert that Mises praising fascism is instead him not praising fascism, but the other way around. Because all I see right here is you saying "I don't like that quote" and deciding to make up a backstory for it that yu have yet to substantiate.
"Also, what you fail to realize is that Mises was a victim of the Holocaust."
This argument is perhaps your most projectionist, and your most fucked up. Do you not realize that you have been calling socialists, the first target of the nazis, fascists this entire time? Do you not realize that you have been comparing people who have lost family in the Holocaust, like Bernie Sanders, to the very far-right nazis who did those killings? The government Mises fled from, despite working for for years before the nazis showed up, was a fascist government. You have been asserting that jewish socialists are somehow more responsible for the atrocities of the nazis than literal workers in fascist politics. The fact that you try to take any sort of high ground here is disgusting, as the very thing you are accusing them of, you continue to do in this very response.
:A Corporation is not an individual (private), and thus not capitalism"
You've already been disproven on this, bud. It's telling that the only way you think you can prove this point is not by making a historical argument, or a political argument, or even a philosophical argument. No, instead you make it a semantics argument. You argue that the words, the shorthand terms we use to define things have similar bases as other terms, so they must be the same. After all, if you ignore what a corporation actually is, and see that it has roots in the word "group," as does public, they're the same thing. However, the problem is, only you use those definitions, and yet you project them onto the world. When someone is talking about the public, they are not talking about corporations.When someone is talking about a collective of workers, they are not talking about a state. When they want a state where the workers as a collective control the means of production, they are not talking about a capitalist state, in which private corporations own the means of production. You, however, when using those terms, do mean that. That's the thing, it really is like you're talking in a different language, and just really bad at translation. Because when you say a word, and when a socialist says the same word, they are said with radically different meanings in mind. Your comparisons don't work, you say that a collective is a state, and a corporation is a group. However, when marx or a socialist is calling for the workers to own the means of production, they are not talking about your version of states, or corporations. They are talking about their version. So even then, you still get the definition of socialism wrong, even with all of your semantic tricks and other nonsense. After all, you are just talking in your own language, and that doesn't translate into the political desires of others. No matter how many times you repeat it, a socialist does not want a company running the country.
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight So in other words you literally just repeated the same damn points over and over again. Because you can't actually address criticism. You, I hate to say, are a hypocritical person. YOu continue to push the myth of "fascist socialism" to deflect from Mises' actual beliefs and pin the blame of the holocaust on those that suffered the most from it. Mises supported fascists, in that he worked to implement fascist economics, worked under a fascist government, and had good thing to say about fascism. You yourself seem to contest the idea that nazism is fascism, and that fascism is inherently racist. Remember that? This is another example of one of your pieces of drive; that you've yet to actually internalize. Which was it, fascism and nazism were different? Or is it disrespectful to call a victim of the nazis a fascist? Hell, you seem to not even realize your contradiction. The problem is, you're putting the conclusion before the facts. To you Mises could never have supported fascism (although he undeniably did) because fascism is socialism. Your proof? Nonexistent, but still you insist, he could never have supported fascism, because fascism is socialism. You never stop to think that perhaps he did support it, because fascism wasn't socialism, which is what history tells us. I want you, for one second, to thin like a human and not a hypocrite. You denied that fascism is nazism, and yet deny a man was fascist based on the nazis, which makes no sense. (his entire country was fascist and hated the nazis.) You deny fascism is racist, yet use the racism of nazis to deny a man is fascist. You seem to think it is disrespectful to accuse people of being anti-semetic for no reason, and yet that's all you do, most likely as an act of projection as you have a bit of an obsession with hating the rich and factory owners, which you have previously connected with jewish people. You say that it's disrespectful to compare victims of the Holocaust with the ideology that perpetrated it, and then go on and call socialism fascism, which is literally you blaming some of the first victims of nazi purges and murder on the system that murdered them. You see, you're long beyond reason, you seem to hate factual information. You don't like that your own words disprove your point, so you ignore them. You don't like that you are more anti-semetic than anyone else in this conversation according to your own logic, so you project that onto all that correct you. You don't like that you have systematically proven yourself to not have a single consistent viewpoint, so you ignore everyone who points out your hypocrisy. You deny the beliefs that are openly stated to blame the holocaust on it's victim, you call everyone you don't like a socialist, and you have proven yourself to be an anti-semite. And TIK, I hate to remind you, but this is all by your own logic. The longer you speak the less credibility you have. So, as a parting tip before I remind you of the fact that everything in this response had already been addressed, i'll say something. A bit of advice: stop worshiping fascists. Stop calling people anti-semetic with little to no evidence, when your logic points to your blame more than theirs. Stop acting in a racist and anti-semetic manner, and then denying it all, and most of all, stop deflecting from the problems that are so obvious in right wing, non socialist fascism, capitalism, and totalitarianism and stop blaming all of your internal issues and bigotries on socialists. Because every time you say "fascist socialism," you are turning people's eyes away from the actual rising threat of fascism. Every time you say "fascist socialism," the next fascist regime is normalized a bit more. And every time you say "fascist socialism," you bring the horrors and racist genocides of those regimes a step closer into reality. Those that cannot understand history are doomed to repeat it.
"No Mises practiced Judaism. But even if he didn't, he was ethnically Jewish. "
Just like Marx, then! Oh, wait, like I said, your logic only goes as far as one response, and then you abandon it. This is especially funny considering both of your examples were atheists. So your argument that you cannot be anti-semetic for supporting an ethically jewish person literally contradicts your last point. But then again, we all know you are an anti-semite by now, so that's nothing new. You participate in another ad hominem attack by claiming that the person you are replying to thinks capitalism is jewish. Do you have any proof of this? Any at all? Oh wait, no, you don't. You see, like I already pointed out, you hate the same people as marx, you just call them all socialists. And, as marx thought those people were capitalists and that's what makes them bad, that means that you are then anti-semetic, because you think what capitalism actually is is socialism, which is jewish to you
"This is a fantastic example of selective quoting."
I already pointed out how you guys try to use this excuse, bud. It's hilarious how predictable you all are. Still, let's see some evidence. He is very clearly referencing fascism not as how it sees itself, but as how he is describing it. In other words, it looks exactly like he is currently defending fascism. So the burden of proof now lies on you to provide the context you say is missing from that quotation, and to not just assert that Mises praising fascism is instead him not praising fascism, but the other way around. Because all I see right here is you saying "I don't like that quote" and deciding to make up a backstory for it that yu have yet to substantiate.
"Also, what you fail to realize is that Mises was a victim of the Holocaust."
This argument is perhaps your most projectionist, and your most fucked up. Do you not realize that you have been calling socialists, the first target of the nazis, fascists this entire time? Do you not realize that you have been comparing people who have lost family in the Holocaust, like Bernie Sanders, to the very far-right nazis who did those killings? The government Mises fled from, despite working for for years before the nazis showed up, was a fascist government. You have been asserting that jewish socialists are somehow more responsible for the atrocities of the nazis than literal workers in fascist politics. The fact that you try to take any sort of high ground here is disgusting, as the very thing you are accusing them of, you continue to do in this very response.
:A Corporation is not an individual (private), and thus not capitalism"
You've already been disproven on this, bud. It's telling that the only way you think you can prove this point is not by making a historical argument, or a political argument, or even a philosophical argument. No, instead you make it a semantics argument. You argue that the words, the shorthand terms we use to define things have similar bases as other terms, so they must be the same. After all, if you ignore what a corporation actually is, and see that it has roots in the word "group," as does public, they're the same thing. However, the problem is, only you use those definitions, and yet you project them onto the world. When someone is talking about the public, they are not talking about corporations.When someone is talking about a collective of workers, they are not talking about a state. When they want a state where the workers as a collective control the means of production, they are not talking about a capitalist state, in which private corporations own the means of production. You, however, when using those terms, do mean that. That's the thing, it really is like you're talking in a different language, and just really bad at translation. Because when you say a word, and when a socialist says the same word, they are said with radically different meanings in mind. Your comparisons don't work, you say that a collective is a state, and a corporation is a group. However, when marx or a socialist is calling for the workers to own the means of production, they are not talking about your version of states, or corporations. They are talking about their version. So even then, you still get the definition of socialism wrong, even with all of your semantic tricks and other nonsense. After all, you are just talking in your own language, and that doesn't translate into the political desires of others. No matter how many times you repeat it, a socialist does not want a company running the country.
2
-
2
-
@phillip3495
You can try to pretend to not see it, but that just makes your defeat sadder.
You've made no argument besides the repetition of your original claim with no backing, and have made no attempts to respond to my rebuttals of it. You provided an assertion you call a "well known fact," yet you are unwilling to actually cite said "fact." You openly admit that you don't actually have a source, and instead refer to something that you call "near self evident," (by which you mean an assertion that you agree with so much you don't need a source) so you have yet to provide a source. Strike one. Your claim is that the nazis were socialists, not not-capitalists, you can't even get your own argument right. Strike two. Finally, again, your final claim is "that's a contradiction." No argumentation, no citation, no logic, just a plain assertion presented as if it cannot be disagreed with. You're 0 for 3 champ.
Of course, as we both know by this point, hitler wasn't a socialist. His party was a far right anti-socialist policy that mirrors modern right wing movements. Socialism was on the rise, and there was need of an ideology to oppose it in the name of the right, and there it was. Of course, this proves my point wonderfully. I type out paragraphs upon paragraphs rebutting your claims, and what's your response? You ignore the arguments, and just say the same thing. It's like trying to teach a child the word for "tree."
"You see kid, that brown and green thing is a tree!"
"No it's a cloud"
"No, you can see it's a tree, here's some evidence"
"But it's a cloud."
"Why do you think it's a cloud?"
"Because it is, it's near self evident."
"But that isn't true, and here's why."
"Furthermore, that thing is a cloud..."
and so on. I give you logic, facts, and argumentation, and you just repeat your long disproven assertion, "the anti-socialist right winger was a socialist." I take that as a win.
2
-
2
-
@christopherdukett4158
And how is that? I hate to break it to you but in all things, historical, scientific, economic, ect, there are things that are right and things that are wrong, and there is nothing wrong with criticizing a work for using the former notions to push the latter. In-depth study and citation is always interesting, but it's pointless and not immune from criticism when, like TIK's video, it takes a position so blatantly opposed to reality and our current understanding of terms and history, without even the backing to justify it. Being open to new perspectives doesn't mean defending said perspectives long after they have been introduced, and flopped. The problem with citing a bunch of people who prove you wrong is you generally have to find an argument for using the sources beyond "I don't think this person is educated." There's nothing closed-minded about pointing out that using sources that contradict your core claim generally doesn't work, especially when your excuses for said sources apparently being wrong has so little basis. Comparing the modern day historical understanding of the nazis, one based on constant criticism, empirical fact and historical observation, with the actions and beliefs of religious zealots, is absurd. As far as reality can tell, TIK managed to be a good rhetorician but a horrible historian, and his case is long buried and dismissed by all that didn't go into it with an ideological predisposition.
2
-
@phillip3495
The problem with Laissez-faire Capitalism is that people don't seem to realize it's one capitalist system of many, and in all honesty, not the most historically supported or successful one.
Of course, capitalists will deny this, they'll define capitalism as broad as human nature when it suits them (often capturing ideologies like socialism within their understanding of capitalism) while attempting to shrink the definition to one set of policies within the long history of capitalism when criticized. Capitalists seem almost religious most times.
The problem is, your ideology is fa more important to you than actual objective fact. That's why whenever you praise said ideology, you assert that your appraisals are objectively true, despite (of course as usual) not providing anything but your own assertions to back this. For example, "rational markets/individuals" isn't a "fact." In reality, it's a theory of human development, one more and more disproven by the very processes of capital as time goes on. The fact that you think there is no other explanation for a mass historical event that took place across times and cultures is a bit absurd. You think the system of slavery that describes the early united states is one of pure freedom as long as one doesn't kill another. You also touch on the actual fact that capitalism is an ideology which cannot exist without the violent efforts of the state to enforce capitalist ideology. Sure, capitalist governments "protect from theft and fraud," while also defining exactly what those are and what the punishments will be.
It's funny, you claim the industrial revolution was directly a result of American capitalism, despite the industrial revolution starting in Britain before America was even a declared country, hell, even before the revolutionary war kicked off. The US didn't succeed because of "freedom," even Jefferson knew that. The US succeeded because of an economy based off of initially slavery, and later, imperialism.
See, the issue again is that you're projecting your own views onto those of others. In reality, history shows that the most stable system is one that does not embrace Laissez-faire Capitalist ideology, but economic-interventionist ideology. Of course, the empirical data does not at all suggest what you say it does, but it's not like you actually provided any sort of source like usual, so nobody has any idea where you got your claim from. Capitalism is, sadly, not a system of freedom, but of compression, repression, and domination from a thousand angles, a self fulfilling membrane blocking our way to human progress and improvement. In reality, China is banning more things as of now, such as recently banning crypto-currencies, and yet you praise them because your ideology is entire incoherent.
Your "correct set of policy" is the reason the US has been slowing down, and a rejection of that policy is the simple reason so many places in the world are ahead in so many ways.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@polpol2739
But nothing about that is "socialistic action," nor does it accurately describe his policies. He wanted the state and private property to work with eachother, not one to rule the other. Socialism is social ownership, and nothing you've described fits that. You're describing anti-socialism and labelling it socialism. Your quote talks of "free market capitalism," or international capitalism, which is not all capitalism.
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"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).
"This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
2
-
@kejiri3593
It appears i'm having to give you a history lesson, one you aren't even interested in listening to. No, eugenics was not a popular position within progressives of any era, you're thinking of conservatives, that founded the ideology and supported it all throughout its history, up to the modern day. What actually was a popular position within progressives of the 1800s was anti-eugenics, which made them unpopular with conservatives. Progressives never supported eugenics, so how could they stop after a conservative group showed the world how bad they were? Why would the actions of the nazis, following a conservative ideology, make progressives and socialists look bad? No, it was only after the nazis fell that conservatives were unable to support eugenics openly, though they still do, and are getting more bold in it. "obviously only difference between a socialist and a nazi is, socialist is pro globalism and nazis is racial nationalism." Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. No, child, there are more differences between nazis and socialists than can be counted, the ideologies are fundamentally opposed. There have been socialists that aren't "globalists" and they still look nothing like nazis. Socialists call for social ownership, progressive policy, workers rights, and so on. Nazis hate literally all of those things. No, child, the difference between nazis and socialists doesn't begin and end at nationalism vs globalism. The fact that you're genuinely ignorant or malicious enough to suggest that... well, it's disgusting. No, child, socialists aren't "pro globalism" and they are fundamentally opposed to nazism in every way, hence them being opposite ideologies with hundreds of differences and next to no common ground. "only difference?" Ignorant. And how many times do I have to remind you that the nazis did not desire authoritarian control over the economy, and that not all socialists are authoritarian, or even want a state. Ignorant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@voltageisthename
Not quite. Yes, he did kill, repress, chase away, imprison (and so on) millions, that at least you can admit to. But his economy was based on privatization, and even those that weren't useful, were working internationally, or didn't do what he wanted were most often not targeted or taken from. Loyalty to the party, much less extreme, unfaltering loyalty, was not a requirement.The few who didn't have this happen had their property given to another private individual or organization, so not nationalized, and not state controlled. The nazi's "justification" for their crimes included their views on the supremacy of private property, and as I said, privatization, true privatization, defined their economy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aneko_Tomo
If you didn't care about my response, you wouldn't bother typing out a whole paragraph of cope to deal with the fact that you know you can't debate me. You claim i've been "destroyed countless times throughout this entire comment section," and yet you still seem afraid to even entertain the notion of debate. This is because, of course, it is my denialist and apologist opponents that have been "Destroyed," and I simply am willing to do the research you ideologues are not. Again, it's all well and good to claim arguments that hurt your feelings are "debunked," but neither you nor anyone else in this comment section seem willing to actually provide any evidence/argumentation of said debunking... likely because they don't exist. You need to claim that the facts I present are refuted by the video, as if they aren't direct refutations of the claims in the video, and that they've been refuted by your peers, despite your inability to point to cases of this. Child, can you point to a single instance where I have called someone a "nazi?" Can you even, perhaps, name this supposed "hivemind" I belong to? You can't? How unsurprising. I treat children like children, sue me. It's genuinely funny that you feel so confident in your brainwashing that you attempt to mock the simple fact that corporations are capitalist, something any self-given or professionally-given economic education could teach you near instantly. You are o afraid of open debate that you have to state basic facts, along with strawman arguments, in order to even feel confident enough to respond. And let's look at some of those made up claims. Child, I've never given a moral or "quality" description of capitalism, communism, or socialism. I don't call for a "commie utopia," nor do I say "Capitalism bad." I now you're attempting to project your own ideological foundations of this argument onto me, but you'll have to try harder. It's also worth pointing out that the claim in question, one long proven, is that the American political parties (as the de-sectionalized) switched their allegiances to "left and right," not that the concepts of left and right themselves switched. In any case, yes, corporations are capitalist, and fascism is right wing. You feel the need to call me a "Commie" to prematurely dismiss my arguments, and paint a portrait of me in your head that you can attack. Why address historical arguments when you can simply pretend someone is something, and attack them for that thing? You legitimately have no argument outside of your hivemind that consists of anything more than "commie!!" Hell, you aren't even educated enough yet to realize that "anarcho communism" is a redundancy, not an oxymoron. Jesus. Despite your crystal-clear cope, your insecurity with your own points and inability to debate proves one thing. No, child, I have not been "destroyed" in any capacity... that would be you. I repeat many of the same arguments because they are backed up by numerous cases of citation, which I readily provide, and you seem unable to disprove them. I'm sorry you seem to feel that historical and factual revisionism are bad things, perhaps you should stop participating in it and defending those that encourage it? all you have is screaming "COMMIE" at anyone who questions you. Sit down, kid. The Grown Ups are talking.
2
-
@Aneko_Tomo
Aka, "I got owned and i'm going to cope about it to random strangers because my revisionism got stomped."
What cope. Yeah, dude, the reason you gave up arguing was totally because you saw these points before, not just because you didn't have anything close to a refutation or even substantial response to present, so you just gave up and decided to blame others for the instability of your revisionism. The reasons the left right spectrum as it is literally defined doesn't "make sense" to you is because it correctly categorizes the left and right according to more things than just one political slogan, which is either hard for you to understand, or gets in the way of you trying to call all right wingers you don't like secret leftists. Why exactly should the left right spectrum be on the fantastical undefined buzzwords of "collectivism vs individualism," when the openly declared right wing conservatives have a far longer history of authoritarianism and collectivism than the left? Why exactly should we define left and right that way, given that it would put most modern conservatives on the left, and would split socialist organizations down the middle into left and "right wing" ideologies? Funny, those that actually advocate for a system in which individual autonomy and freedom is the chief concern and is ideally maximized are openly leftists, while those that advocate for, at best, a decentralized government that still owns your every action, are right wing.
In short, if you can't make an argument, stop making it other people's problem.
2
-
2
-
@Janinex98
God, the sad delusions that TIK viewers get themselves into. I hope he feels proud of the type of people who support him. The irony is entirely too obvious for him not to notice.
Bud, the reason you reject the left-right divide and want to rely instead on a made up graph in which fascism is somehow a branch of its greatest enemy is because you don't like people accurately pointing out that, like it or not, nothing about your beliefs are centered. You may think they are, likely because you exist in an echo chamber in which they are the only beliefs that you are exposed to and are treated like truisms with no need for proof, but look at what you're actually saying, how you're framing issues.
You're framing, for example, the anti-brexit people as "denialists" who want to stop the "democratic will of the people," despite the brexiteers being the only ones actively trying to stop a second vote from taking place. You frame hate speech laws as "draconian" because they punish open neo-nazis, which you perhaps have a problem with because you feel that neo nazi conspiracies like " rape gangs that are 99.9999% Muslim" are just basic, normal opinions to hold, which is especially sad given that no evidence exists for such assertions. The reason you get called racist for these views is because they're not true, so what other incentive do you have to share them?
You're all for "free discussion," until people decide they want to freely disassociate with you and call out what I need to reiterate are literal nazi talking points, as in repeated by people who fly the flag and throw up the salute. When an actual factual argument comes up, such as the structural problems of power imbalance and the ability, and often function, of the police to enable racism and protect racists, you just assert without evidence that everything you don't like about the world is totally made up, whereas the conspiracy theories you see being spread by random youtubers who need to clip out half the article to make their outrage bait must always be correct and foundational sources of info.
Again, you despise the left right axis because you want to think your views are moderate and rational, when in reality the tirade you just went on would have you openly labelled as far right by even conservative politicians. You want to lump fascism/socialism/communism together to get out of the fact that you're only ever aligning with one of them, and I think you know which one it is. Nobody but you would place you on the center.
Here's the thing, bud. If you had just stuck to the original response, I could easily have respect for you. Sure, your story is one sided and most likely false in one or most aspects, and TIK's support of it clearly showcases the crossover between authoritarian rightism and his brand of revisionism, but then you had to go and elaborate in the comments, explain exactly which views people found disagreeable, and it gave me a good guess as to which people you started watching. But hey, go ahead, prove me wrong. Go up to any random person and tell me all these things. Let's see how centered these views are, hm?
2
-
@victor-hugedivitorilamas5802 All you've done here is prove me right, dude. It's telling how the contents of the articles you quoted, and your own comments on the matter, are so vastly different. If you call me a liar, you might want to back it up a bit better. So let's take a look.
"That is something that Hitler surely could say, Robert Owen believed on the principle of a class struggle, but his methods were slightly aligned to co-operation, reformism and interclasism; as Hitler's methods tho. (Robert Owen is the father of british socialism)"
Not at all. Hitler despised reform, as well as a class struggle. Owen's method of solving those problems was the one most available to him at the time, as he himself was a wealthy property owner, so he thought that those same boons afforded to him could then be used as a sort of tool to achieve his own form of utopian socialism. Hitler's methods, again, were such that he did not care about common ownership, he literally overthrew his government, as he acted as nothing but a crushing boot to the lower classes.
"Henri de Saint-Simon is also one of the fathers of the french socialism or utopic socialism too, and, btw, his preech is pretty similar to Hitler's or Mussolini's one. "
You just shared a passage about a man who wanted to reduce government interference, taxation, and state control of the economy, and said it was "pretty similar to Hitler's or Mussolini's." Did that slip by you or...? Was the man anti-semetic, yes he was, but i'm afraid back then that was hardly a nazi exclusive opinion.
Since you didn't actually write anything on Fourier, i'll just mention that while he was an inspiration for later socialism, he was a proponent of Fourierism, a sort of pre-socialist system of common ownership, which as you can see had very many differences to socialism that would come later.
"What can I say? Well, i'll say that if you have nothing but biased beliefs then don't come here trying to counter someone's argument, most of "utopics socialist" are concerned to the idea of what Hitler wrote, but also pretty attached to what he've done. Do a research and then show your ideas, cause if you don't do so then you're just going through a shit show.
"
Yeah, this is the issue. You included a bunch of links and quotes and names, and good for you, but your analysis of the figures does not actually match up with the actual actions and ideas of both these figures, and hitler. My ideas are biased towards history, and in a follow-up response to this, i'll show you the origins of hitler's ideology, not in any of these figures. Speaking of these figures, as I said, while class was not always their primary concern it absolutely a method of consideration, whereas it was utterly rejected by hitler. The people you bring up were entirely different from Hitler in nearly every policy, though yes, they did share some similar bigotries (though not at all with the same purpose.) You see, the thing is I have "done a research," and found that hitler was absolutely not a socialist, and was right wing. I am actually prepared for the supposed "shit-show" you tried to send me through. Anyway, i'll just post another response going over how hitler was inspired, and how he redefined the word "socialist."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2