Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trystdodge6177
I'm talking about you being wrong, and I proved it. Your lack of substantive response shows as much clearly. Who benefitted in nazi germany? The private owners and conservatives who proudly endorsed the nazi party. Who benefittted in the USSR? The party itself, as well as workers not being shot to death by a tsar every other day. Funny you mention the individuals involved in politics at the time, given that those individuals were largely private owners in nazi germany. Yes, the far right, anti-socialist party benefitted from their own rule. "It was fascist socialism which is to say fascism, which is also Socialism. Socialism is authoritarian and fascist." Not a single word of this is true. "Fascist socialism" is an oxymoron. "Fascist Socialism" is not fascism, as fascism is anti-socialist. Fascism is not "also socialism," as fascism is a far right anti-socialist party. Socialism need not be authoritarian, and cannot by definition be fascist. The definition of socialism is literally social ownership, so yes, worker control of the means of production. Your "in practice" statement is not only not true, but it does nothing to change the definition. IF it doesn't fit the social ownership definition, it isn't socialism. Of course, that point is moot, given that nazi germany openly rejected the notion of state control of the means of production. Insults won't change the facts kid.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trystdodge6177
Child, you really need a basic education on this. Nazi ideology taught that the "true aryan nation" was a traditional concept, that had existed in the past and had been destroyed in the present by liberals and progressives, both of which the nazis saw as a degenerating force controlled by jewish people. They weren't "progressing towards" something, they were attempting to return to a tradition. The founder of traditionalism was a literal fascist, the phrase "return to tradition" is a well-known fascist motto, how are you this ignorant? I mean hell, progressivism isn't even defined as "progressing towards anything. They weren't "progressive and socialist and racist," they were conservative, right wing anti-socialist, and racist.
And stop deflecting for once in your life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AppliedMathematician
Mostly because you seem willing to use different definitions depending on the point of the conversation we're in. That's a bit of a communication problem, I'd say.
And yet, that's what happened every time people try to create a "human" capitalism, the private part does its best to define the economy and political sphere and slowly strips away everything else the society has built.
I don't care what excuse you use for spreading your ahistorical propaganda, it doesn't really work. The categories in question are clearly defined, you just ignore these objective definitions when it suits you. In any case, great job showing TIK's "logic," but that simply isn't true of what I've said before, hence you being unable to point out in what way I did say anything like that. I don't think you understand your own ideology.
I agree, changing definitions gets you nowhere, and muddying the waters of ideology and history by attempting to change definitions to fit your agenda is an objectively bad thing. With this in mind, you should probably stop doing exactly that, and trying to fit hitler into the directly opposing category of socialist, perhaps, given that would require changing the definitions in question, which you allege to be against. But who am I kidding, that kind of self awareness seems a bit beyond you, if i'm being completely honest. Mental Chaos indeed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christopherdukett4158
Jesus christ, please step outside and drop the conspiracy theories. The democrats are capitalists, not leftists, and progressivism is totally counter to the nazis traditionalism. The right literally repeats the words of hitler and flies his flag, what the heck are you talking about? "Big Tech" and "Big Corporations" are capitalist elements of society that benefit from right wing capitalism. The conspiracy theories you spread sound an awful lot like a historical party's...All of the policies you mention are policies alive and well in capitalist nations, universal healthcare, free college, UBI, gun control even. I'm sorry you don't like types of capitalism that don't align with yours completely but it's a bit absurd how far you'll go to deny them in odd, contradictory ways that really make no sense. And jesus christ, did you really just compare the FBI to the german SS? If you want to speak on the hatch act, right wingers are right there, and you are free to deny the science just like you deny the history, just as I am free to call you out for doing both. It's amazing, you take the problems of a capitalist society, like inflation, and then somehow manage to blame them on socialism, and attribute them to some socialist conspiracy. You don't get news, you get propaganda and believe it wholeheartedly without a second thought.
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 Imagine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily.
Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism:
"For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism
The quote you're talking about was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
This quote:
“National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1]
In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact.
Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out:
"Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. "
He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought.
Sources:
[1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159.
[2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1.
//:/
2
-
@mitscientifica1569
Ah, MIT came up with a new copy-paste spread of nonsense! Of course, all of it is false.
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.
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
-
@mitscientifica1569
Though MIT, a personal fan of the nazis, seeks to deny their history, it seems that he's unable to do so. He is, of course, unable to discern propaganda from statements of truth, unable to discern definitions of foundational concepts, and unable to stop defending his favorite mass murderer, hitler. As we all know, hitler was a socialist that despised Karl Marx. Let's see what he Actually said:
Hitler on Marxism:
"Death to Marxism!" - Adolf Hitler
“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism denies the noble goal of Nature and sets mass and dead weight of numbers in place of the eternal privilege of strength and power. It denies the value of personality in man, disputes the significance of nation and race, and deprives mankind of the essentials of its survival and civilization. As a foundation of the universe, Marxism would be the end of any order conceivable to man. The result of applying such a law could only be chaos. Destruction would be the only result for the inhabitants of this planet. If, through his Marxist faith, the Jew conquers the peoples of this world, his crown will be the death and destruction of all mankind. Earth would again move uninhabited through space as it did millions of years ago. Eternal Nature takes revenge for violation of her commandments.” - Adolf Hitler
"The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ... proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism." - Adolf Hitler
" 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
Why are you taking pre-election propaganda as more important than his own, ideological assertions?
Hitler on his Definition of Socialism:
"1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it." - Adolf Hitler
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” - Adolf Hitler
" 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
Hitler on Capitalism:
‘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.’
- Adolf Hitler and Otto Strasser
"Bollocks - What right do these people have to demand a share of property or even in administration?... The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead."
Adolf Hitler to Max Amann, May 1930
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” - Adolf Hitler
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it would be by a State functionary—providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private initiative.“ - Adolf Hitler
Hitler and the Nazis on Socialism and the Left:
"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." - Adolf Hitler
"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!" - Nazi Party
Hitler hated socialism and marxism, much like you. Why do you feel the need to keep lying?
2
-
@renanvinicius6036
And why exactly would we "try" that, given that the arguments themselves are proven in the very responses? Could it be, perhaps, that you didn't bother to read them? Anyway, your "questions," which I must assume are asked out of your own ignorance rather than any desire to honestly learn something. As for conservatives Hitler was influenced by, we could go into the various german conservative thinkers, like Carl Schmitt, who contributed massively to nazi ideology, or Evola, who founded fascist traditionalism as an ideology, or hell, the majority of the german conservative parties, who through the help of Franz Von Papen organized hitler into his political position. One could even look at the conservative german Völkisch movement, that formed the basis of nazi ideology. I could go on and on and on, but you don't care. Why do you presume that one must fit one definition of conservatism, and why do you presume that the invocation of such definition doesn't apply to the nazis? And last, why do you assume "the marxist view" matters in this conversation at all, and that the very definition of leftism itself is false? You fail to understand that personal bigotry and ideological hatred are very different things, and that attempting to conflate the two when it doesn't make sense just further discredits your argument.
2
-
2
-
@renanvinicius6036
It's not "ambiguous" though, a capitalist system is one in which the means of production are primarily controlled or owned by private owners. There's no such thing as a "leftist capitalist," precisely because leftism by definition must be anti-capitalist from the left. You fail to understand that Hitler despised economies of central control, and thought that they would destroy german industry and his country all together. It is, however, ironic that you cite Churchill as your perfect conservative, given that he was pretty openly a fan of fascism as an ideology, just not a fan of countries attacking his. That is what Churchill "defended." I hate to break this to you, but even by your own admission, conservatism as an ideology holds its roots in totalitarianism and state control. As in, quite literally, supporting the centralization of the economy by the state and great corporation, that use eachother as instruments for their objectives, a trend we see continuing into the modern day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@renanvinicius6036
Ah, I see. As I predicted, you know you can't actually refute any of the information on the issue, so you just try to run away from it, ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist. Child, I did nothing but show you the meaning of your own words, and teach you history that you hate admitting to. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it true. Just because you don't know any modern conservatives that know about Carl Schmitt, the notoriously conservative ideological founder of nazism, doesn't mean that hitler wasn't a proud student of his, or that he wasn't a proud supporter of hitler. I'm not pushing any spectrums, merely showing you the truth you hate to admit to. Oh, i'm well aware that you don't want to admit to conservatism's history of totalitarianism and state control, but again, that doesn't mean said history doesn't exist. Conservatism is quite literally based in absolute monarchism, do you think that was a particularly "libertarian" ideology for the people forced to live under it? Corporatism is, quite literally, a form of capitalist conservatism. Conservatives of course support the centralization of power by the state, as well as regulation of the market where it benefits them, and they quite literally define their ideology by the increase of state, notably violent state (police and military) power, just like the fascists they support. And again, child, I asked you to not speak on subjects you clearly know little to nothing about. Where did Winston Churchill praise or defend fascist regimes? Where did he say good things about fascist regimes? According to you, nowhere. According to his own letters to mussolini, "What a man! I have lost my heart!... Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world.... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism." Churchill hated war against the fascists, since they agreed on so much. And one cannot forget that it was only due to the policy of appeasement, the policy that Churchill supported, that the nazis and italian fascists even gained power in the first place. He was their fans, their allies, and the reason they rose. How can a temporary alliance with the soviet union at all compare to that? And I quite literally gave you the definition of capitalism, the one definition that unites all of the types of capitalism. As long as said definition is met, the country or economy in question is capitalist, or like fascist regimes, draws heavily from capitalism and supports private property. Hitler believed in the natural inequality of humanity and the supremacy of private property, both of which were equally praised by thinkers like Hayek.
2
-
@renanvinicius6036
But... they aren't. They're pointing out that you don't know what socialism is, and since you have no response given that the statement in question is true, you deflect to a strawman argument. You need to pretend that they only believe in "marxist socialism," despite not knowing what either of those terms mean, or if they actually believe in either at all. Hitler pretty openly hated welfare, much like modern conservatives, saying it rewarded the lazy and drained the state and the hardworking citizens of their money. In any case, no, what they said was nothing like hitler peddling his attempted redefinition, as hitler openly admitted that he was redefining the term, whereas the person here is merely telling you the definition that has always existed. You also don't seem to know that hitler supported private property and a competitive, profit-geared market, which of course most would call a free market. He abhorred economic planning, and thought in no uncertain terms that any deviation from private property would result in the destruction of german industry. He bribed companies into supporting this ideology, which is consistent with modern republican conservative views. I hate to break it to you, but the "shrinking market" hypothesis proves how important capitalism was to hilter's ideology. You really just can't handle that social democrats are capitalists and not leftists. They, like conservatives, don't believe in true individual freedom, but unlike conservatives, they tend not to use corporatists. Conservatives, on the other hand, love supporting massive corporations and huge businesses that end up harming the people who live in that country, and as a result, many of their policies make competition between smaller businesses and corporations completely impossible, which is of course the goal, and is reminiscent of nazi policy. And you don't seem to realize that the conservative notion that people and groups are unequal can, in times, be held by non-conservative individuals. However, it always has and always will belong to right wing conservatives, something you had to admit. I hate to break it to you, but neither of them said nothing of the sort. While some marxist regimes like Fidel's, in the beginning, persecuted gay people, they were also the first to specifically enshrine gay rights into their constitution, something that of course even america has not done yet. They started out just as homophobic as their american counterparts, and then made the first major steps in the world to undo that evil view. I hate to break it to you, but you need to actually provide citations for your claims. Again, you don't seem to understand that even left wing individuals can hold deeply conservative views, which is why many people like August Willich criticized marx while he was still alive, for being so conservative on many social issues. Again, countries like north korea pretty explicitly follow right wing doctrine, which is why they live in a hereditary monarchy, an unabashedly right wing system. But again, you can't tell the difference between propaganda and reality, so i'm not surprised you disagree. You also fail to realize that Marx's "On the Jewish Question" was literally written to combat the concept of "the Jewish Question," which had been raised by conservatives. He was antisemetic, but he wasn't to the level of the conservatives that inspired hitler, and that book isn't where that antisemetism shines. You can continue to show left wing individuals holding occasional right wing individual beliefs, and I could do much the same, or the opposite. But I don't think that's your goal, in fact, I don't think you actually know what your goal is at all, given the amount of deflections you participoate in. I mean, you're full to the brim with propaganda, no individual thoughts left, you actually think the 70% private venezuela is "marxist." You don't realize the definition of socialism, nor do you understand concepts relating to the NEP and similar policies designed to eventually reach socialism. You have somehow convinced yourself that socialism... is private.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2