Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@renanvinicius6036
Why do you keep asking which of your conservative lackeys prize Carl Schmitt directly? Child, you're changing the subject. You asked me to provide evidence of the right wing foundation of nazi ideology, and I provided exactly that. The problem is, you just want to deflect from the simple fact that the nazis were directly inspired by conservative thinkers, and conservative movements. You keep trying to deflect to those that only name this one person as their sole inspiration because you can't handle the fact that his ideology was conservative. If you're asking about those who are directly inspired by his ideology and writings, or those who learned from those who praised him, then the whole of modern conservatism, yes, including your favorite thinkers, prize him, follow his ideology, and support his movement. Of course, none of this is anything remotely like opinion, it's all objective fact, fact you hate to admit to because you know its right. You still, for example, have not yet understood that there is a difference between left and liberal, and that being left of center does not make you a leftist. Social Democrats are, openly, capitalists, and thus they cannot be leftists, it's that simple. I'm not creating anything child, just telling you the truth, no matter how much you hate dealing with that fact. There's no strawman here child, i'm just proving the truth to you over and over again. I mean you quite literally called me a marxist for the sole reason that I easily proved you wrong, and now you don't even have the courage to stick with that assertion? Sad. Pathetic, even. You didn't say anything close to the opposite, you called random people communists or socialists with no reason. Again, that's no "point of view," child, that's objective reality. It's no "lie" at all that leftists are anti-capitalist by definition, that's literally the definition of the term, no matter how much you hate it. You're a liar. Of course i've read things from conservatives, how else would I be able to so easily name them, quote them, all to prove you wrong without a second thought? I quite easily found a core inspiration of nazi ideology, who was an open conservative, and you ignore it, because you can't handle it. And you're still coping with the fact that the right wing authoritarian racist churchill was ideologically allies with the far right authoritarian racist fascists? Now, child, tell me, which is more likely to be true, a private letter sent to trusted individuals, or a public book made after fascism had self-destructed? The former, of course. Churchill wanted to clear his name of the correct accusations of his sympathies towards fascism, and so he like you deflected away. After all, fascism and communism are about as opposed as two ideologies could get, and Churchill was no communist, yet he supported fascism. No historians say anything like your frankly silly assertion, because it just isn't true. Fascism/nazism and marxism are as far apart as ideas can get, you should know this, loving fascism like you do. They weren't "brothers" of any sort, Marxism is a method of historical analysis that focuses on class differences/inequality and their destructive force, nazism is a far right political, social, and economic ideology that is focused on the necessity of private property, inequality being natural, class differences not meaning anything, and conservatism being the superior ideology. Do you see how different these two are, how they are nearly exact opposites? How they oppose eachother from foundation to the very top? The historian's showcases of course show this, something you hate to admit. It's far from "only in germany" that the truth of left wing socialism's opposition to right wing nazism/fascism is known, it's a simple worldwide constant, one that historians are more than willing to discuss and point out. Why are you deflecting back to one conservative thinker that you never read? Is it because you know you have no actual response to the factual information I have proven to you? Is it because you can't bear to learn about the ideological underpinnings of conservatism that unite your favorite thinkers and hitler, the rejection of progress and love of tradition, hierarchy, competition, and so on? Or have you never read or researched either figure, instead just relying on making things up? And again, you appear not to have actually read my response. I hate to break it to you, but figures who hold mainly left wing views, can hold right wing views as well, and can be criticized for them, as we see with many of the figures you actually named. Also, you need to stop the antisemetic lies. No, Marx's book "*On* The Jewish Question" is nothing like hitler's. You appear to have not read anything beyond the title, and even that you get wrong. The preface "on" means it was a reply to another book, and in fact it was. It was Marx's response to conservative ethnonationalism, and he wholly disavows the genocidal conservative ideology of those who would become nazis within. He was antisemetic, sure, but far less than the right at the time, and he never called for open extermination or genocide, nor does said bigotry find any place in his ideology. It's funny how literally the only similarities you can find between them... is that they both, to different extents, held extremely popular beliefs at the time. Marx also never said the jewish people weren't 'ready for revolution.' Please stop maiking things up. And yes, even people like Che Guevara held deeply conservative views, views that conservatives openly and proudly hold to this very day, and views that find themselves centered in conservative ideology. This is why, removed from their speaker, the left condemns these views, while the right actively and proudly applauds them. Again, child, you asserted this before, leading me to believe that you haven't actually read my response, likely because you're afraid of how accurate it is, and how easily I can prove you wrong. Simply put, this never happened. You just make things up without citation, and refuse to quote, because you know you've been caught in a lie. And again, child, what is "left wing" about north korea, the openly monarchist, conservative society that appeals to conservative nations for its military strength and propaganda? I mean yes, imperialism is by its nature a right wing ideology and practice, normally due to the deep racism it carries. You, however, seem to think that all political invasions or attacks are imperialism, which is quite an odd assertion. All while, of course, continually ignoring the fact that the right as a movement built itself up around the spreading of these deeply conservative ideas, and the ultimate supremacy of their conservative vision. You still don't even seem willing to admit that these countries were the first to enshrine rights for gay people in the constitutions, after putting in place policies that conservatives supported. You literally lied, saying that until the soviet union fell, it was illegal to be gay... not realizing that the soviet union openly legally protected gay people, while the modern conservative-run russia does not. hm, what a coincidence, you're saying that two of the biggest hotbeds of nazi sympathizers and ex-nazis in the entire world hate marx? Wow, i'm so surprised. Now, child, I know that you're an apologist for the nazis, and you hate that piece of truth being spoken, but you need to stop deflecting. Of course a leftist holding conservative views doesn't make them a conservative, but it doesn't make those views any less conservative either, have you been paying attention? No, you haven't, you just want to keep telling easily proven lies. Well, I can prove you wrong all day, month, year, decade, or many more, over and over again. I've simply told you the truth, and you hate that. Your fanatic apologism holds no place in reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@renanvinicius6036
awww, are you still coping at being proven wrong? You already ran away, and now you can't even come up with any excuses! Yes, and you're wrong. I showed you an openly conservative nazi, who was influenced by the conservatism of his time and finds its roots in thinkers from Burke to Chesterton, and your response is to ask if random people still know this guy's name. you don't care about his inspiration from conservatism or conservative ideology, nor do you care about nazism, that he helped form. That is, without a doubt, a deflection, and an attempt to change the goalposts. I'm giving you what you asked for, and you don't like that one bit. Insults don't change facts. Again, no straw man champ, just straight reality. You claim nobody on the right actually believes these things, but you showcase the majority of them, just by yourself. As I have answered you before, of course I have, that's how i'm so easily able to destroy your arguments. But you don't care about the definition of conservatism, and its hatred of progress, equality, and the left, because that all goes against your narrative and proves you wrong. What modern conservative thinkers think about themselves is quite literally irrelevant to the conversation about conservatism and its historical impact. Of course i've answered your question, you just don't like the answer. I've given you your examples, and pointed out that you asking for them is a deflection, which means you continue to admit defeat. You, child, follow Schmitt's ideology. I'm no socialist, but it's hilarious that you previously said that you don't call random people communists, and yet here you are doing exactly that. I'm no marxist, no communist, no socialist, child. Again, hate to break it to you, but you still have yert to realize that not everyone "on the left" is a leftist, and that leftism isn't just "left of center," leftism is the word to describe left wing anti-capitalist ideologies. Yes, you are dumb, and social democrats objectively aren't leftists. I know you hate to admit i'm right, but your pidgeon example is hilarious, given that I easily proved you wrong in my very first response, and ever since then you've just been coping with defeat, dropping the pieces and shitting on the table. I easily refuted you in every one of your questions, you're just in terminal denial. I, unlike you, don't make things up, and I, unlike you, don't mindlessly repeat propaganda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@renanvinicius6036
I'm dumb... because I prove you wrong? Huh? But you are wrong, and I proved it so many times. Your only response is to ignore this fact, and run away. There's no "mental gymnastics" to be found, you just don't like the truth that's staring you in the face. Leftists can, literally, hold conservative views, you see it constantly. These bigotries, these objective views, run entirely counter to their actual ideologies, which is why conservatives praise these bigotries, while modern fans of marx and guevara renounce them. None of this had to do at all with their future, or their hope for a better world, which was explicitly not utopian. They were bigots in spite of their revolutionary plan, not because of it, objectively. You literally think "readed" is a word child, and i've clearly read more marx than you've read words generally. I hate to break it to you but saying it over and over doesn't make it true, and again, you're not listening to me. Leftist does not mean "from the left," how many times do I need to remind you of this fact? No, social democrats according to every philosophical and political book, are capitalists and are thus incapable of being leftists. I hate to break it to you, but you can believe regulation and intermediation of the society from the state... and not be leftists. In fact, the majority of people who believed that specifically hated leftists, and were proud conservatives. The main belief of conservatism is quite literally collectivism, the belief in tradition, in nation, in religion, in hierarchy, and so on. Conservatism has never been in favor of "anti-collectivism." They despise individual freedom, which is why they love the military, police, and state so much. And yes, no matter how many times you try to deny it, Schmitt was openly influenced by Burke and Chesterton (as well as many more) since his philosophical basis is shared with those thinkers. After all, conservatives of the time hated individualism and individualistic movements, as they do to this very day. Of course, when you compare their writings, you find them near interchangeable, and Schmitt's theory was a direct extension of historical conservatism's. Of course, compared to what the nazis did and defended, their ideology looks scarily similar. The nazis projected their view of traditional legal structures and institutions,, while making radical structural changes to oppose progressivism, like modern anti-leftists do. You just can't handle how easy it is to prove you wrong, huh? Cry harder, child :)
2
-
@renanvinicius6036
Oh, so you're just a proud liar. Sad. I "threw out" (provided) citations relating to the economy of fascist italy, and later, fascist projects in general and how they relate to the right. Nothing random about that, that was quite literally the topic of conversation. And again, these policies are the rights, because only the right says that the only way for people to benefit themselves is through individual labor and subordination, rather than any greater effort. The state putting this into strict law is just authoritarian conservatism, the very same conservatism that has existed for centuries. These aren't socialist policies, these are policies that even the modern right pushes for. In any case, the intention was not "protecting the working class," Mussolini didn't even believe there was such a thing as a unified working class to protect, which is why he favored private property. It absolutely matters if you are against capitalism or not, the world and the politics within it follow very strict rules and definitions that you just want to ignore. Again, you don't understand the difference between the left and leftists, but whatever. The promise of social democrats is to provide equality from the state and private market, with progressive reform. You don't need to be marxist to be against capitalism, nor does it have anything to do with a "marxist point of view" to point out that leftists oppose capitalism. But I've literally pointed out you engaging in the exact behavior and rhetoric that i've been calling out this whole time, what are you talking about? You've been defending the right and falling for conservative/fascist propaganda, I think the answer is pretty simple. It's a simple fact that ethnonationalism and extreme nationalism are solely tools from the right, and that "patriotism" in the modern world is simply nationalism in disguise, both of which you defend. Leftist nationalism is based on reformation and a reduction of hierarchy from outside sources, self determinism, and this is why leftists nationalists tend to overthrow conservative countries. Right wing nationalists like hitler, churchill, and mussolini believe in national supremacy that deserves to conquer the globe. This is the extreme nationalism i'm talking about. So yes, being a nationalist in a country like italy and germany meant you were right wing. No ignorance in sight. Hitler was right wing for far more reasons than the fact that he persecuted the left, but he absolutely did do that, he killed them, had them systematically cast out of power and labor and into his camps. However, nothing like that happened to conservatives. He didn't persecute the conservative movement of germany, it was only due to a coalition of conservative parties under Franz von Papen that he even got elected, and as a result, much of those parties were happily absorbed into the nazi party, and Papen himself became hitler's vice-chancellor. He agreed with them, worked with them, rewarded them. Stop lying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
Mosley supported private property when it aligned with the interests of the state, as well as a national european autarky of labor and necessary resources. He also often qualified that he was talking about corporations in terms of companies, such as him speaking out against the planned obsolescence of some products companies put out. He also utterly rejected the notion of total state ownership or distribution of the economy, as well as even rejecting the income tax. ("Mosley’s Men in Black," John Millican, "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered," Oswald Mosley) The Union Movement was one most often described as a post-fascist movement, and involved taking the fascist views of nation and race, while trying to appear more moderate by including democratic systems. Trade Unions are not corporations, they are Trade Unions. Hence why corporatism is the control of corporations "A corporation is a legal entity created by individuals, stockholders, or shareholders, with the purpose of operating for profit." whereas syndicalism calls for the specific control of trade unions.
Nationalism is, according to Oxford Languages, "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." This is also the definition your link uses. This lines up far better with the actual historical record of nationalism, as most nationalists already live in independent nations with no fear of that changing. Nationalism is not, as you asserted previously, just advocating for the independence of a group.
2
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
No, he did support private property. I'm sorry to be the one that has to break basic economic education to you, but all private property is statist, and supporting private property if it aligns with your ideology (which most does) doesn't mean you don't support private property. Saying "So he didn't support private property" is, objectively, a lie. Self sufficiency is a core trait of nationalistic corporatist economies, and I already gave you a source on his statements relating to that claim. In any case, the issue relating to income tax is not what you think socialists should support, but what in reality, they actually support, and it is a fact that Mosely's rebuttal of the income tax goes explicitly against socialism... like all of his other policies, him being a far-right anti-socialist. The Union Movement also held more moderate economic beliefs, but fascism is not an ideology defined by economics, not only because every prominent fascist movement has advocated for slightly or majorly different economic systems, but because other ideologies can also advocate for economic systems fascists propose without themselves being fascists, as fascism is defined by social views, not economic. "Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics." Quote about the nazis, still applies here. And again, we're not talking about the fascist definition of corporatism, but a word that I used to describe them based on their policies. We're not speaking in the fascist tense, but the (according to you) "libertarian" tense.
And there is a reason both definitions were on that site. Because while some nationalist movements do seek to rebuke colonialism or imperialism and promote an independent nation, the vast majority of nationalist movements historically have been from already independent nations, that push their people above all other people, to the detriment of other nations, as the definition shows.
2
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
"I support private property, but only when it benefits the nation" is actually a pretty damn common right wing talking point given how even TIK is very willing to say that modern private businesses are "communist" or "marxist" and should cease to exist. Supporting private property still means supporting private property. And I love how you keep asserting I believe in the labor theory of value, but you were never able to explain exactly how whenever I asked. We already know that you push for a system in which people don't own themselves, they are owned by those that provide them with currency for life necessities, and they do not own the product of their labor, as the product of their labor must always be more than what they are paid in compensation. Quoting you isn't "lying by omission," it's a simple fact that saying the man didn't support private property is absolutely false.
Again, never said that national self sufficiency was antithetical to socialism, but it is absolutely a part of corporatistic and nationalistic economies more often, and that is the economy we are talking about here. The lack of an income tax wasn't what "made" him believe in rigid hierarchies, such as his ideas of racial, ethnic, or national hierarchies. And the idea that there are by necessity superiors and inferiors in "the community as a whole" means that again, by necessity, those inferiors are not allowed or not provided with actual equal ownership.
We already know fascism isn't socialistic though, given support of private property, and we absolutely know that comparing Mosley to socialism is fruitless, as he doesn't fit the definition, so i'm unsure why you keep trying to shoehorn in socialism. In any case, again, it is not economics that defines fascism, as the corporatist (libertarian sense) economics of fascism change from example to example and only share a few key positions in common. And yes, corporatism in the libertarian sense is absolutely a correct description of fascism.
The nations of africa had already been having cultural infighting and problems with one nation promoting itself as supreme above others. The countries in europe who gained independence through nationalistic pushes, such as germany and italy... well we know how that nationalism turned out, don't we? Nationalism can be used as a tool to rebuke colonialism, but you forget that the colonialism and imperialism itself was nationalist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eb3674
The upper 1%, as in, the people who control the corporations you were talking about. Come on. Yes, a certain group gets wealthy under different economies, and in this case, the rich capitalists just got richer. I'm aware of the fact he wasn't a libertarian... that's why I said that. His policies were not incompatible with a private economy that he ran. And you keep using the word "use," as if it was just a case of convenience rather than ideological support. Business rose because he wanted it to rise, not because it helped them. I don't think you understand the basics here. He couldn't get rid of the name, the name he openly disliked, because he had already convinced millions that the name was accurate, with his redefinition of socialism. That total rebranding would have exposed the ideological hypocrisy, which is why he didn't do it. He kept the term, but changed the meaning. What's the purpose of changing a term when you can just change the meaning? He wasn't a socialist, champ. And again, economics and politics are more often combined than not.
2
-
2
-
@eb3674
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that no matter how many times your claims are directly addressed and disproven, you'll keep saying the same bs. Having a private economy means, by definition, he did not want, have, or put in place any form of socialism. I'm not saying nonsense, i'm literally providing facts about his regime that even you admit to. He didn't have any form of socialism, he despised socialism in all forms. His desires were clearly reported and he had no desire to have socialism at some point after his private economy, that private economy was what he wanted. It was achieved the way it was intended. What you're calling capitalism, he didn't only "use," but also fundamentally agreed with and wanted in place permanently. He didn't provide for the german people, he scaled back policies that actually did that. You're saying the same nonsense over and over again and I just have to keep replying to correct you. You're wasting both of our times for no reason, because you can't read. I'll keep proving you wrong, and you're free to ignore that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@endloesung_der_braunen_frage
Yeah, notice that I didn't say "Orthodox Marxism," though, nor did I say "Marxian Communism," (those are different things) I said socialism. Yes, those aren't the only forms of their respective ideologies, but that doesn't mean things with no ideological connection magically become parts of the same grouping. At least you're more on point with your definition of socialism, but there absolutely is something that prevents you from qualifying "society" only in terms of one race... the literal definition of society. If you were to change that, any ideology could be anything, so doing so is useless for your points. National Bolshevism isn't "socialism based on race," it's "socialism with conservative social views." It combines socialistic economics with a strong emphasis on nationalistic rhetoric, borders, and military. However, any form of ideology which attempts to artificially restrict access/ownership of the means of production to one specific group or race, by definition, cannot be socialist. That's why NatBols and Nazis are different, because among so many other things, the Nazis call for racial discrimination at all levels, whereas NatBols are just individually prejudiced. National Bolshevism isn't "socialism for Aryans," nor does it line up at all economically with nazi ideology, which still disproves your point. Also, embracing marxist proletarian politics would mean ignoring race in favor of class. In any case, you cannot put in place a socialist state for an ethnic group, because that would literally require a natural ethnostate which results due to no violence, repression, or deportation, as any of those actions would be removing members of the society as a whole from the means of production. The ethnic group doesn't become society as a whole, it becomes another ruling class. In any case, I don't think you're getting this. Socialism can be justified through different lenses, like religion, but religious socialists don't advocate for only that religion to have socialism. Similarly, socialists can have individual views, and individual bigotries, but advocating for those bigotries to have systemic representation makes their ideology by definition not socialist.
Yes, there are variants of socialism that are distinct from marxism, but it isn't a "spectrum," nor could it be one that at all includes far right groups like the nazis. Racist socialists can exist. Racial socialism can't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
It did not, though. That was a claim they made to get more supporters, but it is not true. He made excuses for his own capitlaist policy, and you bought it, hook line and sinker.
"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.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anonygent
Except that it is, which was explained by the pure coping failure that is this video. Kid, i've seen your type of arguments over and over, and they always show a disconnect from reality and history that's just sad to see. The problem is with you idiots is that you genuinely have no idea what the right is, so you take the word of right wingers that go against your definition. The right is defined by "notions such as, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" (Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations (2d ed.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), p. 119.) You literally don't know what right wing means, but since you're right wing, you give it the most utopian, nonsense definition you can. Right wing does not mean freedom, does not mean only capitalism, small government, representative, non0dictatorial, ect. There's nothing free about monarchism, technocracy, fascism, ect, all aspects of the right. Capitalism is one ideology of the right, but far from the only one. Right wing dictators go back centuries, monarchs to absolute monarchs to emperors. Libertarian right wing ideology, the type that actually does call for limited government and capitalism, is one of the newer strands of rightism. The very fact that the left right distinction was first created and put monarchists on the right seems to escape you. Furthermore, the concepts of freedom and limited government have historically been to the left of the far right, and anarchism, about as free as you can get, is a direct offshoot of socialism, left wing. I mean, look at the modern right. What do they care for freedom, throwing millions in jail, killing people for medical procedures, doing all they can to ban the teaching of knowledge they disagree with, where's the "freedom" in that? So no, the right does not mean what your childish fantasies wish it did. You say the far right represents freedom because right wing people who want to deny their history told you that. Fascism, is of course, an ideology that perfectly represents the far right. Fascism, like other aspects of the far right, does represent repression. But of course, it doesn't at all represent socialism, as fascism is more anti-socialist than you are. It does, however, represent strong dictatorships that protect and allow for private property, things remarkably in line with modern conservatism. So yes, of course, the right wing has literally everything to do with fascism, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
2