Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@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. Those were, after all, not highly socialist statements, nor did you recount them accurately.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@freedomordeath89 Ah, but you forget.... so do i, boyo.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
- Adolf Hitler.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HiddenOcelot
False! I know facts are hard for you to deal with but asserting random nonsense does not make said nonsense true. Left and right are not "individualist or collectivist," as for one, those terms are so vague and often misidentified as to be rendered completely unusable, and for two, both sides have in equal amount individualism and collectivism. Are you claiming that fascism, a right wing ideology, is individualist? How about monarchism, theocratism, nationalism? Nope, all collectivist, all right wing. Are you claiming that anarchism, egoism, classical libertarianism, and mutualism are collectivist? Nope, all left wing, all individualist. the other primary axis of identification of ideology is not "self imposed or government mandated," it is libertarian vs authoritarian, and both sides are, again, matched in equal amount with both. You have completely constructed a definition of left and right that under no conceivable reality fits the actual definition. Hitler did not name his ideology "national socialism," rather he adopted a title and a party that already existed, while purging the party of its old members. Hitler did not call it "racial socialism," that would be TIK's ahistorical assumption. Hitler was a politician, and a noted liar, and he defined socialism as a system of individualism, religion, and private property. And yet you call him a man of truth. Why should I "trust hitler on his own ideas" when the vast majority of his ideas are racist lies that even he knew the falsehood of? And again, false. TIK's definitions actually aren't based on historical definitions at all, and certainly not modern ones. Instead, TIK gives the false perception of "historical definitions" by conflating etymology with definitions, and then conflating etymological history with definitional change, which is again, false. Furthermore, he also does not use words based on their historical context in this time, as we've been over, Hitler for example used a very different definition of socialism than socialists did, and TIK's definition of "marxist socialism" more closely matches all socialism than just one branch of it. And finally, I don't really care what you "think," it is clear that these businesses could only not be considered private by one who has a goal to discount their possibility of being as such. Most of these companies (like IBM) were run privately, and in fact, often run internationally, outside of hitler's power, if he even wanted to use it against the private sector in the first place. These businesses were not "collectivized," as in, put under collective control, in all cases. Hitler, in numerous cases, said both in propaganda and in confidential party meetings that his goal was never party or state control of the economy, as he thought it was inefficient, and would stifle Germany's industry. TIK's historical sources show the same thing, that the nazis were not socialists and had a private economy, though TIK denies this by redefining words. You might want to stop assuming people "haven't watched the video" just because they can debunk its points so easily. TIK's sources disagree with him, his definitions have no historical basis and are not based on history, and you're repeating them without a free thought in your skull. I say this because i've watched his videos, and addressed them directly.
2
-
@HiddenOcelot
So in other words, your attempt to prove his definitions is... to simply take them as a given? No, I hate to break it to you, but no modern or historical economist uses the terms TIK finds himself using. For example, "private" has never meant that only a single individual owns and manages a property, since the delegation of tasks, and splitting of management has always been a key factor of private business. If said private business decides to begin to place stock for itself into the stock market, while the stocks are then "publicly traded," (as in, traded between private individuals) this in no way makes the business any less private. The business is still owned privately, even if millions hold stock in it, and this is for a few reasons. For one, just realistically, most stockholders have very little power, and no direct control over the company, making your "collective control" mantra nonsense. For two, private ownership is not decided by how a property is managed. Again, the delegation of tasks has always been an aspect of private ownership. You argue that trading stocks publicly makes a business not private, but how does that not by definition make any business with multiple levels of leadership also not private? If I own a bakery, and I let my employee take care of the closing, they now have power and ownership over that property after I leave, is that business "collectively" owned? Of course it isn't. Corporations are private. You assert that a private company, participating in a private market, then becomes public... because more people own stock in it. Even thought the managing of the business may not change, it is still not owned by a government or directly by any collective besides private, capitalist individuals, you argue it is public property. Economically, this is false. Every definition of private property you find includes ownership by private groups. The reason TIK pushes this nonsense is because he realizes that most of what he hates in the modern world is solely private, the results of capitalism, and he refuses to accept that.
2
-
2
-
@HiddenOcelot
So you admit that the only reason someone would think the definitions posed in this video are true is if they do only ten seconds or less of research. Knew it. Your "economist" here considers capitalism, social movements such as progressivism, and broad concepts such as statism to be the same as socialism.
I don't think I need to explain to you that a man who thinks that the social push for tolerance, the ideological point of a state existing, and social democracy, are all socialist is not anything but a conservative talking point. Hell, the assertion posed by the article, that "socialists don't know what their ideology is" is nonsense, he makes that claim by taking a statement made by a socialist who states that many people don't know what socialism is, and asserts that this means that all those people must be socialists. Even funnier, the man has no background in historical economics, and is employed by a right wing think tank.
And I know you won't read the rest of it, because you simply can't respond to it. You assert that the "original use" of words is important, and yet not only promote a youtube "historian" that revises the definitions of words, but you also use a language largely built on the buried bones of the original meanings of words. And calling me full of shit doesn't change that. And yes, Hitler's economic policy was largely built off of the idea that businesses, rather than being forceful coerced by the state into production, should rather be bribed and influenced to join nazi production plans, for their own benefit. However, the nazis did not "set wages" or "Set production," as well as they did not mandate any necessary quotas. It wasn't collectivized, by the definition of collectivism, and it was not controlled by the state. Insulting me, again, does not change that.
2
-
@HiddenOcelot
So, you have no actual rebuttal to facts you don't know how to deal with. Classical Libertarianism, as in anarchism, is left wing. Monarchism was quite literally the first labeled right wing ideology, and has been labeled as conservative since, even modern conservatives are the only ones defending and pushing for monarchies. Simply put, you're making up a history that never happened, in an effort to deny that your ideological systems do not line up in the way you want them to. Furthermore, you assert that "nazism and socialism mesh" with an emphasis on economics, and yet you previously described a corporatist economy, which is as far from socialism as you can get. You also ignore that the right, conservative traditionalists and the like, mesh far better with the nazis than anyone on the left.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2