Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
Marek Kac
Because it has no relevance to the conversation at hand. A physics expert can still be an expert, but it would be odd to ask them about complex physics when they're trying to discuss babysitting your kids.
We never lived under "true capitalism..." because capitalists purged people in the name of capitalism? I'm sorry, how exactly does that follow? Where's the logic?
Ok, you do realize that the creation of basic necessities does not necessitate top down control or statist organization of labor, right? Someone decides to make beds, because beds need to be made. They collectively own the bed-making business, alongside all of the workers in the same business. Other collectively owned industries support the bed-making business with supplies and support, because they all need beds. Teachers teach people basic skills, because they profit from a world where people are more educated. Do you understand the basics now? Egoistic altruism, people work together because it benefits them all. No need to hinder that with mindless accumulation of capital or competition. Nobody needs to "manage" the project of bed-making, or house-making. Individuals, collectively organized with ownership over their own labor, do it. People don't need to work for themselves by themselves, as capitalism forces. They can work for themselves and for others at the same time, with greater direct benefit. In capitalism, you work for your boss and you're lucky if you get anything back for your labor.
If nobody makes a bed, someone will step up to make beds. After all, everyone needs a bed, and they recognize that, therefore any push to make beds would be supported. What force is necessary to ensure humans will act in their own benefit, again?
You have no aristocracy under communism, no ruling class, as both those concepts are antithetical to communism as a concept. Communism, all communism, not anarchocommunism or anarchism, is a system defined by no state, no classes, and no money.
In communism someone has to create a bed that I will sleep on in a collective home/pod. Someone has to create it, Aidan. Somebody has to build the house. Someone has to learn how to do it and teach other how to do it. Someone has to manage this project. You need transportation, you need people to make bricks, steal etc. Are you telling me people should do those things for themselves in order to eat food, have a shelter and drink water? In a capitalist system they would get paid in money to do it.
What if they don't do it? Are they going to live under the trees eating bugs? ("if you don't want to work, you don't eat, drink, have a home, and that's just if you're lucky"). Or they will be forced to do it?
Again, you have an aristocracy under the communism and it is a ruling class. Stop mixing anarcho-communism or anarchism with communism.
And i'm sure you have proof of this supposed "communist/socialist" doctrine of course, right? You don't? Oh, i'm so shocked. I hate to break it to you, but politicians lie, and more than that, those that fanatically believe them lie as well, you being a perfect example. Where was this communism, exactly?
I hate to break it to you, but taxes, rules, and "social help" have always been concepts not only allowed but encouraged by capitalism, by the first capitalists to modern day ones. What's not capitalist about capitalism?
And this is just false. Again, social ownership is ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, collective ownership. How does the Eastern Bloc, or the USSR, fit this definition? Did the average worker have control of their industries directly? Did the workers decide what was to be done with their labor, and produced with their tools? Did the government represent these workers, and push for more political power and rights for the average citizen? Where is the "socialist utopia?"
7
-
7
-
7
-
@AppliedMathematician
I'm not complaining about some narrative simplicity, I'm pointing out the fact that TIK's conclusions, his definitions, and his argument as a whole is not based in history, so calling him a historian is a title without basis. Trying to get back at the socialists by wrongfully attempting to connect them to hitler is silly, and ahistorical. One can absolutely criticize the socialist movement, ideology, or aspects of either of them without invoking such ahistorical nonsense. If you want to criticize socialists for falling for the words of power hungry dictators or malicious movements, go ahead, just do it with actual history in mind. Furthermore, I have to break it to you, but precise, concise, and most importantly, correct wording is always important, even with broad audiences.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@vidard9863
Oh this is hilarious. You've genuinely fooled yourself into believing all this, wow. No, they weren't socialists, and they were right wing, which is a big reason they opposed socialism and leftism. The Weimar republic, despite being capitalist was more progressive than the nazi party, which is why the nazi party constantly talked about them abandoning traditional and allowing for "moral decay," the same things conservatives talk about today.
Nothing about them was progressive or leftist, by modern or historical standards. They were economically conservative, and corporatist. Their "breeding programs" were the literal opposite of progressivism, literally designed to enforce the "tradition" of the nuclear family. Marx being racist has nothing to do with this, given Hitler's racism came from a specific long line of right wing antisemetic conspiracies that predated him. Other regimes being totalitarian doesn't make them all related. In order to deny their right wing nature, you have literally had to present the exact opposite of their actual policies. What is progressive about traditionalism? Socialist about the right? Left wing about conservatives? Your statements are absurd.
7
-
7
-
@TfuckyoutubeC
I hate to break it to you kid but just asserting things with no evidence that have already been disproven, and refusing to even argue for them, is not an argument. You assert that they not only desired, but pursued collective control. No evidence, no argumentation, you just say it. Sorry, that isn't how this works. They didn't desire collective control of any sort, and they certainly didn't pursue it. First off, state control is not collective control. The collective can be represented through the state, but that is still collective. If you just have a government in control, you don't have collective control at all, as the community as a whole is not represented. Even if every single one of your claims was true, they still could not be considered a party that pushed for collective control. No, the state is not the collective, and you would do good to stop repeating nazi propaganda. In any case, none of your statements are true, so this is a moot point. They didn't nationalize industries, they privatized them. They didn't nationalize unions, they abolished them, and replaced them with an organization that existed with the primary goal of protecting the power of private owners. They didn't "collectivize" people, nor is such a thing even possible. They didn't control all aspects of life, not only is that physically impossible but it evidently isn't true, given their dealings with, say, american private companies outside of their control. That, and the millions of his own citizens that celebrated when he lost the war. So no, not every aspect of life was under their control, nor did they desire that. In any case, that still would not be collective control. That's one person deciding what the collective does, not the collective deciding what it does. The literal difference between free will and threats. And this is the problem with your arguments, you're willing to lie about the nazis goals and ideology, willing to lie about their actions, and willing to lie about the definitions of the terms in conversation. To claim that the collective is the state is to say hitler's victims were willing and happy with their deaths. It's disgusting.
Of course right wing isn't a synonym for authoritarian or totalitarian, those things can and do exist on the left. However, when comparing nazis to left and right wing authoritarians, we find a simple truth, they are right wing. Hell, they set the foundation for modern right wing authoritarianism. To call them left wing is to ignore their entire ideology and attempt to rewrite the definitions of left and right. The nazis were right wing authoritarians, something his attempted victims seem more than willing to point out to denialists like you. You're free to insult me all you want, but it's hilarious given the context that only the naïve, western americans even doubt the simple fact that hitler was right wing. I answered your question, and you hated the answer. Tough.
7
-
Because that isn't the US perspective, nor does that perspective apply. In the US, conservatives frequently claim that the right as a whole represents less government/libertarianism, but more often than not their actual actions only reinforce the state and allow it further power to influence the citizens under it. I mean, it's worth pointing out that at the time, the Founding Fathers would have been considered the left of the 18th century, as opposed to the right wing monarchists. The right is far from alien to authoritarianism or strong states. So yes, the notion that is is right wing is true. The political infighting between the libertarian right and authoritarian right doesn't change that.
Sadly, TIK doesn't understand that. He would, of course, be incorrect. He seems to believe in some leftist conspiracy to paint random things as right wing by the whole of the left, of course ignoring that he's doing the same thing, except painting all those he sees "bad" as "on the left." You can see this by the ideological way he claims "the left" ("They") said trotsky was right wing in the 1930s, apparently forgetting that trotskyists exist, and that "They said..." when facing an ideological grouping as large and vague as "the left" is a rather awful citation.
7
-
7
-
6
-
@Anthony-jo7up
So you're a liar. Either that, or just willfully ignorant. If you're for controlling the way people act and what they can own, historically that would mean you'd be throwing in your lot with the capitalists or other ideologies on the right, a trend continuing to this day. To say anarcho-communism is contradictory is like saying ice-cold and fire-hot are contradictory simply because you randomly decided to define fire as "snow" and ice as "boiling water," it just doesn't make sense. There is nothing contradictory about anarchism and communism. I understand you hate it when people correctly define communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society) but that doesn't give you a right to dismiss the definition out of hand. The core feature of communism is nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth, no communists ever wrote about that being the cornerstone of their ideology. The phrase "redistribution of wealth" wasn't even used until relatively recently, and has always described the stage before even socialism, which itself is long before communism. Furthermore, you evidently don't know the first thing about economics or the state. Force does not require statism, and the seizing of private property has never required statism. In fact, the maintenance of private property only exists through the actions of a totalitarian state, that defends the notion of property with endless violence. So you don't know what communism is, nor can you accurately justify even your interpretation. The original and most accurate term for capitalism is not "free market," given that markets existed before capitalism and will exist afterwards. Capitalists didn't even advocate for a "Stateless" system until recently, and that sect has little to no political influence. If one wants a stateless, classless, moneyless society, they may well support a free market, but said market cannot be capitalist. Capitalist cannot be stateless, classless, or moneyless. Capitalism is not a system in which people are offered fair chances, rather it's one where you succeed based on political ideology, familial lies, race, class, gender, and so on. A true system in which individuals can prosper on their own merits has nothing to do with the entrenched power structures of capitalism. Socialism isn't "when the government does stuff," we still live in a capitalist system and have for the entirety of this country's history. Of course, you don't like this system, so have to call it non-capitalist to justify the constant failure we see in it today. So, in short, anarcho-communism isn't a contradiction but self evident, anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron, capitalism is defined by private ownership not free markets, and there is no such thing as classless and stateless meritocracy under capitalism. You don't know the basics.
6
-
6
-
yeah because he wasn't a socialist at all, not that hard
funny, when one actually examines his own words and terminology, they come to that conclusion, any other conclusion is just impossible
That's why, after all, the actual "verbatim quotes" can be examined within context and found to contain nothing like what you're asserting. The actual quotes where hitler says what he wants that reflects what he tried to do, prove he wasn't a socialist. The problem is, you'll take any assertion of propaganda or any term ripped from definition and context, and claim it "clearly" proves socialism... which you've had to lie about and redefine to even get to that conclusion. Hardly clear.
the fact that you're very willing to exclusively take him on his word is worrying
but hey, as long as you feel you can dismiss any evidence you don't like, you won't see that.
Odd, when did "historian" or "person in tune with basic reality" become "socialist?"
6
-
Wicker 2
I'm sorry, but that's false. I asked that specifically on this video because I know that there are many ignorant people like you in this comment section, that have a utopic view of the right that needs to be corrected. The modern right advocates for the government to control your bodily autonomy, for never-ending wars and huge government bailouts, where's the "small government?" The modern right thinks that people have no right to even verbally defend themselves against the police and that minorities shouldn't be able to own weapons, where's the "armed populace?" The modern right will cancel you if you say anything bad about any of their leaders, about america, or even just say something they disagree with, where's the "free speech?" The modern right actively upholds a white supremacist system that structurally hasn't changed since the days they fought for slavery, how are they not benefitting one race? They actively trust every word of government officials who may be proven liars, but who share their party affiliation, where is the distrust? They literally have the biggest media company in the country, one of the biggest in the world on their side. No, hitler's rhetoric was remarkably similar to right wing rhetoric, especially concerning welfare, the poor and "lazy," immigrants, the left, and so on. I mean he, like the modern right, advocated for disarming those that opposed him, made the military and police all powerful, hated those that spoke out against his right wing policies, ect.
I hate to break it to you but "I have a jewish friend" doesn't nullify the fact that antisemetism literally comes from conservative religious beliefs and is perpetuated in majority by the right, including by ben shapiro. The right just can't seem to stop outing themselves as antisemites. And please for the love of god stop assuming people who disagree with you didn't read your revisionist bible here. I have. You're wrong.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@junkaccount2535
So what I guessed from the start is right. You have no idea what communism is, and instead, have created a strawman in your mind to represent it. When that strawman contradicts itself, or seems silly, you project this onto communism, despite not actually knowing what communists want, and despite your fake numbers. If you want the ideology that has brought more sickness, disease, poverty, hatred, and death to people at any point in existence, then look no further than capitalism.
What you're describing literally isn't communism. Communists don't call for leaders to "force others to hand over their wealth," communism calls for a stateless, classless, moneyless society. This is no way goes against human nature, as the only thing human nature calls for is survival and thriving of the self and community, which said ideology would achieve. The other thing is, you assume every person is the target of "communism." The vast majority of people would gain, not lose. Those that had wealth to "hand over" were the overwhelming minorities. Furthermore, those people were already imparting force on the other citizens, and those nations already had large militaries. As well as that, communism is literally a system based on the emancipation of the individual, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but marx didn't think that. This is the problem, again, you make up a strawman and then blame other people when said strawman doesn't make sense. Marx's work has existed for centuries and been hailed as revolutionarily applicable through all of that, what makes you think the man was "Stupid" besides your own ideological presence? Marx didn't believe in redistribution of wealth, nor did he even believe in a state. In any case, thanks for putting on display your ignorance and fervent narcissism. The world doesn't revolve around you, and you making shit up doesn't make it true.
6
-
Joseph Jones
Of course I have yet to answer a question you only now asked. Because you only asked it in this response, and I couldn't have answered it... before you asked it. You have yet to name an actual socialist system. You don't know the definition of capitalism, socialism, or even right wing. For example, you seem to think that "conservatives, capitalism, individual freedom, armed population, individual rights" is what makes a right winger, which is false. Monarchists hate all of the following besides conservatives, and they are right wing. Modern conservatives oppose all those but capitalism and conservatism. Capitalists despise individual rights and freedom, while historically, leftists have advocated for all these things, besides capitalism and conservatism. Your "every single aspect of the right" isn't actually every single aspect, it's the propaganda put out by a small segment of the right. In reality, what defines the right is "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" and what defines the left is "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" (Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations (2d ed.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015)) The nazis fit, without a doubt, on the right.
It's not "msm propaganda," it's historical facts that you deny because you're ashamed of the right wing history of the nazis.
Yeah, I hate to break it to you, plenty of people "refute" that and easily, given it isn't true. It's a shame a child like you feels the need to lie about their political history. You can hardly handle basic grammar and you expect me to believe you're some lifelong political individual? Your life has probably only been 15 years.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Aneko_Tomo
Child, you literally just pulled a "No true capitalism!!!" There is nothing in Capitalism even remotely close to slavery? How about... slavery, the thing that happened under capitalism, supported capitalism, and was advocated for by capitalists? No, child, socialists were abolitionists, who hated the involuntary labor, force, and coercion inherent to capitalism. These people were proud conservatives, they never called themselves "market socialists." Funny how you claim others haven't watched the video when you claim that capitalism is a new concept that doesn't describe the "free world," directly against the claims of the long debunked video. I'm sorry you can't deal with the simple fact that the history of capitalism and the history of slavery are one and the same.
6
-
6
-
@radioactiverat8751
thanks for citing jordan peterson, as to effectively completely discount your point. Peterson's assertions are roundly debunked by this point, but that won't stop you sadly.
The simple fact is, the right shares many similarities with hitler, and thus they will do anything, rewrite any definitions, in order to get rid of that correct association. They, you included, will pretend that "socialist/marxist/communist ideologies" have similarities to hitler, and yet history shows us the vast majority of the similarities to nazism lie in other right wing systems and ideologies. Furthermore, the "collectivist vs individualist" distinction is useless, and the fact that you honestly think to list Venezuela next to the USSR in terms of political theory proves how little you know what you're talking about.
With the points historians have provided, among other reasons he isn't a socialist. Nor is socialism even close to what Adolf aimed for.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@waltermh111
So in other words, a bunch of nonsense assertions with no basis. No, he openly spoke out against not just government ownership but government control, and in their place constantly praised private property and private industrialists as the heads of the ideal economy. He didn't have control over business, nor did he desire to force them to obey, rather he got their support through positive incentives. This, of course, isn't how the chinese economy works, nor is your described system similar to Mussolini's fascism, especially given Mussolini's also-outspoken support of private property.
I hate to break it to you, but marx didn't write anything like that. He didn't even differentiate between the terms "communism" and "socialism." Perhaps you're thinking about his theory that socialism comes after capitalist socialization has alienated the worker to such a degree that they revolt, but that isn't "getting money for communism." Are your "documentaries" also random youtube videos?
And I mean, yes, socialism by definition excludes private ownership/control completely in favor of social ownership/control. You can't change a definition of a word by saying "the definition is wrong because I incorrectly applied it." China does not fit the definition of socialism, though one can argue that they intend to eventually change that. Mussolini's system certainly didn't, hence his support of private property and hiring of capitalists to run his economy. Cuba runs nothing like that. I'm not sure you even know what communism is, as you continuously apply it to random examples that do not fit the definition. Venezuela, for example, cannot be called communist in any reasonable sense, nor even socialist, given their over 70% private economy. They didn't desire to nationalize everything, nor would that even fit the definition of socialism. Communists recognize that social ownership, historically, is far more efficient than private ownership, but you believe in a fantasy world where communists think capitalist things, and somehow remain communist. No, child, you think that private industry is better, and you think that these random people are communist. So, when it turns out that they agree with you, you claim that one can agree wholly with capitalism and yet still somehow be a communist. You don't even know what a communist is, communists don't believe in a state, they certainly don't believe that said state should have total control of capitalist industry and continue to run it for profit, they believe in an eventual stateless, communal economy. In any case, the nazis certainly didn't want state control either, they praised private property out of ideology, not necessity. You're staggeringly ignorant.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@travisadams6279
I'm sorry, but all of that is false. Quite literally all of it. More than that, it's all false statements i've already addressed and disproven, which you have offered no rebuttal for.
I have cited the literal dictionary definition of socialism to you multiple times, and have not once deviated from it. You argue like an ideologue because you can't handle being wrong. But of course, everything the nazis did contradicts the definition of socialism. Not every citizen of nazi germant was a nazi, therefore the nazi party wasn't the community as a whole. Furthermore, the nazis didn't own and run the means of production to serve the community, they gave it to private hands to serve the strong. Also, as we've been over, socialism isn't when one group has power, but when the community as a whole owns the means of production. You can't handle making arguments so you just reassert the same disproven nonsense. Did they control everything and have price Kommisars? No, not at all, nor did they want either of those things given their private leanings. Your personal hang up is not even wanting to deal with or acknowledge the fact that your definition of socialism is disproven, and that socialism is not when one community of many takes control, nor does that definition even fit the nazis. The nazis weren't socialists, as is proven. Sorry?
6
-
6
-
6
-
The problem of course is that his argument is entirely incorrect. Let me give one example why.
Hitler defined socialism as nationalism. He did this for a variety of reasons. First, he was married to actual socialists since the formation of the NSDAP out of the DAP who were also nationalists and socialists. Hitler was never a socialist as we understand the term socialism.
Words do actually have meanings. Hitler needed the socialists that remained in the NSDAP to solidify his power, until he had that power. When he had that power, he killed all the socialists, or exiled them, or sent them to concentration camps. Yes, the first people sent to Nazi concentration camps in the early 30's were socialists.
How can someone be a "socialist", if they claim to NOT be a socialist. Redefine the term to fit their agenda. Then purge their party of all the actual socialists the moment he no longer needed their political support.
It would be like saying, "I'm a martian", but Martians are really not from Mars, they are from British Columbia Canada. It was only the Martians who stole this term and twisted it to mean "From Mars".
Here is another quote from Hitler.
"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. 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. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
I'll comment on this. Hitler is saying there are only two possible outcomes for German political life going forward. Either socialism, to which he comments "and then God help us!". Or, to a right wing Aryan party. I'll give you one guess as to which of those futures Hitlers NSDAP would represent. He casts it as a struggle for survival. "Victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the Victory of the Jew (Jews are socialists in Hitlers world btw). He sees Germany's future as a struggle between Jewish Socialism/Bolshevism and a right wing aryan party.
Three paragraphs later in the very same speech from April 12, 1921 Hitler goes on to say the following.
"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, eve 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.
Again, I will comment. In this paragraph, Hitler is changing the definition of Social to National, and Socialism to Nationalism. Keep in mind that Hitler is still allied politically to people who had actual socialist beliefs at this point. Hitler needed their political support. Hitler himself was never a socialist. Hated socialists. However, he needed the socialists in his political alliance. So he CHANGES the definition of Socialism to be Nationalism, so that he can in good consciousness say "I am a socialist". Of course this is all moot, because Hitler PURGED all of the socialists in the NSDAP once he siezed power. It was this little thing called the Night of the Long Knives. All of the socialists in the NSDAP and Germany that Hitler could get his hands on, were either murdered, exiled, or sent into concentration camps.
Hitler was a socialist? Not even close.
5
-
Wow, TIK at it again with more antisemetism and historical denialism. Why am I not at all surprised? It seems now that despite hitler's influence from christianity, he was "fundementally anti-christian," despite the fact that antisemetic christians have always existed and that antisemetism in the modern world is primarily a result of modern and historical christian prosecution of jewish individuals. But, according to TIK, hitler's "religion" was the ideology he hated most. He doesn't seem to understand that not only is socialism not a religion, it is not an ideology that hitler held anything but contempt for. Perhaps what TIK meant to say is "Calling hitler a socialist is my religion."
But, in TIK's growing antisemetism, as long as it makes excuses for the right, he accepts it. This is likely due to the fact that no matter the academic pushback to his ahistorical denialism, he never seems to take historical facts or honest criticisms into account, seeking instead to deflect, deny, and dismiss.
Did you know, "his socialism" didn't exist, given his hatred of the concept?
5
-
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight Oh, so you're doing that thing again that I had pointed out, where, like a religious zealot, you claim to know more about a group of people than they themselves know. Brilliant. I think they know what they're calling for, as they are literally calling for it. And argument can be made (and failed) that they won't get it, but it is literally what they're calling for. So yes, they are. What you seem to not have realized is that of all the self-labeled capitalists, or the widely recognized capitalist systems, a hilariously tiny amount of them use your definitions. What you call capitalism isn't what most people call capitalism. What you call socialist isn't what... well, anyone besides you calls socialism. Look, I know you'll brush this off as egotistically as ever by stating you know better than 99% of the world, but maybe consider for half a second why people think that way. And no, blaming "leftist academia" isn't going to get you out of this either, we both know what Eco said about that. The problem with your definition is that what qualifies as a state, as a society, as socialist, is so broad that words must still be made up within your broad categorizations (even if we were to commit the fallacy of using your definitions) which of course means the newspeak you were going for it's invalidated automatically. Because what socialists actually want is different from what you say they want, so they will pick terms that accurately describe their ideology. Same with capitalists. The problem is, a group of people is not a state, buddy. And when you start calling a group of people a state, you're only doing so in an attempted association fallacy, to associate back to the real meaning of what a state even is. Without even getting into your absolute failure to actually use the definitions you yourself point out, which of course you try to substantiate by re-defining other words at the same time, your argument has already fallen into fallacy, and makes no sense.
And again, this is all just your attempt at association fallacy. Because according to you, there is no difference in a community of workers owning a factory, and a totalitarian dictator owning all the land in the country. Because that's what you're going for, after all. When you say socialism is state control, you don't mean by your definition of the state, you mean by the traditional one. However, as this is obviously not the case, you have to create a new definition of the state, which you then only use to relate back to the old definition. If their actions always result in "state control" but that "state" is a collection of three workers, then the association you are trying to draw makes no sense. And of course, you know this. So i'm sorry to say, it does matter what socialists believe and say, especially people like libertarian socialists that tear your whole argument apart. Because, by any sane definition, your association fallacy doesn't work and we can easily recognize that what you call a state, just isn't. I mean hell mate, according to you, anarchism is a statist ideology. The only ideology without a state apparently is solipsism. So you can redefine the terms all you want, but it only proves that you cannot justify your absurd worldview using correct definitions, which of course only proves to any onlookers that this is the best argument they can look forward to from your side. A semantic argument based on the stretching of terms and association fallacy to misrepresent the actual desire of the people professing the ideology, all out of a malicious and egotistical desire to paint everything you don't like as the problem of one system. And of course, you seem willing to go down with the ship there, internal contradictions and all.
5
-
The fact that you can watch a video full to the brim of ideological zealotry and random cultish assertions, and somehow come away with this interpretation, proves just how far this rhetorical brainwashing has spread. What is "grounded" about his attempt at denialism? How is his work free from religious like fanaticism, when the whole thing exists explicitly to push an ideological agenda, and in doing so, encourages audiences to reject history and objective fact in favor of faith in TIK's ideology? His video is not free of fanaticism, it encapsulates it, shows the worst of it, a man arguing against modern strawmen and twisting history to support a narrative, and claiming to fight for history all the while, tearing down historians and economists alike with no rhyme or reason. This is a religion, you just don't like admitting to it, because you're a follower.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5