Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
@josephkempinger
I think that's a very real possibility, but I don't see that as a necessity. The majority of socialist movements have not been ones that call for state control directly, but for worker control, or even just increased quality of life for workers. However, since the statist group managed to take entire countries, they get most of the notoriety. In any case, I don't think society needs any top down force, be it market demand or state ownership, to be able to keep up with private entities or economies. Modern Coops do that just fine. Furthermore, the idea that the diversity of ideas and individuals would somehow run counter to social ownership just isn't true, in fact an economy in which innovation is not driven by profit, but interest and need, is one in which the individual, normally subjugated to office desks and factory conveyor belts, can truly shine. There's no need for someone who "knows what's best" to take control, even in a state-oriented failing economy. While some politicians may try to push that, it goes against the ideas of socialism, not in favor of them. Individuals choosing how to organize their own labor wouldn't create some mass turmoil either, more often than not individuals when organizing and delegating jobs are more than willing to organize and work together in concrete and far reaching ways that benefit all.
5
-
5
-
@mitscientifica1569 Exactly, nice try trying to rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis:
"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
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.
//:/
5
-
@HablaCarnage63
And how is that? I am not arguing for socialism, nor am I arguing against capitalism. I am simply pointing to the historical fact that Hitler was not a socialist, and to assert otherwise has always been an attempt to tarnish history, and to polish away the association that modern adherents of hitler-like or even nazi ideologies hold with them. And Socialism has been defined, for a long while now.
He has already had a label, multiple in fact, those labels being "Nazi" and "Fascist," which both describe systems that are neither capitalist nor socialist. TIK suggested an ahistorical revision of these terms, I suggest we keep the factual ones.
And I very much doubt that those that made money off of Hitler's deals with them and then spent their live openly praising Hitler's ideology could be considered "deceived," at least not any more so than the average german Nazi was deceived. Ford, for example, was awarded the highest honor a non-citizen could be awarded in Nazi germany, for his industrial work and antisemetic propaganda. Does he sound deceived?
They supported him, not because he was some lesser evil flavor of socialism, but because he wholly opposed socialism and leftism generally, and made as much very well known. That, understandably, draws the support of the rich of society.
While Hitler was certainly an opportunist, it would be silly to pretend that this means we can write off all of his allies and his views towards said allies as not mattering. It is clear that there is a huge difference between Hitler's temporary alliance with the soviets, which neither party intended to honor for long, and his ideological association with western industry.
And yes, it does seem like there's a lot of similarities between entrenched capitalists and aristocrats, hm? Wonder why that is.
The rest of the world was keenly aware of Hitler's anti-socialism, hence their industry often jumping to support and praise his efforts. They wouldn't have supported him otherwise.
Trying to separate these people, who owned and profited from capital, from the very word capitalist makes no sense. They were capitalists, by the oldest most historical definition, and trying to de-associate them does nothing.
And again, i'm not calling Hitler a capitalist. But it is clear that his ideology did have a basis in the right, in conservatives, in some capitalists, without whom he could not have taken power and could not have fueled his war machine. Hitler's alliances with the right were ideological, not based off of only convenience. I think trying to equate that with Stalin's choice alliances with capital, when said capitalists (like Ford again, for example) often collaborated with the soviets for either pure convenience or for the expressed purpose of delegitimizing soviet rule by exposing soviet citizens to casual western luxury, makes no sense and is a bit silly.
5
-
"The Holocaust happened, the Holodomor happened, and their ideologies are immoral."
A perfectly ironic statement, that shows the goal of your channel in full. You can't go a single video talking about the crimes of the nazis... without defending them by attempting to "whataboutism" their far-right actions, with the actions of the far left. Your statement is equivalent to "Yes this person got hurt, and yes this other person got hurt. Both are bad," without pointing out that one person got shot, and the other got punched on the shoulder. What a surprise, TIK, the far right apologist, is yet again trying to deny the crimes of the far right nazis by equating them where they historically will not, and should not, be compared. Holocaust survivors will tell you this, their surviving family will tell you this, historians who studied both crimes will tell you this... but I suppose to a denialist like you, they're all in on the conspiracy, right?
5
-
5
-
@grimmwolf6695
Perhaps you can't help but assume I'm "ignoring" something because you have yet to realize that what you said wasn't true. The majority of abolitionists were secular, northern liberals and leftists, up to and including key figures in leftism like Marx. The majority of slave owners, on the other hand, were right wing conservative white christians, who advocated that the government abolishing slavery was impeding their property rights. As the parties sectionalized, they dominant ideologies for them changed. In any case, authoritarian governments aren't a "leftist ideology," the history of right wing authoritarianism is centuries long. Similarly, slavery itself has a long history of being defended by capitalists and conservatives, primarily existed for the purpose of profit and markets, and was fought by leftists. The right not only has more to do with slavery than the left... the right's legacy is the legacy of slavery. It's odd how you try to "both sides" it right after making your bias clearly known. In any case, no the alt right are not "far left," nor is their ideology the same as the left's. They're right wing.
5
-
@ludwigvanel9192 and that is hilariously wrong, on so many levels, but it doesn't surprise me that you probably belive every word. First off, there is no such thing as a definition "in practice." Either it fits the definition that has already been established, it it doesn't. If it doesn't, like I'm the cases you mention, then it isn't Socialism. You don't even have proof they defin it that's way, so your entire point is moot, that is not how Socialism is defined. Furthermore, every socialist politician has defined Socialism that way? Really? Now that's a bold claim. One I would expect some citation for. Because I specifically remember a large amount of libertarian socialists, democratic socialists, and hell just socialists in general not at all advocating for that. I would call MLK a bit of a politician, did he want the state to have total control over people? No. The problem you're running into is your own confirmation bias. You want to define Socialism incorrectly, so you make up some nonsense about performative definitions, and then assert it to be true, without a shred of evidence. The science (observation-based) definition of Socialism is not power to the state over the people, it's a system in which the people, as a whole, own the means of production. You don't even bother to substantiate this point, you just say "but it's true" and move on. None of the figured you mentioned, Hitler included, just wanted state control over their people. At this point, you're just making things up to fit an agenda. They all had complex beliefs and moral lenses that they used it justify their ideology, far beyond "state good." Hell, I don't even know why you're bringing up Hitler, he never even said he wanted Socialism according to the actual definitions, or even your definition, he said he wanted a state where the private corporation and the state were one, both protecting the other. The problem with your "point" is that in order to subscribe to it you have to assume the beliefs of a few people, claim they are representative of an entire ideology, and then retroactively apply that label that you just made up to justify those actions. It makes no sense. Also, I find it funny how you link a communally owned system under Capitalism, for three reasons. One, you just admitted Socialism isn't just state ownership, but collective ownership. Well done. Two, TIK still calls the example of "free market Capitalism" you gave Socialist. And finally, you literally just proved yourself wrong. Those types of buisness are incredibly hard to structure under Capitalism and prone to failures. That means that even if you do set up a company that operates as a collective, the outside market forces would likely cause it to collapse. So you're either left with a single example of a fair system for workers in a sea of exploitation,.or you're left with not even that. You don't see the problem here? Its of no surprise to me that you're anti democracy, the strongest anti socialists tend to be (cough cough Carl Schmitt/Julius Evola cough cough) but let me clue you in. Saying you don't like something, hell, saying you think said thing won't work and it's a pie in the sky fantasy, doesn't change the definition. That's the very point of definitions. You guys seem not to realize it, but you can in fact disagree with a political ideology x think implementation of that ideology is highly flawed and will never happen, and then take the time to actually understand and correctly define said ideology. Do that, if for no other purpose, than to strengthen your arguments. If you walked into a meeting of socialists and just said "state control of everything with no worker control is bad" they'd probably agree, and maybe even assume you were a libertarian socialist. I mean mate I'm not even a Socialist, not a communist, and I'm actually trying to adhere to their w tual goals instead of malicious strawmen. Your childish statement "everyone thinks of #1 first" is equally as silly. No, many people truly don't, but that's besides the point. What part of this goes against Socialism? It's easy enough to show people that they are, in deed, in control over their own lives in such a system. Hell, the entire point is giving the workers more control over their lives, stretching their equal influence from the voting booth all the way to their workplaces. Id say that falls well in line with ideas of self preservation/benefit. Similarly, the examples you give (like all the other arguments you seem to have against Socialism) literally predicate a Capitalist system. What does it matter if you wake up late? You are not the owner of the restaurant, and when you eventually get back to said democratic work place, your co workers will probably have a lot to say about that. And finally, "imposing your will onto others?" That's about as Capitalist as it gets. What else is a boss? A CEO? A landlord? They spend their entire time with you imposing their will upon you. And it looks like socialists want to stop that ability fo your "owners," in the workplace or at your house, to control you so fundementally. After all, if you don't like that boss, it's out on the street with you. And the. You have to find another boss, that will likely continue the same cycle. The reason you "have to keep explaining it" is simply because, despite your ego, your unsubstantiated ramblings don't count as fact. When you say "Socialism is state ownership" and only "prove" this by saying "well socialists define it that way," with no proof, you are not pointing out an objective fact. You are voicing a shallow and easily disproven opinion. Seriously, I can't get over this last line. It shows such a blatant bias and lack of care from your end. You don't prove, you assert. You don't argue, you say "I'm right." You don't provide facts, just strawmen and broad generalizations. If you can really provide me the arguement you just did and call it "objective" in any sense, I can see why you agree with tik. Because you care more about saying "Socialism doesn't work" and "Socialism bad" than actually looking at history as we know it, and trying to properly apply labeled based on existing political ideologies. Its painfully obvious, as I've pointed out, that in this argument you follow your bias to your conclusions, not the facts. And so I'll leave off with this. You are not right. Not objectively, not even subjectively. You are, in fact, wrong. The fact that you have to redefine words (and can't even make a good arguement as to why you're doing it) proves as much. The reason you find it so difficult to keep throwing your biased and false version of history at other people, over and over again, is that it's just wrong, and so easily disproven I have to wonder why you still cling to it. Saying "Socialism doesn't work and everything bad is Socialism" is not an argument, in the slightest. If you have an actual historical point to make, one that uses the correct definition of Socialism and not your brand new made up one, then please, give it. But if not, every new response you give that seeks to rewrite history and redefine words only strengthens my argument. I don't know why, after all this time, it's so hard for you to grasp that the Nazis objectively were not Socialists. I keep proving this to you all, over and over again, but you just keep worming away from my pints, and even your previous points, to make more fallacy-filled assertions. Can't wait for the next batch of easily disproven nonsense from you, mate. And pro tip - when talking about history, maybe don't admit you could not care less about actual history in the first paragraph, hm?
5
-
@AppliedMathematician
That is the natural result of capitalism. A system where workers live for another, their boss, whoever they sell their labor to, and not themselves. And in this system, to reject that labor is to reject all that labor buys, be it food, housing, water, medicine, and so on. Where is the freedom to walk away? Can one simply walk away from a need for food?
Because the means of production are not literally anything that can aid in capitalist or socialist productions.
But again, simply reasserting this doesn't make it true. The idea of the Volk was one that existed on the far right long prior to hitler, he simply drew upon it. He didn't implement socialist ideas, he explicitly rejected the notion that the workers should have any say in how the state or economy is run, preferring to hand it off to private backers that counted themselves as loyal to the nazi party, mostly for reasons of profit.
The simple problem here is that one can criticize authoritarianism, one can criticize the history of socialist movements or the history of ideology altogether, one can easily criticize the movements and political pushes of the left, all without trying to lie about hitler's ideology. Hitler was, resoundingly, anti-socialist, and he wore this proudly. The only reason people in the modern day try to deny this is because they are fed up about rightfully having their movement criticized by comparing it to nazism, and the similar types of rhetoric and policy that the nazis and modern far right share.
I don't care about utopianism, or tribalistic politics, or some end-all solution to the world's problems in the form of politics.
And this is precisely the point. You simply don't care about the labels of ideologies, and yet feel the need to insert your ahistoricism in a conversation exclusively about labels and their historical application to ideologies.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@eb3674
Close, but no cigar. See, political and economic ideologies can be combined, and in fact, many ideologies are a mixture of the two, but you seem incapable of correctly building off this core idea. Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism, for example, are all mostly to partially political as well as economic, with communism being the most political, and capitalism the least. This is because you can have different political ideologies which modify those economic conditions, but those ideologies are the most incompatible or redundant with socialism and communism, and have the most effect under capitalism. Similarly, Conservatism is both a political and economic ideology, and Nationalism is a political ideology that lends itself heavily to right wing economics. Hitler and the nazis were not pure, libertarian capitalists, but they certainly weren't socialists or leftists of any sort, because of their private economy. It was a one party state with a strong government that endorsed private owners. Also, one party/military run states aren't intrinsically socialist. Socialism and Communism are ideologies that can be held by racists, such as having a racist leader or ideologue, but the ideas themselves are incompatible with racist implementation, by definition. Economic ideologies absolutely do have control over racial/social ideologies. Hitler focused on race, which alone discounts him from socialism, though his other policies do that as well.
5
-
5
-
@admontblanc The issue of course is that your analysis is false on all levels. Because as it is an objective fact that the nazis were not socialists, primarily, but also because your analysis doesn't even apply to what the nazis even were. You assert that they were somehow only different from "other forms of socialism" because they replaced economic classes with racial ones, which is just... wrong on all levels. For one, class, and the workers as a whole, are the base of socialism. To remove them from socialism would result in a system that is no longer socialist. That would be like taking feminism, replacing every instance of "girl" or "women" with "demon" and still calling it feminism. It just doesn't work. Furthermore, they didn't even do what you said. They didn't put aryans in control of the means of production, nor did they want to. They kept the MoP primarily in private-held state-guided hands, far away from the workers. That's not even to mention the fact that both philosophies came from entirely different places, had hundreds of differences, utterly reject eachother, ect. I truly have to wonder if you've done any research in this subject beyond the video, and even then, if you've even watched it. Your analysis of the economic reality of nazi germany is just objectively wrong.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@TfuckyoutubeC
“You heard it here first, apparently responding to someone's points in full, while providing citation, is just a "meme," or a "rambling wall of text." I must assume you open history books and say the same. Where was the "spiraling," hm? Is that just your excuse for why you neglect to respond to the quotation and citation I provided that proved your uneducated assertion completely wrong?”
This remains true. In any case, “brevity is the soul of wit” is a statement made by those that can’t handle the fact that history doesn’t fit into their neat little boxes and needs more than two sentences to properly explain and understand. I’m sorry that you feel that length, rather than argumentation, was what I was going for, but I fear I cannot change your fanatic mindset on anything, so there’s no use trying to correct that misconception. Child, i simply made the effort to prove you wrong. You can call this whatever you want, insult me for doing it in whatever way you want, but that doesn’t change the facts. I’m still not a socialist, child, please calm down your coping.
The very fact that you’ve proven that you are willing to skip past points that prove you wrong proves exactly my point here. So let’s start!
1: Child, this is just false. You’re attempting to redefine terms again, and it really isn’t a good look. Again, I already addressed this. You are attempting to argue against the concept of the community as a whole by pointing out that many small communities exist. I addressed this directly, saying that these are one group of many, and socialism is specifically defined as the community as a whole, all of these groups combined. Not “a community,” “The Community as a whole.” If you attempt to redefine socialism to be able to exclude certain parts of this community as a whole, then every ideology becomes socialist. The problem following this attempted redefinition is that you are willing to make false assertions to back it up. You say “you're using community to represent the whole of society, which a community may well be, but isn't necessarily.” Again, already addressed this. The definition specifically points to the community as a whole, not just any community, thus you invoking the ability for any community to be made up of any group does nothing to address the definition. You further say “community of nazi germany was germans.” This is, of course, false. The german people under nazi germany did not own the means of production. Certain, individual german citizens did, who were private owners, but their workers (obviously) did not own the means of production. The whole of the “german community” did not own the means of productions, tiny groups out of those germans did. So again, one group owning the means of production wouldn’t be socialist, but one group didn’t even own the means of production collectively in nazi germany, which you falsely assert to the contrary. The other problem is that you’re back to using the definition of individual communities. You can see this specifically with your usage of “*my* community.” Again, we’re not just talking about your community, but the community as a whole, all groups, not just one small group. Is a family owning their own farm socialist? Why not? According to you, that would fit the definition. The “german community” did not own the means of production under nazi germany, and child, ownership by one small group to the exclusion of all others isn’t socialism.
2. Child, what I said stands. You can’t actually accept the definition, so you deflect to definitions of individual communities, rather than dealing with the concept of a community as a whole. You are attempting to ignore the “as a whole” part of that definition, and trying to define socialism as control by any community, and thus any community in control must be socialism. I will point out again that if one is to remove the “as a whole” from the definition of socialism, all ideologies become socialist. This was all stuff I pointed out in the last response, you didn’t even bother rebutting it, you just ignored it. And I hate to break it to you but swallowing nazi propaganda, again, isn’t a good look. The germans of the 20th century were everyone from jewish people to immigrants and people of any descent. It was only the nazis, and other ethno-nationalist racists that tried to paint those people as any less german than the other groups thathad lived in germany for so long. There was no national ethnicity, and the fact that you somehow think america, the country literally notorious for doing its best to keep one group in power for hundreds of years, presents some sort of exception to the rule, you are wrong. The “common beliefs’ myth is quite silly when actually looking at historical american citizenship. I’m sorry you think history is a cult.
3. Child, you can’t just keep saying “you don’t understand x” when x is a point you’ve clearly been disproven on time and time again. Nothing I said in the following statement is false: "If we decide to redefine socialism to now be one grouping or community, rather than the community as a whole, everything becomes socialist. Monarchism, technocracy, capitalism, all ideologies where one loosely defined group is in control. this is what sets socialism apart, rather than advocating for one group to control with the exclusion of others, it advocates for all people regardless of grouping to control the means of production, the formation of one group of all people. You're attempting to ignore that, it isn't working."
The nazis weren’t just exterminating “non-germans” according to your own racist interpretation of that label, they were exterminating anyone that opposed their view of society. They killed leftists, immigrants, socialists, trans people, gay people, and so on. They didn’t want to redistribute wealth into any greater community’s hands, and that literally isn’t the definition of socialism. They felt no desire to put that wealth into the hands of the “german community,” they literally explicitly passed laws that allowed factory workers to keep wages low and keep germans poor. The state worked far less for the people of german under the nazis than under the capitalist Weimar Republic. Just saying things doesn’t make them true, and it is a simple fact that there was no effort to exclusively harm “non-germans” for the exclusive benefit of “germans.” The average german citizen starved under hitler, and the state did more to help them under pretty much every regime prior to hitler than under hitler’s. The german citizens did not receive redistributed wealth, and their economy was not collectivized.
It was quite literally a situation where “their community” was not germans, given that they threw millions of germans into prison or worse, and left those that weren’t behind bars to starve or live their live sout in fear. Similarly, non-germans like Ford were welcomed in when they showed to have shared the right wing ideology of the nazis. And child, you need to start making things up. Socialism is quite literally defined by putting all people, regardless of grouping, in control of the means of production. There is one group, that group being literally everyone. You can try to insert as many buzzwords into your argument as you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that this argument has nothing to do with “universal humanism,” and has to do with the simple definition of the community as a whole, all groups, all individuals. You’re trying to deny the basic foundation of the definition of socialism, and don’t even have a good argument to do so. No, I don’t how a single assertion of yours can be taken seriously, but I can easily prove them all false. “True socialism” doesn’t matter, i’m literally telling you the dictionary definition of socialism, and you’re trying to argue that this definition doesn’t actually matter because you don’t want it to. Sad.
5
-
@TfuckyoutubeC
4. If you describe my words as a “mess,” I must have hit home with most of them. I’m sorry you refuse to actually adhere to facts but all of your assertions to this minute have been quite simply, openly, false, and i’m more than happy to point out your justification and defense of his ideology and the crimes its committed. You’re free to be as lazy as you want when responding to me, but I hold no such burdens, and I will be happy to respond to you, as usual, in full. The problem here being that you don’t actually know the definition of the political right, and you don’t understand the policies hitler ran on. First, there’s nothing inherently left wing about nationalization, I urge you to look at the entire history of european state control under monarchies, and same goes for “repossession of wealth.” In any case, once again moot point, given that hitler specifically spoke out against the nationalization of german industry, and specifically said that he thought nationalization of said industry would destroy his economy. He also held no desire to collectivize unions, instead openly advocating for them to be abolished. He ran right wing, appealing to the right’s traditionalism and hatred of their wasteful nanny-state, as well as xenophobia, racism, homophobia, and I could go on. Next point. A populist, politically, is one that rhetorically claims to have the support of a certain large group of people to back them. This could be a party, a country, or a race, but not necessarily literally all people. Hitler, again, never claimed to want to work for all germans, openly making clear his position on say, gay germans, from the start. He was opposed to those who went against him, not the collective, as the collective more often than not was the very group opposingf him. I find it funny how I list out a number of “ethnic germans” as you’d call them (the lazy, the unionists, the old, the gay, the trans) and you say that hitler thought they opposed, defied, or hindered the collective hitler supposedly prized. Child, which is it? The germans were the collective, or only a very, very small portion of germans counted under hitler’s favor? Hitler hated these groups not because he cared for the collective, but specifically because he despised it. These people, despite being a part of the collective you claim had ownership of the means of production in nazi germany, were “excluded from the collective.” A policy, i’ll remind you, that disqualifies one from socialism all on its own. Child, what are you on about? Do you think opposing smoking means one doesn’t want to harm people? Come on. Why are you trying to deny his crimes? He was, objectively, a disaster for the average german, who was no better off economically, and was now under constant threat of being sent off to prison, or just a basic street execution if a nazi officer felt like it. Geman is a nationality, not an ethnicity, at least not in the eyes of people who can actually reject nazi propaganda. And the fact that you seem to try to mock the fact that hitler and the nazis were about as evil as human beings can get? That’s certainly… an argument to make. A horrific one, but an argument to be sure. His policies, objectively, benefitted only a small minority of private property owners and nazi party supporters, who were often one and the same, while the majority of the population (the “german collective,” as you call them) were worse off now than before. And yes, hierarchical structures in the workplace are directly counter to socialism as an ideology, and again, you need to stop projecting your own conception of ideology onto history, your “theory vs practice” deflection shows this clearly. Just saying that I somehow don’t know something doesn’t make it true. I, unlike you, am more than happy to do the research and find the facts, whereas you seem more than happy to ignore the facts and just make random assertions. He didn’t desire the redistribution of wealth, and again, this is something that democracies the world over participate in, it isn’t even the definition of socialism. One can literally attack your argument from any angle and it falls apart. And again, stop assuming i’m as uneducated as you. The promises of the german right during the collapse of the Weimar Republic were exactly what put the nazis in power, the economic and social policies they were calling for lined up almost exactly with the policies of the established conservative parties, which is why the conservative parties got the nazis elected and were rewarded in turn. Hitler didn’t care about the theft of wealth, given that he’d praise a german citizen and kill a jewish one for doing the exact same thing. And how is “equal distribution” moving the goalposts? You claimed he was for the distribution of wealth, do you think that any and all distribution is leftist or somehow socialist? Do you understand the definition of socialism or communism? I’m guessing not, given you’re unable to actually define either and felt the need to bring up communism to describe a capitalist policy. Once again, I invite you to actually read up on their policies, not just deflect.
5. The problem is that you’re asserting that anything you don’t like is “the equation socialism,” and aren’t actually interested in hearing about the real modern parallels between the nazis and their modern counterparts. I mean, again, come on, the right literally waves nazi flags, how much more explicit can you really get? Your “substitution” problem is silly, when you actually look at it. “You can substitute the group variable german for a different race, or maybe class for example.” I’m sorry, what? What socialist groups want to protect class differences like hitler wanted to protect race differences? If you look at contemporaries and somehow get yourself looking at the modern leftist, I have to be frank, you’re an idiot. The modern american leftist shares literally nothing in common with nazis.Are you seriously saying that poc queer democratic socialists are anything like the nazis? If you look at the modern right, again, they are literally see those who are flying nazi flags, shouting their mottos and praising their names. How is that not proving a point? The left burns nazi flags, the right flies them. Pretty self explanatory.
And yes, you literally don’t have a single argument. You have assertions, and you have propaganda, but you have been unwilling to actually argue to prove any of your points. And please, stop lying. American leftists use their constitutional rights to protest and to refuse to platform people. The right wants to remove this right to free speech, so we all have to listen to them. I hate to break it to you but there exists no groups of “black ethno-nationalists,” please go outside. If (and this will likely never happen) you actually look into nazi policies, see their hatred of a nanny welfare state and immigration, their hatred of progressivism, their hatred towards those that break their white conservative norm, you see the right in its purest form. I hate to break it to you, but trying to call them similar to democrats is especially funny, given the democrats also pretty heavily oppose leftists. The right in america claims to care about the constitution while literally advocating for the most important parts of it to be removed. The left, on the other hand, ranges from working within the constitution to attempting to amend it according to popular will. This is perhaps your most telling line: “as the world can see freely on youtube if you search” Child, you’re swallowing propaganda whole. You’re listening to right wing youtubers rather than actual history, rather than the actual facts. If you search for right sign ideologues on youtube, you’ll find them, without a doubt. It seems you’ve fallen into their cult of denialism, and think that looking up your favorite grifter on youtube means that everything they say must be true. Insults won’t change that.
Again, hate to break it to you, but actually going in dept into your claims and disproving them at the source isn’t just some “wall of text,” you can’t “mucho texto” yourself out of arguments you don’t like. Why would I shorten my arguments when the subjects of the arguments themselves cannot be shortened in such a way? I’m sorry that you feel the need to call random people socialists, just like the nazis before you, but that still isn’t an argument. You’re free to run away to your heart’s content, but it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about here, and you seem wholly unwilling to actually look into the subject matter or any primary sources discussing it. And again, lol, just showing you’re some child that gets all of their nonsense from youtube. No, I don’t think i’ll take the fanatic right wing denialist’s cope on its word, I’ll actually do the research and look at the real world, real history. TIK, like you, is a long debunked cope machine. I’m sorry you can’t handle the fact that the nazis weren’t socialists, and they remain that way totally to this day.
On a completely unrelated note:
“Some of us may be capitalists… but definitely none of us are communists, and definitely none of us are socialists.” - Modern self-proclaimed fascist of the far right organization “Vanguard America,” on the ideological makeup of fascist organizations.
5
-
5
-
Kimmy Anfo
He isn't that good at this, it seems, likely because his understanding of fascism is completely shot, and based only in his own ideological delusions. He knows that TIK is just as ignorant as him on this matter.
For example, it is a simple fact that fascism is an ideology of contradictions and redundancy, an ideology with very little concrete political or economic goals beyond their social assertions, and that finds itself formed different ways time and time again. The idea of fascism as a reactionary, totalitarian, and militaristic movement is one supported by the actions and views of fascists themselves, and is about as far from "no definition" as one can get. In fact, it proves a wonderful definition that can be further expanded upon to understand the commonalities and differences between fascist systems.
The way people like you attempt to deny this is by artificially limiting what can be called fascist, ignoring historical context and the study of ideology to suggest that their fascism is the only "true" fascism, and that all other examples can be discounted, for one fabricated reason or another. Of course, these ideological links are between different expressions of fascism, proving the lack of clear ideological foundation and the difference of expression in fascist thought. This isn't a flaw in the definition, this is simply how definitions work, and when one core concept is found to be a certain way, it is silly to then attempt to separate said concept into different groups, as if hindsight can change their historical association. These regimes are fascist, they fit the qualifiers, and come from the same place as other fascists. Now, while Orwell did make note of accusations of fascism being used as a rhetorical tool by politicians and the like, he didn't assert that fascism itself had no definition or that regimes often called fascist were not so. In fact, he presented a rather concise and complete definition of fascism, one that contradicts his denialist narrative.
What you mean by "Read between the lines" is "suppose conspiratorial intent." Of course, the vast majority of those accurately defining and labelling fascism are not marxists, nor does your assertion of "countering marxism" explain the vast majority of labelled fascist regimes. These historians don't care about marxism, unlike you they have no reason for ideological nonsense, they're simply pointing out reality. He seems to have not quite left fascism behind, given that he still believes in the same fundamental conspiracies that "justify" it. The accurate definition of fascism, the one that you assert is some marxist conspiracy isn't incorrect, and though it may counter your ignorance on the subject, that doesn't discount simple historical fact.
The problem is, there is no marxist conspiracy, these definitions and facts are not "socialist" in nature, and so predictably, they are often reasserted by non-socialists, because they anage to disprove falsehoods coming from the various denialists camps. You assert that these people are just ignorant, that they "Get it wrong," just because they disagree with you.
TIK didn't try to figure out what fascism was, if he did that, he would have to be honest about fascism's long history of anti-socialist beliefs and actions. He didn't want to know what fascism was, rather, he wanted the most convincing argument possible to support his ideological position, that being that everything bad is somehow socialist. So, rather than deal with the whole of the material, he ignored, attempted to discount, or just denied huge amounts of accurate information that contradicted his narrative. This is why he doesn't show, say, fascist speeches in which they distance themselves from socialism and the left and support the right, why he doesn't show fascist writings which show their ideological opposition to socialism and desire to replace it with a right wing movement, why he doesn't explain the alliances or simple overlaps between the old guard conservatives/capitalists with new fascist actors while at the same time socialists and leftists were purged and repressed, because it doesn't support his narrative. It's not the mouths of fascists that TIK wants to hear from, but the mouths of those that agree with him politically, and that have been failing to deny history for decades now. Sadly, for him at least, we both know he's wrong, and the only way to assert otherwise is to hold on to the fascistic conspiratorial mindset that you're so proud of. No, child, fascism is not a socialist ideology, by any definition. It has never been, and never will be. Fascists "didn't want to openly admit it" because it isn't true, hence their constant support of anti-socialism. Fascism was not, and has never been a socialist ideology. Fascists didn't want to be associated with socialists or socialism, directly or indirectly because acceptance of fascist ideology by necessity means a rejection of socialism and the left. It was at this era that marxism was at its strongest in terms of ideological pull, the "people" you're talking about being terrified of this movement were not the people as a whole, but a small group of people, private owners that fascists appealed to. They had no need to disassociate from the "marxist socialist" movement, their rejection of it was plainly published, hence the anti-socialist third way economics. Those terrified of marxism, those that the fascists appealed to, were the capitalists, the conservatives, the statist traditionalists and the rabid right wing nationalists. That's why their anti-socialist movement was so successful in drawing power at the time, because even though they failed almost everywhere in terms of popular support, they had the backing of the political and economic establishment, hence so many capitalist countries from austria to poland, with huge conservative political movements, turned towards fascism, and why it is out of modern conservativism that fascism has been created again in those very same places.
The people that fascists appealed to were the people that wanted neither socialism nor marxism, but more power. After all, the populations of these countries were already turning towards marxism, hence the fascist rhetorical push towards emulating pro-worker terminology, up until they actually took power. Fascists did bring a new option, a new option that allowed capitalists to keep their power and wealth without worrying about competition or unions, an option that allowed conservatives to consolidate political power and enforce their social views, an option that got rid of socialist and criminalized socialism as an ideology. Fascists, of course, knew they weren't socialists. Funny he mentions Orwell, given that Orwell himself was well aware of the connection between fascism and the right, going on record numerous times to connect it to conservatism and capitalism, and to correctly point out the ideological foundations of fascism on the far right. At the time Orwell wrote that, as well as in the many years before and after that statement, fascists didn't like saying they were socialists, or as you put it, "openly admitting they were socialist," because they weren't. Similarly, socialists despised fascism, and at that point no movement had been created to attempt to link the two, as right wing denialists had done after the fact. Socialists didn't like "openly admitting fascism was socialist," because it wasn't and even at the time that was considered absurd. However, conservatives and capitalists were openly admitting to their support of nazism and fascism.
Today, of course, little has changed. Fascists today don't call themselves socialist, and in fact, they proudly march under the symbols of the right, and admit to their opposition to socialism and the left as a whole. Fascists today do not "openly admit to being socialist..." because they aren't, and they now it. Hence, the constant support of the right and anti-socialism, and the right's support of them. The only one in denial here is him, who somehow thinks that modern fascists shouting "Hail Trump" means they're openly socialist now? Orwell did figure it out, being as open about fascism's ties to capitalism, conservatism, and the right as he was, but you didn't actually read any of his works, jut parroted TIK. Orwell had nothing to "admit," he published the truth about fascism often. But of course, in your conspiratorial mind, the only reason he didn't agree with your denialism was because it would... keep socialists away from his writing. Despite the fact that, of course, he didn't "admit" to his position because he knew it to be false.
.
So no, fascism is not nationalistic centered rebranding of socialism. Fascism, historically, is a movement that rejects socialism in all forms and all ways possible, and further rejects the left by associating it with socialism. Fascism is a movement of reaction, a movement of the right, and a movement of deep conservatism and hatred of the left. We know what nationalist socialists were. They weren't fascists. You don't want a super simple explanation, you want denialism. A simple explanation would be more along the lines of, fascism was an extreme form of totalitarian conservatism that appealed to all aspects of the right, and shifted the blame for failing economies from private owners, to socialists. A simple populist rebranding of conservatism.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight That's possibly one of the more... out there comparisons I have heard. Saying a word has particular meaning, even if you do not like the parts that do not go into the word, is utter nonsense. Would you prefer I use terms like state dirigisme, which describe essentially the same system? The fact is, even if you don't like terminology, that doesn't mean the distinction that the terminology provides is irrelevant. I'm completely colorblind (not in the racial sense, the actual condition) and I still like to now what the color is of objects, even though personally the distinction is of no value. Similarly to bring up a historical term, Malcolm X called slaves that supported their masters, even to the detriment of other slaves "House Negroes." I personally disagree with using this terminology in the present day for a variety of reasons, mainly that there are alternatives, but even then the concept of a "House Negro" and a "Field Nergo" do not vanish. Those people still existed, using that term or not. So again, the terminology can be flawed, that's fair, but outright saying the condition it describes does not exist, or worse yet that it can be lumped in under another system ignores the very meaning the word is pointing towards. I can see how seeing the term "capitalist" associated with a thing that is not the traditionally associated with it would be a bit annoying to correct, as it draws association that doesn't reflect on all (or even most) capitalist practices, but I would still argue that it is a useful term, and that as it has been used in history we should at the very least find some way to convey how the old terminology has been better refined to support the same ideas, but that the system behind those words still exists.
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight So the problem you have with the word is, as I previously stated, not with the system as it exists but within the terms that are used to describe it, the etymology that makes up the word that you are addressing, not the system. As I said previously, the system will continue to exist whether or not you call it "state capitalism." "state dirigisme," or "just that dictatorship-type economy." And I would disagree with your framing here, a state can absolutely be capitalist, after all a state is just a collection of individuals with commonly accepted authority. Take away the consent to be governed, and the state is just another grouping of wealthy people. A state can absolutely be capitalist, work in the interests of capitalists, or work not at all yet still exist. Similarly, the term "state capitalist" does not describe a system of a literal capitalist state, it is a shorthand term used to describe another type of system completely. State capitalism does exist, even if you want to reference it by what you assume is preferential etymology.
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight "I used to be a Socialist. As I said in the Hitler's Socialism video, when I realized Hitler was a Socialist, I immediately grasped the true nature of Socialism."
So rather than actually take definitions into account, you decided to work backwards and create your false definitions of actual political ideologies not based off of what their proponents think, or what the famous thinkers in their history have said, but from what you want them to be. You still haven't "realized" hitler was a socialist, because it's impossible to "realize" something that isn't true. You figured out that hitler was bad, a problem many in your comment section have yet to address, and then made the stunning leap in logic that everything that defines power is somehow socialist. In other news - your definition of socialism is useless, and now learning that you define it so broadly, I can see why you think hitler fit at all, and I can confidently say that he does not, because if this is how far you need to stretch the truth to come to that conclusion than it must not have been true to begin with.
"A typical Socialist wants what I want - a better world, a better economy, and a better life for the poor and downtrodden. I still want these things. "
I thought you said marxian socialists weren't the only type, in order to justify hitler supposedly being a non-marxist socialist? Well, just another self-contradiction and over generalization to add to the mix, marvelous. However, all of these words now hold no weight. Because I know when you say socialism here, you actually mean hierarchy. Hierarchy impoverishes people. Hierarchy destroys the economy. Hierarchy makes the world a terrible place to live. Of course, that ignores that hierarchy is inherent to capitalism, but whatever we'll just sweep that under the rug. And the problem is, as I said earlier, you didn't actually define socialism as it's been presented, or proposed, or spoken about - you found all of the things you blamed for a bad world, and you blamed socialism. Better off, you blamed socialists, who advocate for next to none of this. Tell me, which socialists want to give corporations more power?
"Marx wasn't even describing Capitalism when he referred to it. What he was describing was Merchantalism, which was actually a precursor to Socialism."
Oh. Oh you poor, poor child. Yeah, just no. Mercantilism, as well as early imperialism and colonialism, were precursors to capitalism. This is objective history. You can argue that the systems were not one and the same, and that's an argue worth happening, but to deny that the triangle trade of mercantilism at all impacted the creation of capitalism is sorely incorrect, and better yet to blame it on socialism despite the fact that marx was actively speaking out about it says even more. You truly do believe everything bad in the world can be attributed to one ideology, don't you? You have your nice little whataboutism here, "well yeah i've been redefining terms, but marx talked about capitalism in a way I don't like a century and a half ago, so it's justified." So tell me, what makes his definition less valuable than yours? I don't even like marx, yet i'm more inclined to believe him on the simple account that he actually says that his opposing side has upsides and downsides, a feat you seem to not be able to manage.
"What I've done is gone back to square one (to pre-history, then to the present) and shown exactly what the terms means and why they mean that."
So you haven't defined them according to history at all, you've painted over history to make room for re-defining them. thanks for at least being honest about it.
"As I've shown in the video, when a society decides to organise itself politically, it becomes a State (defined both historically and by the dictionary)."
So any collection of people with common goals and political power is a state. Well then I guess as you said earlier, corporations are statist entities, and we've been living under a full socialist control for decades now, as these collections of people with political power control the economy. So, in other words, everything is socialism the second there is more than two people in a room. Sounds amazing, really. I would think most socialists wouldn't realize this is what they are advocating for, as it objectively isn't, but whatever then. At least in this part you've managed to actually attempt to define socialism somewhat, although rather broadly. Makes me wonder why you can't even stick with one definition. Which is it? Is it just hierarchy? Is it state control of the economy? Are those two things really synonymous to you?
"Socialists mistakenly believe that they're NOT calling for State control of the means of production (totalitarianism)."
"Socialists mistakenly believe that they are actually calling for what they're actually calling for, which can be no state control of the economy, or it can be public control of the economy through democratic means. I, however, have decided that despite the fact that my definition of socialism is so broad it's literally happening worldwide right now, this is impossible, and thus we should utterly ignore what they actually want and project what we don't like onto them." Right, makes perfect sense, well done!
"A Socialist may disagree, or dismiss, or say 'this time will be different'. You may say you don't agree with my definitions, and claim that I've reinventing them. But you're not deceiving me - you're only deceiving yourself."
What a stellar argument. A socialist might actually try to engage me in debate on consistent political terms, something you seem unable to do. And i'll tell you, i'd prefer that to this "debate" any day. Because they can at least keep a consistent definition which actually acknowledges the upsides of the opposition, not changing the definitions whenever you find something bad you can put under the label.
"This lesson of history is not being learned, and so we're doomed to repeat it again and again."
Gosh the irony. Ok then, well let me know how railing against everything bad being socialism works out when the companies gain more power, which you call socialist. r we get another Pinochet, or start another war of containment. Because none of those things are bad and were caused by fearmongering on socialism, right? Oh wait, you probably think they were all socialists, who am I kidding.
5
-
5
-
4
-
Ok, so no offense, but you kind of admitted the fault in your argument here. Hitler was not a socialist in any traditional sense, rather he called himself a socialist and built up a new meaning around that word, as well as distinctly cutting off it's meaning from the other forms of socialism that already existed. His was a "prussian" socialist, which was already not left wing before he got his hands on it. Also, while there is no one concrete definition of socialism, they all have things that must happen, and most have certain factors in common, factors hitler did not believe his ideology should follow, at all. Here is some quotes that show that, as well as some modern right wing organizations that use similar tactics.
The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. Basically, that means to use saleable words – such as freedom, identity, security, democracy. [...]Once we're in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, 'yes, every last one must go'. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. [...]There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas, and the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable."
- Far-Right British National Party.
"Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for
consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal
of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism
"We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house."
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight."
- Adolf Hitler
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and the fields blue ought to be sterilized"
-Adolf Hitler
Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda.
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
"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
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKBN1K331J
So the question now is - how do we use the term socialism? Because the thing is, modern day socialists have no connecting with this ideology, despite the implications of the title. Hitler technically called himself a socialist, but how do we define him? He had nearly nothing in common with any other denomination of socialism, even if we consider him technically a kind of socialism, he's the only right wing kind that protects private property, wealth, and nation, as well as many other key distinctions. So why is he a "socialist?"
I suppose that's more of a subjective question, but my view is that no, we should not call him a socialist. The modern socialists have nothing to do with this man, so calling him by that title only muddies the water, and it isn't even worth the effort of applying the title. We already ahve a word for what he was, a fascist, a far right ultra nationalist leftist hating fascist. So what would you prefer, you call him socialist as a needless attack on modern leftists because the connection between nazism and socialism is practically non-existent, or, we just call him what we've been calling him for a while - a fascist. I say the latter, makes things more simple.
If not, then they may technically be a socialist, as in a prussian socialist. But at that point, they are removed from all other socialist movements, so the name is useless.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
Oh, child. You really just can't understand the basics, can you? Why would I call him a child? Because I felt like it, and because I believe it to be accurate. Does that somehow disqualify the argumentation that stands with or without those remarks? Apparently, to you, it does.
Of course, to you, your actions can never be fallacies, despite your inability to realize that you only argue from accusations of fallacy, accusations you can't even back up... which is, of course, a logical fallacy. You have yet to even touch upon these supposed conclusions, much less prove any fallacious methods... because you can't :)
But you don't, you really don't, and I'd say that's pretty relevant when your definition of ad hominem relies on the accuracy of insults.
4
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
Child, just listen to yourself. Listen to reality, for once, and recognize how silly your ramblings are. An ad hominem argument is, of course, not a "red herring" argument, but rather, an argument that hinges on an insult. This is the objective definition, and the one you keep running away from, because it proves you wrong. Of course it has no bearing on if the OP is wrong or not, because it isn't a part of my argument, which is exactly what makes it not an ad hominem, argument. He is a child, regardless of my other points. You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. It has no bearing on the argument, and is, therefore, not an ad hominem argument. an insult being unrelated or unproven doesn't make it an ad hominem argument, as I keep telling you, time and time again.
"You are admitting it has no bearing on whether OP is mistaken and is, therefore, a red herring of the ad hominem variety."
Literally none of this is correct. Ad hominem fallacies aren't a type of red herring, they are an argument that is reliant on unrelated insults rather than the core of the argument. Therefore, an insult given with no bearing on the arguments presented, by definition, cannot be an ad hominem fallacy.
You're unwilling to admit to your own fallacies because that would require you to actually define them correctly, and for you to have even a speck of decency. However, you have neither. Of course, as i've proven time and time again, my statements are devoid of ad hominem fallacies, and fallacies all together. Unlike yours, of course, which rely on red herrings, non sequiturs, and of course your favorites, arguments from fallacy.
You, quite literally in this response, said that ad hominem arguments are judged on the accuracy of the insults. Which means that you consider "accurate" ad hominems to be free of fallacy (which is why you so often engage in them) and "innacurate" insults to be fallacious. No, the definition of ad hominem is not "an argument directed at the person," the definition is as follows: "Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occur in formal logic where the validity of an argument based on syllogism or deduction is independent of the person putting it forward."
The problem is, by the actual definition and by your cop out, I have not engaged in ad hominem. I have not argued "directed at the person," i've argued against his position, while insulting him. My arguments are neither based on, not hinged upon, his character in the slightest. You notice how, if you take the word "child" out, the argument remains exactly the same? right. Because i'm not arguing against his character or person, and my argument does not rely on personal attacks to function. I'll say it one more time - an ad hominem argument would be "You are wrong, because you are a child." A non-fallacious argument, if a bit spicy, would be "You, child, are wrong, and here's why." I did the second of those two examples. Of course, it isn't a fallacy at all that I have no reason to "prove" offhand snide remarks, but if you insist, I would say that believing that the entire scope of public opinion surrounding a decades long debate with thousands of hours of media created surrounding it can be synopsized through the analytics of a single video on a platform primarily used by actual children... is pretty childish, right? But you don't care about that, you just want to scream "fallacy!" because you have no other argument. If only there was a term for that type of argument...
4
-
@projectnemesi5950 No, society is not the state. That's the real fringe position mate. Like seriously,how deluded do you need to be to devalue the terms "state," collective," and "socialist," so much that by your definition, any group of more than one person is somehow socialist, and somehow a state. The state often does not represent collective society. I,for example, don't like anything about the current american state, or even it's existence. Am I represented in that collective? Are hundreds of thousands of independent voters represented in a two-party system? It's telling that of this response you posed, only one line is actually dedicated to your "point" (another baseless assertion) and the rest is dedicated to ad hominem attacks, which as well as being generally weak, show a clear amount of projection on your end. But trust me, I do love the implication of "If you don't agree to my redefinitions, you're on the fringe and I just can't talk to you."
4
-
4
-
Wicker 2
Yes, one of those people that adhere to fact. Trust me I already guessed you weren't a fan. I suppose you don't see the hypocrisy in proclaiming that a system cannot prioritize or primarily benefit one race simply because a select few individuals from other groups are allowed the opportunity to fight against a white supremacists system and assert themselves where so many do not want them? I suppose you think it's pure coincidence that the amount of major leaders of color in this country's past is one that can be read through in a few minutes, as opposed to the pages and pages of white leaders? You mean the "active advantages" you and so many on the right seek to abolish totally? It's amazing that you think long proven statistical facts are only appealing to "cultists," but you've never been one for reason, have you? I'm showing people reality, proving it even, and it's sad to watch you deny it simply because it proves you wrong.
The side that fought for slavery didn't just disappear, champ. What do you think happened to those people?
But they aren't "unborn children," they're clumps of cells. And in order to "defend" them, you have to actively attack the rights and lives of pregnant people, or even people who have the ability but no desire to get pregnant. It isn't ok to use state force to force people to give birth and support another human life just because you think a clump of cells is the same thing as a person. Your policies actively murder those who hold pregnancies they cannot care for. Even making the absurd assumption that pregnancies and people are the same, why does the "baby" take precedence over the parent? And how does your side advocating for coerced infections have anything to do with this?
Trump didn't "end" a war, he pulled our troops out of a war that we started, and by "we" i mean right wing american leaders that defended it up until their leader told them to stop. Isn't it interesting that despite his base being unabashedly nationalist and interventionist up until his election, they're so in tuned with him that they don't even care about their own policies unless they line up with Trump's? And how is war not the biggest government out there, one that spends trillions with the sole purpose of murder and oppression? Hypotheticals don't matter, what matters is the reality of massive US military spending.
You're joking with me, right?
Who else do you think is pushing for and passing massive corporate bailouts?
Whenever a person, usually black (I wonder why) is shot or attacked by the police, what is the right wing response? "They shouldn't have been there! They shouldn't have been acting suspicious! They should have complied! It doesn't matter if the police broke into your home and shot you in your bed, to not totally comply with state force, in the eyes of the right, puts the blame of your injury or death solely on you... not the poorly trained state officials that shot you.
Erm, no. If we look to the past of gun control, and try to find examples of people specifically trying to disarm minority groups, we see right wingers like Reagan, who were in favor of lax gun control laws... until minority groups started to arm themselves, which is when he passed gun control legislation. Democrats advocate for equal gun control, impacting groups equally. Right wingers advocate for gun control when minorities start to arm themselves, and no gun control when they want to arm themselves against minorities. Felons don't have anything to do with that.
"We don't care if someone has an R after their name" is one of the funniest things i've seen today. No, you don't actually care if they are in line with your policies, but your rhetoric. If those in your party don't adhere completely to false and long debunked narratives that the right loves, they're kicked out. If they show a desire to listen to facts, or to compromise, they are labelled fake republicans and kicked out. The move to "tear out the old guard" is one with the sole purpose of consolidating a narrative and creating an ideologically consistent echo chamber of a party.
Are you really going to pretend that the right wasn't essentially screaming in hate against people like Malcolm X and the Black Panther movements deciding to arm themselves? Are you going to pretend the right didn't do all they could to disarm their jokes?
And just saying "I don't like this fact" isn't a rebuttal. The right has done all they can to consolidate power and allegiance with the military and police. Sorry?
It's sad that you don't know anything about the history of antisemitism but i'm not surprised. Modern antisemitism is quite literally a direct result of christian conservatives in the middle ages spreading malicious and hateful lies about jewish people, barring them from travel and activities, spreading conspiracies about them, and so on. The belief that jewish people are the upper parts of society and control society from the top is quite literally a part of that religious hatred, as working with money was seen as sinful when this bigoted movement was started. As for railing against "twisted and degenerate culture," what better describes the modern right? So willing to talk about "cultural marxism" and "the fall of the west" the second someone dies their hair. I'm sorry that you think an education on the history of antisemitism is false simply because you disagree with it, and i'm sorry you think your long disproven bible of this video is the only source on the history of antisemitism that it so often denies. Anti-religious nazis is like saying anti-christian roman catholics, champ. Christianity, and christians, was the start of their bigotry and claim of heritage.
4
-
4
-
@HowieHellbent
1. "Many, many historians," hm? Where are these historians, exactly? If you'd like to see historians that give actual, you know, history, i'd start with some of the best known and most renowned scholars in the field of WW2 and fascism, those being Richard Evans, James Gregor, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Ian Kerhsaw, ect.
2. There is more to the world than capitalism and socialism, and the truth is the nazi ideology nor economy resembled nothing like socialism, and I don't quite care what you "have seen" otherwise, I care about the facts.
3.
...I'm sorry, when did we have to start listening to an ideology's most fanatic supporters to correctly understand it? If one wants to learn of the definition of capitalism, there are objective and historical sources to help with that. Hayek, an ideologically extremist capitalist, who lived and died not as a historian but as an ideology-peddler, is not one of those sources.
4
-
@HowieHellbent
1. TIK openly admits that his actual historical citations, not ideological propaganda, disagree with his conclusion. Something you'd know if you watched the video.
2. No actually, the "claim" is a long proven objective fact, true both within historical and modern context. You seem not to know what any of those terms mean, however.
3. Oh, god. This is perhaps one of the worst statements on capitalism, economics, or history i've ever heard. Hayek did his most well known economic work, developing his views and philosophies, in the mid 20th century. As in centuries after the ideological founding of capitalism. He helped to form one specific, recent, offshoot of capitalism. Let me repeat that, one more time. You called a random capitalist economist from the 20th century... one of the founders of capitalism. Jesus. You don't even know who you're talking about, this is embarrassing. I told you objective facts about his views, and you call this slander. He wasn't one of the "foundational philosophers," he's a modern footnote on a centuries old ideology. Hence, why citing him to talk about the whole of capitalism is dishonest and unnecessary.
4. This is, quite literally, another strawman argument. Thank you for admitting you have nothing else, and lack the historical context to actually make an argument.
5. He didn't just oppose "marxist socialisms" though, stop inserting your strawman argument. He opposed and purged explicitly anti-marx socialists on top of that, as well as purging other flavors of leftists and their allies, while protecting and elevating conservatives. You don't seem to understand the basic historical context of what you're saying.
6. I actually have both of these things, unlike you, who pushes nazi propaganda as if their life depended on it.
7. You are both immensely unintelligent and have a problem of falling for propaganda easily, propaganda that was only established recently and is (and has been) easily debunked. Propaganda like the notion that the nazis were socialists, which was recognized rightfully as so absurd that the only ones asserting this claim are those who have sprung out of recent, ahistorical ideological movements, not movements of history. You have no basis for your claim, nor do you even attempt to actually argue them, instead just asserting them and then running away. In any case, I think we can both see your blatant bad faith tactics, and denial of historical record in favor of your ideology.
After all, historians have known the truth about the nazis since their party took power. Hence, TIK's sources so openly proving him wrong :)
4
-
4
-
@HowieHellbent
Insulting me does not remove the facts from my responses, facts you desperately wish to ignore.
You were the one who changed the subject of this conversation when you ran away from my points, that is solely on you.
All this conversation has been since is you trying to run away and accusing me of harassment, while I calmly state that you're free to mute me or stop responding, which makes you in the wrong, regardless of anything else.
Nobody else is reporting me champ, because nobody else sees a debate that you lost as harassment.
I agree, free and open forums depend on honestly, intelligence, and respect, all things I have attempted to expose you too, and you refused.
Feel free to stop responding.
4
-
4
-
4