Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Joseph Jones
So again, I effortlessly proved you and many, many others wrong, and your only response is pitiful insults, and again, an attempt to deflect away from the debate at hand. No, kid, if you actually had a point worth making, you would have made it now, or hours ago, even. You lost the bet, you lost this debate, and you are continually proving how easy it is to destroy you in arguments. You got smoked. Now run.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight I have to wonder if one day, TIK, you'll stop projecting onto people. You know that if someone were to take your ideology in in full, they would be anti semetic, racist, and deny the holocuast just like you, right?
"He was an economic advisor trying to persuade the guy in charge - Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss - that Facsist/socialist policies were ridiculous."
Incorrect. He was literally putting into place fascist economic policies, that's what Mises' job was. He didn't get to his position of power in the Front by opposing fascist policies, he got to that position because he was promoting fascist policies. If you are a high-ranking member of a fascist party, and the policies you promote are in fact policies that this fascist party supports, then you are proposing fascist policies. This is a matter of fact. He fled not fascism, but the nazis, as he had in fact been working to put fascism in place for years now. And we've already been over your Holocaust-denialist newspeak of "fascist socialism."
"But also The Fatherland Front in Austria was opposed to capitalism and liberalism."
Odd then, that such a prominent figure in the party, who accomplished so much and implemented so much policy, was a capitalist and a liberal. You'd think if the entire party was devoted to the exact opposite desires as him, that the party then would not promote him so high within their ranks, and include him in so much of the creation of their economic policy. Really odd.
"No, that's exactly what you're arguing when you say that Mises was a Fascist."
Look, I know you want to keep up the anti-semetic trope of dissecting down minority groups arbitrarily so you can justify discriminating against certain members of said group, but you must understand, that is exactly what you are doing when you are saying that socialism is fascist. Also, you're putting the cart a bit before the horse on this one, asserting that marxism is anti-semetic along with socialism, something you've been wholly unable to prove.
"Marxism is just fascism by a different name."
Close, but you have it reversed. Fascism is a system of right wing ultra-nationalism, where the state and the corporations are one, and the workers are eternally crushed under the combined boot of both. It takes inspiration from social darwnism, traditionalism, and capitalism. Fascism is not socialism on a national level, not only because that's already an oxymoron, but because it differs in nearly every other way. The fact that what you call socialism is what most call capitalism has not yet seemed to hit you, which is quite funny because you're proving the socialists point.
"You're the one spitting on them, not me."
This coming from the guy that said the fascist italians weren't racist. But, of course you'd take the next "logical" step forward, and seek to devalue the newest word in your arsenal, Holocaust denial. Now this is for one of two reasons. The first, and most likely, is that you feel ashamed of the nazis and holocaust deniers that you have attracted to your own video, which are engaged in a mini flame war with the socialists, and want to blame the parts of your content that appeal to that crowd on anyone but yourself. In this way, you can be faulted with immature, devaluing the very real threat of holocaust denial that you seem to have had experience with in this very comment section by blaming it on anyone but yourself. The second, and still entirely possible reason is because you purposefully want to normalize Holocaust denial, just as you are trying to normalize anti-semitism. After all, if you call everyone a holocaust denier and an anti-semite, the actual anti-semites are free to roam without prejudice. I don't think it's quite hit you yet that there are literally people who are still alive, who actually have to deal with anti-semitism at the hands of the right, or who have literally survived the Holocaust. These are not careless insults like your previous accusations of marxism and post modernism, no, these carry some weight. weight you utterly deny, and seem to pride yourself in being able to remove. If you gave two shits about anti-semitism, you'd stop calling those who correct you anti-semites, and get to actually calling out the literal people saying "it wasn't 6 million" in your own comment section. Oh, wait, the socialists are doing that for you. Gee, odd, that. Almost like no matter how much you try to smear socialists, you don't actually warp their opinions into your maliciously false version of them, because unlike you, they seem to have beliefs that last longer than a single response and actually use definitions according to history. Oh, and also unlike you, they don't seem to promote racism, false historical revisionism, and a mindless hypocritical hate of all they oppose. I didn't think that arguing with you would lead to me having to point out socialists doing something good and me having to compliment them, but it seems like compared to your deflationary lies with the purpose of normalizing fascism and Holocaust denial, everyone is a saint. Well, just another reason to not want to deal with your nonsense anymore.
4
-
@christopherdukett4158 First part, correct, though odd that you phrase it as "leftist defending socialism," when the critics of this video are defending history, not socialism, and many are not leftists.
Second part, however, is a strawman. Leftists don't disagree with this video to "defend socialism," nor do the critics of this video advocate that one consumes only leftist information to come to a conclusion. The problem of course is that you see a "leftist historical POV" as any point of view that differs from yours, and thus, all leftists must be advocating that, since they disagree with you.
4
-
@christopherdukett4158
There very much is, when the said examiner goes into their examination with a predetermined goal, and is willing to do just about anything to justify getting the answers they want. In the case of this video, in reality, Hitler's own words show a fondness and ideological adherence to private property and the right. Yes, he used the word socialist, though in his own words he gave the word no meaning relating to its previous definitions or users, and instead constructed an entirely new definition for the term, unrelated to any and all other uses. He defined socialism as nationalism. Even back then, not based on modern scrutiny or views, people were calling out his use of the word socialism in rhetoric and not policy, even those among his party did it. If the reason you believe hitler was a socialist is solely because socialists use the term differently, let me lay that to rest. First off, yes, in the very beginning the term socialist was used to describe different ideologies, few of which have more than a passing resemblance to the concrete ideology. Communism and socialism, for example, were synonymous. However, years passed and the term became more concrete. This was all decades before hitler was born. The definition of socialism from the moment of its true ideological birth is and has been "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Now, some socialists describe this differently. They say worker ownership, or socialization of the means of production. It all means the same thing, collective/social/community ownership. Socialists also differ in how to best achieve this, but again, that isn't a definition difference but an application difference. Your issue is not that socialists have different definitions, but different conclusions based on the same definition. Furthermore, even if there was slight confusion, that doesn't justify the mingling with an entire different term. There are blues and greens, but there are also colors that seem both at the same time and can be called either. That doesn't allow yellow to suddenly call itself blue, does it? Furthermore, your issue is mainly in that you have been told countries or leaders are socialist, and when socialists attempt to correct this by explaining the definition, your impulse is to dismiss them rather than consider that your initial assumption may have been flawed.
And yes, there is right and wrong. Specifically in terms of history, we rarely know the absolute full story, but we do have an array of factual information and with it we can guess, assume, and eventually piece together the true story. While assumptions like these are never black or white, they aim to reach the truth, the totality of it, even if they may not necessarily always reach it. The idea of nazism being a wing of socialism is long debunked, which is why the recent revival of the discussion rests not on historical information being discovered, but on an ideological position seeking to defend itself. The reason socialists don't associate with nazis is obvious, they're opposed in practically everything. The reason the right tries to distance itself from nazism is because there are modern day right wingers repeating the rhetoric and flying the flag of the nazi party, and they don't want to have to deal with that historical legacy. Notice I said right wing, not capitalist. This video does not represent a historical movement, or a movement of logic, you can see as much by the fact that he's more interested in opposing socialism than actually making his arguments. Rather, it represents an ideological push, reflected by the views of the supporters of it. If you genuinely are open to having your mind changed on this subject, I offer you a few options. If you have questions or criticisms, arguments or statements, that you would like to run by me to see what the counter is, to see what arguments exist against the video, go ahead. The video is wrought with flaws and the conduct of TIK should show you as much. Or, if you don't care for that, don't take my word, go and read TIK's historical sources themselves. He does make mention of them disagreeing with his conlusions, so why not see if he's right, hm?
4
-
@polpol2739
I'm sorry, that's just false. Hitler was a right wing anti-socialist, and he hated the internationalism that capitalism brought, but had no problems with the processes of capital within his own borders. Capitalism is a right wing ideology, yes, though not the only one. Hitler was not in favor of "seazing" (sic) the means of production or regulating them through the state, he saw that as an insult to the supposed superiority of german private business. Nor, of course, is regulation an intrinsically socialist thing. He used Christianity and openly followed traditionalism, and inventing new systems of morality isn't at all "part of the left" as a baseline.
Hitler was right wing and anti-socialist, and the phrase "liberal socialist" is an oxymoron.
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight TIK liberals never embraced Socialism, the ideologies are blatantly contradictory. They didn't move from right to left, rather the label changed and shifted. Socialists still have no desire to be referred to as liberals, and the side that confuses the labels the most is generally conservatives who want to conflate leftist and liberals, and the libs that fall victim to that rhetoric.
I'll certainly look into the source that you provided, but are you actually implying that modern conservatives lie on the left? I might just be hampered by an American perspective but American conservatives lie nowhere on the left.
I think the confusion comes from the fact that the labeled explaining the ideologies changed, not the ideologies themselves. For example, Libertarian originally meant one who believed in free will, soon after changed to a term for left wing anarchists, and in the early 1900s began to gain relevance primarily in America as a description of free market Capitalist philosphy. Those people didn't change, the names did.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@grimmwolf6695
But that isn't the definition of capitalism. If it was, capitalism and socialism/communism could exist at the same time, for the same people, in the same place. Capitalism is private ownership, not "the free exchange of goods." And how can you claim that capitalism is not at least partially if not wholly to blame for the historical crime of slavery, particularly in terms of the americas, given that the whole point was profit in a market economy? No, it isn't "left wing governments like communists and socialists" that carry the legacy of slavery - that would be the right. And no, if you look at it rationally, you see that an ideology encouraging people to profit above all other things, including respect for their fellow man, is absolutely to blame for much modern and historical misery.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jonathanrealman8415 For one, that wasn't really socialism, at all. It inspired socialism, sure, but it was literally centuries before any such rigid ideological system as socialism would be actually formed. However, even then, it was based on class, that is the class of the politicians and intellectuals, and the class of the common folk. Even then, it had basis in class. And now I have to wonder if you are even listening, because I specifically addressed the claim that this is "marxism," and hegelianinism isn't a socialist thing, Hegelian Dialectics have been attached to everything from psychology to the inner workings of capitalism. So I really have to wonder what you're even talking about, or what you think you're talking about. I hate to repeat myself, but here goes - both you and him ignore the fact that socialism is not older than class struggle, it was invented by class struggle. Again, even the pre-marx, and even vehement anti-marx socialists both before, during, and after his lifetime had an ideology wholly entrenched within class. Yes, they were different classes, as the earlier socialists primarily targeted feudal serfs as the "proletariat" and marx expanded some facets of the class struggle by trying to quantify the new growing middle class, but the issue of class struggle is literally the basis of socialism. Hell, mate, I hate to clue you in but the first socialists were around before private ownership was even a thing, they fought against monarchs that had a state that owned *everything" and they still brought up class struggles.-
4
-
4
-
@Hopgoodd I hate to clue you in, but you saying you may have an argument isn't actually having said argument. I've been debating this for years, and not once has anyone actually managed to prove Hitler is a socialist. There's a reason for that. I would love to cite some specific books, Richard Evans' trilogy on the Third Reich is a rather good source, but I hate to clue you in, hitler took huge steps to never call himself a left wing socialist, or even a socialist by any definition but his own. And, from his definition, we can see that hitler defined "socialism" as "nationalism." Hell, the man never wanted the workers in charge, he was in favor of protecting private property and wealth. The only one trying to convince anyone that black is white is you here, and by extension, TIK. Because we've known hitler wasn't a socialist, well, since he began calling himself one.
4
-
@ludwigvanel9192 that's the issue, precisely. That isn't the definition of Socialism, and isn't what socialists want. They want worker control of the means of production. Yes, that can be done by the state, but if said state does not represent the worker (as in, representative or democratic) then it isn't Socialism. Hell, the first socialists didn't even want a state. That's the problem, Hitler didn't even do anything close to that, but since some people want to call him a Socialist, they define Socialism as just state control. I don't mean to be attacking you specifically here, it's a common myth, but it is something that kind of proves that the only way to call Hitler a Socialist... Is to redefine Socialism. Again, unless you're doing this intentionally I don't mean to be blaming you, it's just a but annyoing to explain to different people, constantly.
4
-
@AppliedMathematician
Great, have fun with that. Just remember that you're putting together capitalist and socialist "concepts," and not the ideologies themselves. One can take from an ideology, a philosophy, an economy, ect, and still not be an adherent of that ideology or that system, in any form. No need for utopian dreams to see that. And good luck not getting private owners to undermine that system.
Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis only works when you have a concrete grasp of the first two parts and can reliably predict the third, which is more often than not, not the case among real life economic and political systems. But again, good luck I guess?
4
-
@AppliedMathematician
Yeah, the thing is, even that is wrong, and ahistorical. Even TIK's cited historians disagree with his conclusions, TIK's definition of socialism has nothing to do with actual socialist history or definitions, and this video only goes to show both of those. Hell, the only reason "socialist" is even in the party name is against hitler's objections, who first disliked the name, (that was picked by a faction of the party he did not control or agree with) then tried to redefine the name, and finally purged those that put it in place. Of course they weren't stupid, they knew the name was good for propaganda, but they had no desire to actually put in place any form of socialist. They didn't even call themselves socialist according to any definition of the term, hitler defining socialist as a term fully compatible with private property and essentially meaning nationalism. They weren't just against "other socialists," they were against all socialists, all leftists, and all those that those groups appealed to.
Hell, you can even point out the actual definition of socialism. So stop with the "everything's a true scotsman!" lark and get to the point. In what way did hitler's ideology or actions fit the actual definition of socialism? You have been unwilling to say, and I have no idea why you cite TIK when he openly disagrees with your definition.
I don't care about your proposed system, I care about the fact that your mislabeling of nazi ideology is allowing an open door for the far right to spread their ideology under the guise of anti-socialism, while managing to deflect their greatest crimes to those who were the victim of said crimes. Calling the nazis socialists is not only utterly ahistorical and not supported by any sort of objective history, but actively harms political discourse and allows actual modern fascists and neo-nazis to remain uncontested while blaming their policies on the left. Do you really not see the problem with that? The swastikas are at the Unite the Right rally alongside conservative symbols, nothing to do with the left, and yet here you are saying that group is secretly socialists. See the issue? Hitler wasn't a socialist - that's just a fact you'll have to accept.
4
-
@AppliedMathematician
It quite literally isn't. Sure, that's the buzzword your type turns to when they have no other argument, but at some point you have to realize not everything is actually everything else. What you're doing is equivalent to pointing at an orange and calling it an apple. I correct you, point out it isn't an apple, and you say "No true scotsman fallacy! That orange isn't a 'true' apple!" It's silly, and absurd. Hitler just wasn't a socialist.
Hitlers ideology is not socialism, not despite historical facts, but because of the historical facts of his regime, a regime that abolished collective bargaining, mass privatized business, sided with conservatives while purging the left and their allies, and so on. Your supposed "fact" of german society being socialized isn't true, nor is it accurate to the definition of socialism i've discussed. You don't even want to deal with the actual origin of the name!
If you want to at any point admit that your stated definitions and application of the terms do not line up, you are more than free to do so. However, again, I think we've been over the facts, and that requires more self awareness than I think you're willing to engage in.
Why do you feel that you are immune to this fallacy, then? Could I not just turn it around, point out that Hitler's anti-socialism is no 'true' anti-socialism in your eyes, and that your no true scotsman attitude shines through? Again, your stated definitions just don't line up with the reality of the systems you're labelling, and your assertions on historical reality are utterly unfounded. Broad, sweeping claims about random groups of people doesn't change that.
The issue here is that you've been saying essentially nothing since the beginning, just these vague, sociological assumptions that you're trying to project on me. Best of luck resolving your inner ideological and historical contradictions, then.
4
-
@AppliedMathematician
You've told me your ideology time and time again, when I have not once asked. Stoic, Classical Liberal/Libertarian, Critical Rationalist, and so on. Stop projecting.
You, rather than blaming poor driving or a model of car, seek instead to blame an increase of car crashed on an entirely unrelated factor, say, the consumption of oranges. And when it is pointed out that the two have nothing to do with eachother, and that criticizing the victims of car crashes for eating oranges is silly, you just accuse the other person of not thinking big enough, of defending the consumption of oranges, of making excuses, ect. You seek to absolve the anti-socialist far right of their actions. Why you feel you are justified in this ahistoricism I cannot say, but you refuse to give it up, hence me correctly pointing out the ideological basis to your constant "arguments," as opposed to a historical one.
I expect you to follow the actual historical definitions, and if you don't do so I have no need to "destroy your mode of thinking," I can just prove you wrong, as I have time and time again. And if reality doesn't appeal to you, if proof and facts aren't enough, as they seem to be in this case, I can just write you off as the ideological zealot you are. A lot of people have died from far right anti-socialist experiments, and you try to define the biggest example of said ideology away, with no proof at all? Why do you kneel to those so openly dedicated to an overwriting of historical fact, in favor of right wing ideology? Why do you continue to try to blame socialists for the actions of anti-socialists, and then act like refuting this criticism means socialism must not be criticized?
Well nobody can care about a concept that exists completely in your own mind, that being the "Socialism" of hitler, a well known right wing anti-socialist. I hate to break it to you, but again, you're blaming an eaten orange for a car crash and then trying to insult those that point out the lack of correlation. Hitler wasn't a socialist, criticizing socialism using hitler makes as much sense as criticizing socialism using Adam Smith.
Oh gosh you really don't understand the basics of economics, do you? Do you know what the means of production are? What commodity form is? Do you know the definition of socialism, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Tell me child, where is the "working" ownership of the means of production by the people in china? Do you even understand that "the rest" of the economy doesn't actually have a place under non-capitalist systems?
"Implicit ownership" doesn't exist, what you mean is "future potential ownership" which is an ability all states, even capitalist, share.
And that isn't how socialism works, socialism is not "when the poor people are less poor/rich," socialism is, again, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." How would community ownership over only banks or debt allow for community control?
His ideological tool was one of far right anti-socialism, which explains his actions. His hatred of the poor, the LGBT, the migrants, the "Work-shy," the old, and so on. If one wants to understand his actions, they turn towards his ideology, and if one calls him a socialist, than his apparent ideology and his actual actions don't line up. Do you see the problem there?
Perhaps then you should stop trying to push association fallacies to facilitate guilt where it has no historical basis, hm? Perhaps stop kneeling to those that will do anything to avoid their history of anti-socialist nazism, including placing it on the enemy's side. And furthermore, stop deflecting from your actions.
There is no need to invest into training people to use a certain way of thinking and wording to avoid the consequences of guilt by association fallacies. Teach to avoid the gilt by association fallacy in the first place, if you invest the time to teach them anything.
I hate to break it to you, but the funny thing about the Historikerstreit is it clearly showed the nazi's origin in the right - the right wing conservatives did everything they could to defend the nazis, to minimize their crimes, while the left wanted to correctly portray the full, devastating scope of their crimes.
By trying to erase the history of the right, you enable them to repeat it.
The simple fact is, Hitler's ideology shares origins in ideas and concepts with anti-socialist conservatism, with traditionalism and militant right wing ideology. His basis was one of opposition to socialism, and his policies reflected that. Denying this is, again, ahistorical and makes no actual political sense, given that we can clearly see in the modern day that the nazis take the sides of the conservatives and vice versa. You wish to include a bullet among a list of fruits known as socialism, and you get annoyed when I tell you a bullet isn't a fruit.
4
-
4
-
@nicholashodges201
Well of course, it's quite sad the things TIK gets into. People like TIK say things that are objectively false, and make him look like an uneducated halfwit. When people point this out, he will deliberately twist anything they say to make them seem like marxists, liars, ect, and his audience eats it all up. He can't actually dispute those who criticize his work, not honestly anyways, so he attempts to gaslight, namecall, insult, and just generally try to ignore, reinterpret, or downright lie about what they're saying. He's long disproven, and it's sad to watch his lashing out after being backed into a corner like that.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dgray3771
Denialism isn't an argument.
Child, I hate to break it to you, but "environmentalism" doesn't map onto left vs right differences, and i'm sorry, but the only one here dismissing facts is you. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that the nazis were clear and open right wingers, but it is no agenda to simply point out this fact. They aren't just like the right wing, they are right wing. not just in racism, but in politics, common law, and everything else. They were right wing on every front, which is why they share so much in common with their fellow right wing racists.
4
-
4