Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dreisiglps2451
I'm not a liberal though, I don't find myself partial to liberalism. And while i'm fine with recognizing that we have clear disagreements at a fundamental level and that it isn't much use trying to get through to you, but this isn't a simple disagreement. If it were just a difference of opinion, I would be fine to disagree, as it is clear that we disagree on a lot, but this is a matter of factual reality, of history, politics, and the study of those subjects. Those aren't the realm of opinions, but realities and facts. But sure, you're left, i'm right, you believe what you want and nothing I say can change that. Good day.
4
-
@KameradVonTurnip I would disagree, but I overall see your point. I would put it more like this. Socialism is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, ect. They differ on many issues, but worship the same god. The nazis are like some doomsday cult, or perhaps to relate it to real life a group like the KKK, that decided to just make up it's own head cannon of those religions several thousands of years later, and declares itself to be the only true version of religion, despite being founded long after said religions were already prospering. After all, nazi ideology comes not from leftist socialism, but from prussian socialism, and yet tries to assert that it is the only true socialism, despite being opposed to all others and being founded nearly a century late. But that's how i've seen it.
also, few things worth pointing out. fascism and nazism were born as opposition of socialism, not from it, and differ from socialists on most basic philosophical issues. They took some inspiration, but one could just as easily say then they were born from darwin or imperialism. Mussolini was never an anarchist, he claimed to be a socialist for a while, (despite opposing the socialist of his nation on most issues and later renouncing them) but then joined the remnants of the "National Syndicalist" movement which would become the fascist party. National syndicalism to explain it briefly was not anarchist, rather it aimed to create a revolutionary movement from the reactionaries, and would separate up nations and ethnicities. Basically it was a nice way of saying that they wanted an ethno-state with corporatism control. On top of that, your example of many nazis being socialists or communists isn't much of a good one, as I could point out the nazi purges of their more left wing sections, or the conservatives/classical liberals that got them into power ans supported them rabidly. Also, one final thing, religious socialism has been a thing for a while, and in fact socialism's origins can be traced back to some religious movements. In any case, just a few things I thought were worth bringing up. Although I do agree that they certainly shared some things in common drew inspiration from eachother in cases, and were born of similar circumstances, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was shared ideological goals and ideas that created them (like "heaven is good") but more shared crisis and criticism that brought them to relevance. (in terms of religion, something like "the world sucks and we need faith or an afterlife to keep us going.")
In any case, I remember speaking to you previously and leaving it off at somewhat of a civil compromise, and I don't want to start up anything major again, but I thought it was worth pointing some of this stuff out and how things like fascism are a bit more than just a small variation of any other system. Have a good one.
4
-
4
-
@mitscientifica1569 Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar.
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself.
A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. "
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily.
Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch.
The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it!
Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical.
German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view.
Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx.
Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
4
-
4
-
@mitscientifica1569 Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica.
Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind.
The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis.
"One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians."
Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie.
Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history.
Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.
Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption."
As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word.
Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it.
His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title.
The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
4
-
@mitscientifica1569 Ah, MIT came up with a new copy-paste spread of nonsense! Of course, all of it is false.
Child, what is utopian about the goals of fascism? Endless struggle, constant domination, hierarchy and authority. The goals of fascism specifically reject utopianism, in favor of constant struggle. Neither erased traditional concepts regarding good or evil, you just consider both evil from your own perspective. Fascism is specifically against the idea of any sort of international order, fascism facilitates the existence of the upper economic classes, and fascism specifically rejects utopia, though recruiting individuals into an ideology is about as baseline as you can get.
You consider both on the same level because you understand that the nazis were horrific, evil right wing ideologues, and in order to attack the left as well, you need to minimize the crimes of the nazis by attempting to equate them with things that cannot be equated. Your assertions are, historically, false and serve only to benefit those in favor of nazism.
So let's try this again.
Here is why conservatism, capitalism and fascism are similar.
These three\ deeply unequal, murderous abhorrent and vile ideologies promised a return to a tradition, and a natural human hierarchy, vision that would ensure infinite happiness. They both stemmed from a political, social, and cultural construct that erased traditional ideas regarding good and evil. Both believed in the destruction of the old world, to build a new international order; each deplored what they saw as the left, progressivism, and any movement against their hierarchy; each ideology’s shared purpose was to recruit members of the new utopia.
Both evil ideologies brought an orgy of violence, killed millions, and led humanity to its darkest hour, where the final destination was deplorable mass starvation/forced famine and the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
Of course they are opposite, but to claim that they share similarities such that you assert is quite ahistorical.
Jeffrey Tucker, American capitalist economics writer of the Austrian School, noted frequently that even as members of the American right tried to declare their ideology one wholly separate from fascism and nazism, the matter of right wing collectivism was one that mirrored nazism in all but name, and gripped onto many who claimed to hate collectivism in all forms. He noted that this deeply authoritarian form of collectivism relied on the state to spread right wing ideas, and that it opposed many of the things that right-libertarians claimed to stand for, all while relying on the radical right, traditionalism, statism and hierarchy to spread its ideological goals, in constant conflict with leftism of all forms. This one man hierarchical rule is further explored in "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty."
And of course, we both know that this is not the only figure to point out the similarities between the modern right and fascism.
Robert Paxton, for example, a world-renowned historian of the foundation of fascism, detailed in "The Anatomy of Fascism" the forming of the ideology, and how it took from the right, from traditionalists and conservatives, to construct its whole ideological foundation, noting again the spread of right wing collectivism in the interwar period and how exactly this influenced the burgeoning ideology of fascism, one just as authoritarian and right wing as its founders. This is how he proves, quite openly, that to consider fascism closer to communism or the left than its foundations in conservatism and the right is a fundamental error.
So, MIT, i'd recommend you stop stealing from sources that prove you wrong.
4
-
4
-
@TfuckyoutubeC
I thought you wanted my points to be concise? What's wrong child, you had no need to respond with such a wall of text to the brevity and wit found in my initial response. And I have to agree! You made incorrect assertions, and then tiringly, over and over again, just asserted that you were correct. No proof or anything, just the claim. And yes, your constant accusations of socialism to random people proves my point rather well, I think. Again, child, as we've been over, I was more than happy to write a full response, I just wanted to give you the most concise, dumbed down form, just for you. I know i'm right, I know I proved it, and I can respond to you word by word just to prove it further. But hey, feel free to make assumptions! I will say that the majority of them are incorrect, however. I don't vote democrat, for example, don't hold much love for the nordic systems, i'm not an atheist, double-major in english secondary education and european history, not male, and so on. The funniest thing however is that the vast majority of the things you've listed were positions despised by the fascists, who would laugh at me alongside you. And if my very existence gets them that riled up, i'm more than happy with that result :)
4
-
@pietrayday9915
Yeah, the problem is that socialists actually have a consistent definition, and conservatives get pissed when they stick with it, rather than dealing with constant attempts at redefinition from opposition. After all, every socialist I have ever spoken to, and every socialist and marxist I have ever attempted to understand through theory and historical record, has stayed pretty damn consistent on their definition of socialism. The problem arises when people like you attempt to make new definitions, and become annoyed when socialists actually say consistent. You also appear to be calling the whole of philosophy some sort of marxist ploy, given that you don't understand that people from economists and historians can easily use the same word to mean different things in different contexts. This isn't some moral failure on the part of socialists, it comes with trying to understand any concept to an academic degree. And I hate to break it to you, but the basics are there if you want to talk about the basics, but your problem seems to be that the history and philosophy surrounding one of the world's most well-known and historically relevant ideologies... is complicated. I would hate to see what happens if a person like you got an education in capitalist economics, how angry would you get when terms are shifted, reused, or differentiate from context to context? You would prefer to accuse socialists of actively, purposefully, shifting the meanings of words, than admit than you just might not know what the words mean. If you don't understand the rhetorical evices and terminology of the conversation, then educate yourself or ask to be educated in god faith. Not too hard.
Like, is it physically impossible for you to come up with an argument that isn't a strawman? Socialists don't accept their ideology without question, they actively try to examine it and its place within the modern world, and if its policies can be adapted to the modern times while staying consistent with the original goals and methods of the ideology. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what the "not true socialism" argument even is. That argument usually revolves around a country or leader having external or internal pressure, and for that reason, cannot successfully transition into socialism. The problem is that so few are even able to "follow the directions to the letter," and of those few, many give up, are voted out or deposed, or just ignore those goals all together as time goes on. You seem to think socialism is so easy to set up that it takes a matter of days, and yet so fallible that it'll collapse in just the same amount of time. You can't even handle that socialists criticize their own pursuits, you need to pretend that they instantly denounce every failed project as the worst of the worst, most likely as an attempt to minimize the occasions when those accusations are correct. Sad.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@MadsterV
I mean you've been in denial of the basic fact that hitler was a right wing anti-socialist, like you. And you can't take that fact. Classic.
He said it himself, his usage of the word "Socialism," to him, meant nationalism, support of private property, and opposition to the left. He didn't name his party, and opposed the name at first, before purging those that put it in place later. Yes, he bribed private industry to help resist and placate unionism. He hated jewish people, but was more than fine with white capitalists, industrialists, and bankers. He was obsessed with race, and was an authoritarian. Like the modern right.
No, not all socialist things, and you couldn't even tell the truth about them.
Some libertarians actually defend the monarchy, but I hate to break it to you, two ideologies being right wing and not believing in eachother doesn't mean one isn't right wing. Furthermore, communism by definition is incompatible with dictatorships, hereditary rule isn't monarchism, and there are no modern examples of the phenomenon you're asserting to beyond potentially north korea. If you could stop your tirade of insults and unproven denialist assertions, you might be able to see that.
4
-
4
-
I'll be honest, it's eternally funny to me that you got so annoyed at getting called out that you made a whole video in order to discredit your detractors as much as possible, and in the silliest ways. I must admit though, it's amazing to know that i've gotten under your skin so much that rather than, you know, attempt to rebut my points, you devote a few seconds to trying to convince your audience that I haven't watched your video... a claim you have been utterly unwilling and unable to back up, and frankly, i'm not surprised.
Hell, in your own comments you show this. Not responding to arguments, but accusing your detractors of "REEEEEing," making up stories about those you dislike, and how can we forget you calling me an antisemite? Is this the behavior you are so proud of, that you wish to showcase for your audience?
In any case, i'm very happy to say that I watched the video months ago, going on a year, and have watched it back numerous times to find timestamps and citations as i'm attempting to reach your more open minded fans. I have no doubt that i'll never be able to pierce your veil of zealotry and show you the truth of the matter, as I argue with logic, and you have foregone logic in favor of ideology. After all, if you were so sure I never watched the video, and so sure your arguments utterly debunked mine, you wouldn't spend so much effort urging people to not engage with me, the arguments should stand by themselves, no? If your fanbase actually... watched your video, and felt the arguments are compelling, why do you try to shut down any discussion with me as soon as possible, when you should be encouraging them if you felt they could actually bring your points against me, and prove me wrong? Very odd behavior. So we can agree, that's not what's going on here.
In any case, just wanted to pop by and point out a little spot of glee I had upon rewatching and seeing my little section. TIK, in your attempts to "not feed the trolls," you've immortalized me on your channel. That's damn hilarious.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@captainremington5109
Well, simply put, because it isn't true. The definition of socialism, yes, is social ownership of the means of production, social ownership being synonymous with "ownership by the community/collective as a whole." Tell me, did hitler give ownership to german citizens as a whole, to jewish people as a whole, to the workers as a whole? No, he didn't. Hitler saw private citizens owning the means of production and praised it. He saw those that wanted to give those means to the society, and he purged them, and outlawed their ability to organize together with the goal of social ownership. He put the means of production squarely in private hands. Unless you're willing to argue that jewish citizens were given ownership over the companies they worked at? How is that so hard for you to understand?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@paulrevere2379
They aren't benefitting from "capitalism," though, they're benefitting off of the good will of others, again something capitalism explicitly rejects and does its best to disincentive. Why would anyone regret not throwing themselves into the capitalist machine if they had no other option? Meaningful, I can understand. Marketable is meaningless.
What's actually hard to find it the former person, not the latter. In capitalism, there are very few who can say that they loved their job, that they enjoyed their work, throwing themselves into it, who were paid fairly from it and that survived on that work of theirs alone. I am one such lucky person, and I very much regret participating in a system that forces others to pretend they were given the benefits I have.
I have yet to meet any sort of sizable force of the former person in the world. It simply isn't possible under capitalism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MCCrleone354
I mean yes, your whole argument is a massive no true scotsman fallacy. Government intervening in the world, in the market, is the very basis of capitalism. the government, every day, forces people to abide by "private property rights," and does so violently. Without that force, there is no capitalism. Government forcing itself into the contract between private individuals exchanging goods and services doesn't diverge from the thesis of capitalism at all, rather, it serves to reinforce the existence of capitalism. Capitalism is not defined as free markets, nor is capitalism defined as the market of goods being voluntarily and peacefully exchanged, free from the state. Capitalism has never been free from the state, and for the vast majority of its history the concept of stateless capitalism wasn't even considered. Capitalism has never been voluntary, and never been peaceful,. by its nature it cannot be. That's why terms like State Capitalism are and always have been valid, as they just describe a slightly different form of capitalism. As I said, you are engaging in a no true scotsman fallacy. Your definition of capitalism is false, your understanding of it fallacious.
And you really are an economically illiterate child. Yes, capitalists need the state to enforce "private property rights" in order for capitalism to even exist. Without a state, people would not respect private property rights unless said property was defended by individual uses of force, and even then, that provides the basis for even more theft of property. In the modern world, rather than individuals using authoritative force to defend "their" property, the government does it for them. Violently. Mass ownership cannot exist without a state, even if we were to abolish the state tomorrow, a new one would arise through the process of gaining and enforcing ownership over land and capital. You just can't stop engaging in fallacy. We have had capitalism for the last 100 years and longer, despite your no true scotsman fallacies. Why can't you deal with the truth, and want to hide that basic reality?
No, socialism is not and never has been "the advocacy, the accomplishment and management of nationalizing a private industry &/or means of production." Nationalization and state owned industry existed long before socialism, and socialists + their offshoots like anarchists have a long history of anti-state action, and a goal of stateless socialism. Socialism is defined as the advocacy, the accomplishment and management of social ownership of now-private industry. Nationalization isn't inherently socialist, your definition is false. Please don't waste my tie with lame attempts to redefine socialism as "when the government does stuff"/"nationalizing things"/"state control" when it's never been defined by those things.
...Yes? Is that hard to understand for you? Perhaps I should word it more... simply. Those policies are capitalist policies, that address the failures of other capitalist policies. They are capitalist bandaids, meant to cover the failure of a capitalist economy. Those that pass those laws think that just another type of capitalism will solve the failures of their capitalist economy. So yes, they can be both, and furthermore, they are. They are passed with the goal of mitigating the failures of capitalist policies, by introducing different capitalist policies. Yes, a silly solution, but it worked for a time. Minimum wage laws were passed because the capitalists didn't understand that underpaying their workers led to a stagnant capitalist economy, and thus capitalist laws were passed with the goal of enriching a capitalist economy. Same with federal taxation, capitalists realized they needed more money set aside for the state to defend capitalism. Why else do you think some of the richest people alive, like Bill Gates, have called for more taxation? If the word band aid is offensive to you, try a split, or a metal plate stuck inside the ailing body of capitalism. Permanent capitalism unless voted against.
But they aren't. Again, by your definition of capitalism, most anti-capitalists would qualify under it. You know you've got a problem when some of the most famous historical socialists qualify as capitalist under your definition. Yes, you're trying to engage in a real scotsman fallacy. I am no socialist, nor do I take the definition of capitalism from socialists, your problem with ideological bias is projected. But let's turn that statement on you. “Real socialism is going be what I a capitalist, critical of socialism, want it to be." Yeah, that sounds like a problem. And of course I know bad faith, i've been dealing with you engaging in it all day.
But you did say that, and pretty explicitly. You said that you don't not like things that you don't think work.
I mean, it's quite painfully simple, why are you going through all this effort to deny it?
"I don’t dislike minimum wage/mandatory paying to Soc Security/Medicare/Federal income tax; I don’t think they work." So you don't dislike (like) things that you don't think work. Pretty simple. You are framing them as policies that don't work, not because they actually fit that definition, but because you don't like them. You're actually describing, sadly, some of the most successful capitalist policies out there in the modern day. You say you like them when you said you don't dislike them. What's the opposite of dislike, hm? It's no strawman, it's what you said, and yes your statement was absurd. Have you thought about not blaming others for what was apparently your mistake? And yes, it does logically follow that if someone says they don't dislike something, you would assume that they don't dislike it, which means liking it. So must I ask again, why do you dislike policies that don't work? Or, more accurately, why do you dislike policies that work given the circumstances, but claim otherwise?
3
-
@MCCrleone354
Just saying "No! No that isn't true! No that's what you want!" isn't an argument. Can you explain why you think that is a false framing? Can you explain why you think that's projection? No, you can't. In reality, property "rights" are impossible without statist intervention. If that wasn't true, there wouldn't be so many laws relating to theft and ownership. If state violence wasn't needed for capitalism, why is the state the first force involved when property is stolen by an individual or group? I have no desire to use government force like you violent fanatics do, I certainly know that all one must do to destabilize and abolish capitalism is to remove the statist institutions that violently enforce it. And of course you aren't talking private (not public) corporations, because in your no-true-scotsman fallacy argument, the biggest proponents of, defenders of, and profiteers of capitalism are somehow "non-capitalist entities." No, corporations are private, capitalist entities, and they often depend on tax payer funded bailouts from a capitalist state. Much like how all businesses depend on the violent defense of private property by a capitalist state. If you let them compete in an economy like the one you suggest, a new state would form, as we've been over. And it wouldn't really be capitalist, hm?
No, your argument is the definition of a no true scotsman fallacy. The definition of capitalism you've provided is false, as i've pointed out, and apparently your reading ability isn't up to shape either given that i've already provided the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a system that requires the violent enforcement of private property "rights," that's something even capitalists know. The very fact of capitalist "individualism" (capitalism rejects actual individualism) separates people and ensures that there is no peaceful respect of property, as long as there is something to be gained by rejecting it. Your system is one of authoritarianism, and rampant violence and theft. The notion that people would reject the core of capitalism, individual need, in order to maintain perpetual peace under capitalism is a utopian fantasy.
So in other words, you're running away from actually responding to arguments you know you can't disprove, simply because I don't agree with you and you can't figure out how to prove me wrong. Trying to project your own inability to accept reality, and your fear of the truth, isn't going to work. Of course the long recognized term of state capitalism is valid, and described a long historically observed system. The truth of course is that you call anyone who uses the term a critic of capitalism or a socialist, so of course you assume that the term only comes from those groups! Of course you can't respect people that understand more about economics or history than you, since your ideology is based on perpetual ignorance. A system in which the markets serves needs and wants from consumers in the context of private ownership of the means of production that is distinct from and yet guided/supported/helped by the state is capitalism. In fact, that's most capitalism in the world, state capitalism just describes a more extreme variant of that capitalist behavior. Nothing about that is remotely socialist in the slightest, nor is "socialism OR fascism" a statement that makes any sense given the fundamental ideological incompatibilities there, but at least you can see the similarities between far right fascism and right wing capitalism.
3
-
3
-
@thefrenchareharlequins2743
Oh, child. You again? New name, same nonsense. It's almost sad how much you cult tries to make the same points, over and over, and yet falls into the same pitfalls every time. No, child, an ad hominem argument is not determined by how "Relevant" the insult is, but rather, if the argument itself is based on an insult to begin with. As my argument was not based on him being a child, but rather that being a simple observation of mine, the fallacy does not apply. What's funny about this is that you both have given vastly different definitions of the term (both false, yours hilariously so) so by all accounts one of you must be wrong. But that's just another one of those pesky facts you hate so much, right?
Of course, arguing exclusively through accusations of fallacy, especially when said accusations are made without argumentation or evidence, and most especially when they are false, is in and of itself a fallacy. Though, given you apparently don't even know the definition of the term "child," i'm not surprised you haven't picked up on that one yet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3