Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
@phillip3495
So, much like you once asserted, the counter argument you seem to provide is based entirely on insults and deflections. I'm sorry that you can't untangle and clarify your definitions, perhaps this statement I received from a useful idiot will help?
Definitions
¶
The rules of correct definition are derived from the process of concept-formation. The units of a concept were differentiated—by means of a distinguishing characteristic(s)—from other existents possessing a commensurable characteristic, a Conceptual Common Denominator. A definition follows the same principle: it specifies the distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units, and indicates the category of existents from which they were differentiated.
The distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units becomes the differentia of the concept’s definition; the existents possessing a Conceptual Common Denominator become the genus.
Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents.
For instance, in the definition of table (“An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects”), the specified shape is the differentia, which distinguishes tables from the other entities belonging to the same genus: furniture. In the definition of man (“A rational animal”), “rational” is the differentia, “animal” is the genus
A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are.
A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept.
It is often said that definitions state the meaning of words. This is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines—by specifying their referents.
The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.
Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.
With certain significant exceptions, every concept can be defined and communicated in terms of other concepts. The exceptions are concepts referring to sensations, and metaphysical axioms.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Aneko_Tomo
This has genuinely got to be one of the funniest attempts at historical revisionism i've ever seen. "Classical Liberal" is a term referring to capitalists, primarily though not always libertarian-leaning. Conservatism is a political concept as old as absolute monarchies, which describes a right wing ideology with the goal to conserve cultural and economic norms, usually with a religious justification, as you provide. However, to you, despite the fact that classical liberals are direct ideological offshoots of these conservatives, they are merely "power grabbing state socialists." Famous socialists like... Edmund Burke. Right. In order to define socialism as "central ownership of everything" (which it is, of course, not defined as, socialism is defined as "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.) you have had to thrust the ideological forefathers of your own movements into the "socialist" camp. "Liberalism" as a concept describes capitalist economics, and is hardly a new concept. Of course, nothing about liberalism is remotely comparable to communism, and is certainly not synonymous with it. After all, liberals will always be more likely to respect a conservative than a communist. The problem is that right wingers, in the modern day, have attempted to conflate the terms "social progressivism" and "liberalism," and have gotten annoyed (at themselves) because liberalism no longer is used to describe economic capitalist views. "Classical Liberal" is a relatively new term, again describing capitalists and libertarians primarily, who have attempted to "Reclaim" the term liberal... from the abuse of other right wingers. It's funny, the original term "liberal" and "libertarian" were much closer to describing radical leftists, however, conservatives decided to claim them later. You seem to have an odd, authoritarian view of "natural law" and "god's law," but that's typical for right wing collectivists such as yourself. I hate to break it to you, conservatives doing bacd things are still conservative.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mitscientifica1569
Though MIT, a personal fan of the nazis, seeks to deny their history, it seems that he's unable to do so. He is, of course, unable to discern propaganda from statements of truth, unable to discern definitions of foundational concepts, and unable to stop defending his favorite mass murderer, hitler. As we all know, hitler was a socialist that despised Karl Marx. Let's see what he Actually said:
Hitler on Marxism:
"Death to Marxism!" - Adolf Hitler
“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism denies the noble goal of Nature and sets mass and dead weight of numbers in place of the eternal privilege of strength and power. It denies the value of personality in man, disputes the significance of nation and race, and deprives mankind of the essentials of its survival and civilization. As a foundation of the universe, Marxism would be the end of any order conceivable to man. The result of applying such a law could only be chaos. Destruction would be the only result for the inhabitants of this planet. If, through his Marxist faith, the Jew conquers the peoples of this world, his crown will be the death and destruction of all mankind. Earth would again move uninhabited through space as it did millions of years ago. Eternal Nature takes revenge for violation of her commandments.” - Adolf Hitler
"The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ... proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism." - Adolf Hitler
" 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
Why are you taking pre-election propaganda as more important than his own, ideological assertions?
Hitler on his Definition of Socialism:
"1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it." - Adolf Hitler
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. 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. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. 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 might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” - Adolf Hitler
" 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
Hitler on Capitalism:
‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
- Adolf Hitler and Otto Strasser
"Bollocks - What right do these people have to demand a share of property or even in administration?... The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead."
Adolf Hitler to Max Amann, May 1930
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” - Adolf Hitler
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it would be by a State functionary—providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private initiative.“ - Adolf Hitler
Hitler and the Nazis on Socialism and the Left:
"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." - Adolf Hitler
"Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!" - Nazi Party
Hitler hated socialism and marxism, much like you. Why do you feel the need to keep lying?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AppliedMathematician
The problem here being that unequal chances and unequal outcome both lead to a society of inherent unfairness, you cannot base your society on supposed free competition when said competition can be surpassed by plain luck.
And that's not what owning the means of production means. The mind is not a means of production, nobody needs to staff it, it cannot generate profit without other means, your body interacting with private property. Socialists don't want to use your brain, socialists want a system in which you don't have to sell your brain, and can actually use it how you want. Under a capitalist system, your very thoughts can be copyrighted, the works of design and code you make can be labelled the exclusive property of one or more people, a very equation or sequence of numbers can be a legally protected secret, and your mind, containing those thoughts, is under the rule of those keeping said secret. How is that the less oppressive option? The thing is, you are in a position of relative ease, and at least you acknowledge that, but you also have to realize that not everyone has the fallback, the security, that you do. When the rich ask something of most people, they leap to accept the offer, because it's all they have. And finally, yes wealth is a conduit to power, and power a conduit to wealth, so preserving a system that only maximizes both of those things isn't a very good option.
And yeah, no, those ideologies are mutually exclusive. That's why the definition of socialism is ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, not just one community of many. Capitalists own private property, exclusively. Socialists call for ownership socially, ownership of the collective, of the community. And the "functional reason" workers can't own the majority of the shares of a company is because under capitalism, such a thing would profit the owners far less, so of course they'd be reluctant to do it. A socialistic revolution exists with the goal of giving workers that autonomy, those rights and abilities. A bandaid on the bullet wound, under capitalism, would not.
And that isn't necessarily true in most cases, least of all in modern capitalist society and ownership.
After all, while they have clear definitions, overlaps are not unheard of.
While coops and collectively owned companies are not themselves private, they still exist under capitalism, and thus still have to work for capitalist wages and put out capitalist profit that the workers miss out on. Collective ownership is no better defined than private ownership, and owning shares does not equal the same thing as having control of the output of a company, or worker control. Nothing tribalistic about those facts.
3
-
@AppliedMathematician
Why should workers own their own means of production? Well I don't know, why shouldn't they? After all, if the problem is people owning things that they have no need for, private property is without a doubt the worse system, as it is one in which a few people own not only what they don't need, but what others desperately need and cannot get without the consent of the first group in question. Yes, i'd see that as a bit of a problem in need of solving.
Socialism is a system that most often suggests that rather than give some group with supposed moral authority ownership, that group being the monarchs, the noble family, the western nation's state, the capitalist, ect, the workers, those effected, should simply own their own means of production. No superiority, no utopia needed. If you see "parallels with hitler's socialism," then you have to be some form of blind, as not only is there no such thing as "hitler's socialism," but where the hell are these supposed parallels? Hitler wasn't a socialist, according to any objective political reading of his policies and history. Nor was he democratically elected, he was elected as a result of a conspiracy of conservative parties headed by Franz von Papen.
No, that is far from the sole deciding force of what makes a society good or evil. But it is sure a solution to a lot of modern problems. Hitler didn't adopt socialist policies, he abused socialist rhetoric while calling for openly anti-ocialist things, categorizing his system as socialist would require rewriting either his history or the dictionary. Critiquing "hitler's socialism" is about as rational as critiquing a random snail's capitalism. It doesn't pan out well.
3
-
@AppliedMathematician
Oh i'm well aware you're not immune to fallacies, hell, you seem to be more susceptible to them than the average person in this very comment section, which is certainly saying a lot given the drivel thrown around in here.
The problem is you are basing your side of this conversation not on adherence to the facts, but on ideology. You act as though my arguments are meant to defend "my system," when in reality I have put forward no system. I have made abundantly clear that you are free, and in many cases in the right, to critique modern and historical leftism. I have also made it clear that to attempt to do this by conflating hitler's anti-socialism with socialism is ahistorical, and thus, not a good criticism. I'm not making an ideological argument. Unlike you.
And why would I do either of those things? Why would I need to put them in gulags, why would I burn their books, and why do you attempt to bring these up as actions or possibilities? I am happy knowing that the ignorant statement, "hitler was a socialist," will never be one taken seriously in actual historical spheres, there's just too many facts pitted against it. What you, or any other terminally online random people say to the contrary doesn't matter, and thus I debate with you, and not "imprison you" or whatever other nonsense you've cooked up. I don't "think" I use an accurate label, I don't "think" my apples are apples. I've done work and research, decades of it, and have shifted my perceptions of said terms upon new information being attained. To the best of my knowledge, supported by every historical and contemporary source I have gotten my hands on, the terms i'm using are the most accurate, and I am far from alone in asserting this. You attempt to muddy that fact by equating those who are right and those who are wrong, saying they both "think" they're right. Yes, they do, and a child may "think" 2+2 is 5. And yet, that child is, objectively, wrong.
As i've said, I don't give a crap about "immunizing socialism from criticism," as i've said time and time again you are free to criticize leftists and socialists and I would probably agree with you in most criticisms. I'm not sure where you got the notion otherwise, most likely your ideology zealotry, but I'm no socialist. The problem is, again, you are attempting to expose socialism to unjust criticism. Your actions are like taking a bank robber to court and accusing them of unrelated murder. Nobody is saying you can't criticize, or hell, even convict the person - but perhaps you should do it in ways that actually match the reality of the situation? Or, wait, is that person "trying to define failure away" by pointing out that they didn't actually murder anybody?
We already know Hitler was an anti-socialist, and I hate to break it to you, it doesn't stop people from being anti-socialists. Hell, according to you, there are many different types of socialism and Hitler's was, supposedly, only one, so why would people care about his "Type" when they could join another and your criticisms wouldn't apply? Your own logic doesn't follow reality, and of course, it's false to begin with - hitler wasn't a socialist, and unlike asserting the opposite, maintaining the fact that he was a strong anti-socialist is a movement with no ideological basis. Jewish people are not "the bourgeoisie" in hitler's anti-socialism, he targeted mostly working class and poor jewish individuals. Hell, the two groups themselves aren't remotely similar - Jewish is an ethnic and religious category, one you are born into and cannot really leave or join without huge difficulty. Being rich, or a property owner, is a conscious choice one can reject at any time. The notion that the rich have political power is an empirical fact, the notion that the jewish people have political power is an unproven, baseless conspiracy. Comparing the two is absolutely nonsense, one has actual scientific backing, the other does not. The only way their views towards these two groups can be compared is that both saw them as a societal problem, though nazis blame jewish individuals for knowingly participating in a conspiracy, and socialists make abundantly clear the fact that the rich are just rational as the poor, just as moral - they simply live in an immoral system. The problem is, this basic comparison is not exclusively shared between these two groups - capitalists do the same thing, finding groups to blame, be they immigrants, homeless, or socialists - coincidentally, the same groups the nazis targeted. Hell, you yourself seem to blame some mass socialist conspiracy for your misinformation not being believed by the vast majority of citizenry and historians. How are you not also comparable to these groups? In any case, asserting that systems like the soviet union were comparable to the nazi system is objective nazi apologia. While the USSR was not without a huge amount of deadly flaw that resulted in millions of innocent deaths, the same is more true of capitalist nations, however neither are guilty of the mass, purposeful factory-efficient ethnic cleansing efforts of the nazis. The Soviet Union and the USA, for all their prisoners, never ran death camps. The Nazis did. The "pattern" you're talking about is nonexistent. Again! Feel free to criticize the gulags and prisons of authoritarian socialist regimes. Just don't ahistorically lump the nazi's anti-socialist death camps in there. Also, china is not a socialist "superstructure," but a blatantly market economy that is supposedly attempting to move towards socialism some time in the future.
And for my first actual ideological argument, something you've been participating in this entire time, there are inherent problems with internationalism, particularly under a capitalist society. As nations are constrained by their own limits, which differ from place to place, they all have individualized economies and rules surrounding their economic conditions. However, the market is not constrained in the same way. Thus, it can export labor from developed, rich nations to less developed, poor nations, profiting further from less labor costs. It can use its economic power from those same rich places to exert more power on the nations themselves, and can effectively own huge political swathes of entire countries. That is one, of many, problems with an internationalist market approach - as long as nation's power is disproportionate, so are the powers of market entities.
And again, let me make it abundantly clear at the end - i am not a socialist. My ideology is not what matters to this argument, and my ideology is not what I am pushing, unlike you. Stop pushing ideology, and start focusing on the history you clearly want to avoid.
3
-
@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.
//:/
3
-
@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.
3
-
@nicholashodges201
Declaring random people and ideologies to be socialist simply because you disagree with them and cannot actually name factual information about said people and ideologies isn't an argument, champ.
In regards to TIK, he is the only one claiming his sources are not reliable or legitimate, seemingly doing everything possible to make a fool of himself.
By "be much more skeptical," you don't mean to actually promote skepticism, as you would have to admit or even consider the fact that TIK is wrong to do that. No, rather, you ask people to be "skeptical" of opposing facts, and to be blindly obedient to your opinions. The only arguments brought forth by the TIK crowd seem to be "you're wrong," backed by nothing but their own word and constant insult, forever unable to reach the level of those who disprove them easily. Engaging in pointless conspiracy theories and insults only further proves my point ;)
3
-
3
-
@christopherdukett4158
Nah, kid. They were quite literally capitalist nations, and remain the most stable capitalist experiments to this day. Capitalism is a system of private ownership and private means of production, but rarely impacts anyone positively besides the owner of the private company in question. UBI, Universal Healthcare, Gun control, Free College, Social Security, ect are programs that are not only compatible with capitalism, but seem entirely necessary for a stable and profitable capitalist nation. The programs you mention are meant to shore up the inherent failre of capitalism to address certain things, and meant to strengthen the market and the economy through their existence. Socialism isn't when capitalist policies that you don't like are put into place, child. And yes, your rhetoric is pretty much copied from the nazi party, down to loving one group of right wingers above all other political positions, claiming censorship and all that. The resemblance to the modern right is honestly uncanny. And yeah, child, this isn't true. Often, open lies, misinformation and bigotry are taken down or corrected, and that's about it. Democrats are capitalists, not leftists, and more often than not actual progressive news is censored, taken down, or sabotaged when compared to the right wingers that are allowed to run free. Despite people like Stephen Crowder being objectively proven wrong so many times, they are allowed to continue lying, to the detriment of all. The right and big tech have an inherent link I hate to break it to you but racial sensitivity training, ie "don't be racist," isn't "Critical Race Theory," nor does critical race theory have much to do with Marxism at all. Furthermore, CRT is quite literally a college level law course, do you really think these places are giving away that kind of education for free? No, you're pretty openly denying history, and when history proves you wrong you ignore it or run away. There is nothing objective about your analysis. f course you're denying science as well, as shown by your burning need to try to discredit those who actually believe in it through any means, any means than actually addressing the facts they bring to the table. And once again, you only subscribe to "news" that you ideologically agree with, and that has the sole goal of existing to push right wing talking points and ideology further and further to the right and away from reality. You despise primary sources or compiled historical accounts, simply because they so easily prove your zealotry wrong, and poke holes in your baseless ideological arguments. I'll call out nazi rhetoric when I see it, yes. I that not good with you? Yes, it's generally taught that the nazis were far right, because they quite literally are. What you mean to say is that as you cemented your own far right views, you began to trust right wing politicians, think tanks, and youtubers more than historians or professors, and thus started to ignore all of the arguments and facts that proved you wrong. You've been telling a lie, plain and simple. Good arguments have been presented to you, and you've very much had the means to find more, such as the primary sources mentioned in this video, which all prove Hitler's anti-socialism. You aren't open to being proved wrong, despite being objectively proved wrong. Child, you didn't used to be a "progressive leftist," you can't even define either of those terms nor do you seem to know the first thing about either's goals or modern political presence. I used to belong to the right, libertarian in fact, and as I grew up I woke up to reality and moved away from such an ahistorical position. You have yet to see reality. Change that.
3
-
@christopherdukett4158
Mate, you quite literally ended your statement by implying that any progressives or leftists don't care about reality, who is talking down to who? I mean, ironically enough, you can't go a sentence after that without trying to talk down to me, in fact, that comprises the rest of your "response." You can insult me all you want, it is clear that you're just making up for the objective fact that you can't keep up with this conversation and that your baseless assertions are by this point utterly disproven. I'm sorry that your arguments can't stand up to scrutiny and i'm sorry that actual definitions, logic, and reality don't agree with your fanaticism. Of course, conservatives are amazing at rewriting definitions and history that don't fit their narrative, you're doing it right now. Of course I can claim to know more about socialism than you, I've actually done more research than right wing youtubers. I'm not even a socialist, jesus. Maybe one day you'll grow up and see your tyrannical, deadly ideology for the horror and failed monstrosity that it is. Maybe one day you'll learn the actual definitions of socialism and capitalism, and not just randomly apply them where your feelings dictate you do. Your conspiracies have very little basis in reality, but they do have a long history of use by the far, totalitarian right. I hope you learn to see reality for what it is one day, and grow into a world that can disagree with you.
3
-
@mitscientifica1569 Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica.
Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind.
The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis.
"One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians."
Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie.
Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history.
Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe.
Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption."
As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word.
Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism."
Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. Those were, after all, not highly socialist statements, nor did you recount them accurately.
His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title.
The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
3
-
3
-
@eb3674
Dude. Socialism has a definition, and it is literally defined by social ownership of the means of production, which means more people get more of what they work for. Come on, basic stuff. Also, I literally said the nazis weren't libertarian? Please, just attempt to read my post first. They had a political dictatorship and a private economy, both of them in line with their right wing ideology. Yes, economic ideas don't always mix with political ones, but that isn't really pertinent here. Yes, he focused his political and economic views around race, which discount him from any type of socialism. Call him what you want, but that fact is clear and consistent. He endorsed private property not just to get his economy back in shape (because it was already private when falling out of shape) but because he ideologically agreed with private property. Race was more important than class, therefore, not socialists. Economic ideologies do have control over political ideologies though, even if the leader is not there or disagrees with this formation of ideology. The leader doesn't need to control it for certain ideas to reject or connect to one another. Hitler was the constructor of nazi ideology, him being the leader as well is redundant in this case.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@randomnerd9088
The Nazis system was designed to ideologically reject socialism, and in fact, offer to those that socialism targeted a better deal than they felt socialism provides. They didn't want racial control of the economy, nor does one group controlling the economy make it socialism. Nazism was built to oppose socialism, all socialism, and rejection of other systems does not change that. Opposition to capitalism and democracy are far from exclusive to socialism, in fact, historically it is pretty common to oppose those things. Monarchists, for example, are an anti-socialist system that rejects, and actively fights, both capitalism and democracy. As for hierarchy, you aren't considering things like economic, social, ect.
And first off, you're only considering government hierarchy, when hierarchies of capital are just as impactful, and far more prominent today. The reason groups like the soviets promoted those hierarchies then was with the eventual goal of their dismantling, whereas right wing systems seek to preserve that hierarchy as part of their ideology. I find picking Maoism or Stalinism to be a silly way to showcase your point, as they were both movements that justified some hierarchy, as long as it worked to remove further hierarchy, and worked towards an end goal of no hierarchy. Now, obviously they never reached this end goal, but the problem you're then talking about is not one of the core ideology, it is a problem of said ideology being subverted or denied by those that claim to hold it. I do think it it important, however, to make the distinction you do, that I agree with, that not every movement is ideologically pure. However, I also think that viewing systems, and not movements, through the lens of relation to "ideological purity" is silly. The USA is a capitalist system, not "mostly" or "partially" capitalist. Though many capitalists don't like it, that doesn't make it another system.
Finally, no, the nazi goal was not equality in any form, even equality for the few that fit their idea of the ideal German. You claim that they wanted all Aryans to be equal, and yet they openly stated that they despised even Aryans who say, opposed their rule, who were born crippled, who were gay or trans, who were socialists, union leaders, the elderly and so on. Not to mention, of courses they were fine with the inequality of wealth, and the power of being within the party. In fact, let's quote a nazi on this very issue. "Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!"
And the simple fact is, your definition of socialism encompasses Capitalism. Simply put, capitalism promotes a moral ingroup, the capitalists or owning class, and they are a group with concrete class interests and goals that they promote in a unified manner. They are a group with control over the means of production, how is this not socialism by your definition? "Anarcho" capitalism is, again, a contradiction of terms, but none of this changes the facts of Capitalism. Every business owner, for example, would benefit from certain policies and actions, they are a concrete group with its own desires and needs. One could just as easily, according to your definition, determine that most socialists are not socialists at all, because their goal is to put the means of production in the hands of local individuals who have direct connections to those means, and represent their own interests. Simply put, your definition is so vague that it excludes many socialist movements from socialism, and includes many anti-socialist movements in their place.
I have looked into this further, have researched, and that's why I've been here for nearly a year now. All sources have led to the same conclusion, the Nazis weren't socialists. I've read through TIK's sources, spent months going back-and-forth with him and his greatest adherents in the comments. Discussion is good, but I have to say that often times, people want to feel they are right more than they want to be corrected.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3