Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.
-
12
-
TIK, this is the end result of your nonsense. Convincing people that the nazis are equivalent to random liberals. The nazis weren't socialists, and by your logic, I could say this:
Capitalists - Wealth/Property Ownership socialism, preferred: Business owners, CEOs, capitalists, enemy: socialists, communists, leftists, ect
8
-
6
-
yeah because he wasn't a socialist at all, not that hard
funny, when one actually examines his own words and terminology, they come to that conclusion, any other conclusion is just impossible
That's why, after all, the actual "verbatim quotes" can be examined within context and found to contain nothing like what you're asserting. The actual quotes where hitler says what he wants that reflects what he tried to do, prove he wasn't a socialist. The problem is, you'll take any assertion of propaganda or any term ripped from definition and context, and claim it "clearly" proves socialism... which you've had to lie about and redefine to even get to that conclusion. Hardly clear.
the fact that you're very willing to exclusively take him on his word is worrying
but hey, as long as you feel you can dismiss any evidence you don't like, you won't see that.
Odd, when did "historian" or "person in tune with basic reality" become "socialist?"
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@HowieHellbent
1. "Many, many historians," hm? Where are these historians, exactly? If you'd like to see historians that give actual, you know, history, i'd start with some of the best known and most renowned scholars in the field of WW2 and fascism, those being Richard Evans, James Gregor, Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Ian Kerhsaw, ect.
2. There is more to the world than capitalism and socialism, and the truth is the nazi ideology nor economy resembled nothing like socialism, and I don't quite care what you "have seen" otherwise, I care about the facts.
3.
...I'm sorry, when did we have to start listening to an ideology's most fanatic supporters to correctly understand it? If one wants to learn of the definition of capitalism, there are objective and historical sources to help with that. Hayek, an ideologically extremist capitalist, who lived and died not as a historian but as an ideology-peddler, is not one of those sources.
4
-
@HowieHellbent
1. TIK openly admits that his actual historical citations, not ideological propaganda, disagree with his conclusion. Something you'd know if you watched the video.
2. No actually, the "claim" is a long proven objective fact, true both within historical and modern context. You seem not to know what any of those terms mean, however.
3. Oh, god. This is perhaps one of the worst statements on capitalism, economics, or history i've ever heard. Hayek did his most well known economic work, developing his views and philosophies, in the mid 20th century. As in centuries after the ideological founding of capitalism. He helped to form one specific, recent, offshoot of capitalism. Let me repeat that, one more time. You called a random capitalist economist from the 20th century... one of the founders of capitalism. Jesus. You don't even know who you're talking about, this is embarrassing. I told you objective facts about his views, and you call this slander. He wasn't one of the "foundational philosophers," he's a modern footnote on a centuries old ideology. Hence, why citing him to talk about the whole of capitalism is dishonest and unnecessary.
4. This is, quite literally, another strawman argument. Thank you for admitting you have nothing else, and lack the historical context to actually make an argument.
5. He didn't just oppose "marxist socialisms" though, stop inserting your strawman argument. He opposed and purged explicitly anti-marx socialists on top of that, as well as purging other flavors of leftists and their allies, while protecting and elevating conservatives. You don't seem to understand the basic historical context of what you're saying.
6. I actually have both of these things, unlike you, who pushes nazi propaganda as if their life depended on it.
7. You are both immensely unintelligent and have a problem of falling for propaganda easily, propaganda that was only established recently and is (and has been) easily debunked. Propaganda like the notion that the nazis were socialists, which was recognized rightfully as so absurd that the only ones asserting this claim are those who have sprung out of recent, ahistorical ideological movements, not movements of history. You have no basis for your claim, nor do you even attempt to actually argue them, instead just asserting them and then running away. In any case, I think we can both see your blatant bad faith tactics, and denial of historical record in favor of your ideology.
After all, historians have known the truth about the nazis since their party took power. Hence, TIK's sources so openly proving him wrong :)
4
-
4
-
@HowieHellbent
Insulting me does not remove the facts from my responses, facts you desperately wish to ignore.
You were the one who changed the subject of this conversation when you ran away from my points, that is solely on you.
All this conversation has been since is you trying to run away and accusing me of harassment, while I calmly state that you're free to mute me or stop responding, which makes you in the wrong, regardless of anything else.
Nobody else is reporting me champ, because nobody else sees a debate that you lost as harassment.
I agree, free and open forums depend on honestly, intelligence, and respect, all things I have attempted to expose you too, and you refused.
Feel free to stop responding.
4
-
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
-
@grizzlygrizzle
I'm sorry, but that is objectively false. Hitler was always considered a man of the right, even before the war, hence his defense of the right, and his election itself being due to the conspiratorial meddling of the conservative parties, which would then find place in his government. The statements and actions you are talking about from FDR came from before fascism was ideologically open, and his statements were based only on propaganda that Mussolini put out in an attempt to ally with Americans. Furthermore, one has to remember that FDR... was a staunch and open capitalist, and anti-socialist. Funny how you bring up Sanger, the anti-abortion figurehead of supposed "progressivism," while ignoring that her stated "eugenics" had nothing to do with progressive thought, and lined up far more with conservatives of the time. What "turned" the far right nazis and their allies, the fascists, into being correctly known as far right ideologies, was the accurate telling of history by historians you'll do anything to erase. After all, the only reason you're denying your allies in the far right fascists is because you want to erase the right's responsibility for the holocaust.
-- The essence of your ideology is one of hatred towards the left, and while you openly agree with nazis say, by calling socialism a failed, utopian experiment, while marx openly refuted utopianism, you still claim to hate them, and thus you try to paint them as leftists to justify said claim of hate, because to tell the truth about the nazis means admitting that you would have sided with them. Hell, your very "definition" of leftism is one that very clearly and openly applies to the right wing ideologies that you so readily defend, but that is an irony I fear that is lost on you. The nazis and fascists were open about their far right policies - why can't you be?
-- The essence of right wing thought, from capitalism to fascism, is one based on darwinism, or in essence, the idea that hierarchy is justified, natural, and should be protected. Both call for the subjugation of people into mindless products of their environment, and the stripping of their individuality or freedom in the name of the greater system. Fascism does this for the nation, nazism for the race, capitalism for the market. Of course, the average person cares little for the greater system, they exist only to serve it and be discarded when their time is done. Both fascists and capitalists are utterly convinced that their system is human nature," which justifies the cruelty and inefficiency of their systems. After all, while capitalism preaches the "self interest" of the individual, while stripping them of their individuality, as fascism preaches the "self interest" of the nation or race, while stripping the people of either of those groups of their very personhood, neither seems to realize that their systems do not actually act in accordance with human nature, and that the needs of humanity can be better achieved without these self-destructive systems.
-- The problem is, your description of both capitalism and leftist economics comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of both systems, one I don't think can be rectified within your brain. You base your "understanding" of history not around what is true, but what best aligns with your ideology, hence your disgustingly false assertions on the nazis.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HowieHellbent
You accuse me of lies... and yet you are unable to prove your assertions. Because they're not true - lies, that is.
You ignore logic, evidence, and reasoning, and most of all, ignore my actual points. You haven't fulfilled even the most basic academic criteria to be taken seriously. You can't handle the fact that you got proven wrong, so you assert and insult, dancing around the actual debate for hours on end. You even admit to this.
If you don't want to be called a bad faith actor, stop projecting that behavior on me, and address your own actions. After all, I follow the facts, I debate with logic. You? You insult, you censor, you run away. Shameful
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HowieHellbent
Thank you for so effortlessly proving me right. The issue is that you see yourself above historians, who have based their life work in definitions of historical and economic ideology.
The very quote given there shows hitler's diametric opposition to socialism, as the author of the quote points out. Also, might want to address the rest of the quote there.
And that isn't cherry picking at all, it supports the point I made, which is that TIK openly admits that the vast majority of historical sources and historians disagree with TIK's point. Your assertion otherwise is unfounded.
And if my rebuttal wasn't "easily visible" to you, then you must be blind, as it is not only right there, but ongoing.
Historian 2 -
Robert Paxton, professor and historian of fascism, nazism, and the modern far right.
"Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
“The German Right had traditionally been völkisch, devoted to the defense of a biological ‘people’ threatened by foreign impurities, socialist division, and bourgeois softness” (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" p. 37).
"There was no space in Italian politics for a party that was both nationalist and Left."
- Robert Paxton, “Anatomy Of Fascism.”
3
-
@HowieHellbent
Sorry, what are the lines before and after that "quote" of yours?
"...he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns..."
"Capitalism was, therefore, left in place."
He disapproved of "interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns"
This is litterally a historians proving that hitler wasn't a socialist, and your only response is to attempt to redefine socialism.
You're actually so egotistical that you assume that you can assert, without proof, that you know more about socialism than someone who spent their life studying it in a historical sense. This is nothing other than dishonesty on your part.
He literally and openly applies the definition of anti-socialism to hitler, thereby proving hitler was a socialist.
What argument can you even attempt to make now? Are you going to claim that you know more about the definition of socialism than a lifelong economist and historian, without evidence backing up your claims?
Thank you for admitting hitler wasn't a socialist.
3
-
@HowieHellbent
I'm sorry, that's simply false. The dictionary definition of socialism is as follows - "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" from the oxford languages dictionary.
The same also goes for the definition of capitalism, private ownership of the means of production.
You don't have an argument against this, so you appeal to strawman fallacies to deny the fact that the vast majority of historians oppose your ideological nonsense, and the fact that you can't provide a single historian that agrees with you.
The quote in question doesn't prove, or even say, anything about public property or the seizure of private property, and you have no actual proof otherwise. The statement is proof that he proclaimed the nazis did not have an economy of private property, and that they did not take from the capitalists.
You have no arguments, and thus as you admit, you lost the debate.
Asserting that you are correct and that there are somehow no contradictions in your false argument does not make it so.
Historian 3 -
Roger Griffin, expert on modern and historical fascism economics.
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
“'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45).
3
-
@Nightdare
I "dare claim" the truth, yes. Economics and political philosophy are important and unshakable parts of history, and thus, are always a part of a historian's work.
Even if those two groups "can" study history, they do so far less efficiently than historians, because they only look at one mall part of a bigger picture, whereas historians look at political philosophy, economics, history, and so on as one cohesive whole and study it. It being their field of expertise doesn't make them better at studying and presenting history - they're worse, in fact.
3
-
@Nightdare
Luckily, we aren't talking about historians that study cultural anthropology, or more accurately, cultural anthropologists. We're talking about general historians, who study all aspects of their given subject.
So yes, you are wrong.
The very definition of political philosophers and economists is one who studies those subjects, and those subjects alone. They will always miss the bigger picture.
Studying the how/why/when/where of say, economics, will not tell you as much as a general historian could. You could give me every possible detail known about the economy of 1920s america, for example, and i'd still have no idea of say, the cultural effect of swing dancing, because economies are just one part of history.
One easily can, and most will, discuss matters of economics without bringing up full historical context, which absolutely includes the wars, the trade, the government, the policies, the people, and all who influence the economy indirectly. Economists don't look that deep. Do you know who does? Historians.
You're right, Hayek wasn't "just" an economist. He was an ideologue that tried to use economics to push his ideology, and was fine with ignoring history, politics, and economics if that allowed him to pursue his goal.
"studying" a subject by denying the actual definition of said subject and using your work to push your ideology isn't studying.
All i'm trying to do is point out that a random economist with a clear political bias in no way trumps the accurate descriptions and definitions of historians before him, and TIK citing Hayek is only happening because TIK agrees with Hayek's worldview, and thus, his rewriting of historical and economic definitions. Hayek isn't a reliable source on the history of socialism, he is biased and openly attempts to rewrite it to the benefit of his ideology.
It has nothing to do with being right wing, there are plenty of right wing historians that get it right. It has to do with him being an ahistorical ideologue.
3
-
3
-
@UltraKardas
Oh, so the nazis pushed for equality among minorities, liberty, greater access to voting, greater rights for gay and trans people, and anti-fasicsm? Oh wait, no, the nazis pushed for anti-marxism, private property, capitalism instead of socialism, and capitalist policies that exist in capitalist countries like the UK today, like healthcare... that was privatized from what the Weimar Republic had. Was the Republic socialist, child?
The nazis privatized welfare, as I have proven to you in the past, as they hated welfare more than you. Similarly, social security is literally only a policy possible under capitalism. And yes! They took the anti-socialist policies of the far right Italian fascists and only lightly modified them.
And we've already been over that program child, I literally cited a historian that directly called it a privatized system largely funded by donations, and also called it a "fraud." But You don't care about citations, do you?
You're too cowardly, too much of a liar to face objective reality. you think that your bias is the same thing as the truth.
No no, you'll keep losing this argument forever, won't you? I'll be sure to keep winning :)
3
-
2
-
2
-
@16vjtdalfa
Obviously I read it, given I cited it back to you before you even knew more than point 13. Hell, you don't even know the name of it, I have to keep remining you it's the "25 Point Program," at no point is the word "rule" mentioned. If you actually read it, you wouldn't have used your "arguments." Hitler did not support any mass nationalization, not just one form of nationalization, because he supported private industry. Again: “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” And as we've been over, specifically in the case of point 13, hitler split with a part of his party that actually did support that policy. When asked if he would actually put in place point 13, and if they should take over or leave private gernany's business, what was his response? "‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’" I'll remind you that TIK's sources openly proclaim hitler was not a socialist. And again, as we've been over time and time again, statism is not socialism, there is nothing intrinsically socialist about point 13, nor anything in the program. Taking "averages" in terms of political beliefs doesn't work, because then you deny some of their policies in favor of others. Rather, we look at their reasoning for their policies, and with the nazis we find solely right wing reasoning. How does "my logic" suggest there has never been a capitalist or socialist system? And as we've been over, hitler openly rejected point 13. I quite literally cited to you how this was the case, and you did not rebut the facts I presented, merely said "it was implemented." It wasn't, child, hence the nazis private economy. Maybe you should start reading my response, because I openly pointed out other parts of the 25 point program (not rules, you still don't even know the name) that hitler openly rejected, like equal rights and voting rights. If you have rarely seen a program implemented better than one that was not implemented at all, you might be blind. As we've already been over, points much further ahead in his program were outright ignored, so your order of the points nonsense is just that, nonsense. Point 15 wasn't pension, it was "old age welfare," which obviously didn't impact the young men in the german army. That too was a lie, because in reality the nazis called for a removal of old age welfare, as shown in the nazi propaganda film Erbkrank. And i'm sorry, this is just false. Point 19 doesn't have to do with racial tension, but in any case, the assertion that socialists think the same is utterly false. The germans saw jewish people as conspiratorial, and accused socialists and marxists of being a part of said conspiracy. The only people who see jewish people as evil tend to come from the right, and your denial of that is disgusting as always.
I'm sorry, again, what does propaganda in education have to do with the medalist total at the Olympics?
And as we've been over, the rules further up he completely ignored as well, which is a fact that you are doing your best to deny with very little success in the matter.
I already looked into the program and told you exactly how they didn't apply it, with citations and examples, and you failed to rebut that. The program did not state his desire to go to war, nor is war necessary to attain equal rights, unions, ect. Hitler didn't want to execute this program, he didn't like nationalization, he didn't like state backing, he didn't like equal rights, he didn't like unions, he didn't like welfare, and he didn't like socialism. All facts that, again, you refuse to respond to.
The simple fact is, in the last response I gave you citation, quotes, examples, ect. In this response, you ignore all that and ask me to give you the same things again. Read. The. Response.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisscott3071 As we've been over, what favorable and positive comments? You've simply posted quotes that show that Hitler defined socialism as nationalism. Yes, he supported nationalism. But where is the socialism, child? Oh, wait, you don't want to hear what the man actually thought of socialism.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
Why do you want to deny the unfavorable and negative comments but the evil mass murderer, anti-socialist Adolf Hitler on socialism?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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.
//:/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hariman7727
False according to you, a biased individual that is explicitly sympathetic to the right and far right.
Let's get an unbiased source, like "Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations," which states that the left is historically defined by "...ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" whereas the right is defined by "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".
The far right wing of politics is not "freedom/anarchy."
The absolute monarchs, the technocrats, the dictators, they did not value freedom.
The communists, the anarchists, the socialists, they were not right wing.
There is no point in which the right has decided to atone for their tyrannical past and tyrannical present, to actually define themselves in accordance to freedom. They don't need to "wrap around" - they were never anarchists to begin with.
You're literally trying to redefine terms as you see fit. You're claiming that the vast majority of the history of conservatism is "leftist big government," whereas your tiny, modern conception of the ideology is the only one that counts. Conservatives aren't leftist, and yet historically, they have had no opposition to the use of statist force. II hate to say this, but you defining the right and left in nonsensical ways and trying to take the terms for the right from the people who invented them, with nothing but "I said so" as an excuse, is not a valid argument.
The far right anti-socialist nazi party of germany invited the private owners to cement their control of the means of production, and invited international industrialists to help them with this. They didn't "take control," they lessened regulation, and capitalist regulation is not fascism nor is it socialism. The policies you described, even if 100% honest, fit no definition of socialism.
You have never given an argument, just dismissed other arguments you have no ability to rebut, and ran away when you realized you don't know the full story.
You're calling me a gaslighter because I actually dare to not ignore their policies, structure, and ideology, but instead I honestly observe them, compare them to historical and modern definitions, look at the information unearthed by historians. You're asserting that far right policies were somehow socialist because historians, dictionaries, and the nazis themselves must have lied, rather than you having the possibility of being wrong even once. You lost. Sorry?
2
-
@hariman7727
Oh, but it was. Sorry you can't own up?
Bud, the problem is that this logic wraps right around to you. You are attempting to call them socialists because modern conservatives think that denying their connection to nazism will make them look better. Problem is, nazis still marxh with conservatives - not socialists.
You're attempting to grow the term socialism to encompass any amount of ideologies you personally claim to disagree with, no matter their actual ideological content or origins, because you can't deal with the past of your ideology being as bloody as it truly was.
Hitler didn't have a "socialism" to fight against. Socialists, from within and outside of hitler's country, fought him tooth and nail because the right wing policies that were backed from the beginning by the conservative party of germany and industrialists both national and international, were fundamentally against their own ideology, and in fact, against basic human decency.
So you'd like to claim that policies that the entire world conducted at the time, which were popular in right wing nations and less prevalent in nazi germany, were "socialist/communist?"
But this is a "premise" that is supported by nazis to this day. The problem is, you are literally defining your ideology around their own, purposefully excluding them no matter the historical connection and shared ideas. Their policies match up with the right, because the right doesn't give a shit about freedom.
And yes, thanks for bringing up another topic you're ignorant about, to deflect from the other argument you lost, I guess. Yes, I "believe" in basic american history. You are aware that it was the "party switch," not the "individual politician switch," yes? Would you like to explain how the republican party went from Greeley to Green without a party switch?
2
-
@matrix5062
Htler was a far right anti-socialist. Him not being the type of rightist you like doesn't change that. Germany was in constant conflict, very much because there was a large percentage of people not happy with the dominant liberal parties, both left and right wing. "Centralized government" is not "the opposite of capitalism," nor is capitalism "the right" in its entirety. The entirety of german and broadly european history is filled with right wing statists, and the right wingers of hitler's time were no exception. Acting as though "big vs small government" is the divide between left in right is not only vague but simply ahistorical. He didn't hate the right, nor did he particularly hate capitalism as a concept. He hated the idea of international intervention, on both a statist and market-oriented basis, but when it came to the private happenings of private companies and financial organizations within the country and not explicitly hostile to him, he praised them explicitly in contrast with state or social ownership. That's why he didn't abolish the banks, he just put them in new hands. I agree, there are many forms of socialism, but all share historical roots and ideological similarities despite their differences and sometimes outright hostilities. Not only did hitler not share these roots or similarities, but he outright denied any connection with them at all. There is no such thing as "socialism for one race," that's like saying "capitalism for one class," it's a simple contradiction of terms. If you're getting to the point that you have to rewrite basic definitions to make your point... your point just might be wrong.
2
-
2
-
@matrix5062
But you are, perhaps purposefully so, but you objectively are. You have decided to redefine what left and right themselves mean in order to paint perhaps the most widely known right wing government ever as "socialist." "Centralized governance" is, and always has been, extremely possible under right wing governments and leaderships. Socialists aren't the "soft end" of general authoritarianism, as authoritarianism is not inherently tied to socialism or the left. Yes, the differences within the left are many, but they are not so vast that they include the right.
Right wing is not "the form of governance which doesn't limit choice or personal reward." The modern right is extremely set on limiting both those things, and the very term "right wing" came about in reference to monarchists, as did the term "conservative." What is it you don't grasp? How can you not understand that the right has never been about "freedom," and that them asserting otherwise is entirely contradicted by basic history?
If it is the left that "demand control of all matters," why exactly is the modern right so dead set on supporting dictators and controlling as much as possible, while the left historically has fought against conservative monarchs and dictators? Why exactly is the history of the right in hating anarchism and the history of the left in creating it? You're defining left and right as more vs less government but this is just objectively false. Do you think that just because the modern right appeals to you with "freedom," that they're entirely sincere in that appeal? Further, Hitler praised private property again and again. He did not call for "control of all matters," unless said matters related to the targets of his nationalism, like the modern right. He did nothing "as a socialist." I hate to break it to you but "cancelled" is another word for "subject of free speech," and it's no wonder the right hates it so much. You literally think people disagreeing with you and saying so is authoritarianism. It's the right who is actually trying to use force, violence and government to harm, control and punish.
Again, Hitler was very insistent that his government was not to "own it all." You're free to be wrong but hopefully one day you bother to consider why you believe the frankly absurd things you believe, and why they're so easy to disprove time and time again. The right are so bad at promoting freedom they have to literally redefine the right to "Freedom" to even convince you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HowieHellbent
But he didn't claim "property was both public and private," he correctly pointed out that private property was left in place, just turned into a voluntary and profiting ally of the state.
Can you actually read? Have you gotten that far?
If you aren't capable of admitting historians know more on the subject than you, you aren't capable of being correct.
The historian himself says, as we've been over, "capitalism was left in place." Why do you, with no qualifications or evidence, feel entitled to dismiss this?
You do realize there is more in the world than capitalism and socialism?
And... it doesn't. What about the dictionary 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) allows for private property, sides with the private property owner, and opposes leftism and unionism?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HowieHellbent
1/
My apologies for the long response time, I was nearly done two hours ago and then my computer decided to crash. In any case, here we go.
Mhm, yes my friend?
Why do you assume I have to continue on your terms?
Why do you assume we both don't already know i'm correct?
I engage on my own terms, and you're lucky i'm bothering to respond to these points I already addressed hours ago.
1. First off, to address some reoccurring problems of your responses and demands here. Every single one of the things you ask of me here has already been explained to you, has already been rebutted, and you have yet to actually make a response to those statements of mine. If you recognize parts of the arguments in these next three parts, that is because they are old arguments you never responded upon, reexamined and put in a new light for you. Second off, you clearly need to learn some more rules of debate and logic, namely, the idea of the burden of proof. Basically, imagine an anti-vaxxer comes up to you, and tells you "Prove that there aren't human fetuses in that vaccine!" Now, obviously, the logical response is to address the assumption behind their question first - you would ask them, in return, if they can prove that said vaccines do contain human fetuses. If they can't answer that question, that's proof enough that they were wrong, and that their question is based on a false assumption. There's no need to root around the ingredients, the burden of proof is on them to prove that such a question is based in logic enough to answer. This is something that applies to you, because every single one of these responses shares that problem. You ask something, telling me to disprove a claim you have yet to prove yourself. Hell, you have yet to argue for them. I could easily, in good faith, simply turn the questions back on you and ask you to prove your assertions contained within, but I won't do that, and you're lucky. In any case, i'll be pointing out how these problems apply to your responses further as we go, but on to the main response. I will address point #1 in three ways - tackling the dishonest framing of your question, proving the question itself false, and then further answering your claim. None of these are necessary of course, i've already addressed this exact point of yours, but whatever. First off, you ask me to prove that hitler, "went after ALL socialists and not just marxists and those who refused to nationalize," yourself taking the stance that those were the only ones he went after. This isn't a honest framing of the question, you're assuming something and then asking me to disprove it, rather than attempting to prove something and then asking me to counter. In any case, your assumption on this question is false. First off, marxists. Hitler did not just target marxist socialists, though he often used the term "marxist" to describe many things that do not actually fit under the classification of marxism, such as calling j***wish liberals "marxists" as well as any and all socialists. Marxism was a tool for hitler to spread the antisemetic idea of a j***wish conspiracy designed to "destroy german traditions.” Worth noting that he placed marxism on the left, and himself on the right, saying “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.” In any case, no, he did not stop at Marxist socialists, also attacking the SPD, other leftist and liberal parties, syndicalist organizations, utopian socialist organizations, anarchist organizations, ect, most of which answered to the title of socialist, but not marxist, and yet were ruthlessly purged by him. We’ll go over this more later, but he also attacked the allies and supporters of those parties, thinkers, and movements, which says a lot about his intentions. In any case, another amazing example of Hitler not stoping at Marxists is the oft-cited Night of the Long Knives. As i’m sure you’re aware, the Night of the Long Knives was an event in which the nazi party leadership purged the leftmost faction, who they had until then had to share power and voters with. The victims of this purge, as it is worth pointing out, were explicityly anti-marxist. This faction of the nazi party was one that paid lip service to certain leftist concepts, but at the same time, wholly rejected the teachings of Marx. For example, Gregor Strasser, the head of this faction, wholly rejected the basis of marxism and marxist socialism by denying any sort of affinity for equality, saying "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!" It was this faction of anti-marxists who was also purged in one of the nazis most famous purges of their rule.
2
-
@HowieHellbent
2/
As for your second group... what?? "Those who refused to nationalize?" This is why I say you need to prove your statements before asking me to disprove them, because this is utter nonsense. The nazis never went after those who refused to support policy of nationalization, mainly, because it was them refusing said policy. Going back to Strasser, he headed the faction of the nazi party that actually pushed for nationalization, however, Hitler's faction openly rejected this push and denied that political direction. Strasser himself points this out in his book, Hitler and I, which I will quote briefly. "
Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of Hitler’s official programme. ‘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.’
It was the Hitlerites who denied efforts for a mass policy of nationalization, not the strasserites or other socialists he targeted, and thus, it was not those who refused to nationalize who were targeted, but those who refused to nationalize who did the targeting. In any case, finally, your question. Prove not only those groups were targeted, something I did ages ago, but oh well. In any case, to further address that question in one more way, I'll say this - Hitler didn't just target socialist parties, or socialists in his own party. He targeted communists, liberals, progressives, unionists, syndicalists, anarchists, LGBT people, workers, immigrants, disabled people, ect. He rejected not only socialist parties, but socialist and more generally leftist organizations, thinkers, and political presences all throughout his society. He also rejected their base, the downtrodden, the workers, the immigrants, unionists, ect. He rejected their policies, he called those that lived off welfare "workshy," and they were sent to the camps. Hell, the man was elected on campaigning against things like public welfare and retirement programs, such as those demonized in nazi films such as Erbkrank, a film meant to turn the public against these policies. At the same time he was cracking down on all these groups, he appealed to the conservatives and businesses, who financed his party even internationally, and in terms of the conservatives, he was only ever even elected because Franz von Papen, a head of conservative parties in pre-hitler germany, decided to conspire among said parties to subvert democracy and put hitler in charge with near unlimited power. They did this, and von Papen became Hitler's first Vice Chancellor, and helped to populate Hitler's first cabinet with old conservative party heads. Do you see how he treats the two sides? One he denies the organization, policies, and people of. The other he holds up, elevates, and defends. His allegiances are clear. As for TIK's sources, as we've been over, his historical works roundly prove him wrong, and comprehensive, long-praised and near perfect works in the history of the rise of the nazi party, such as the first book of Richard Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy, go into explicit detail about the organization of the nazi party, and their push against the left from the beginning. One cannot nationalize factions of individuals, and the only cases in which socialists joined the nazi party were either before the ideological purge, or people who abandoned socialism and turned coat. You see, fascism, as an ideology, aims to appeal to many of the same groups that socialists and other populist movements do. Both ideologies try to appeal to the estranged worker, the downtrodden, the starving. However, fascists exclude the migrants, the minorities, the "others" in this appeal, and instead include business owners who are apparently being oppressed by "international finance." They get on the worker's side by blaming nations, races, and a rejection of the idea of a common national tradition. Socialists, on the other hand, include all of those types of worker, instead excluding the boss, and get on these people's side by blaming class, inequality, the owners, private property, and a rejection of progressivism. Fascists stole socialist rhetoric, and used it for anti-socialist reasons. For these reasons, even though the ideologies are diametrically opposed, starving workers would be happy to switch between them, because both promise to fix their problems, just in very different ways. It is for this very reason that socialists often switch their allegiance to specific types of socialism, and fascists to types of fascism, ect, though the divide in rhetoric between the two ideologies has made it very unlikely for one to go from fascism to socialism or vice versa in the modern day. And before you try to assert that these socialists that abandoned socialism didn't actually do so, i'll remind you of ex-marxist conservatives, like famous economist Thomas Sowell, who you would also be accusing of being a socialist with that accusation. Moving on.
2
-
@HowieHellbent
3/
2. And this... god, just, pain. First off, i've already addressed this, and your framing is dishonest, but oddly enough that's not what i'm concerned about. This is one where i'm genuinely confused at how you reached your conclusion, as you're unwilling to provide evidence or reasoning for your claim, so i'm left to wonder if this is some misguided attempt to double down on your previous mistake with Hayek, or a genuine misunderstanding of capitalist history. In any case, the history of capitalism, as both an economic system and philosophy, goes much before Rothbard, and Rothbard is a bit of an odd choice. For one, he wasn't even the founder of his own movement, that being the American Libertarian movement, that was based primarily in the Austrian School of capitalism, founded by Carl Menger, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, ect. Note that the capitalist movement he belonged to already existed long before he got there, and that the Austrian School itself was based on modifying and spready a specific type of capitalist philosophy and economy, in contrast with the capitalism that already existed in the world. So you're taking one man, who was part of a bigger movement, that derived itself from a centuries old philosophy, and claiming said one man was the first. The foundation of capitalist economic practices, that is private ownership of the means of production, go back centuries, one can point to the various early colonial exploits of Europe, or even further back, to the Crisis of the 14th Century. The foundations of capitalist philosophy are a bit more concrete though. The philosophy of capitalism is known as "liberalism," hence capitalists in the modern day often calling themselves classical liberals, and european capitalist/libertarian parties are often called the liberal parties. While isolated strands of Liberalism existed prior to the 17th century, that is when it was first formed. It could be said to first have made a popular appearance with Richard Overton's statements on the individual, saying "To every Individuall in nature, is given an individual property by nature, not to be invaded or usurped by any...; no man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans," and later formed into a concrete ideology by John Locke, all the way back in the 1690s. Liberalism teaches that private property ownership is a basic human right, and that all human rights are derived from the idea of property ownership, notably, self ownership. That was an idea first fully formed by Locke, who directly inspired capitalist economists all the way to the Austrian School in the far future. As for those who wrote about capitalism before the 1900s, god, where to start? The idea of capitalist market forces was first popularized by Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism," who lived in the 1700s. Around the same time, the term capitalist was first used by french anarchists, to describe property owners in france at the time. These ideas were further expounded upon until the early to mid 1800s, where the subject of capitalism had become well known, and accepted by not only capitalists, but by socialists like Louis Blanc, and it was cemented as a system of government, economy, and philosophy, calling for private ownership of the means of production. Marx then wrote a whole series of books on capitalism, starting in 1867, analyzing the philosophy, material conditions, and economic theory of capitalism. (Cambridge History of Capitalism, 2014) Hell, even in the Austrian School, von Mises was writing about capitalism and liberalism even before Rothbard did, and remember, Mises is cited as a capitalist in TIK's videos. And these are just major steps on the road of the development of capitalism, there were hundreds if not thousands of smaller economists and writers in between these years that pushed the ideology forward, developed it, observed it, wrote about it, and so on. So again, my question is genuinely, why do you think this? How did Rothbard found, or help to found, the philosophy of capitalism? Furthermore, when, how, and with who did he do this? Rothbard's opinions changed a lot through his life, and while in the libertarian movement he didn't do much, he actually did found an ideology, philosophy, and movement, that being the paleolibertarian movement, which combined strong markets and property rights with a large, nationalist state, a movement he worked with KKK leader David Duke to develop. Is this the capitalist philosophy you're talking about? It's what he founded, his work as a libertarian wasn't all that notable. And how to you does he fit in with other capitalists at the time, like Hayek? The two disagreed immensely, and add to the equation Mises (who again, TIK calls a capitalist and defends) calling other people in the same movement as those two "socialists," where is the founding of capitalism here, in these feuding adherents of a centuries old ideology? I'm genuinely curious as to how you justify your claim.
2
-
2
-
@HowieHellbent
Those are terms you don't know the definitions of yes, and citations from TIK i have directly addressed and provided with my own citation and explanation, which you well know.
Or well, you would know, if you actually read my responses. What right do you have to claim I haven't cited anything, when you admit you didn't read my response?
I won the debate, and you openly admit to this fact, which is why you ran away.
I openly stated I would be happy to answer your questions, and so I did, I provided what I had to and more, just for you champ.
We're talking about history, though I suppose by this logic you think TIK is dishonest for not keeping his videos short?
It's your word VS my and TIK's citations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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.
//:/
2
-
@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.
2
-
@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?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sulli1189
Oh of course, how simple, how did I not think of that! If you don't follow TIK's rules of debate, as in, you don't agree with him, you technically lose by default! How grand. In reality, this debate is being had because I checked his supposed definitions, and found both their usage, intended rhetorical effect, and basis for being defined in such a way, lacking. I'm not unwilling to verify the information, in actuality i've attempted to verify it and found it false, hence, why i'm able to argue against such blatant revisionism.
Of course TIK has an elaborate and well thought out web of technicalities, etymologies, and warps of existing terms to justify his use in utterly ahistorical definitions of said terms. Every conspiracy theorist devotes a good amount of time to their conspiracy after all. However, this says nothing to me about the supposed accuracy of said definitions. After all, these words have not been used or defined in the way TIK alleges throughout all of history, much less in the modern day. In no way is he correct, despite your excuses to the contrary, and his definitions are not based in their common or historical usage as terms.
And when someone then comes and refutes said terms, what is your response? "Well, TIK was right." That's it, no reasoning, no rebuttal, just an assertion backed up with another assertion. Again, TIK attempting to push a narrative does not make him correct, and it has been explained over and over that he is not using the word accurately in any sense of the word. The context of the term is ignored in his definition, as he ignores he relevant time, regions, and documents necessary for constructing an actual definition of such a term. He is engaging in strawman arguments, yes.
TIK is utterly ahistorical, he insults, he asserts, and he runs away when faced in argument. What he's doing is ahistorical revisionism by any definition of the term, and to compare his "work" to actual historians, and teachers, and educators is absolutely disrespectful.
2
-
@sulli1189
If that's what you remember, then it is either in this response or the previous one where you might want to consider rephrasing a few things. You assert here that you never said TIK was right, and yet you plainly say "Tik is correct in his vocabulary" in your previous response, going on to explain why you think this is the case. I didn't, however, notice you point out that there's "plenty of room" for him to be incorrect anywhere, you pointed out that points were made against him but then attempted to rebut these points.
The problem is then, his argument proves redundant. For example, take the terms 'public' and 'socialism.' He asserts that the first one can describe any group larger than a family in economic control of a given area or enterprise. He asserts that the second is a societal model of (his definition of) public control. He then asserts that all the bad things he doesn't like fit this definition, and thus, are socialist. If we translate his argument into more common language we find he is accusing these supposedly socialist countries or businesses... of being organized by non-familial groups. The issue then is he attempts to conflate this with the word socialism, in order to push a political point.
If you want to know how his sources don't work, then I would direct you to his "Other Counterarguments" section where he admits that said sources come to vastly different conclusions than his own... mostly due to the definitions in question. If you want to talk about rules of debate, one could bring up TIK's attempts at shutting down argument, giving his support to bad faith attacks, and even just insulting those he disagrees with himself.
And the sources themselves aren't the problem, the historical ones at least, though you'll notice he cites more than a few ideological manifestos from those that agree with him politically. The issue is that he is projecting his own definitions onto the sources of those that refute his arguments and claiming that their evidence proves the opposite of what they show it to prove.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Baamthe25th
"If you ignore the arguments and facts, there aren't any arguments and facts." I'm sorry, I hate to be the one to educate you on this but historians literally deal in historical arguments and proof. They don't make random statements with no evidence, unlike TIK and his fanatic denialist fanbase. You call it an appeal to authority because you can't actually disprove the "authority."
I'm sorry history is so confusing for you, but that isn't going to change if you keep drowning yourself in propaganda.
TIK isn't a historian, he's a youtuber with an agenda, and as it turns out the vast majority of historians easily refute his nonsense, so many that most of his historical sources are from people that utterly refute him, because there's such a lack of people who do anything otherwise. You call me indoctrinated... because you would prefer to believe a youtuber than the primary sources they cite. Of course, those that disagree with you aren't "real historians."
Fascism and nazism were "not real socialism," just like capitalism is "not real socialism." And if you say otherwise and try to assert that capitalism actually isn't socialism, i'll just accuse you of a no true scotsman fallacy, and say "oh, you mean "not true socialists" like the USSR?" That is, quite literally, the extent of your "argument," a conflation of different positions simply because they come to the same conclusion, of course with different context and reason, that being that "x wasn't socialist." I suppose all things are socialist then, since claiming they weren't is grounds for comparison to the USSR?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 magine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid.
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 was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
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.
//:/
1
-
@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.
1
-
@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?
1
-
1
-
@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.
//:/
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I love how it is so blatantly clear that you can't cope with the fact that you were so easily proven wrong, and you don't seem to actually have any arguments left. Not that you ever really had any to begin with, in fairness.
I have changed people's minds - the problem being, you are so deep in your propaganda that nobody could change your mind. Facts can't, historians can't, economists can't, basic logic certainly can't. And you brag about this. I understand you're likely a preteen but a few comments isn't a "big fraction of your life."
Your points were nonsense, and you've been running away from that fact for months now.
You don't know the definition of property, nor can you justify your theft of it.
Bitcoin is a system that can only exist within a statist framework, and only has value because the state backs a currency that you can transform bitcoin into. This is the case with all current cryptocurrency. There's a reason you can't pay for most things with bitcoin directly, and the few things you can buy with it are directly compared with their dollar value.
Communities aren't a state, by definition, nor are all states representative of the community as a whole. Private property requires the state intervening and enforcing its existence.
Private property is only able to be maintained via the state
You have not provided a single rebuttal to any of those facts, and prefer to state the same debunked arguments while lying about our previous conversations.
You can't even make an argument anymore.
I prove you wrong with facts, logic, and reasoning.
You, on the other hand, can't even admit I responded.
How sad is that?
You, quite literally, advocate for a system in which people are forced to give their property, as I have explained so many times. And yet you just don't listen.
I'm sorry you can't make an argument without insulting me, and i'm doubly sorry that you know you can't make an argument at all, hence you running away again. You can make up all the excuses you want, the truth is blatant and clear.
You're the one commenting to me, pal. What are you achieving with this time, your own humiliation?
I have provided facts that people like you are free to accept, if only they get rid of their ideological zealotry.
The imple fact is, I have changed the minds of those willing to listen to reason. You are not one of those people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I've already debated you in a public and accessible place though, and you lost.
You've shown yourself to be completely incapable of addressing factual reality, you even do so in this very comment, so why would I further engage when I already won?
You already ran away, scare, from a debate in which I showed the facts to you, made you a laughing stock, and explained every one of the facts I brought to your attention, with no response from you. Bitcoin is a statist tool, I've explained why a hundred times, and by asserting that I haven't you're proving that further engagement past my previous victory is pointless. Are you scared?
And it's almost like you don't even remember the past few times i've easily beaten you...
1
-
@sophiacristina
As of now, you have been unable to address that claim though... and thus, it goes uncontested. You were scared, and thus, you ran, giving me the win.
Are you scared to lose another argument, here and now?
Are you able to even make an argument?
I pointed out that bitcoin is only possible under statism, given that it only has value within the context of state-backed currency, and is only worth a certain amount of state backed currency. You have yet to actually cite an economist that disagrees with this basic fact.
It's almost like you want to pretend you "beat" me when you even openly admit in this thread that you ran away the last time we talked, because I proved you wrong instantly and you couldn't accept facts.
run away again, kid. There's no use trying to appeal to someone as entrenched in propaganda as you are. I'm sorry you can't accept the fact that you are objectively incorrect, but I am happy at least that you've accepted the fact that you lost the argument weeks ago. You said you were done commenting yesterday... and yet here you are. Go achieve something in real life, kid. Your obsessive commenting is sad.
1
-
@sophiacristina
You have quite literally admitted to running away from our discussion several times in the past.
You are, quite literally, the one running away. You are proposing deflecting to another platform, another audience, and the same points which I publicly disproved you on. You know you lost the argument here, so you're hoping to run away and try again.
"I pointed out that bitcoin is only possible under statism, given that it only has value within the context of state-backed currency, and is only worth a certain amount of state backed currency. " This statement remains factually and economically true.
At no place or time, ever, in the history of humanity or more specifically our studies of modern economics, has there existed a type of crypto currency that holds value wholly separate and incomparable to state backed currency. This is a basic economic fact, and despite your fanatic assertion that "ABSOLUTEY NO ECONOMIST WOULD AGREE WITH YOU," it is a simple fact, a hardcore fact, and undeniable fact that they all do, which is why you are unable to actually cite any economists, or even make an argument given basic economic knowledge. The very fact that you can't actually argue against my point, and instead appeal to an authority you can't even cite, proves you have no idea about basic economics, nor do you know how bitcoin even works.
Bitcoin is a token that is representative of a certain, changing, amount of real world state backed currency.
You seem to be stuck in an echo chamber of economic illiteracy. Child, everyone with basic economic education agrees with the simple facts i'm presenting. Obviously you do not fall into that classification.
Bitcoin is a token, yes, and it is also wholly virtual with no real world application or use beyond transferring into actual, state backed currency. Comparing it to rice is silly, because rice is not a currency, nor is rice a virtual object with no real life use beyond selling it for real world currency. Can you pay for things with bitcoin? No, but you can convert it into real world state backed currency and pay with that. Can you get rich from it? Not by itself, but if you have enough and the dollar value of it (state backed currency) is high eough, you cna convert it into real world state backed currency and get rich. You need state backed money for bitcoin to have any value, and while you can mine for bitcoin on personal devices, it is absolutely without value if you cannot compare it or convert it to a dollar amount. There's a reason that when you look up the value of bitcoin, what comes up... is a direct comparison to state backed currency. You need state money to get any value from any sort of crypto. That's why so many state leaders invest and buy crypto lie bitcoin, because it's their financial policy that allows it to exist. I know you can't fathom basic economic facts, but it's simply true that you are in all ways incorrect. You have yet to find any actual economists or experts that agree with you, because none exist. I don't really care what you're "sure" of, I care about objective factual information, and you have yet to give any. I'm sorry that you can't fathom the fact that bitcoin is directly linked to the state. I have already explained all of this. I have already debunked everything you said. You just never listen.
Unlike you, I don't say "because I said so." I explain my arguments using factual information and sound logical reasoning. You, on the other hand, just say "i'm sure you're wrong!!" and repeat the same assertions about the subject over and over again. Your entire argument revovles around just saying something, not proving it, not even finding evidence or making arguments for it, just saying it over and over again. You have yet to even come up with an argument for the notion that it isn't state backed, you just say "it isn't because I say so." Nobody agrees with your purposeful ignorance, hence your inability to actually cite anyone.
You are, quite literally, obsessively replying to me. Hundreds of words, hours upon hours, and you still can't win a single argument.
The specialists, historians, and economists have already proved the truth, which TIK tries desperately to disprove or deny. I'm simply here to open people's eyes to that fact.
1
-
@sophiacristina the best part is, if you were actually confident on your points, you would have stopped responding ages ago. You would leave and go back to the real world, confident you were opposing the state in some way, and I clearly could do nothing to change your mind. If you were actually sure that I had never disproven you, you would have given up, or had nothing to comment back to me with. And yet, here you are, obsessively replying to me because you know you're wrong. But go ahead, go out, get off YouTube and buy some bitcoins and prove me wrong. Or... Reply and prove that you know I'm right.
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
"No, it is not, it can be given without any money or real world money, people TRADE for money the same way they trade ANY asset for money..."
I'm sorry, that isn't the full story, though thank you for admitting to your economic ignorance. Bitcoin can be traded for other crypto-currencies... according to both of their values relating to state backed currency, which equates it as a fair trade. If this was not the case, anyone could just make up any crypto scheme and trade for all the bitcoins in existence. The price is decided through exchange, but the metric the price is given in is always in relation to state backed currency. Bitcoin needs that state backed currency to have any value, and without it, there is no matric to compare it to other state backed crypto currencies with, a we've been over. You lose, and you admit it.
1x0 to me.
"I did, you keep repeating the same idea without any fundamentals for why it is state backed up, elaborate why..."
But I did explain why it was state backed, and elaborated why. You literally quoted those things here, and attempted to rebut them. Another lie.
2x0 to me.
"Exactly, it is a MUTUAL STATELESS AGREEMENT to be paid on bitcoin. That is the point of bitcoin."
But it isn't, it is an "agreement" that exists explicitly within a statist system of currency and profit, in relation to the statist dollar.
This explicitly proves it is backed up by the state, yet another case of you being completely unable to disprove that argument.
3x0 to me.
"You interpreted me wrongly, who would guess? I'm talking about ASSETS paid with STATE MONEY... You say bitcoin is backed up by state because it needs fiat to buy, but the same to rice."
So you can't actually disprove my point, and thus admit your ignorance. Bitcoin is a type of currency that has value that is directly compared to statist currency. Bitcoin has value related to fiat currency, and means nothing without it unlike rice, that has actual real world value.
4x0 to me.
"Yes, have you never paid something with bitcoin?"
As i've said previously (and you ignored) the few things that you can pay for with bitcoin have a direct correlation to a fiat price... You really didn't know that, did you?
5x0 to me.
"Just like rice..."
No? Again, rice has value because it is something you can use, you can eat. Bitcoin only has value through the state.
6x0 to me.
"Wrong, you can get rich from it, it depends of MUTUAL AND FREELY MADE AGREEMENT."
You can only get rich from it if you can transfer it back into the state backed dollar or other state backed curency.
Thank you for proving that no economists or specialists agree with you.
7x0 to me.
"Only if you want, that is called "TRADE" and you can do the same with rice..."
Again, rice has real world application, and if the world governments vanished, rice still has use. Bitcoin doesn't.
The only reason bitcoin has value is because you can equate its value with an external factor that remains more consistent, that factor being state backed currency. Without the external factor, it has no value in trade.
The simple fact is, you're so enamored by your statism that you can't even bring yourself to attempt to understand it.
The very point of bitcoin is mining, trading, holding and selling. Selling for profits... real world profits. State backed profits.
8x0 to me.
"No, you don't, and this is not an argument, it is just you parroting the same thing over and over again, and it factually incorrect, nobody, absolutely nobody, not even hardcore-leftists agrees with you."
You literally can't even come up with an argument anymore, can you?? You just repeating the same thing and you can't even give me a reason why! "No, you don't" isn't an argument. I've proven that you do, it's on you to prove otherwise, and you aren't able to do that. Bitcoin requires a state, in a stateless world bitcoin holds zero value.
9x0 to me.
"That is it, you proved you know absolutely nothing about economy... That is exactly equal to any asset, including rice."
So me educating you in economics is... proving I know nothing about economics? Bitcoin isn't just an asset, it's a currency that exists solely to transfer value, not with any actual use. It's more of an I-O-U than rice.
Everything has market value. The difference is, bitcoin only has market value, and not real life value.
When you look up the value of rice, a single dollar number amount doesn't come up, unlike bitcoin.
Holding onto a sum of money, or trading it in the form of investments you think will earn you more later, is quite literally the definition of working with fiat currency, and you brag about it.
Evidently you're a pretty horrible trader, because you're spending hours of your day being disproven by me online rather than actually working or educating yourself on economics.
10x0 to me.
"No, you don't, that is factually incorrect. If that was true, any token would have value..."
People create the value of tokens like bitcoin with direct comparison to state backed currency.
The only reason people are willing to buy it (not use it as it has no use) is to get more state backed currency, or tokens that represent an accumulation of more state backed currency.
You could sell rice, and with the money from that, buy crypto.
Because it's state backed.
11x0 to me.
"No, they want to regulate and tax it, because they know bitcoin is taking the fiduciary money value away... They can't print bitcoins..."
It isn't though, it poses no thread to federal funds because it is literally valued exclusively in the funds the federal government puts out.
Governments restrict it because cryptos have consistently been shown to lead to scams and money laundering, meanwhile the rich in government love it for those very reasons.
The state knows that crypto is utterly reliant on the existence of state backed currency, which is why they can even regulate it in the first place. Trying to deny this with nothing but your assertions is quite sad.
12x0 to me.
"If that was true, i would be bankrupt right now, b ecause i literally LIVE of it..."
No, you're spending hours of your life getting owned in youtube arguments, not "living of it."
13x0 to me.
"I do, a lot, you can simple search online easily, in fact, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ECONOMIST OR EXPERT that agree with you. So i can sey the same thing, you have yet to fin any actual economists or experts that agree with you."
Except, in reality, you can find that all econmists and experts agree with the objective economic facts I am bringing to your attention, the only people who don't agree are those like you that have literally zero economic education.
Here, for example, is a list of sources that agree with me.
'Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 19 November 2013' agrees it is utterly state backed;
'Davis, Joshua (10 October 2011)';
'Konstantin, Anissimov (03 March 2021);
'Meola, Andrew (5 October 2017)';
'Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (April 2014)';
'Pawczuk, Linda (August 2017);
'Ashlee Vance (14 November 2013)';
'Jerry Brito & Andrea Castillo (2013)';
'Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany (April 2021)
You haven't actually given any sources, just names. Funnily enough, I looked up the names and times...
and all of them admitted to the fact that bitcoin requires a connection to fiat to function.
I care about objective factual information, and you namedropped economists that prove you wrong.
14x0 to me.
And since I actually looked into your sources for you...
15x0 to me.
You've been debunked time and time again by facts you can't even admit exist.
16x0 to me.
I've disproven you in the past, and you can't help but seethe
17x0 to me.
You can't even tell fact from opinion, and think your authoritarian position is "Fact"
18x0 to me.
I win.
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Of course you're running away running away from this argument and trying to deflect to another platform and audience.
Scared, hm?
I can show you with objective facts that your nonsense is easily debunked, and the fact that you want to run away from this discussion proves that so much more. Goodbye, then.
The simple fact that you can't believe facts and will do anything to write them off proves me right further.
I gave you sources, I gave you names, I gave you information, and all you can do is parrot the same statements, denying the facts and pushing something only you believe. People always decide the price of bitcoin in relation to state value exclusively, and it is only backed by said value. This is only denied by children like you. This is a universally agreed upon fact, nobody but you seems to think otherwise, hence your lack of proof.
Of course you deny the plainly available fact that you lost the argument, since you keep thinking opinion is fact without any actual sources. You gathered names that proved you wrong, I proved this and added more names to the list. You keep asserting that your opinions are actually facts, and have yet to address the sources I have brought to your attention, or even prove how the random names you dropped had to do with your point. You didn't even know their actual statements, and i've had to educate you on economics this whole time. Explaining economics to you is like trying to explain gravity to a flat earther like yourself, you just keep saying "gravity isn't real, I don't have any evidence or any sources but here are some random names that proved me wrong!" while every single professional easily proves you wrong. Your only source is your own misguided opinions, and you've proved that.
Keep wasting your life in a youtube comment section while simping for state backed crypto currency, your loyalty to the state won't be rewarded but the rich in govenment seem to have fooled you into believing the opposite. Keep coping with your statist oppression, that you brag about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Than a conversation we're already having? No.
You gave names, not sources, and the names were of people you didn't know, that proved you wrong.
I used sources in my response to your failed attempt at name dropping people you didn't understand. Yes, you're a liar.
You used no evidence and still have yet to actually change that trend. You proved yourself wrong and expect me to hold your hand? No, try again.
Yes, I agree, you are lying again. Finally you admit it.
I do hope you realize that I can easily respond... while working one of said jobs, correct? And that my schedule has changed since the beginning of the fall? You're a liar.
You are a liar and a self admitted one. You think you know me because I beat you in an argument? Kid, you don't know the first thing about my life and it shows, hence your lies.
I thought you said you worked in business? Hm, now you work in psychology, almost... as if you're a known liar. You cannot help but respond to every one of my statements, all with the same nonsense that I easily disprove in mere seconds, that you can't even respond to.
You appear to be projecting your own issues onto me, after all, it seems rather obsessive of you to respond to every one of my comments, over and over and over again, like you do.
Didn't you say "goodbye" four responses ago? Liar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Then you might want to check your eyes as I have provided more than you.
You openly admitted you lost the argument, hence threats of misguided abuse against those who you disagree with. I'm sorry you can't accept the facts I sourced to you.
Your projection never ends, does it? You sit here, typing response after response to me... almost as if you have an obsessive compulsion to do it. That's why you lie so often, because you know that you're wrong and were proven wrong ages ago, but still need something to respond with. But hey, feel free to prove me wrong. Or... can you not stop responding :)
The funny thing is, i've proven you're a liar, and i've proven your obsession, with sources, name, and citation.
Let me guess... you'll respond to this comment too?
O
C
D
.
1
-
@sophiacristina
I do vey well know my reputation for pointing out your constant lies, yes, and anyone can easily see that this is yet another of them, given the existence of the quote being publicly available to you for hours.
I know you haven't found any that support your point, unlike me. Thank you for admitting it.
It's funny how you think insulting me works in any capacity. In any case, let me guess. you're projecting again, and will continue to respond to me. You'll respond to this one, and the one after this, and the one after. Almost as though its some sort of... obsession, hm?
You've been responding to me for hours now, even while i've been at work, and I even did you the favor of responding then.
And yes, I know you're falling back on the youtube algorithm thing to try to discourage me, as you've done three times before. I don't really care that you want your statist misinformation spread, since i'll be here to combat it :)
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Ah, getting desperate, are we? That tells me exactly what I think you've already made obvious for all to see.
You know you're an obsessive liar, you know that I cited my sources.
I've already told you the comment to find it in, hell, you replied to the comment yourself....
The date is today, the link is one in this thread that i've already previously directed you towards but evidently you either didn't notice because you don't actually read my responses, or you didn't bother to look. I've already done so much nonsense you ask, and every time you shift the goalposts. Well, enough is enough. The quote has been shown, you have been proven wrong, and it is easy to find if you even just read my comments.
I have already proven you wrong, and you didn't care, instead you just ignored it and kept pushing your utter nonsense.
Now I know you can't help replying with such random, almost disappointing lies, but it is funny how you openly admit that you are OCD and have zero job to occupy your time. How sad, really.
And I know, you made up a random job that justifies taking hours out of your day to be proven wrong online. How about you get back to actual work, hm? Prove me wrong, get bitcoin rich. I'll wait.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Why would I do something I have already done time and time again, that you have ignored?
Why would I prove what I have already proven, and you have openly admitted doesn't matter to you?
Why would I bother to shift the goalposts along with what you want just to prove the obvious?
If you can't find the comment by yourself, and didn't read it when you first replied to it, that is solely on you. It isn't my fault that you can't read through this thread, nor will I take any responsibility of action on your behalf toward remedying that particular fault of yours. I, unlike you, am proud to stand by my virtues and claims, and as I have said time and time again, I will not be shifting the goalposts and giving you proof long given.
You have to keep commenting and lying because of your obsession, I understand. We both know I proved you wrong weeks ago, and that you've been lying to me and yourself since. The comment exists, as has been previously proven. You ignore it because you know i'm right. Reply to this comment if you agree with all of the above ;)
1
-
@sophiacristina
Why would I do something I have already done time and time again, that you have ignored?
Why would I prove what I have already proven, and you have openly admitted doesn't matter to you?
Why would I bother to shift the goalposts along with what you want just to prove the obvious, in order to prove something you won't accept?
Again, I feel no desire to succumb to your goalpost shifts. Asking again won't change that answer.
The proof is given already, as even you have admitted.
I don't care about proving anything more to you, i've already proven my point and you haven't accepted it at all.
You've been caught in far too many lies to even list and your ability to copy paste a link doesn't change that at all or in the slightest.
I am well aware I could easily give the code, but as i've said time and time again, as a matter of principal I will not. I will not allow you to get away with bad faith argument.
It exists, even you have admitted that. But for whatever reason, you need me to do this one thing, without any logic.
It's super easy, yes. Is it going to happen? Not a single chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I care about the truth, not if random people on the internet believe it or not. Sorry, that's my final answer.
You accuse me of having OCD, not just because you want to project your obsessive inability to stop replying onto me, but because it is an excuse for you to keep replying as well, for you to find some insult or statement to fill that reply bar with. I don't give you the code because I have nothing to prove to you, I've stopped seriously caring about most of the people I comment corrections or arguments to after the first few responses, though a key few do entice me to do more than repeat the same old arguments your type can't stop repeating. Kid, I don't care about you. I don't care about your projections, I don't care about your odd conspiracies, but I do care about your odd desire to hurt those that disagree with you.
1
-
@sophiacristina
Why would I give you a comment that you have read and replied to, and admitted existed?
Why would I bother allowing you to deflect further as according to your obsession?
I hate to break it to you, but it isn't a crime to win an argument on the internet. I simply have nothing more to say to you, and yet here you are, trying to reignite your lost argument by talking about some nonsense code.
I care about people who actually respond, who make arguments, who give me reasons to respond to them. You are not one of those people, child. I'm here because you replied.
Please stop projecting your own issues onto me.
It's sad.
I don't give you the code, despite the objective fact that it exists, because you have done nothing but deflect and deny reality in the past, and I have no reason to believe that this time is any different. I have the code, the comment exists, hell even you replied to it. I have proof, evidence, sources, names, all of it, and all you had to do was read the comments I left you. But you didn't, and when you ask me to cite the same stuff again, I will continue to say no, and tell you to actually read my responses and the references to previous comments. I'm done trying to prove anything to you - logic and factual information doesn't seem to work.
1
-
@sophiacristina
Did you really think trying to deflect another way would yield any different results?
Why would I care about giving you sources i've already given you time and time again?
You're the one that continues obsessively replying, evidently getting more and more annoyed, obsessed with the same thing.
I don't care about proving the existence of the comment to you, because nothing actually works on you. No arguments can pierce your veil of ignorance, and at this point I don't care about you not responding.
Yes, you are a liar, as we've been over. I have nothing to prove to you, and I expect instead that my work here will go to those who can actually read my comments.
And i'm sorry you missed it then, seems it just wasn't meant to be, but it is no longer my job to help you with that.
And do you have... a code to prove that claim of yours? Of course it is evidently false, as we've been over again and again, but i'm sorry, my final answer is not changing.
Logic and factual information are things you ignore. Why are you so obsessed?
1
-
@sophiacristina
Of course there's a comment and a code for that, as well as everything you want within them
I'm not going to give either to you, though. You had your chance.
Nothing you've done so far has told me now will be any different.
I don't care on the god you swear to, i'm not going to change my final answer.
Oh I gave a code, just not the one you wanted.
That doesn't change what we've been discussing.
And I hate to break it to you, I don't care about the "like ratio."
People are free to go through and like the responses they think agree with them without reading them. That doesn't impact the few who do read... who might start to think.
Of course it exists, we both know it does, and we both know why i'm not giving you a code to a comment you've already seen and replied to. The only reason you're saying otherwise is because you need an excuse to comment.
I know your solution, to your problem.
And yet, that isn't the solution to mine. So why exactly would I take that again?
You already did ignore that comment once as well as the content within, remember?
You ignore facts, ignore reasoning, ignore logic and ignore reality when it suits your fancy. I've given up treating this as an argument. My replies are a pure reflection of your failure.
You are free to do with that what you will. I'll still be here.
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I'm not going to give it, despite its existence,and you being proven wrong because doing so would empower your bad faith argumentative tactics, and would teach you no lesson nor would you be willing to learn from it. You're literally saying "the guilty shouldn't have anything to hide" and then acting like that's not statist nonsense. Nothing would shut you up.
I think you misunderstood me. I don't care about you. You have proven yourself to be utterly unworthy of my time, and i'm still here only because I have literally nothing better to do. I call out you lying and attempting to gaslight people, I prove to you the existence of comments that prove you wrong, and it isn't enough for you.
Proof isn't enough for you, you've admitted that yourself. You have found a method to deflect, to act our your obsession, and you won't let it go.
I answer people who need answering, and when they act like you, I stop pretending they care.
You ignored reality, over and over again, even before this little incident, child.
"You ignore facts, ignore reasoning, ignore logic and ignore reality when it suits your fancy"
The reality is, you know the comment exists. Hell, you replied to it. You're just... scared.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Again, do you think I determine the strength of an argument by the amount of random people who like it?
I answer the people that spew nonsense, and I don't expect to get "likes," because few people are willing to even read my comments. A few are, though, and of them, some I can change their mind.
"You ignored reality, over and over again, even before this little incident, child."
This remains true. You can't accept that you were proven wrong, so you pretend that the sources don't even exist. How sad.
"you know the comment exists"
You do, and as i've said, my final answer has been given.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I do change the minds of people, some people. And there are some like you who are too deep in to ever be changed.
UgwYlGRFXzipAlrTz1x4AaABAg.9PovrFNTkfL9T7vDUglrj8
Can you debunk that?
"I have changed people's minds"
Still true. I have changed people's minds, and yes, I am sure of that.
"A few are, though, and of them, some I can change their mind."
as sure as one can be over the internet.
You've spent weeks with me champ. How many minds have you changed yet?
"You can't accept that you were proven wrong"
You were proven wrong with the comment itself and have spent the rest of the day just trying to run away from that.
"You do, and as i've said, my final answer has been given."
Of course it exists, as you know and as you made clear in your other comments. I've given my reason for not giving in to your bath faith argumentation, you've given me no reason to change that viewpoint. The simple fact is, you know you're wrong, and are willing to keep commenting to the end of the world and back to avoid that simple fact.
"LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR!" Projecting onto me won't help you. I'm sorry.
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Why would I give you something that wouldn't change your mind and that you already have?
"How many minds have you changed yet?"
You responded to someone, talking about me. This was the argument you invoked.
The simple fact is, you really can't help yourself from replying, can you?
"You were proven wrong with the comment itself and have spent the rest of the day just trying to run away from that."
Yet another simple face that you just can't deal with. I'm sorry that reality is so hard for you to understand.
You aren't my judge, though.
You're a random person on the internet.
The evidence has been provided.
You just have no desire to admit it.
As we've been over.
"aren't going to get an answer, why do you keep commenting, hm?"
I'm sorry, when have I ever said "my last comment?" Are you confusing me with yourself, who said that they would stop responding several times and yet has not?
And of course, you still can't get over the fact that you were proven wrong, with a comment you want to pretend doesn't exist.. It's quite sad, to be perfectly honest. Stop trying to silence people who prove you wrong.
1
-
@sophiacristina
I, as I have told you so many times before, do not care about changing your mind anymore as it is impossible.
You just can't stop your obsessive streak of lying, and it never ends.
Does it, hm? Sad.
...child, in that response, all of the things I quoted were from me. I quoted what you responded to, and responded to you.
You really didn't pick that up? That's pretty sad but unsurprising given your previous value.
I'm truly sorry that facts and reality mean so little to you.
Yes yes I know, child. The source you want to pretend don't exist.
It's almost like you're out of lies to tell, and you just keep having to tell the same ones.
When you were told why I didn't provide, all you could do is doge and lie.
Child, that was literally your comment. Again, I quoted mine to give context and responded to yours. How is that not obvious? Jesus.
All you had to do was open your eyes and read but you're utterly incapable.
You still just can't get over the fact that the comment that proves you wrong exists, a fact you know well. After all, you replied to it. So, you try to spin some conspiracy of gaslighting where that that clearly exists somehow does not. I'm not going to give the the code to the comment that we both know proves you wrong because that would further enable your bad faith loss. You can't get over the fact that what you said doesn't exist in fact does, and you don't want to admit that it does exist because that would mean you'd have to stop obsessively lying and responding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Amazing how even now you try to save face. You're literally timing out the amount of time in between responses. It's quite sad really, doubly so because my responses only take a few seconds. (hence me responding within the minute most times) However, unlike you, I don't obsessively check youtube. You should stop abusing your OCD and learn to type faster.
And of course there's a comment with a source, and you are a self admitted liar, thank you.
That is, quite literally, not how innocent until proven guilty means. It quite literally means that unless there is evidence that you are guilty, you don't have to provide a single thing. You don't need evidence of non-guilt if no evidence of guilt can be found. You don't understand basic legal terminology.
And of course I can give it, as we've been over, however, I wouldn't want to reward your obsessive lying, so I choose not to. Now I wonder why it took you nearly an hour to type out a response this sad, and this lacking in substance? I wonder why you assume all people are just as obsessed with you? You really just openly admitted you had OCD huh.
1
-
@sophiacristina
The reason you respond so quickly is because unlike me, you obsessively check your youtube notifications without end. Evidently, you have no job.
And child, it really isn't that hard to bang out forty, fifty words in a few seconds, especially when most of those words are the very same ones i've had to repeat time and time again, that you simply refuse to listen to. Yes, I know you told another lie, and yes, I know that you're a liar. Thank you for admitting it.
Can I? Yes. Will I? My answer remains the same, that being no.
I hate to break it to you but stealing something and being arrested for it is evidence of you being guilty, you were innocent and then proven guilty. You aren't good at this whole logic thing huh?
Of course, it is proven that my comment exists, and you are attempting to assert otherwise with zero proof. And of course, as you are a known liar and have proven so numerous times, the judge has long since kicked you out and fined you for threatening, lying, and asserting what is objectively false. The judge is well aware of the principle of innocents until proven guilty, unlike you. And as you were proven wrong with citation all those days ago, and you have been found to be a liar (which you are, as we've been over) you are going to have to deal with that. Why are you so obsessed with me?
1
-
@sophiacristina
You think it takes working in trade to be able to learn how to turn on notifications? That doesn't excuse your obsession, bud.
Unlike you, i'm not obsessively checking how long comments take.
Unlike you, I didn't answer with walls of text from morning to night. I took breaks, to sleep and work. Unlike you it seems.
You are so obsessive that you have literally commented straight from the moment I first replied to now. I'm sorry that you don't understand that it isn't normal to obsessively check youtube over and over again for an internet argument.
Yes, we've been over this, you're a liar as we have discussed over and over
Except "the cops" in this case is you, who admitted the comment was found and that they didn't care about it. And of course, you continue to fail to understand the basics. Your obsession with me is really causing you to reach beyond logic quite a bit, isn't it? Very sad, you hate to see it.
It appears on my phone, i work with trade, which notifications also appears on my phone.
And you? How many minutes it took for you to answer me?
And you have "two job"? How can you answer me wall of texts with two jobs from morning to after mid-night?
Give me the value of your WPM, lets see if it take seconds... LIAR, you keep lying and lying, for real dude, go to Guinness, really, i'm not joking, i'm saying that literally, if you are not lying, you can win a good cash...
How many seconds you took to write your last comment? Liar...
You said you have a "comment with sources", no comment was found by the cops, you are being judge of lying, you can prove your innocence by giving the comment code, but you don't... Pretty suspect, don't? I doubt if the sides were inverted you would agree with your logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I'm sorry kid but your obsessives behavior has no excuse, it's quite sad.
I'm sorry that you can't accept that you are a liar, as has been shown time and time again, as we've been over.
You openly admitted that you don't have any jobs through your constant, unceasing obsession with replying to me whenever possible and barely leaving room for yourself to sleep.
You are literally only abusing your own.
You are getting into increasing hysterics and are literally spamming now because i've triggered your OCD so much, and the simple fact is you can't stop replying when I call out your lies.
Yes, you are an obsessive compulsive liar
You just can't admit that you've been caught in a lie and so you deflect away whenever you can.
Yes, you got caught in another lie.
Now, of course, you've backed yourself into another, liar-filled corner. How sad.
Why are you so desperate in trying to get me to stop responding?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
It's amazing how I call you out in a lie and all you can do is deflect away from the facts.
Why is it that you can't handle reality, champ?
Are you tracking my comments again? How obsessive.
You should get that checked out.
You have admitted it through your constant, and I do mean constant, replies to me, with no break for sleep, for work, or for anything remotely productive in the slightest, and then you bragging about this.
You are literally in hysterics right now just trying to get the last word in.
You have no proof, sadly, just lies, over and over again, insults and assertions and sad little lies, and you have this obsession that requires you to keep responding.
No, you have openly declared your OCD by this point, and it's quite sad to witness your obessesion.
You don't seem to want to accept reality in anything you do, just lie and comment and spam.
You're really obsessed with me, aren't you? That's pretty sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I literally just responded to this exact statement. When are you going to learn that saying the same things over and over doesn't change anything?
And could I not say the same of you? Well, I can, and I have.
Child, for one I am not a girl, and for two I usually do this when i'm bored or have nothing better to do. I'm literally watching another youtube video of a guy building a hammer as I respond to you.
What are you doing right now, champ? Or even in your life, generally? Has responding to me been the biggest section of your day? You can be honest, now. Remember, 160 comments down, right? You can keep projecting your problems onto me, but it is clear that you aren't doing much and that you're far more invested in this than me, which seems to throw a wrench in your previous statements. But go ahead, "annoy" me some more. I'll be here.
1
-
@sophiacristina
Hard to dodge a "fact" that is utterly false, so if that's what you mean then you phrased it horribly.
If you don't want to keep commenting and openly lying you are free to stop, i've made that abundantly clear and i'll make it clear again in case you hadn't picked up on the obvious by now. I was saying those things because they were true.
If you want, go ahead and comment "a" and i'll comment right back. You want to get the last word, it's your obsession, why would I reward you with that?
I mean yes, it literally was a random screenshot, the likes of which I can make easily by simply logging into my near dead fidelity account and posting statistics of the top few companies of the day. Again, not really that hard to fake.
You literally, obsessively, reply to everything I do, get ore and more annoyed when I refuse to respond to your nonsense, and won't even let yourself have the last word. You're projecting your OCD on me. It's ok, this is a no-judgement zone, and i won't think any less of you as a person.
Comments and sources you refuse to acknowledge
Lies that you told (3 seconds) that you hypocritically ignore
A denial of my ability to have a life, presumably out of jealousy
I've already provided proof, i've provided arguments, i've beat you in them time and time again. The problem being that you don't understand or don't want to deal with logic, so you just say "no" and move on, shift the goalposts, and pretend the last argument didn't happen, or lie about it. When I put my foot down and say "no more," you treat it like a victory, and yet your obsession keeps you here. I know I didn't lie, you know I didn't lie, and your constant hysterics and inability to stop commenting prove it without a single doubt. I don't carry a single burden from some random commenter in my life, because unlike you I am not obsessively drawn to these conversations. And of course, because I keep changing people's mind, you have to now deny that too, you have to pretend that everyone is as deluded and obsessed as you are, because if you don't you might start to understand how childish your actions are and how incorrect you are. You have yet to see those who I can reach because your echo chamber casts them out, and because you ignore them when they show themselves. You can't give any evidence otherwise because none exists, and you know it. You're so self absorbed you think that you, personally, not seeing something means it can't exist. You know you can't help but lie, like you lie about your life, how you spend your time, and how you view this conversation. You've been proven wrong, child. There have been those like you who admit that, and work towards educating themselves. You are not rational like them.
I have two jobs, I have a partner, I invest when I can and I save when I must. None of it is enough for you, because you would prefer to insult than to argue, prefer to project your own failings than to even listen to the person talking to you. And of course, your compulsion leads you to constant lies, leads you to supporting known denialists like TIK, while basing your entire arguments on lies and lack of sources, unlike me who you have lost against time and time again, proven by you coming back again and again. Your only "saving grace" is pretending I care about TIK's video being promoted to more societal dead ends like you, where i'll be here to change their minds, something you've never accomplished.
Here's a hint: I don't care about you. In a week I won't even remember you exist, a day maybe. And you'll still be here seething, insecure, obsessive, and needing validation you'll never get. Your insults bounce off because it's so obvious that you mean to direct them at yourself, with me as a proxy. I'm sorry you can't help obsessively lying and supporting liars. If you were confident in any of your points, you would have left, or started posting "a" hours ago. And yet you didn't...
Reply to this comment if you admit that all of the above is true, and you agree to the following statement.
"I, @Sophia Cristina, am I liar, and know this well."
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
I have given you the answer to that question time and time again. You can't prove the things you say, as the things you say are either knowing lies or assertions and assumptions of ignorance, as we've been over.
Child, you were the one who first commented about me.
You literally can't handle the thought of not getting the last word.
You've already proven yourself a constant, admitted liar, as proven by you making a reply, and thus admitting that you lied. Why would I trust anything else you put out?
Why would I allow you to indulge your little deflection any more than you already have, all to justify your wasted time?
Of course we both know you're lying, that's why you never leave this argument, why you sleep little and never work, because you're too obsessed and have too much time on my hand.
Child, i'm sory to say, you asserted that your comments take 3 seconds to write. That was one lie of many, and one you have tried hard to ignore since you first brought it up. How sad.
So no, you can't prove a single thing you claim, child.
You've lied already, an absurd amount of lies.
At least you admit you dodge proof now.
I've provided arguments, and you ignore them because you know they prove you wrong. I provide sources, and you pretend the sources don't exist despite replying to them and admitting they exist.
You don't accept factual proof, i've given it and you've bushed it off.
I have actual proof to my claims, especially relating to your constant lies, which is why i've given it, unlike you.
We know you lie, you ay you can write hundreds of words per minute, that is the textbook definition of a lie and you can't even admit it. Why won't you admit that you have nothing but lies and denial, child?
You have no evidence, which is why all you can provide are names you don't know and doctored screenshots that prove nothing. Why would I ask of evidence from a liar?
You don't get it, do you?
You aren't willing to give actual proof, hence your constant admitted lying and deflecting from said lies.
Nothing more rational than proof, which is why you hate proof.
I haven't "talked since morning," i've replied to you when I felt like it and when I could.
You don't know the basics of capitalism, but that isn't surprising given the previous statements you've made on it.
Yes, TIK, like you, is a denialist, and TIK has sources that openly contradict and disprove his own claim. I've sent my sources time and time again, but in your denialism, you simply pretend they don't exist to justify your obsessive hatred of my and your desire to keep posting, your compulsion to get the last word. I've already posted the code, and you didn't stop. You're a liar.
You lost weeks ago, you refused to answer the arguments and delved into personal attacks, as well as voluntarily agreeing, by replying, that you were a liar.
Weeks on TIK's video and not a single person agrees with you, meanwhile i've been able to save person after person from your obsessive, hateful denialist state. Of course, you admit to another lie.
You're afraid of the minds I change, that's why you deny that they matter and why you run away from the truth they tell you, just as I predicted in the very last response to you. How fitting.
And yet, the only person in this response to be insecure has been you, as you've shown by continuing to respond.
Lying about yourself when the truth is so obvious isn't a good look, child.
I have given you proof, and you've ignored it. So, I won't bother anymore, as a denialist like you doesn't deal in reality.
You are of course a blatant liar, as you assert that you wrote over 1000 words per minute and you continue to deny your continued obsession with me. If you are willing to provide proof here is what I ask. Prove to me you aren't obsessed, and I will send you the code. Is that a deal? Or are you scared of the proof you know you've been running from?
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
But you aren't. I gave you an opportunity to prove it to me and you utterly ignored it, meaning you either didn't read the response or purposefully ignored it.
You said that all of your comments took 3 seconds to write.
I pointed out that some of your comments are over 500 words, and now you try to revise the past
You were given another chance and refused to take it.
You dodge the arguments endlessly while mindlessly flinging insults back at me. It's all you have.
And again, I literally have no good reason to do that and even when I offer to you ignore the offer.
Trying to gaslight people isn't a good look, denialism isn't either champ.
And yet you said you can write 620 word responses in just three seconds. Perhaps you should stop lying like that over and over?
Yes, timestamps on youtube show that I responded on and off, taking several hour breaks often, whereas you've been replying since morning. Another lie caught.
You don't seem to understand what capitalism is, but in any case, you say you hate capitalism and yet you use public roads. Interesting, how very interesting.
Here's the problem, if I give you one example you'll ask me to give you a hundred more, because you can't help but move the goalposts constantly.
But, like the evidence I gave you before (and the proofs you refused to give in return) here is your "single example," TIK constantly cites the work of Ian Kershaw, who stated "Hitler was never a socialist." Furthermore, an entire section of the video is dedicated to TIK making excuses for citing people that disagree with him. You can admit you're a liar now.
Yeah no, I hate to break it to you but random likes on an unrelated topic don't equal actual support, I would have hoped you would know that by now.
And I know, I know, you ignore the facts you don't want to deal with.
Yes, you said you could write responses over 500 words in 3 seconds. Saying you "never claimed that" is a lie, and getting defensive when I bring it up proves that.
My offer is still open child, if you ever bothered to read it. I'm guessing not, right?
1
-
@sophiacristina
How many times do I need to remind you of the same things, tell you the same responses because you never listen and just keep obsessively replying with the same utter nonsense, never ending.
So you admit that you lied when you say your comments take 3 seconds to write?
You continue to dodge that fact, but I won't let you escape from your past statements, child. It's sad, really.
Stop dodging reality, liar.
I agree, you're attempting to gaslight me right now by saying that the source doesn't exist, despite it clearly existing and you just hating that fact since it proves you wrong.
You never stop replying, hour after hour and yet you claim to work a job, it's quite sad how little you care about it then.
I wouldn't want to date you, a self admitted "compulsive manipulative toxic gas-lighting liar," but its funny how you literally have to convince yourself everything I say is a lie to get around the fact that I so easily proved you wrong
"if I give you one example you'll ask me to give you a hundred more" And I was right.
You said giving an example would make you shut up. I gave an example, and you didn't shut up.
You don't respond to the example, either because you know it proves you wrong or because you're too lazy.
If I give you an example, this will be your last answer? Sure, i'll quote the example I gave you last time. You better stick to your word champ. "TIK constantly cites the work of Ian Kershaw, who stated "Hitler was never a socialist." Furthermore, an entire section of the video is dedicated to TIK making excuses for citing people that disagree with him." Here's the code of the comment: UgwYlGRFXzipAlrTz1x4AaABAg.9PovrFNTkfL9TEYxu4kynS
TIK isn't arguing over bitcoin, nor do you two argue for all the same positions or the same things. I'm sorry to say that you have this parasocial obsession with TIK and I but you simply don't seem to understand how easy it is to show people reality and break them out.
You said you write all of your comments in three seconds. I pointed out that you write long comments, and you don't admit that you were a liar. You just talk, no proof, no sources, no evidence, no nothing, and I know for a fact you aren't going to keep your promise that you just made.
You can keep projecting on me all you want and getting pissed when I call it out, i'm not going to stop.
I know that you can't be truthful, as shown previously, and I have no interest being fed nonsense yet again.
So, are you going to keep your promise? If so, goodbye, nice talking to you.
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
You evidently never work, as you spend your entire day lying and breaking promises to strangers online.
I already have, and as we've been over, you're a known liar and can't be trusted.
The fact that he cite people that proves him wrong does two things. One, it means that you were wrong, and thus according to your promise you cannot respond further or you admit you are a liar. Two, it means that his claims are going counter to the actual objective unbiased information. He isn't using the reference, he's denying the findings of it, and trying to ignore the actual factual evidence. That's less valid.
That comment code is the code that makes you admit you can't speak further or you're an admitted liar.
Of course, I gave names and sources unlike you, and given that you have no evidence for your claim (yet again) it is clear that you are wrong. You weren't able to give evidence, and you know that TIK disagrees with you which is why you cannot cite otherwise.
You said that in the very response in question. Why are you trying to lie further, to make your previous lies seem more truthful? In fact, why are you still responding, when you said you wouldn't if I provided what you asked. It's almost as if your OCD compels you to get the last word no matter what...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
No, you lied, you said he used referenced with no conflict, when there was conflict.
He used a source that proved him wrong, and by the way, even if they did just disagree, that STILL MEANS YOU HAVE TO STOP REPLYING AS ACCORDING TO YOUR AGREEMENT
The quote in question was found in a source that TIK cites for this very video, despite you asserting otherwise. YOU ARE CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE
There is conflict, within the very source in question (Hitler1889-1936 Hubris) Ian Kershaw said AND I QUOTE "Hitler was never a socialist." (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031). There objectively was SOMETHING INSIDE THE VERY SOURCE HE CITED THAT CONFLICTED WITH WHAT HE SAID
YOU SAID YOU CHECKED THE SOURCE, HOW DID YOU NOT KNOW THIS?? OH RIGHT! YOU'RE A LIAR!
He used reference from someone that disagree with him, that is not a conflict.
You care about the AUTHOR NAME AND OPINION, not about the SOURCE ITSELF.
There is NO CONFLICT, TIK used a valid reference, even if the author of said reference disagree with him. In no sources he used from Kershaw there is something INSIDE SAID SOURCE which says something conflicting with what he said...
Or you are illiterate, or you don't know the meaning of the word 'conflict'.
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina
Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
1
-
@sophiacristina
You keep shifting the goalposts. First, you said I had to give a source. I did give a source, the book in question. Now, you're saying he had to reference that "part" of the source. Child, what part do you mean? Answer. He did reference that part.
But TIK did say something which was not inside the source, as TIK said the nazis were socialists, while the source said that the nazis were not at all socialists. That is literally conflict according to the definition.
Conflicting sources is like
I think red is orange, and to prove it, i'll cite a source that says red is red
I think the nazis were socialists and to prove it, i'll cite someone who wrote a book that shows the opposite.
The very reason the book includes the phrase "Hitler was never a socialist" is because IT IS PART OF THE HISTORICAL FACTS IN THE BOOK, and Kershaw comes to that conclusion BECAUSE OF THE FACTS HE WROTE. The objective fact that Hitler was not a socialist is found in that book, and is based on the other facts of that book. Stop shifting the goalposts.
The simple fact is, you asked for a source that contradicted TIK's arguments. I gave you one, a book that TIK calls a source is a source. And the source points out numerous facts, one of which being that hitler was not a socialist. This fact is tied with all the others, as all the other facts proved that one. If you disagree with that fact, you disagree with the source. Not an opinion, a fact
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
1
-
@sophiacristina
LMAO YOU CANT HANDLE THE FACT THAT TIK REFERENCED KERSHAW
Kershaw is in his bibliography, on his video, in his sources slides, in the video. You're not talking about looking at his references, you're talking about clicking through the sections of his video. Also, QUOTES ARENT THE ONLY FORMS OF REFERENCES. YOU JUST PROVED YOU DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO
Kershaw can be found in the bibliography, in the video, in his sources list, and kershaw proved TIK wrong.
ANOTHER LIE FROM YOU, YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE TIK RIGHT BUT YOU NEVER WATCHED HIS VIDEO, IF YOU HAD YOU WOULD NOTICE THE TIME HE REFERENCES KERSHAW IN SECTION 4, AND THE FACT THAT NOT ALL SOURCES OR REFERENCES ARE QUOTES.
THE STATEMENT "HE NEVER REFERENCED KERSHAW" IS A LIE
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina
He literally openly conflicted with the source, he referenced marx and mussolini to cite what they said, and referenced Kershaw to cite history. Those are fundamentally different things, and he conflicted with the rather.
TIK used Kershaw's source to go against what Kershaw actually said, and to deny the information and facts found within the source in question.
You don't know what a reference is and keep conflating it with quotes and on screen citations, he conflicted with Kershaw because he cited his work explicitly in order to come to a conclusion that went specifically against his work, and you keep deflecting to another unrelated citation of Kershaw
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina
I literally already used the dictionary definition of conflict to disprove you.
"verb (used without object)
to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash:
The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert."
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina
Do you not understand how "Hitler was a socialist" and "Hitler was never a socialist" contradict?
You keep trying to deflect to another time Kershaw was cited without actually talking about the time in question.
You aren't able to talk about the time in question, because you're aware that it was a blatant contradiction.
You don't seem to understand how academic writing works, as often you will have a number of sources that are general reference without a specific moment they are cited, pieces of information are spread throughout.
You seriously don't know the difference between a historian and a political thought leader and you think that's a point.
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Thank you for admitting you lost
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Thank you for admitting that you lost. Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
1
-
@sophiacristina Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
@sophiacristina
Let's get this straight, since I already won long ago and you're just coping, since reason doesn't work on you, copy paste might.
You said "What source TIK have that contradicts [his claims]? Give me a single example..."
You then said, that if I gave an example you would make this your last response, in these exact words
"LET'S DO LIKE THIS, IF YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ASNWER, I SWEAR! I SWEAR! GOT IT, I SWEAR!"
Your assertions are simply false. You assert that "TIK used the reference to say there was a consensus," but that wasn't the reference or book we were talking about, and you took an unrelated line and tried to conflate it with Kershaw's work pointing out Hitler's anti-socialism, which TIK cited. So no, that isn't the only time Kershaw was sourced, cited, or referenced. The book in which Kershaw stated "Hitler was never a socialist" was referenced by TIK for the creation of the video. There is a clear contradiction you can't admit. TIK is using a source that proves him wrong to push his agenda.
You don't know what a contradiction is, and i've had to cite the meaning to you time and time again. TIK disagreed with the findings of Kershaw's book, and yet cited it anyway. This is the definition of a contradiction. And yet you continue to respond.
You don't seem to realize that a source used for a video can just be one written down in the source list and bibliography, as most sources in academic writing aren't cited at any one time in the writing in question. You keep trying to deflect to other references, but it isn't working.
You never watched the video, never learned what academic writing is, and somehow this is everyone else's fault but yours. Sad. Grow up. TIK isn't right, and you didn't watch the video, just came straight to the comment section to argue, unlike me.
Thank you for admitting that you're only doing this to support the ahistorical nonsense of TIK, and acting like I care that my comments impact his video in the youtube algorithm. You've brought that up five times, and each times i've made it clear that i'm fine with that, that's more people to change the minds of, more people to witness your failure. Of course you keep bringing it up, like your failure of an argument can be excused by TIK getting views. Of course I won, I pointed out that he used a reference in the video that proved him wrong, which is a contradiction of sources, and thus you lied. You then tried to deny the point, saying it was only used "for 10 seconds" and that it was "useless in the video" (despite it being clearly cited as a basis for many of the arguments of the video, meaning the opposite of useless) which has no basis in reality. Of course the name is cited in the list of sources, the bibliography, and in the video itself. You don't understand how citations work and you keep conflating them with quotations, but you're far too "idiot" to know the difference. Wake up, child. You were proven wrong, easily, and you're now coping with that fact lying again. The reference was used in the video, and was important, and meant something otherwise he wouldn't have cited it. And it contradicts him plainly :)
"I asserted things that were blatantly false and then got called out, I don't know how references work so i'm trying to deflect to another citation and i'm going to blame you for not talking about that dictation, debunked, I won, I totally know what i'm talking about." - You.
And now you can't stop obsessively responding trying to get the last word after I proved you wrong, despite accusing me of OCD rather than you. This of course is consistent with your previous obsessive behavior, lying, making false promises, refusing to not get the last word, timing comments, repeating the same things, and so on. You should seek some help, it doesn't seem that this conversation puts you in a good mental state. Please deal with your obsession with response.
I pointed out that TIK says that Hitler was a socialist, while one of the books he cites says that hitler was never a socialist. This is a contradiction, by definition, the definition being "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." You lost.
By continuing to respond you agree to being a liar.
You got proven wrong on the source existing
you got proven wrong on TIK using the source
you got proven wrong on the contents of the source
you got proven wrong on the video including the source
you got proven wrong on the definition of conflict.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
You got proven wrong on the definition of referencing or sourcing.
You got proven wrong on kershaw being referenced
you got proven wrong on your deflection to another kershaw reference.
and you just can't stop getting proven wrong...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericharmon7163 Let's do a little hypothetical here, by removing the names of the ideologies, and simply describing them by action. One person supports collective control of the means of production, easier access to immigration, tolerant and accepting views towards gay, trans, ect people, and so on. The other support corporatistic control of the means of production, a closed-off, autarkic state, the murder of gay and trans people and the burning of their life work, and so on. One group was the socialists, the other was the nazis. So yes, a socialist saying "I don't agree with anything the nazis did, so how can they be socialists" is a valid point, though a bit simplistic for my tastes. The problem is, you refuse to accept this. You think that a party name, that hitler opposed initially, created before hitler had full control of his party, reflects the actions of the nazis. Do you see the problem there?
1
-
@ericharmon7163 "Do better research." Unlike you, I have! For example, I've read the leading historians on the topic of the nazis, most of which TIK cites in this very video, and all of which would call what you just wrote utter nonsense. Plenty of non-nazis ran private production, in fact, even some international industrialists opened up shop in nazi germany, as in, non-germans who Weren't even allowed to join the nazi party. The nazi economic system was one of major privatization, and then those private members going on to help the nazis, for profit. So... not like the soviets. Oh, and even better! Denial of the nazi's crimes. No, gay people were seen as degenerate deviants who had to be purged for the success of the party, except in a very few cases. And when did I say france or england were socialist? Of course they're capitalist, I never mentioned them. I talked about the policies of socialists. They don't have "socialist control of the population," but then again all you've ever been good at is repeating talking points you don't understand. I hate to break it to you, but gay people were an explicit target of the nazi party. The fact that you deny this, deny the holocaust, and defend the nazi party because to do otherwise proves you wrong, is utterly disgusting.
1
-
@ericharmon7163
So in other words, you assume I "google everything" because I provide proof that you don't agree with. How funny. No, child, unlike you I get my information from real sources, real historians. No historian in the world would accept TIK as a valid source, and yet here you are, doing real that. You say you can predict my information by what I say, but if that were true, than you people have predicted the truth, that being that unlike you I actually read historians and primary sources on the subject matter. But I do love how you, yet again, deflect from your previous statements. You deflected first by telling me to read a book that has nothing to do with the conversation, you deflected again when I pointed out that it is far from the unshakeable work of historical fact you present it as, and you deflect a third time now, in saying that you think the work is right... because you think it's right. That's ideology thinking for you, hearing the words of one of the closest people to an author, a person that was there as a work is being written, and completely ignoring them because their work follows your narrative, so it must be true. Please, for once in your life, actually read the sources in discussion. Then you might be able to keep up with actual historians, which overwhelming disagree with your nonsense.
You talk of ideologies as if they have no defining features, as if they are defined by whatever you want to define them as in the moment. You call systems socialist that did not even call themselves socialists, but that doesn't matter to you. Those systems being different does not make them more alike to their common enemy, child. But realizing that would require you to look past your ideological dogma for half a second, and for you to break out of this prison of groupthink you've shoved yourself into. Have you ever had an independent thought, ever? Or do you just repeat what people have told you to think? You ignore the past because it proves you wrong, and when it is pointed out that you seem far more interested in forcing control of the masses through group think (which has nothing to do with the definition of socialism) you have nothing to say. Grow. Up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Beckley
Do you not know what a period is? Are you five years old? If not, the lack of grammatical basic knowledge on your part is absolutely embarrassing. Yes, I proved to you that the Venezuelan economy was 70% private, a fact you have yet to address, much less rebut. Maduro can seize the means of production just like every government can, a hypothetical future doesn't remove the very real private ownership right now. Your entire argument is that you don't want to recognize an economy that functions off of selling goods to other countries a market economy, when it fits that definition. Hell, you bring up Sweden, apparently without realizing that some businesses in Sweden are more regulated than their counterparts in Venezuela. The means of production are in private hands, and even your own source only points out that they are getting more private with time. Sweden isn't a country with minimal regulation, Venezuela isn't a country with maximum. Both are different forms of the same system, and yet you praise one and hate the other. If you want to run away, fine. I don't care what you want to call it, it is a fact that Venezuela's economy is classified as a 70% private market economy. Deal with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt Beckley
So you're running away, again, because you can't handle an argument you don't know how to participate in. It's literally just 100 responses, takes a few seconds to scroll down to the very bottom. And i'm well aware at this point that there's no convincing you, you have utterly abandoned logic, reasoning, and factual information in favor of your insults and lack of argumentation. I give you citations and sources which give objective economic facts that even your own sources back up, and you call this "invalid" and ask me to cite more because you didn't read a single source I, or you, cited. I cited legitimate sources, as in actual economic data. You are the one that cited a random rich person's opinion. There is no argument to be had, you will convince yourself you somehow didn't lose, but your constant attempt to run away tell another story. So go ahead, run away, and have fun trying to convince anyone with your random insults, and your inability to find any evidence that backs up your opinions, just random people's assertions. I, on the other hand, will be having a merry old time with my objective unrefuted economic data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@16vjtdalfa
I'm sorry, that quite literally isn't true. I watched TIK's work of ahistorical manipulation, which is why I can tell you that you obviously haven't, given TIK openly admits even his own sources disagree with him. And yes, as we've been over, the program you're talking about was openly rejected by hitler, and was written by another faction of the party that he purged. You have, and present, no evidence that he actually followed that point, but there is ample evidence he did not - for example, the victim of his purge and head of the faction that actually wrote that program said this, in his book "Hitler and I," which I will quote here.
"Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of the party's official programme.
‘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.’ "
So your only evidence is "literally from their program..." as in the program that was made up by a faction that hitler purged, that was written exclusively for election support before the nazis ever took power, and that hitler openly rejected? It is far from a myth that business was an open supporter of Hitler, that's why among Hitler's first policies was the abolishing of trade unions and the cementing of big business power in germany. What "social program" did they disagree with exactly? His mass privatization? Hatred of public health initiatives for the "Work Shy?" Hatred of international companies that took profit from the local companies supported him?? Again, what policies? And I agree, why you think that you can do any better than TIK, a man who made a five hour video just to say that he wants to redefine socialism and that his sources don't agree with him, is a bit odd. And I don't think you really understand the basics of actual economic theory but that'sa given at this point given your support of TIK.
1
-
@16vjtdalfa
Ok, so you're a liar, and one that isn't even well educated in your own lies. You're thinking of the 25 Point Program, not the "25 Rules," whatever that is. And I hate to break it to you, but the existence of a political promise does not mean said promise was followed, especially when said promise was written before the nazis took power, by an opposing faction to the nazis that was eventually purged, as we've been over. The program was not "Hitler's own," and upon reading it all we find is policies that were not implemented, and that hitler fundamentally disagreed with. You assert that the program was fully implemented, and in order of priority even, and yet among the first points they call for equal rights, expansion of voting rights, and equality among citizens. None of which of course were put into effect. I think it's a problem that you can't see that Hitler didn't follow a political promise that he hated, made by people he hated, and that you only assert the opposite because the plan exists, as you have no proof it was adhered to. Let me repeat that last part: you have no proof they adhered to the plan, your only proof has been the plan existing. How would reading a plan put in place before the nazis even took power prove anything about their actions after they took power? Have you thought your statements through? I hate to break it to you but modern politicians also lie, your ignorance of this is astounding. And child, I quite literally cited to you the name of the book that quote is from. Jesus, did you even read my response?
What about that statement is not capitalist?
He discusses the process of making a citizen patriotic and nationalistic. (hence, "nationalizing a people") Did you just try to look up instances of Hitler using the word nationalization and forget to actually read the quotes? Nothing about fostering nationalism in the citizenry is anti-capitalist, hell, the notion that children should be taught cultural and political values showing the supposed greatness of one's countries is one often pushed exclusively by conservative capitalists, most recently by Trump himself. So I suppose hitler is as socialist as trump, yes, which is to say not at all.
And again, how is it not?
In this quote he discusses the fact that there was a shortsighted move by many german industrialists, that move being them ignoring basic labor reform and workplace rights, which Hitler then says pushed those workers, who felt exploited and angry, into the arms of left wing movements like the Social Democratic movement. So again, what is anti-capitalist about pointing out that german industry failed to keep the favor of the people, and so it pushed them to the left, something Hitler sees as a bad thing, a move that was a "mistake," one that caused "damage." What he's describing is actually a pretty well known capitalist policy, that is making moderate workplace reform in order to make the workers content with capitalism, rather than turning to more radical anti-capitalist views. Let me remind you that the policies he names here, child labor restrictions, workplace safety, better labor conditions, ect, are all things that capitalists put in place in the USA, because they didn't want workers stating to hate them and turning to anti-capitalism. Ford then, and people like Gates today do the same. Hitler also, again, makes clear a turn away from industries, to the left, is a bad thing in his eyes. Again, I must ask, what is anti-capitalist about that? Furthermore, why do you assume hitler must be a capitalist if not a socialist? And most importantly, have you read your own quotes?
Now, does this seem like a socialist quote?
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
Does this one?
"[My ideology], unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
This one?
""We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."
This one?
" 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."
How about this one?
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
Or this one, even?
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
And gosh, I could go on. Are you getting the picture yet?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@16vjtdalfa
It kind of does, suggesting they're "Rules" rather than propositions entails an entire different policy arrangement.
Again, who here called hitler a capitalist? The only one i've seen do that is TIK, in order to attempt to strawman those he disagrees with and make it easier for himself to argue. Nazism isn't socialism or capitalism, it is a right wing anti-socialist ideology that mixes elements of economic corporatism with general ultranationalism and traditionalism. Hitler's privatization efforts were a part of, and according to, his ideology, not just a wartime effort, though in fairness a wartime was also central to his ideology. Also, there is clearly such a thing as "pure ideology," definitions are there for a reason, the ideologies in question are just rarely attained. Nazism isn't socialism or capitalism, nazism is far right anti-socialism that seems to always find itself closer to capitalists than their other opposition. But sure, disagree as much as you like. The facts, however, aren't changing.
1
-
1
-
@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?
1
-
@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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jaydavid25.
But he didn't. He, and you, described policies long implemented by capitalist and conservatives the world over, and attempted to redefine "socialism" to have it fit them. Socialism is not "anything to do with class," and Hitler was a class collaborationist, which is a conservative ideology. Him openly rejecting the left and embracing the right makes him reject the left, and leftists by definition cannot be in favor of capitalism.
We can see it in everywhere from his speeches to his policy, he openly embraced the right wing and privatization. Select privatization is literally a right wing, conservative, capitalist policy, and is what socialists oppose in every form. Mixed economies are literally by definition capitalist, like America. Social policies don't make you a socialist, jesus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 magine coping so hard that your only possible response is to just copy paste your same old disproven response, with your same old copy pasted insults. Cry harder, kid.
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 was a piece of writing from an expert Orwell was quoting, not Orwell's view himself. That expert, similarly, was describing propaganda following the brief NAP between the socialists and the far right Nazis. Of course you don't care about that, as you copy pasted those quotes from a website, rather than reading the actual book. You can even see from the incomplete grammar of the statement in question. The fact is, Orwell saw the Nazis as the anti socialists they were.
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.
//:/
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Did you forget the rest of the quote, child? Or the fact that Malcolm X was a communist?
“The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them."
They don't hide their bigotry. Interesting. His point being that white moderates, capitalists, so often ignore actual solutions in favor of moderate reform and posturing, all while ignoring the solutions from actual activists. Conservatives don't bother with this, they just spread their hate loud and clear. That, of course, is the danger of the liberal, being a conservative, but nicer.
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569
Of course, when comparing the right who actively participates in hate crimes and violent rhetoric against jewish people, even their "moderates" condemning jewish individuals who disagree with them, to the left, we find nothing close to "just as dangerous." Can individuals on the left harbor antisemetism? Of course. Does it compare to the far right, who actively calls for genocide? No.
Of course, it's not surprising that you'd seek to ignore jewish socialists and labor organizations
Unfortunately, we can see that antisemetism is on the rise yet again, and rather than taking the steps to condemn it, the modern right is too preoccupied with denying their past of similar bigotry to address, or even care about, said bigotry today. When they aren't participating in it, of course.
Of course, I find it likely that you'll list any of these supposed ideals, because deflecting to the left is a favorite concepts of those that will do anything to divert from their own history. The true irony is that conspiracies regarding marx and "early french socialists" are largely antisemetic in nature... hence being spread by the nazis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569
As I said child, you insult me because you know i'm right, because you're aware that you can never shake the simple fact that you're running PR for literal nazis. You would prefer to deflect, lie, and insult than deal with the simple fact that every statement you make exists only to either defend the nazis, or shift the blame for their actions to anyone but them.
In fact, studies show that the vast, vast majority of antisemetism worldwide, both historically and in the modern day, comes directly from the right.
The fact that you're moving your antisemetic conspiracies to Islamophobic conspiracies doesn't really seem to fool anyone champ. fighting nazis isn't "anti-jewish," like it or not.
"In 2019, the ADL recorded 2,107 anti-Semitic incidents in the United States, a 12% increase from just a year earlier in 2018, and the highest number on record since the ADL began collecting annual data on American anti-Semitism in 1979. Instances of harassment were up by six percent, vandalism was up by 19%, and anti-Semitic assaults rose by a terrifying 56% since 2018. There’s no denying it: The numbers are bad.
But in addition to the horror at these numbers, there’s also a political lesson here for the American Jewish community, if we are open enough to learn it.
The majority of anti-Semitic incidents in 2019 seem to have been random attacks motivated by personal hatred, not linked to any identifiable political ideology. But the ADL also recorded 270 anti-Semitic incidents inspired by extremist ideology. And out of these identified extremist incidents, one side of the political spectrum was a lot more culpable than the other.
For all that headlines like to talk about anti-Semitism as a phenomenon that clusters on the ideological extremes of both sides of the political spectrum, the ADL data confirms that in the United States today, the vast majority of ideologically-linked anti-Semitism is committed by the political right."
1
-
1
-
@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?
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569
Child, what you mean is that I "copy and paste" responses to your copy past nonsense, because you're utterly incapable of actually coming up with an original thought, and certainly incapable of addressing criticism and information that goes against your narrative, hence the constant insults.
There is no such thing as a "marxist fascist," as even you and your sources admit they are utterly opposed. I am neither marxist nor fascist, and I have no interest in defending figures like mao or stalin. However, you undoubtedly seem to have an interest in defending figures like hitler, because without evidence or reasoning, you claim that failed policy is "just as evil" as purposeful ethnic genocide. There is no human being in history that was just as evil as the far right anti-socialist hitler, at least none that was allowed to go as far as he did, and comparing your political enemies to him only serves to soften his legacy.
You appear to have forgotten that socialism is not "birth" from dictatorial authoritarianism, whereas the modern right has those ideas as foundational to their ideology. Stop defending fascism just to attack people you don't like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569
Oh, child. It's sad that all you have are the same few insults, because you know they aren't true.
I'm sorry you can't understand that arguing against hitler is not the same as arguing in favor of his (your) enemies, but you, as has been pointed out time and time again, seem to have a special affinity for defending the evil mass murderer and far right anti-socialist hitler, who has deeds unmatched in human history. Of course, socialism isn't "birth" from authoritarianism, but your ideology, without a doubt, is. Thank you for proving my point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569
Child, i'm not sure you've actually read a single one of my posts. After all, when I quote someone, I name the person and the source, and put it clearly in quotations. But then again, you haven't read them, have you?
Perhaps you're projecting your own plagiaristic tendencies, for example, stealing the two quotes from orwell (and the explanation/citation attached to them) from another years old article on a website that you refused to cite. Or did you forget that part already?
Child, I write my own posts, quote sources that you evidently aren't even aware of, and that scares you, doesn't it?
You know that you, the well known liar and copy-paste con artist, are unable to make coherent points without stealing them from someone else. I don't have that problem, and thus, you're scared.
1
-
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 \
Child, I called you out, and what is your response? Nothing, of course. Because even you know your guilt.
It's pathetically easy to point out your antisemetism and fascist apologia, so despite your insults, i'll continue doing it.
Unlike you, I don't plagiarize. If I did, you'd be able to prove it, and interestingly enough, much like the rest of your claims, you are unable to provide any evidence for it. I'm sorry you continue to think anti-nazism is "marxist socialism."
And yet, here you are, making constant apologetics for fascism.How odd.
You can't take the fact that arguing against your idol, the evil mass murdering far right anti-socialist hitler, doesn't mean arguing for his (your) enemies. And, of course, as we've been over, equating failed policy to the unique evil of your hero hitler, is antisemetic and unapologically pro-fascism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TearThatRedFlagDown
The funny thing is, this little response of yours proves yourself exactly wrong. TIK openly admits that he will ignore the conclusions of historians, and even justifies this behavior... and yet cites them anyway, by egotistically assuming his own superiority with no proof. These videos are amazing for leftists, because it proves that right wingers Can't argue in good faith, and they have no solid facts to back up their beliefs... but they somehow seem unaware of this fact. Meanwhile, everyone from the left to the right has already debunked nonsense like this, but I guess you don't see much of that in your echo chamber.
The truth is, the nazis have always been right wing, and anti-socialist. We see it to this day, with their ideological descendants. But the right doesn't care about the truth of what they advocate for, and why historians often make the comparison to nazi germany that they do. And so, what does the right do? They pretend that historians are part of some secret ideological push, that they're lying, and that the only one who knows the truth is the person you already agreed with. Once the right agrees with you, you can openly state that your views are not backed up by the facts (as TIK does) and they don't care. Its like a literal cult.
The sad thing is, some of them are actually fooled by this. They project the behavior of themselves onto whoever they've been told to hate most recently. And the people directing them will lie through their teeth, because they can easily rile up a mob of people who hate, above all else, to be wrong. This video, and the others in TIK's series, are golden, because they prove the right does not have facts to back up their views, good faith to argue in, or any strong counters to actual history. Because even the longest, most in depth of sources trying to push this ahistorical lie... are proven wrong more easily than a flat earther. But you don't value facts or reason, so why should you care about that? You just want someone to tell you that you're right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Patrk38
God that really annoyed you, didn't it? Me pointing out that I have proven you wrong, given you concrete and specific examples and a method to check them, and shown how TIK is a liar? And you prove my point, right here. All you do is hit me with a barrage of insults, none of which based in reality, and a whole heap of defensive nonsense that further proves you don't know how to debate someone that actually knows what they're talking about. I've proven you, and TIK, wrong, and you have yet to provide anything close to a rebuttal. I have pointed out that his argument is entirely based off of citations that heavily disagree with him, and if he came to the conclusions he did, he does so without citation backing him up. How is this not a concrete argument? How is me giving you locations in the video to find him admitting this not proof? He is wrong, his sources are right in that they prove him wrong, and every historian he cites disagrees with him. And I already have you details. So you just can't handle the truth.
1
-
@Patrk38
I know this hasn't been a debate, it has been me wiping the floor with you while you do everything in your power to deflect and run away from the concrete claims and arguments I am making. If you were so confident I was wrong, you would be able to directly address and rebut me. You, however, cannot. Learn some basic definitions, and basic history, before you engage with me next time.
I specifically told you, the section of his video titled "Other Arguments."/Counterarguments. I gave you the section, as well as the video and section (a source) and statements from TIK that you can verify by checking that source. If you want a specific timestamp, it is Section 8, and starts at around 4 hours and 16 minutes. You literally have no counters to the fact that TIK openly admits that the historians he cites prove him wrong. Will you stop lying finally, and admit you can't even rebut even the first claim i've made in this debate?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisscott3071
Look child, I know that you hate established history and you'll do anything to warp or deny it, but the simple fact is, your arguments have been addressed, corrected, given context, rebutted and shown to be false time and time again, in explicit, irrefutable detail. After that, you usually devolve to more copy-paste insults and revisionist nonsense, which is further refuted. You do the very same thing here, making baseless claims mixed with sad insults and pretending it's an argument.
1
-
@MIT Scientifica You mean how h*tler rejected marxism utterly, and used its spread to justify his horrific purges? You do realize that denying h*tler's hatred of marxism is denying his stated reasoning for the murder of millions of people, right? Why do you wish to push denial of the greatest crime on this earth, and why do you do it with no shame? The man flew banners that endlessly called for a forceful and bloody death of marxism, he fought a war of propoganda with marxism on the other side. Why do you hate history?
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
After all, one of the stated reasons he gave for the supposed failure of the Weimar republic was their reliance on marx. It was, after all, the marxist parties that the nazis had purged first. In reality, the man was far more anti-marxist than you could ever be. "The... 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. "
His differences with the communists, he explained, were at the very backbone of his ideology.
And I agree, he revealingly added that he despised marxism, felt it was the bane of a civilized world, and was quite open about it supposedly devaluing the personality in man, denying the things hitler based his entire ideology on. Why is it that you hate the simple fact that the nazi cause was about as opposed to marx as one can get?
1
-
@chrisscott3071
I'm sorry, that isn't true in the slightest. I've literally responded with these exact quotes, and others and to you, to your attempted redefinition every time you copy-paste your "favorable and positive" propaganda, no matter the account. Now, like you've done on all of your other accounts (Raptor, MIT, ect) you're going to ignore said evidence and run away as quickly as possible like you've done every time in the past. And of course you'd prefer to cite his videos which you haven't watched and i've already addressed, and not the actual historians that you refuse to read or cite. I already see that TIK has attempted to deny the history of the nazis, his and your ideological allies, and has failed.
Like you failed in rebutting facts.
1
-
1
-
@chrisscott3071
Well no, I can read, which is why I find the "0 said in this thread" statement to be unabashedly false. I do enjoy how you're trying to limit this discussion to just a single thread though, knowing that me and you have interacted time and time again in the past, and i've even rebutted these exact copy-pasted responses with my own responses in every thread I have seen them. Quotes aren't the only type of evidence, and again, this is one short thread of many me, you, and others have participated in. And you do realize that I can see when you change your username, right? That I can see when you use the same copy-paste arguments and insults across multiple threads, time and time again? Like, I can literally see how you changed your name from what was it, MIT Scientifica? MIT Mathmatica? to this current title. And it's hilarious how you "imagine this guy was a lying asshole" only when what he says contradicts your narrative, and yet you post out of context quotes from even before he came to power and expect those to be the total and unflinching truth. And if you do come up with some hypothetical response attempting to rebut the quotes i've brought to your attention, try to do so in the tens of other threads you've commented the same nonsense in, which people have rebutted, and you have insulted them for. And again, don't play innocent. One can literally see me responding, in other threads, to your exact arguments, to your exact insults, copy pasted from different accounts. I literally watched your username here switch. Do you understand that you can't pretend to be different people when you just keep saying the same things?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisscott3071
Do you want to know why the case of the Junkers is so often cited, especially by those that allege it was a common occurrence? It is often cited, and was well kept information, specifically because it was outside the norm. The norm of the nazi's rule was private ownership, private managing, and if they wanted to influence the production of a piece of property, the most often taken course of action was to do so through private incentives and optional government contracts that were competed for by the private businesses. This is how many of hitler's concentration camps were built, as well as his means of killing millions. Of course this did not happen in all cases, but it was the most common, which is why the Junker case is so well known, because it was one of the few times this didn't happen. What's also worth noting is that in the early to mid 1930s, hitler was still dealing with an opposition movement within the nazi party, one actually composed of socialists that, as time went on, would either abandon the party or be purged by it, the biggest purge happening in 1934. One must then consider his actions relating to the appeasement of a group that he needed to solidify power, and yet, a group that went against his ideology often. And I agree that rhetoric is not the same as actions, but in this case, hitler's rhetoric does point to his genuine political views and most often taken courses of actions. Some historians on this:
"This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
http://www.ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf
1
-
@chrisscott3071
Yeah but that isn't dissimilar to capitalism, monarchism, other right wing systems. Hell, capitalists scapegoat the poor, the needy, the socialists in the same way the nazis did. The "haves" are the property owners, the "have nots" are those that are scapegoated to have only failed because they're lazy, unskilled, made bad decisions, ect. Right wing movements do the ingroup/purge dynamics all the time, so I don't know why you're specifically comparing it to some sort of reading of marxism or socialism. Yes, this is reminiscent of "almost any grab for power we've seen in society" so why call these socialist methods or compare them to socialist methods? Hitler didn't take socialist methods, he tried to take the rhetoric of socialists (appealing to workers and the "non-elites") to promote another system entirely. We did define this accurately, it's a type of fascism. Also, CRT is no more marxist than any other theory in the field, and hierarchy is not a marxist concept, and the intersections of race and class struggle have been studied before, intersectionality. So, what are we struggling to define again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisscott3071
The problem is that your statement is hardly exclusive or even notable for Marx, while he certainly contributed a good deal to the field his push was exclusively in the direction of understanding class, and through this Marxism and Dialectical Materialism were born, among other things. However, the goal of understanding "class relations and social conflict while trying to derive a fact based perspective to view social transformation" was not marx's alone, in fact, it's pretty common to find in any history book, philosophy text, economist paper, and so on. All of these attempt, even in small doses, to create a sort of narrative, a narrative of human history, of human nature, of human choice, and so on.
The thing is, the application of these principles not to class by nature makes this not any more derivative of marxism than any other theory along the same lines, CRT draws far more from movements like Intersectional Feminism and Land-Back indigenous movements than marxist lenses. CRT, Critical Race Theory, focuses specifically on problems of race and racism, both individual and systemic. The issues of sex, class, orientation, ect, are all the domains of other competing theories. And i'm not here to put a judgement on it, just discuss the origins and lenses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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.
//:/
1
-
@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.
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Oh, 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.
1
-
1
-
@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?
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Of course, as we've already discussed, marxism and fascism are in no way similar, and to try to equate them serves no purpose but to minimize the crimes of the nazis. Of course, I would never agree with this apologia and in fact easily refuted it, but MIT is used to lying, so he'll say otherwise anyway.
Ah, MIT came up with a new copy-paste spread of nonsense! Of course, all of it is false.
You really need to stop equating random ideologies with fascism, it just proves how desperately you want to defend your ideological legacy. 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. Not to mention that marxism contains no mention of utopia, but you don't care.
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.
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 Of course, as we've already discussed, marxism and fascism are in no way similar, and to try to equate them serves no purpose but to minimize the crimes of the nazis. Of course, I would never agree with this apologia and in fact easily refuted it, but MIT is used to lying, so he'll say otherwise anyway.
Ah, MIT came up with a new copy-paste spread of nonsense! Of course, all of it is false.
You really need to stop equating random ideologies with fascism, it just proves how desperately you want to defend your ideological legacy. 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. Not to mention that marxism contains no mention of utopia, but you don't care.
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.
1
-
1
-
@jesupcolt
The simple fact is, TIK doesn't go through "all the same evidence." He frequently dismisses evidence, especially evidence relating to the context of the few pieces of evidence he does show, and often discounts the work of entire historians based only on his ideological fanaticism. That's why he assumes, without any sort of critical debate or peer review, that his definitions (though ahistorical) must be correct, and thus anyone disagreeing with them must be ignorant or malicious, either way worthy of dismissal. He doesn't explain how their conclusions are flawed, he ignores their findings and attempts to cherry pick their material while redefining terms to make his point. You can claim any historian is wrong about their labelling of socialism if you define absolutely everything as socialism. TIK does something, unfortunately, quite close to this, making up his own definitions and dismissing facts on the basis that they don't adhere to them. You could learn a thing or two about projection from looking into a mirror. But that's not surprising from someone who sees spooky, scary "leftists" at every turn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesupcolt
You appear to not have watched the video. Let me explain this to you, then since you seem unwilling to actually address my arguments, rather attempting silly little ideological smears. I correctly point out that TIK attempts to manufacture a conspiracy based on his own hurt feelings... because he does. In the video in question, he explicitly postures on the possibility of a conspiracy, or mass ignorance, in academia which has led them to disagree with his Holy Interpretation, which is part of how he dismisses them. He accuses historians and economists alike of either being ignorant to economics, or "indoctrinated" into "marxist" economics, a term he hilariously uses to describe everything from neoliberalism to anarchism. TIK uses sources from historians who prove him wrong, and rather than explaining why they're wrong, he dismisses their work, redefines the terms in question, and applies his own redefinitions to cherry picked pieces of evidence, to push an ideologically motivated assertion. TIK is not able to find evidence that these historians and economists are wrong, so he shifts the goalposts, creates "evidence." And there you go again with the ideological attacks. Why am I not surprised that you're so afraid to deal with the substance of another's arguments?
Oh, I'm well aware what you said. And, as I pointed out previously, what you said was false. He ignores huge swathes of evidence, not just from the historian's "entire volume of work" but even from the very works he cites in this video, named explicitly. He doesn't explain why he finds fault with their conclusion, he leaps to excuses to dismiss everything that they found that he cannot rip from context and historical definitions and use to support his ideological assertions. When I say "all" I mean "all." You cannot claim to respect a source if you take only lines from pages upon pages of analysis. The fault he finds is that they don't match his ideology.
If TIK's rebuttals so easily disprove the work of tens of historians across a decade, why are you so deflectionary when dealing with them? Why would I present to you the argument that entire books are based on, only further incentivizing your ignorance? If these sources agreed with TIK, if the consensus was in his favor, he wouldn't need to spend so much time attacking historians and economists. If his definition were in line with the historically used and accepted definitions, he wouldn't need to spend so much time explaining them, with so little basis on the real world. If you're so confident in his arguments, why are you deflecting away from them, asking me to prove a negative when evidently you have plenty to defend already?
No, child. Just saying "he did" does not make it so. If you were paying attention, you'd notice me quite literally reference assertions made in the video. But you weren't. He doesn't explain how their conclusions are flawed - merely presents an opposing, and false, reality in which he can dismiss them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesupcolt
Oh, you mean the thing you haven't done? Child, time and time again have I made specific arguments and claims, and referenced exactly where they came from. But hey, as long as you're willing to admit that you're trying to get others to prove a negative instead of defending the claims you're trying to defend, I don't really care. If reality is too much to hope for, for you, then that really isn't my concerns. All you've given me so far is smears, assertions, and nonsense deflection, all topped off with pointless projection, all just to get away from points you won't even bother addressing. You're free to do something with your life, I'm not going to stop you, you can't blame me if you don't.
1
-
@jesupcolt
Saying it again doesn't make it any less false, champ. I understand you want to throw out as many argument-point winning buzzwords as possible before you peace out (lest you be forced to defend your position for once in your life) but the sheer desperation is sickening. I, throughout this thread, and even our conversation, have made specific arguments that you refuse to respond to. Instead, you seem to like to attempt tp smear people (ie, "typical leftist") with no real reasoning, only showing your ideological motivation. It's funny how you accuse me of baseless assertions, when openly admitting that the assertions in question are backed up in objective history. Funnier still that you accuse me of attempted smears, given you do so in the very next sentence. Perhaps funniest that you accuse me of "appeals to authority" by daring to cite the findings and research of historians and economists to back up a point on history and economics... all while you can't help but appeal to the "authority" of TIK's video, one you aren't even able to defend. You can't even come up with original claims, you need to throw my observation of projection back at me, as if to prove my point. It doesn't matter how many arguments I make, unless you feel you can dismiss or mock them, you'll never respond. "Typical leftist." What a stunning argument. Child, I've done nothing but engage in good faith. The simple problem is, to you "good faith" means bowing down to all of your deflections and fallacies, or in other words, giving you a hollow victory. I've engaged in good faith, and convinced, people who are actually willing to learn. You've proven yourself to not be one of those, and the fact that you try to turn accusations of bad faith onto me, given your own action, is ironic. I'm not the one that started this one champ, why would I care so much about ending it? "We'll see if you do anything worthwhile with it." It's not as though you've given me much to work with here, champ. I've had to do all the leg work of this conversation, pulling intellectual heights just to hope you can climb the first few steps, and unsurprisingly I've been disappointed. Tough luck. Next time, be prepared to defend your statements instead of trying to create things to attack.
1
-
@jesupcolt
Champ, I'm not the one mumbling and groaning about "leftists" whenever someone makes a point I don't want to respond to. Go ahead, as I said, throw out your argument-points buzzwords. The fact that you can't even keep them consistent speaks volumes. You come into an argument "expecting" something, and despite not getting it, you proceed forwards as planned. The definition of bad faith. Funny how you wish for me to "wake up from [my] ideological possession," despite the only one here bringing up ideology being... you. You seem possesses to argue against these leftists, real or imagined. One of us argues for reality. The other one is lost in a fantasy of destroying leftists who dare raise their voice. Have a good night, champ. I hope your projection, and the personal flaws you seek to escape with it, become clear in time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valerieprice1745
oh I agree, anyone who continues to support his odd, ideological worldview must be purposefully ignoring facts and evidence. Only someone deliberately and obstinately ignoring historical reality would continue arguing for his revisionist history. There’s a reason that all of his sources openly disagree with his assertions, so your claim of independently reviewing his claims is, unexpectedly, false. An objective, individual review of the sources find that TIK’s arguments, sadly, have no ground to stand on. But please, would you like to point me to all this independent research of yours that proves that Adam Smith was a socialist? His “work” exists because he couldn’t handle being proven wrong, his “interpretation” relies on making up definitions so vague they include most of his own audience, and his “presentation” is nothing but ideological quips. If you want to ignore historical reality be my guest, but don’t pretend to be doing anything else. I mean hell dude, either his sources are excellent or his argument is, given how much time he spends attempting to discredit the sources in question. In any case, as I said before, you’re free to believe a lie - just don’t go around trying to insult others who know better than to blindly adhere to ideological fanaticism.
1
-
1
-
@Nukestarmaster
And then you try to do that, followed by hours of being pertinently educated on the actual historical facts of the party, after you get told that memes aren't history.
I get that you want to do anything possible to excuse the right wing ideology of your inspiration hitler, but trying to compare his genocide to other leaders is incredibly disrespectful. It is no mistake that you are trying and failing to repaint him as some sort of left wing socialist, despite him being wholly opposed to those viewpoints.
The most important person in modern right wing anti-socialist ideology, is not Trump or Reagan or Bush or Mises or even Smith himself. No the single most important person in modern anti-socialism is actually Hitler. And not the historic right-wing anti-socialist Hitler, no it's the mythical left-wing socialist Hitler. He is the only thing that lets them survive the horrors and disaster that capitalist systems wrought by having a Tu Quo Que to beat the socialists with, to convince the liberals/conservatives/moderates that they serve a purpose as a bulwark against the Evil left-wing fascism. There is a reason why the current iteration of the revolutionary right wingers refuse to call themselves "Anti-Fascist Action".
But if Hitler was not a "left-wing socialist" and was in fact a right-wing capitalist, then the anti-communists loose. It is awfully hard to distract from the Evils of one type of right-wing anti-socialism, with the Evils of another, slightly different, type of right-wing anti-socialism.
TIK's critics have, whether they knows it or not, managed to find the Achilles' Heel that could bring down the monstrous beast that is right wing neo-fascist ideology. That is why so, so, so many of the TIK's fascist, right wing supporters are attacking historians.
1
-
1
-
@Nukestarmaster
I'm sorry, simply saying "No." isn't a rebuttal. The nazis did all of the things I pointed out, hence your inability to actually reject my points. They not only believed in conservatism, they pushed an extreme form of it (traditionalism) while only being elected off of the back of conservative politicians like Franz von Papen, who coincidentally became the nazis first Vice Chancellor and picked the first nazi cabinet. They not only pushed right wing economics, but defended it. They didn't "micromanage" their industries at all, in fact they openly promoted constant competition and private property that would dominate the workers and work for voluntarily given government contracts. deciding what resources they get, what products they make and the price that those products are sold for was all down to the private consumer in everything but the most necessary wartime industries... just like in other western nations. No, that isn't the definition of socialism, the defininition of socialism is "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," not "when the state regulates private business." They massively privatized social services and utterly removed them for non-citizens, and purged/denied socialism in all of its forms.
Why do you support fascist policies so openly, and deny their anti-socialism? Oh wait, we know why. Because you're sympathetic to it.
1
-
@Nukestarmaster
Simply saying that the nazis, who supported a competition and domination of races, of nations, and of property, did not support competition, does not make it so child. they supported and defended right wing economic systems, as we've been over. They allowed corporations to compete, and even gave them the means to profit further by giving the option of possible, voluntary contracts which private companied competed for the right to fill. They of course supported this system because, in hitler's own words, he felt it was the best system possible, the most efficient system... a right wing system. They had no interest in controlling the industry, hence Hitler's open call for competition. They didn't institute a vast amount of price controls on every good, or any good really, they left that to the business. They didn't determine which corporations got which resources, again, they left that to the business. And they certainly never controlled the distribution of resources to these companies, given the companies got resources internationally.
And yes, socialism is control of the means of production (defined as property that produces) by the community as a whole. (not the state, but quite literally the community as a whole, as in, every individual. Your "aka the state" shows a level of illiteracy that is painful to witness.) And of course, as we've been over, the nazis did quite the opposite of what you support.
Unlike you I do not support fascist policies, and furthermore, I don't support socialist policies. Nice job deflecting, though. So, answer the question - why do you support fascist policies so openly, but deny their far-right anti-socialism, and their base ideological connection to you? Are you ashamed of your fascist policy? I would hope.
Let's test if you are pro or anti-fascism really quick. Which, if any, of the following statements do you agree with?
1. We... see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.
2.We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.
3. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain.
I'll be scoring you out of three there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nukestarmaster
At least you can admit that hitler wasn't a communist, we're making some progress here. However, it is clear that hitler wasn't a socialist. He didn't even like the name socialist, he initially opposed its inclusion in the party name and eventually purged those that included it. His definition of socialism was nationalism. This was the only "socialism" he admitted to. Furthermore, you have yet to address the historians proving you wrong.
The nazis didn't operate a state owned economy, hitler was supported by many private industrialists and both publically and privately rebuked the notion of a state controlled economy. Furthermore, state control is not the definition of socialism, and it has never been. I would be happy to expound upon both of these things.
TIK's definition of socialism isn't just "a bit broad," it's utter nonsense and includes churches, the boyscouts, and a local lemonade stand as examples of "socialist states." Hitler was not a socialist in any form, and to assert that he was one requires both rewriting the reality of his regime and the definition of socialism.
1
-
@Nukestarmaster
I have literally in this comment section been told the nazis were communists and marxists so that isn't quite true there.
His party had the word socialist in it... despite his objections, and it only retained that word (once he purged those that chose the name) because he defined socialism as nationalism. This was the "socialist" he referred to himself as, you act as though he means the exact same thing as you when he says that word, which is certainly not historical. He didn't nationalize entire industries, the few individual businesses he did nationalize most often went back into private hands. He didn't mandate production quotas for all but the most necessary wartime materials, choosing instead to promote voluntary guaranteed-profit contracts to private companies. The same goes for price controls, he most often let companies compete, but in a few rare wartime necessary cases imposed basic price controls. The important thing is though, these aren't socialist policies. These are literally just policies of wartime production, shared in part or in full with the countries they fought the war against.
I would be happy to paste paragraph upon paragraph of arguments and statements from historians that directly counter your view, the problem being that you wouldn't actually believe them and would continue to assert that they were incorrect anyway, so we must address the basic facts first.
First off, regulation on private industry does not make it not private, nor is even total regulation of industry the definition of socialism. Both those things don't really matter though, since in all but the rarest cases, Hitler did not force those industrialists to ration resources, nor did he tell them what to produce, how much to produce, and what to sell it for. Again, he much prefered to offer voluntary government contracts out with sizable profits, which allowed private companies to compete for the favor and funds of the party. The right to build most nazi death camps, including Auschwitz, were bid upon privately. Furthermore, he most often didn't even have the power to tell these companies what to do, since they were often based in foreign countries, and the industrialists who appealed to him, like Ford, weren't even german citizens. How could he maintain this "total control" over people an ocean away? In any case, it is worth mentioning that while the nazi government did not pledge to protect a right to private property, they didn't abolish the existence of it, those two are not the same thing. Think of the US for example - we have no state backed right to healthcare, and yet individuals still get healthcare. In nazi germany, individuals were not free from the government taking their land, but the government most often did not want to do this as they prided german private industry as an aspect of their "master race," and thus though the protection subsided, those individuals continued to own that industry. It's the difference between saying I won't protect a guarantee of healthcare for you, and saying that nobody ever gets healthcare. Also, this is a capability literally every state, including the US, has. If the US decided to ignore the constitution by unanimous support of the three branches, it could easily park the military in your lawn and take your house, you have no power to stop them. The only thing stopping them from doing that is a piece of paper that they agreed to, saying they wouldn't. All states can take your factory away on a whim, some just declare that action illegal, though it is still possible. Are all states socialist?
And finally, jesus. You do realize that the nazis can not be socialists and not be capitalists as well, right? Like, have you actually looked into analysis of modern day and historical fascist economic ideology?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hariman7727 yeah, you keep saying that, but you refuse to examine your own absurd views and assertions. Couldn't be that you know they're not based in anything but your own ideology?
You keep asserting to the "history definitions of words" with exactly zero proof that a) they're at all different today, b) that your definitions have any basis in reality, or c), that there's any sort of widespread conspiracy to change the definitions.
I'm not "ignoring" anything, I'm simply pointing out that historically speaking, they just literally didn't do that. They didn't put in place any socialist economy, they didn't have any widespread state control. "Heavy regulation" isn't socialism, and they largely scaled back regulation from the Weimar years. Their economy was a right wing private economy. I'm sorry that fact makes you so angry, but it isn't going away. You don't know what socialism is, and you don't know what the Nazis did.
The assertion that every historian and dictionary since the nazis themselves were still alive were all liars or profiteers they somehow managed to fool all peer review is a heavy one, that you have no evidence for. Your apologetics have no place here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hariman7727 I know you don't care, but why not look at actual economists and historians, see what they've found on this issue?
"Mussolini, a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano) before World War I, became a fierce antisocialist after the war. After coming to power, he banned all Marxist organizations and replaced their trade unions with government-controlled corporatist unions. Until he instituted a war economy in the mid-1930s, Mussolini allowed industrialists to run their companies with a minimum of government interference. Despite his former anticapitalist rhetoric, he cut taxes on business, permitted cartel growth, decreed wage reduction, and rescinded the eight-hour-workday law. Between 1928 and 1932 real wages in Italy dropped by almost half. Mussolini admitted that the standard of living had fallen but stated that “fortunately the Italian people were not accustomed to eating much and therefore feel the privation less acutely than others."
- Dictatorship, Fascism, and Totalitarianism - Political and Economic Systems, Britanica
"What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
"Available sources make perfectly clear that the Nazi regime did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no intention whatsoever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible. In the prewar period that was the case, for example, with the big German banks, which had to be saved during the banking crisis of 1931 by the injection of large sums of public funds. In 1936/37 the capital of the Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank and Dresdner Bank in the possession of the German Reich was resold to private shareholders, and consequently the state representatives withdrew from the boards of these banks. Also in 1936 the Reich sold its shares of Vereinigte Stahlwerke. The war did not change anything with regard to this attitude. In 1940 the Genshagen airplane engine plant operated by Daimler-Benz was privatized; Daimler-Benz bought the majority of shares held by the Reich earlier than it wished to. But the company was urged by the Reich Aviation Ministry and was afraid that the Reich might offer the deal to another firm. Later in the war the Reich actively tried to privatize as many Montan GmbH companies as possible, but with little success."
"The domestic agenda was one of authoritarian conservatism, with a pronounced distaste for parliamentary politics, high taxes, welfare spending and trade unions. The international outlook of German business, on the other hand, was far more ‘liberal’ in flavour. Though German industry was by no means averse to tariffs, the Reich industrial association strongly favoured a system of uninhibited capital movement and multilateralism underpinned by Most Favoured Nation principles." - Adam Tooze, "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy"
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
I could quote literal pages more, but I know you don't care. Reality isn't high on your list of priorities.
1
-
1
-
@matrix5062
And yet, here you are, doing that time and time again. I'm sorry you don't like facts, but that of course doesn't give you the right to dismiss them without purpose or reasoning. The "ruling party" at the time, the one that had created the Weimar Republic as it existed, was decidedly to the left of the nazis and their allies, while also being generally to the right of the socialists, communists, and anarchist.
By our usage of the term today, it was. You're right that the conservatives absolutely formed numerous alliances with the nazis, but the liberal parties that had created the Weimar Republic, despite some of its conservative leadership, was what the nazis hated.
1
-
@matrix5062
Quite literally, historically, the vast majority of them. From Hitler to Mussolini to Pinochet and so many more to the hundreds and hundreds of years of monarchist rule. I don't think you know what leftism is, what "the left's format" is, what communism is, or what "national socialism" is, especially given that "national socialism" was largely supported by conservatives of the time because it mirrored or supported much of their policies and aims.
I'm not sure why you think I think the far right nazis were a democracy. No, we don't call the literal act of murdering people "cancelling," and the fact that you're trying to connect the two is yet more proof of how ignorant you are on the very basics here. So no, I'm sorry, but the nazis were pretty proudly right wing, supported by the right then and supported by the right now. They weren't even particularly subtle about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matrix5062
But you evidently do. Do you genuinely think that just by saying "I don't support any right wing nonsense," your actual concrete actions and statements proving otherwise change or vanish? Perhaps you do genuinely think that, it seems like a thought that would be on your level. You're not stating something historic, you're stating something false and getting annoyed that I was able to prove it wrong. Rather than actually arguing against any of my points, without any evidence you assume I must have made it up or read history wrong. Why? Because you are not actually intellectually willing to admit that it's even possible for you to be wrong. You have not yet reached the level of maturity in which you can critically examine your own views, let alone the views of others, so you assume I have to be wrong - because I don't agree with you.
Your points are false, as pointed out before. Actually read this section for once. Hitler said that he was a right wing, patriotic, pro-private person. He described an ideology in favor of all those things as "socialism," and noted time and time again that it had nothing to do with any socialist movements, at the same time or before. He tried to take voters from leftists, if that's what you mean by "spoke at left-wing meetings," but his alliances were overwhelmingly with private businesses that funded him, and german conservative parties that both paved the way for and voted him into a dictatorship. He hated internationalism, be it capitalist or socialist. He was, however, a big fan of private property and the industrialists who managed it, and constantly awarded/praised industrialists, from germany and elsewhere. He didn't believe in "government dictated down to all matters," hence the constant working with private property, and as we've been over, that sort of governance is neither tied explicitly to right or left. Again, read this part. Capitalism and right wing are not synonymous. Left wing and "central governance" are not synonymous. Right wing and central governance are not at all contradictory or exclusive. His regime was not how you described it, was not the reverse of capitalism, and was not the reverse of the right. This is all extremely basic and any independent research can confirm. When did I say he was "on the jewish side?" Just stop lying and listen. All of what you said is nothing but your thoughts, which have now been easily disproven. None of it is history. For once - Listen, research, think, for god's sake Think.
1
-
@matrix5062
Well at least you admit it. You don't think, you're utterly unaware, and you're still not listening. The vast, vast majority of historians have independently proven time and time again that your assertions regarding hitler are plainly false. You, like hitler himself, believe in a left wing conspiracy to erase history, yet also claim that you have nothing in common with him? As for "reffarences," ""...one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." - Hitler, proudly calling himself right wing.
Society is the producers of employment by nature. Do you think capitalists are the only ones capable of production?
What are you even trying to claim now? You're making up random things about socialism to deflect from the point at hand. But in doing so, you expose your ignorance. You believe that socialists can "invest in capitalism." You are literally describing capitalism over and over again, criticizing how the profits are never shared, but somehow blaming socialism for all of this? How out of touch are you?
I hate to say it but for as much as I dislike the US democrats, they have objectively done a better job of sharing wealth and looking out for the common person than the republicans have. You don't like that fact, do you?
"Left" doesn't mean "anti-rich." Most people in left leaning parties are still capitalists, how do you not know this?
Ok so you don't know the first thing about dictatorships, left or right wing, and you're trying to use Hitler's social darwinist justification to argue that you have nothing to do with hitler? Bizarre.
You are actively proving that the right blames all the world's woes on the left while sucking up the poor's means of living for their own selfish benefit. That is literally what hitler did, use fears of immgration, multiculturalism and the left to control and steal.
History is a bitch, and like it or not, it is a bitch that plainly proves you wrong at literally every opportunity.
Yes, and I still will. Because you have not even begun to think yet.
1
-
@matrix5062
Yes, because you still aren't listening.
I know it's comforting to pretend that the "other" is the only problem in the world, it's easy to separate yourself from everything and pretend it's all the same, refuse to think about it for longer than you have to, but it isn't accurate and it isn't happy. I'm literally the one pointing out to you how it isn't the same, and you're the one swallowing the food from one food shop, day after day, happily pretending that you aren't eating there at all. That, like it or not, is you.
You are perhaps the biggest subject of bias, because you don't have the critical thinking skills to even tell if you're biased in the first place. You're so biased you've tricked yourself into believing you aren't biased at all. You literally just declare that all others must be biased, simply because they prove you wrong. You don't care about history, you seem to utterly despise it. You don't care about reality, just shilling for politicians that don't care about you. Wake up, get a clue, it isn't that hard. Don't you find it odd that you're unable to prove me wrong? There's a reason for that. The conclusions you draw have no place in reality.
1
-
@matrix5062
Again, you're just assuming that I am as uneducated and uninterested in reality as you. You're literally telling other people not to even think, just listen to you and the one who feeds you propaganda. I'm sorry you hate facts, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and I truly do hope that as time goes on you give yourself the opportunity to begin to actually think, examine the world, and wonder why you lost this argument so bad.
If you don't want to be educated, fine. I, at least, would then recommend that you stop claiming to be educating others, or that you're interested in "the history," the very thing you've been avoiding this whole time.
1
-
@matrix5062
I'm pointing out the meaning of your own words. If you don't like that, you're free to find ways in which to correct the statements in question, but you seem unwilling to do that as well. You start an argument, you can't finish it or support it, that isn't on me.
This coming from the guy who said "I do not think." You have evidently not done any amount of research, as all of your claims are backed up by nothing but your own refusal to deal with your lack of evidence.
If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck and waddle around with the ducks, desperately trying to convince people that you aren't a duck doesn't work as well. I am merely pointing out that you are uneducated in history itself, not that history itself is uneducated or becomes as such when it is reported incorrectly. Again, you're trying to project bias while at the same time conceding that you have nothing actually backing your points but your own bias.
You're free to throw as many insults at me as you want, it's not going to salvage this for you. I've given you the opportunity to introspect. Take it.
1
-
@matrix5062
It's really not any sort of hidden information though, you make your general ignorance on the subject extremely widely known, and my acting on this fact should not be surprising to you. What I am stating is historically backed up, as i've proven to you before, and if the only way for you to prove your argument is to assert that there's no such thing as the truth itself, then your argument has utterly failed.
Again, the fact that you don't know the basics here is kind of damning. Hitler only ever even got into power because a conservative coalition was formed backing him up, specifically because the conservatives felt he was an effective weapon against the rise of socialism.
Hindenburg was far from the first, and he was "Convinced" by said conservative coalition, headed by von Papen, who would eventually become Hitler's first vice-chancellor. The enabling act that got hitler elected was also supported by -
-The German National People's Party, a national-conservative party in Germany during the Weimar Republic. Before the rise of the Nazi Party, it was the major conservative and nationalist party in Weimar Germany. It was an alliance of nationalists, reactionary monarchists, völkisch and antisemitic elements supported by the Pan-German League.-Centre [Catholic] Party (Ideology - Social conservatism)
-Bavarian People's Party (branch of the Centre Party, Ideology - Social conservatism, Conservatism)
-"The Christian Social People's Service was a Protestant conservative political party in the Weimar Republic."
-The German People's Party (Ideology - National liberalism, Civic nationalism, Conservative liberalism, Constitutional monarchism, Economic liberalism)
And so on. So yes, he was pretty explicitly supported by conservatives.
1
-
@Idunno-b8g I know, unfortunately the children in this comment section really don’t like to listen to facts do they. Including, may I add, the person who made the OP, who seems to believe that context doesn’t factor into determining if a quote is a lie or not. I mean, after all, private correspondences uttered tens of time truly are just as reliable as buzzword filled public election spiels. To drop any fun pretenses, your point relies on the assumption that all of his quotes, regardless of context, are equally true. I don’t see how pointing that out is at all disingenuous, but I don’t doubt that you have no other real way to respond to my statement. “Liar” is not a condition, a person can lie and also tell the truth, this should not be revolutionary and should not be the hill you’re dying on. Also, not even sure what you’re talking about, this thread has been dead for a week.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakexu2347
Whatever you need to say to salvage your ego, if it helps you get one step closer to the truth, so be it.
1. For one, you’re stating those two things as if they’re exclusive. For two, you’re making the same mistake you just complained about, mapping a complex topic onto one axis. There are no “authoritarian points,” and the idea that you can average out policy to find the “authoritarianism level” of an ideology is absurd. You’re suggesting that a country that forcefully sterilizes a small population is less authoritarian than one with far reaching economic regulations, it’s just silly. Countries can absolutely avoid the markets and remain incredibly authoritarian, just as they can regulate them and remain non authoritarian. Further, countries can literally include the private market in their authoritarianism, just as they might employ citizen police or international propaganda efforts. This isn’t that hard.
2. “Tyranny of the majority” is definitionally a case in which the average citizen has more rights than a dictatorship, aka a tyranny of the minority. Far from “less rights,” it’s literally just a case of a population having rights and choosing what to do with them. Further, your response ignores my point. Voting itself is a right, self determination, which a dictatorship by definition cannot have in place. Tw very act of setting up a dictatorship requires a loss of rights. Though a minority may not be able to enact their every desire in a democracy, they still have the right to vote and the possibility to work towards change, something that is explicitly barred from the average citizen in a dictatorship. This should not be that hard.
1
-
1
-
@jakexu2347
They're not exclusive, though. Sure, not synonymous, but in this case the overlap is made as clear as possible. You were the one who decided that one factor was the only thing worth examining, and as usual, you are now the one pretending that this means only one factor was presented for examination.
I very much agree, all of those things are very separate issues, but they're things that can be categorized and traced back historically to common foundations and origins, which lead us to develop ideological connections, family trees of sorts.
Saying the nazis are far right is like saying Leon Trotsky was Leon Trotsky.
You can keep coming up with excuses, yes, and I'll keep leading you to the water.
The right to vote, plainly. Ancient Athens was not a perfect democracy, but he certainly had more rights than those sentenced to death under dictators like the ones you continually apologize for. Do you think an individual being sentenced to death under a democracy suddenly makes all democracies inherently against human rights?
And you’re attempting to counter that in a way that not only makes no sense, but betrays your own biases. Again, by definition, the right to vote is one that is restricted in monarchies if not outright removed. The very right to human self determination is quashed by the very existence of monarchies. You’ve been unable to disprove this, so you find cases in which a government hasn’t respected the rights of its citizens, rather than attempting to prove that those rights weren’t there.
Those two examples don’t prove your point though, on top of being extremely flawed “democracies,” to the degree that “democracy” as a term doesn’t even apply in most cases. All you’ve shown is that some democracies don’t respect the citizens rights, which is a literal guaranteed core component of monarchism.
I’m sorry you can’t handle the literal basics of political theory but if you want to lie to me and yourself, that’s your problem. Please just attempt to educate yourself, eventually. I can show you the truth, I can’t make you believe it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fangbeer
Now, I have to ask why it is that you're providing references, rather than quotes. It seems a bit deflationary, don't you think? Hard to see a reference as anything other than a name drop when you can't confirm you're following it.
And if you're speaking on French collaborationists to begin, I very much doubt you'll find much in the way to support your claims. After all, the PFP itself was primarily formed of and supported by members of Jeunesses Patriotes, Action Française, Solidarité and Croix de Feu, all previously established, explicitly right wing parties. This is of course without mentioning their multiple appeals to dominant conservative parties such as the Parti Social Francais, multiple head party personnel having explicitly worked within the conservative parties for years, and their explicit funding by private entities.
1
-
@fangbeer
Quisling? The man who began and ended his political career as an explicit conservative, more opposed to communism than he was in favor of the nationalism he built his movement around? My oh my, what a true blue socialist.
To give a few examples, one of his first notable political moves within his movement founded of businessmen and conservatives was his explicit, pointless and violent suppression of unionists, which was opposed by the left in its entirety. This was of course followed by his further criminalization of unionism as a concept, creating a list of left wing political dissidents and hunting them down with a strong, statist police force. Wonder where I've heard that before. This was followed, yet again, by him explicitly condemning the leftist parties and getting support from the general right. Following this, he was in favor of the suspension of right wing political parties, suspension of voting rights for those on welfare, the funding of national enterprise, examinations into state social programs, and so on. These, and policies like them, would be continued and reinforced within his collaborationist efforts.
See, I think the issue is that to you, everything sounds "kinda socialist." I mean, the best piece of evidence you have for a hardline conservative being a socialist is a piece of propaganda, and that hardly even adds up. How the hell is a government that claims to be even less "for the people" than America one that even tries to be socialist? Are you attempting to refer to their mention of a "planned economy?" I hope you realize a) that socialism and planned economies are not synonymous and b) that planned economies are a feature of nearly all wartime states. Again, the best piece of evidence you have are mere claims, claims that require ignorance and twisting to meet your interpretation, and even then plainly contradict his stated views.
He wasn't trying to convince people he was a socialist, not by your definition. Hence, him having this relentless "issue" of picking up conservative copycat parties in other countries, something that would be quite odd for a socialist.
1
-
@fangbeer
Oh well congratulations, you've managed to find a quote where someone uses the term "socialism." Unfortunately, as someone who has not read this thread before, (or the history it debates I suppose) you appear to think this is some sort of "wrap up" move. That given, I have to ask, what does this "wrap up?" This quote references
socialism," certainly, always in the context of "German socialism." Of course, one then must ask exactly what "german socialism" is, in the first place. Otherwise, this statement doesn't do much to connect these ideologies beyond use the same term. So, let's take a gander, hm?
"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
"...one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
Adolf Hitler
"‘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."
...
"‘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 Hilter and Otto Strasser
“This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of individual God-favored geniuses, in its average accomplishment the achievement of men of average capacity, and in its sum doubtless the result of the use of human labor-force in order to turn to account the creations of genius and of talent. So it is only natural that when the capable intelligences of a nation, which are always in a minority, are regarded only as of the same value as all the rest, then genius, capacity, the value of personality are slowly subjected to the majority and this process is then falsely named the rule of the people. For this is not rule of the people, but in reality the rule of stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-heartedness, of cowardice, of weakness, and of inadequacy.
..
Thus it must be admitted that in the economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal value or of equal importance. And once this is admitted it is madness to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in value, but that is not true in the political sphere. It is absurd to build up economic life on the conceptions of achievement, of the value of personality, and therefore in practice the authority of personality, but in the political sphere to deny the authority of personality and to thrust into this place the law of the greater number “
Adolf Hitler
"We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. "
Adolf Hitler
And perhaps, most plainly said -
"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."
- Adolf Hitler
This is of course without including outside examinations of his policies or views from other party members, which further reinforce his stated views here. In other words, "german socialism," to Hitler, is a reclamation of the term "socialism" from those it has nothing to do with - as in, he states plainly that his ideology has no relation to "socialism" as you define it. His "socialism" is right wing, against social ownership, quite explicitly private, conservative, and nationalist. His "socialism" shares only a single thing with socialism of your definition, and that would be the name.
Once we reexamine your quote with this added context, it makes a whole lot more sense, hm?
1
-
1
-
@fangbeer
Why yes, I did say that, because they were and showed as much quite explicitly, hence your inability to refute said point. Quisling, among them was quite an avid conservative indeed.
First off, you're going to need to do some amount of economic education, given that the statement "nationalization (socialization)" makes about as much sense as "falling over (murder)." I'd like to see exactly where the "nationalization of the economy" was being screamed about in these sources that numerously, explicitly, call attention to the supposed threat of nationalization and state control, but as usual I doubt you'd be able to provide. Are you laboring under the impression that authoritarian conservatism is somehow meaningfully different than other variants of conservatism?
By "fiscally conservative," you mean liberal. That's fine to argue, one can certainly point out the cases in which this isn't true (such as Mussolini's explicit hiring of 'fiscal conservatives' to manage his economic policy) but you're mixing up terms. To speak plainly however, there is nothing un-conservative about these policies. They may not embody the pure, utopic libertarian capitalism you idolize, but they come from a fundamentally identical place, are justified with the same rhetoric and appeal to the same people, all in service of yet another variety of conservative economy. He's arguing that his idea of "implementing socialism" is entirely opposed to socialism as you define it, and that it's not only compatible but entirely necessary with the addition of right wing economic policy. How "socialistic." You're attempting to argue that he supports a "right wing socialism," which again, is plainly contradicted by the fact that he sees socialism as it exists as a falsehood, not an incorrect version of correct ideas. He quite explicitly says that the left, and socialistic economic policy, bring disaster and ruin. You'll find your claims are not represented in my quotes.
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." - Adolf Hitler This is of course without including outside examinations of his policies or views from other party members, which further reinforce his stated views here. In other words, "german socialism," to Hitler, is a reclamation of the term "socialism" from those it has nothing to do with
I'll also have to ask exactly what added context a few more lines pose, given that it just reinforces the same deeply anti-socialist notion. It seems like you were just looking for an excuse to pad out your reply. In any case, the quote in question -
"Why," I [Viereck] asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "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. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
In case you weren't aware, the idea of state and race being one and the same is a philosophical concept derived from Sorelian studies, it isn't a perscription of policy. This was no secret, hitler was quite open about it, saying “Party, state, armed forces, economics are institutions and functions which can only be estimated as a means toward an end." followed by"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." Notice that in these quotes, there is no specific emphasis put on state or party, and in fact, neither is there in your quotes. His viewpoint was that the state, party, and economy, were all organs of one big body. He wasn't calling for material change here, he was calling for semantic change, pushing the ideological notion that the only construct that mattered was a nation, and all the class conflict within didn't matter because the nation itself was the metric by which they measured civilization. Economy, race, and people became one and the same, yet didn't materially change operation. In any case, no, the Volksgemeinschaft is about as far from socialism as you can get. Ignoring its formation by the proud political right, it is definitionally a concept that calls for "national unity," not socialism. His idea of "the common weal" was one in which private property was upheld, as he himself says. He believed an economy in which private property existed, in which socialization was held back and unionism was abolished, was for the good of "the german people." Now, while you're right in pointing out that Hitler's goal was to work according to his notion of the "german race," I've quite literally already replied to you with quotes that show that he believes this concept is useless without competition, without individual success and hierarchy. He didn't want everyone to think the same, that concept goes entirely against his social darwinistic ideology. He thought that by competing they were furthering the "german race," and the only way to do so was through competition and the rise of individuals above the others. His "ideal german" was a person willing to force their will onto others, at any cost. You attempt to assert that he believed that the nation is what decides what is good for the race, despite literally four sentences previously, pointing out that he doesn't even ideologically think the two are distinct. He doesn't believe that the nation should control the race, he believes that the race is the nation, that the economy is the nation, and that the state is the nation, and that each are all separately working towards common goals defined by "german supremacy." You literally quote hitler pointing out that the "individual within the nation" is just as much a member of german supremacy as the nation itself and just as important because they are one and the same, and somehow decide that this means that they're actually not the same at all and that the state controls the individual with no added evidence. State and race cannot be one if they're explicitly divided by a controlling and subjugated elements. The nation, to hitler, is literally indistinguishable from individual interest, because they both point the same direction in his worldview and thus he values them equally. You're contradicting yourself, plainly, in any effort to ignore the actual meaning of the text. At the end of this all, one must point out the most crucial fact though - despite tacking the word socialism on it, this has nothing to do with socialism. You assert that "Hitler's whole concept of socialism" was to create some sort of german hivemind. Not only was this plainly false, it's also just a rhetorical strategy that's long since been in use by the right, and carries with it no economic prescription inherently attached. You describe something that has nothing to do with socialism, or even economic theory in general, and then act like tacking on "Hitler's concept of socialism" makes it such. You force the word socialism in there because, plainly speaking, you've just been forced to admit that "Hitler's socialism" was no different from any other form of right wing, pro-private conservatism, and had nothing in common with socialism beyond a word.
In other words, your only argument is perhaps best described by your last sentence. Despite all evidence otherwise, despite every point proving you wrong, despite the quote above explicitly arguing against your assertions, what do you say? "That's socialism." Sure, bud. Is socialism in the room with us right now?
1
-
1
-
@fangbeer
At some point, I have to stop attempting individual corrections, when every word in a sentence is its own type of incorrect.
For starters, capitalism does not require individualism and in fact functions best when individualism is either artificially limited or treated as a privilege. Hitler's foundational presence is that the uniqueness of individualism is something to be preserved and celebrated within the context of his ideal german. Hitler's entire claim is that the "common good" of a group is best pursued when said group is free to compete with eachother and others to prove their supremacy. In essence, Hitler's entire premise was quite literally that self interest not only promotes, but is necessary for common good... within the context of the nations, which themselves (and the races hitler associates with them) must compete for the good of all, "good" being their "right place" in society. That, and that a focus on one's race was the ultimate, natural form of "self interest," extrapolated to entire nations. In other words, just a more direct, overreaching twist on the same fundamental concepts as capitalism and conservatism. Also, as a brief aside, a hell of a lot of socialism focuses on the idea of the individual laborer and their needs, and how a focus on that is what ultimately produces a social or communal system.
...Again, this isn't true. Most socialism explicitly focuses on how, for the majority of people, capitalism explicitly works against their self interest. Conversely, Capitalism seems to thrive on the myth that the self-interest of some people simply doesn't matter as much as it does with others, and that those individuals on the bottom of the ladder must be forced to sacrifice their own wants and needs for an effective capitalist system to exist. So, again, we find that your estimation of socialism is false, and your deification of capitalism leads you to false conclusions. This only continues with your next set of sentences. Marx didn't "replace" individual interest, he argued that class and class divide itself was a product of the denial of individual interests, and that class solidarity as a concept proved that capitalism largely hinders individual interest. Hitler argued that individual interest was necessary for the fomentation of a powerful "Race," and that all germans both inherently promote "germanic people" as a concept by competing and proving their superiority, and that the economy and party in the same vein must also be competing to prove as such, each an individual part of a machine constantly working to sharpen themselves against eachother. As previously quoted, he explicitly didn't want to get rid of "individual interest," he "purified" (interesting wording, by the way) his nation in order to get rid of forces that he explicitly labelled as groups and individuals trying to suppress the interest and benefit of the german people. Again, he was a social darwinist, his whole point was that might makes right, how do you mentally line that up with the concept that he wanted to shackle his own "people" and prevent them from enacting the violence of nature that he thought was inherent in man? You're trying to create a vague parallel between concepts, and not only can you not even get it right, you don't realize that capitalism fits exactly into this dichotomy. Capitalism replaces individual interests with the idea of private property and the deification of certain individuals according to ownership.
I mean, definitionally speaking, it is. Bee hives don't generally claim that the best thing for a bee to do would be to kill and replace the queen. To fire off a number of quick corrections (because again, literally every line is false here) beehives don't rely on "genetic purity," bees aren't "collectivist," they're animals, bees don't work for eachother because they're related, and I hate to break it to you but Hitler was explicitly against the concept of social ownership and the idea of a society devoid of differences. Again, as quoted, he not only believed in the fundamental inequality of human beings, including germans, he celebrated it and saw all attempts to prevent it (such as economic socialization) as detrimental mistakes. A better metaphor would be that, like it or not, Germany was a company. Each worker had a job they were meant to do, but a part of that job was rising up above the others and proving their worth. Workers compete, teams compete, divisions compete, branches compete, and yet all are a part of the same conglomeration, and their competition ultimately is meant to better the conglomeration as a whole, despite very rarely doing so. That was the "german social construct" hitler believed in, one that didn't fundamentally change the lives of the workers, but existed as the far-off post-takeover corporate infrastructure of this company, far removed, not changing anything directly and yet profiting from the company as it existed, because the struggle was the point. Individuality is necessary, because how else is the Nazi company going to prove that they're better than all the others, if they punish their own employees for going above and beyond? Hitler's efforts were to "purify" his company from the "meddling and spying" of what he saw as other companies, to "protect" the interests of his own employees. He was wrong, of course, but that was still his motivation. I hate to break it to you, but yes, there was both private property and a form of individualism. Maybe not your ideal form of either, but that doesn't really change things. What gets you sent to the "gas chamber" is going against the company, which, if you've forgot, is also supposedly going against yourself. With, explicitly, the goal to preserve this great german knife-sharpening machine. After all, the "single purpose" you point out that Hitler was pushing for was german supremacy, and the only way to achieve that in his mind was to prove it. "Streamlining" that process is merely doing everything you don't want to admit that they did, openly.
1
-
1
-
@fangbeer
Now, I hate to break it to you, but that isn't a fallacy. Double-checked the dictionary on that one. If you're referring to "whataboutism" in general, that's an internet insult rather than a fallacy, and a void one given that this entire conversation was staged on the basis of the association between socialists and nazis, which you've proven is non-existent. I also have to question where exactly you "proved me wrong with my own source," given that you handily ignored the vast majority of my sources to post a version of a quote with two more lines attached, and then acted like this actually proved your point without actually acknowledging that the quote in question (as well as the others I posted) explicitly showed Hitler making claims entirely opposite to the ones you're attempting to prove he made. Looking at the reply in question, I struggle to see where you might even get the impression that you "proved" anything, given that you pretty much just gave the quote and then provided an entirely unrelated, bordering on contradictory paragraph below it that had nothing to do with the information the quote provided, and made a number of assumptions that the quote disproved or that contradicted/disproved points you attempted to make previously.
I guess, like your past attempts at providing citation, you think that just posting a quote or source and then making something up underneath it is an argument? Given how you've acted before, that would make a lot of sense, actually.
1
-
1
-
@fangbeer
It's quite hard for others to see a "logical inconsistency" that you just made up.
In other words, you're unable to actually disprove a thing I say, so you literally just attempt to rewrite it. It's no wonder you have so many issues with history, you can't even understand the history of a youtube thread.
Try more like this.
Me: Here's a source that demonstrates that Hitler is not a socialist.
You: This source actually proves that Hitler was a socialist, because in it he says (thing that was openly contradicted by said quote) which is clearly proof that he wanted (thing entirely opposed to socialism.
Me: All of that is false, though, as I've shown and the quote itself shows.
You: No see you're clearly calling your own source a liar, no I don't need to show any evidence of this claim or any others, an assertion is enough. You pointing out that the source in question contradicts my claims about it is actually calling the source a liar. Ignore me trying to disqualify or call the source a liar btw.
In other words, you failed in your argument and failed in trying to rewrite it, and now appear to be failing to do the thing you somehow thought you'd do better than everyone else that's tried. The optimist in me hopes that you'll learn from this, but the realist in my doubts it.
1
-
1
-
@fangbeer
Unfortunately, I just spent far too long writing out a long response which I now have to do again. Why I do it, I don't know given you seem incapable of any form of self-reflection, but might as well try.
You appear to have spent so long attempting to come up with a new version of things I never said that you failed to actually look up a single one of the fallacies you were accusing me of. Though you might be trying a form of purposeful ignorance here to mask the insecurity you hold in your assertions, I'm beginning to feel less and less inclined to give you that benefit of the doubt. In any case, as we've been over, "Whataboutism" is not a fallacy. Further, it's a word used specifically to invoke an argument that does not attempt to add onto or reinforce past points, but instead to move away from a rebuttal by providing a further, semi-related point. In other words, me saying "Capitalism" and you saying "But socialism." Now, you should have caught on by now given that you keep trying to deflect in this direction, but this is a conversation foundationally about the definition of socialism, and who it does or does not apply to. As with all conversations about definitions, pointing out where it does and doesn't apply in contrast with where it should and shouldn't apply, is kind of key to a good definition. Whether or not conservatives are socialists by your definition has everything to do with whether or not we can consider Hitler to be a socialist, because it serves to prove whether or not your accusation of socialism has any meaning whatsoever. Bringing up a place in which your definition fails is not a "whataboutism," and it certainly isn't a red herring, it's literally just the semantic discussion which you have now shunted us into. To quickly correct the rest of your response, a modern conservative is a conservative in the modern era, (it's in the name, usually) conservatives now and conservatives in the past hold generally the same core values and moral frameworks, though these are both applied to different issues given the linear progression of time, and you should probably know that crying fallacy is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy. Your accusation of "tu quoque" fits that quite handily, especially given that tu quoque literally means "you too," and given that I have not assigned any sort of moral, ethical or pragmatic judgement of either conservatism or socialism in this discussion, it's a bit hard to claim I'm actually trying to morally, ethically or pragmatically conflate them.
"You seem to be trying to argue" - Words almost always spoken before something that is not in fact my argument. That rule, unfortunately, has not been disproven here. In any case, no, that is not my argument. However, it is worth mentioning that yes, conservatism and socialism are incompatible. If you'd like to put forwards a case otherwise rather than trying to force people to prove a negative, you're free to do so, but I doubt you'll go forwards with that.
To specifically address your strawman, these are not my arguments. These are a poor man's version of TIK's original strawman, which itself was held up on the faulty logic of trying to redefine all socialism (before, after, and opposed to marx) as marxism, in order to claim that the whole is in fact merely just a part of itself. He, in essence, decided to redefine the group of fruits known as apples to merely be some of the types of apples in existence, who will now be joined under the label of "apples" by melons and vines. In any case, no, I did not argue these things, nor did I even allude to them, and the only way you could reach this conclusion was by outright making things up. Your unwillingness to rebut my actual claims does not do much to prove your supposed confidence in your views.
I barely talked about marx or marxism
I quite literally only mentioned marx once when not quoting another
My reasoning as to Hitler's anti-socialism had nothing to do with who he did and didn't like, and more to do with the things he believed, said, and did, which you've tactically avoided since I began quoting him. I don't care who he did or didn't like, he plainly repudiated socialism on numerous occasions, opposed all that socialism was known for and did everything he could to distance himself from socialism as its understood.
If you'd like a version of my arguments in that format, here you go.
Hitler despised and avoided socialism and what its adherents wanted
Hitler praised and allied with anti-socialists and what its adherents wanted
Hitler's ideology aligned with these actions and alliances
The only way to claim Hitler was a socialist is to claim that anti-socialism is socialism.
You could also avoid this fallacy altogether by not manufacturing it out of thin air, and actually attempting to argue with what I wrote instead of what you wish I wrote. Instead of actually addressing my points, that Hitler plainly contradicted all elements of socialist philosophy even by your definition and that he and his views aligned with the long time anti-socialists, you just try to create a little conflict chart, because you don't seem capable of arguing against above a toddler's grade level. Also, I must say, you hivemind collectivists really need to come up with better arguments, and stop reusing the same old bad ones, as it just ends up revealing your ignorance. No, if you replaced the topics in question with Stalin and Trotsky, the statement would not only make no sense but it would be historically inaccurate of either of their worldview. They didn't accuse eachother of betraying socialism because of some personality conflict, Trotsky did it because Lenin had quite openly condemned Stalin's views and methods, and Stalin did so because he believed that Trotsky's system would inevitably either embolden capitalism or fall to it. Unlike what TIK wants you to believe, they didn't just run around a table shouting "No socialism! No socialism!"
See, the problem is that this entire time I've been trying to show you that there's many more than just one theories of social order, but you remain dead-set on your mythology of the eternal struggle between noble capitalism and savage socialism. Oh absolutely, there are different frameworks to build off of, and socialism has quite a few ideologies spun off pretty far, that were still hugely influenced off of that framework! Just off the top of my head, we have soulism, communalism, transcendentalism, egoism, and so on. Apples all, quite divergent from their common Red Delicious ancestor... but, yeah, they still aren't melons, like it or not, and melons aren't apples. I'm sorry, but your supposed "key tenant" of socialism is no such thing, and defining it as such does nothing but prove that your accusation of "socialism!" is essentially synonymous with the accusation of "ideology!"
1
-
@fangbeer
Pt. 2.
I write this, sighing, because this is the third time I've said it all but no, everything you said there was quite explicitly false, and I don't know why you keep saying it if you aren't even willing to address me proving it wrong.
1. Your definition of socialism, as an ideology which asserts that "...the welfare of the group supersedes the welfare of the individual," is meaningless. Socialism, as an ideology, was concretely formed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and calls for a society in which "the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (Oxford English Dictionary) This definition is concise, specific, and accurate to the actual desires of socialists, and given the amount of times that Hitler condemned social ownership, quite problematic to your revisionism. So, you present a definition of socialism which is so meaningless that it encapsulates all of human history. Your terms are exceedingly vague and subjective, and upon examining them, we can see that the belief that the welfare of the group supersedes that of the individual is as old "groups" are in human society. Whether it be a country, a noble, a king, a god, a flag, these things are as foundational to society as it gets. Even your ever-vigilant capitalism, as previously discussed, does this exact same thing. The welfare of property and property owners goes before the welfare of the individual, and the concept of being anti-property is attacked a million times more than the concept of poverty. After all, under capitalism individuality must be conditional, as otherwise there isn't nearly as much of an incentive for the average individual to participate. This is to say nothing of all the various religions and nationalisms and all that very strictly adhere to these principles and still promote capitalism above all. To put it plainly, your definition of socialism is all-encompassing, vague, and doesn't even do all that much to actually describe socialist moral views, economic theories or ethical foundations, which are all distinct and help to show where the ideology came from and what it wants. I hate to break it to you, but no, this is not the "key tenant of socialism."
2. "Left" and "Right" exist for a reason, as do other sorts of ideological categorizations. See, when one examines history, they can find trends in alliances or inspirations between even very much opposed political factions, and they can use these trends to find the groups that are willing to work together, adapt to eachother and adopt some of eachother's views. These, more often than not, come from shared ideological foundations and shared historical development, and examining them can help us understand why certain groups work together, how certain movements begin, ect. As in, things your definition very purposefully attempts to erase. See, when you decide arbitrarily that just about all of human history was socialist, you remove our ability to accurately track and understand various ideologies. Why are supposed socialists marching with capitalists? Who knows. Why do these types of "socialism" hate eachother? Who knows. Even if we decide to humor your absurd redefinition, the only result is just coming up with new words, both to more accurately describe what socialists actually want and value, and to more accurately describe the Nazis, conservatives, and other forms of right wing authoritarians that oppose socialism, as well as literally every other ideology out there. The only result of this redefinition is a lot of hassle to make new terms that actually make logical sense. After all, if all these ideologies are "socialism," where does their "socialism" come from? Are they "socialist" for a religion, for private property, for their town? Do they want a "socialist" economy of communal property, private property, no property at all? Do they think the best advocates of their "socialism" are monarchists, anarchists, revolutionaries, accountants, what? What do they want, why do they want it, where do they come from, and when all these questions have a million different answers, why do we call them all "socialist?" Well, the easy answer is, we don't. I can see why you'd want to redefine the term though - you attempt to claim that the nazis built their ideology out of a socialist framework. The problem is, any examination of history with a sane notion of socialism can point out easily that their conception of germany as a construct came from the right, from the conservatives and capitalists who formed those ideas then and spread them to this day, and that doesn't quite seem to reinforce your notion that they share a cohesive movement with socialism. The Nazi's views are from the anti-socialist right, of the anti-socialist right, and do much to explain the anti-socialist right. Hence them still allying to this day, supposed "socialism" or not.
3. See, the worst part is, even ignoring all this, you're still wrong. Moving past the fact that your two statements when combined provide a non sequitur rather than a justification about your conclusion, you're still just fundamentally wrong about nazi ideology. See, you claim that they believed that the welfare of the group supersedes the welfare of the individual, and that this is in fact key to their ideology. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out previously, provided evidence for, and have been observing your deafening silence regarding, they didn't actually believe this. They quite explicitly believed not that one superseded the other, but that both were one and the same, parts of the same machine that by their very nature acting unimpeded would prove german supremacy. Going back to the company metaphor from earlier, the economy, the individual, the state, the party and the nation were all departments or branches of the same company - all encouraged to compete among eachother and themselves, with the idea that this provides the most benefit to the overarching "company," the "german people." They didn't believe that the interest of the nation was more important than that of the individual because they literally thought that they were the same thing, equally important, hence Hitler's praise for the individual, for the german industrialists and thinkers. He didn't believe that "the welfare of the group supersedes the welfare of the individual" as a key tenant - a more accurate version would be "The welfare of group and individual both require competition and domination, there is a hierarchy of state, nation, race and individual and I am confident that germany wins in all categories. Equality is decay, competition is growth, and to deny the german people the ability to dominate eachother and the world is to deny them their rightful place on that natural hierarchy." Though certainly a dramatic rendition of it, the beliefs that competition is natural and equality is forced and ruinous are beliefs gotten from the right, which connect them on the level of fundamental assumptions to the right and explain their constant association with it. We've been over this so many times before and you have yet to do more than repeat the same nonsense line, but I want you to genuinely think about what you're asserting. You're saying that the genocidal, social darwinist, bigoted, traditionalist, hyper-hierarchy obsessed dictator who sent millions of people to die and spent more time praising foreign industrialists than he did making sure his own "master race" wasn't freezing to death and could buy food, was somehow a secret "welfare of all" type. No, worse, you're rewriting the very foundation of the ideology, washing away Hitler's real motivations, the bigotry, desperation and disgust that drove his actions, and acting as if the core of nazi ideology was "group over individual," instead of the bigoted, genocidal threat that it was. In asserting this, you are contradicting Hitler's ideology, and not in a minor way. You are rewriting the very fundamentals of his views, and claiming that your petty little association fallacy matter more than Hitler's own thoughts and views. By proclaiming that the "key tenant" of Nazism was some random philosophical quirk, you deny the actual bigotry, violence, and domination that created it and let it grow, and replacing it with a whitewashed motivation that any girl scout could claim. In essence, you got caught in a lie, and the deeper you go the worse your warping of history is, leading you inevitably to the spot of defending those you claim to condemn. So no, that isn't the "key tenant," that's just Evidence No. 1 in the ongoing case that your fanaticism is worth about as much as any other streetside shrieker.
In other words, wrong on all counts. Again.
1
-
@fangbeer
Ok, so at this point you've realized your point is indefensible and you can't actually argue against fact. I mean, look at your own actions. How many people who are confident in their supposed correctness avoid any and all debate in favor of just repeating points? You've genuinely gotten to the "nuh uh" stage of argument, and even now I don't know if you realize how poorly this reflects on your points. In any case, as stated previously in excruciating, unrefuted detail, that is not my argument. In other words, you just have to repeat your claim because you cannot actually prove it. No, Hitler was not a socialist, as I've proven and you've here chosen to avoid. You've been forced to rewrite my arguments rather than respond to them, and even then you're unable to prove your core point. You can't actually disprove my points, so you either deny them, rewrite them, or just completely ignore the argument to this point. If my arguments are bunk, you'd have a bit more to say than "nuh uh." Again, pointing out that your vague definition includes those opposed to the word you're trying to define is relevant to a conversation about defining the term. I didn't call Hitler a liar, I pointed out that he used a different definition as you. I have never uttered the words "hitler hated marxism" nor do I use marxism or hitler's personal feuds as evidence when discussing his views. In essence, you just made up three arguments out of thin air, all of which have already been explained when you first made this accusation, and rather than even acknowledging and disagreeing with those explanations, you just avoid them. You'd think after the third time that I said these weren't my arguments you'd stop using them to deflect, and yet here we are. In any case, none of these need to be "rebuttals to the central tenant of nazi politics," given that the central tenant in question is something I also discuss in depth and prove your assertions wrong regarding. Currently, you're the one trying to rebut the central views of nazism, and you're doing a pretty poor job of it by just ignoring arguments that prove you wrong, leaving them un-countered. Unfortunately for you, as I have previously proven and you continue to deflect from, the facts are clear - The organization of German society and economy on the basis of race was in explicit defiance of socialism, and was enacted in service to a right wing anti-socialist worldview, which is where it originated from and where it remains to this day. No, what you describe is not socialism, nor is it even accurate, and to suggest otherwise results in the word socialism being rendered all-encompassing and the history of the origin of nazim being entirely rewritten. To quote myself, proven right yet again, "the only way for you to call Hitler a socialist, is to define anti-socialism as socialism." Well, what do you know, I seem to be somewhat of a mind reader after all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dutcheh
It isn't, though. It's social ownership of the means of production, says it right in the definition. Not that that really matters though, because hitler put private property in neither public or social hands. In fact, he got rid of many publicly owned services and pieces of property and put them into private hands. So no, from every angle, this is not socialism. And also, aside, this is not the "exact same as lenin," and even lenin called his transitory economic policy a form of capitalism. You really don't know the basics, huh?
1
-
@Dutcheh that isn’t an argument though, that’s just a bunch of claims you made up. If your metric for socialist is absorbing private industry into nationalized programs, then I suppose hitler wasn’t a socialist. Of course, again, this doesn’t really matter because that isn’t the definition of socialism. Making industry a part of the public sector is not “literally socialism,” nor is it what hitler did. Your “argument” is nothing but your own word against the whole of recorded history, and worse off, this video doesn’t even support the full extent of your delusional claims. See, none of your claims are “shocking,” it’s not at all shocking that the modern right seeks to deny its past, it’s just false. I hate to break it to you, but Marx did not believe in Hitlers “jewish question.” Are you referring to Marx’s essay “on the jewish question” in which he attempts to counter its existence? He was anti semetic, as unfortunately many were of his time, but he did not think “Jewishness” and capitalism were synonymous, and he didn’t even approach the sheer genocidal hatred of the right. It’s shocking to claim that this extreme anti semite was a socialist because, hate to break it to you, two people in two different groups being bigoted in different ways doesn’t make those groups the same. Why are you so unwilling to deal with the reality of right wing ideology? It’s almost as if you know you’re trying to defend them…
1
-
1
-
@creatorbens
And I know this might blow your mind, but that isn't actually true. Conservatives inherently are very much right wing, and trying to boil conservative ideology down to "preservation" both ignores the entire history of conservative thought, and ignores the actual political implications of that "preservation" in the first place. No, conservatives do not just want to preserve any society they find themselves in - in fact, most conservatives despiser the modern society they live in, and seek to set it back. You can see this even with modern American conservatives. They aren't saying "Keep America Great," are they? Also, your "analysis" attempts to guess at the ideologies of Weimar era conservatives... when we don't have to guess at all, we can literally just look at their beliefs. They despised the Weimar government, which is why they opposed the actual party trying to keep the current status quo, the Social Democratic party. They far preferred the old system with the Kaiser, and when he was shamed, they sided with the nazis specifically because the nazis wanted to overthrow the current system and 'preserve' the tradition they believed they had. "That would mean" doesn't work when we literally know that in fact they did not want to preserve said left wing society... which, its worth mentioning, was a market capitalist economy by definition. Also, I don't think you realize that a large reason some Bolsheviks got called conservative was for social, not economic reasons. I'm sorry, but no, the nazis alliances with conservatives is absolutely proof of their right wing views, and the similarity between all these ideologies and modern conservatism cannot be understated.
1
-
1
-
@inisipisTV
When the very origin of the term right wing, and the entire history of its usage up to the modern day, does not fit your definition of right wing - then your definition is undoubtedly the issue. The right has never been defined by "small government with limited control," that's sadly a modern attempted redefinition by exclusively American conservatives, who can't even keep to their own definition. It's an effective strategy by the right - attempting to narrow their definition so much that one cannot even criticize them without supposedly criticizing something they are not. So, no, I'm sorry, but Mussolini was quite avid in his opposition to socialism, and only got more so as time passed. A letter, especially one sent before the majority of policy had come to pass, doesn't change that. Also, calling Pinochet a socialist is hilarious, and proves that you are not worthy of time or respect. The man was literally backed and practically created by the heads of the american libertarian movement. He's being defended as a proud capitalist in this very comment section. You'll really call anything socialism, hm?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HowieHellbent
I agree, this is more proof that you're dishonest, something you've admitted too by now.
Not only do you claim something which is observably false (TIK's sources openly contradict him, he even admits it in the Section "Other Counterarguments," subsection Sections 4-5 "Historians Don't Agree with TIK" timestamp 04:18:016. and "TIK vs Academia" timestamp 04:27:04. ) but you also claim I never gave an argument or a responses, which is observably false, as i've proven.
You refuse to engage with arguments, yes, and prefer instead to put forward non-arguments and non-citations. (like your repeated assertions that TIK's sources don't contradict his claim, something even he denies, but a claim you refuse to quote, thereby making your argument invalid)
It is your burden to deal with the conversation you started back up, yes.
Stop harassing me.
Oh, and let's look at one historian at a time TIK cites.
Historian 1 - Ian Kershaw, an acclaimed expert on the history of fascism and nazi germany.
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
1
-
@HowieHellbent
No, I'm showing you the fact that even TIK admits to, that his cited sources do not support his point.
Attempting to deny this when you have so clearly shown yourself to be utterly foreign to the sources themselves (remember your statements on Hayek?) is gaslighting. Claiming the sources support TIK, when they openly refute him, is gaslighting.
That's far from the only argument I gave, which anyone reading through this thread can easily see. That also isn't even my argument, I never said "Hitler opposed certain socialist factions," I correctly proved that hitler was opposed to, and did his best to purge, all socialist factions, parties, and organizations. In any case, I pointed out how your "response" (he only opposed Marxist socialists and socialists who refused to nationalize) is utterly false, as hitler purged socialists generally, many of whom were in his own party and rejected marx. Hitler further explicitly targeted socialists that pushed nationalization, a policy he didn't agree with. Not to mention of course, as I quite literally said last time, Hitler's purging and oppression of all the left and their allies, along with his protection of the right and their allies, proves his alliance to the anti-socialist right unquestionably. Your "rebuttal," as usual, was a baseless assertion. You then further assert that I never responding to this argument. I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Here's a quote of me addressing this exact point from yours, something you never responded to.
"5. He didn't just oppose "marxist socialisms" though, stop inserting your strawman argument. He opposed and purged explicitly anti-marx socialists on top of that, as well as purging other flavors of leftists and their allies, while protecting and elevating conservatives. You don't seem to understand the basic historical context of what you're saying."
So that's two lies you're caught in, in this response alone.
Everything you have said, this entire time, are baseless assertions and insults, which are not facts, and not rebuttals. Do you admit to being a liar?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HowieHellbent 4/
3. We've been over this so many times, hell, i've quoted back previous responses to this exact thing that you still have yet to respond to. But whatever, here we go. Again, dishonestly framed, this time in two ways. The first way is the way you act as though this is a foregone conclusion, and I must prove your statement wrong, when in reality I already proved said statement wrong hours ago, and you refused to respond even when I quoted that explanation back to you. Again, the burden of proof is on you to actually prove your claim, and you are wholly incapable of doing that. The second way however, is more insidious. You are being intellectually dishonest by purposefully excluding the beginning part of the quote, which states that "...[Hitler] disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns..." Your framing of that quote makes it appears as though the sentence starts there, and that Hitler supported interference, when the full quote says the opposite. In the future, include ellipses to indicate that this is just one section of a longer quote. That is, if you're interested in being intellectually honest. In any case, this response of yours can be addressed two ways. First off, you ask of me to prove "...this quote does not say the government has control over the economy..." Well, that's actually really easy. I don't really know why you care what the authors says, when you've called him a liar time and time again, but what he actually says in the response, that is, not how you interpret it but his actual words, is this. "...[Hitler] upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns...." So, quite openly, he is not saying that the government controlled the economy at all, he is saying quite the opposite when shown the context of the quote. Even further, the actual quote segment you provide shows the same thing, but that's our second point, so let's get to that now. From now on, I won't be discussing what the author "says," as what he says is clear cut, it was not a government controlled economy. Rather, I will be discussing what you think he "means" with these terms, which you assume goes against what he actually says. First off, that is not the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of production. From the early days of capitalists, going back to Adam Smith even, the concepts of basic public property ownership, taxation, regulation, and social welfare were advocated for by capitalists, so the complete absence of the state in the economy was not a requirement, and plenty of anti-capitalist systems also have a "complete absence of government influence in a market." In any case, how does that quote show supposed government ownership of the economy? You don't actually explain or argue as to how it does, or provide any reasoning, evidence, or breakdowns of the terms or sentence to understand your reasoning. You simply say "it very clearly does" and then run away. Well, no, to anyone versed in economics, it doesn't at all, and you're going to need to provide more than that for an actual argument. What the quote actually says is that the state would "...determine the shape of economic development." This language is carefully chosen - notice how he doesn't say that the state would determine or control the economic development itself, nor does he say anything to contradict his previous and following claims of private economies. Rather, he said the state would determine the shape of economic development... which is what all states do. Let me explain. What he's saying is that the state would institute policy that would shape the way germany's new economy formed, or in other words, that the state would "shape" the economic system that germany would develop. The state, in essence, would determine (through policy) the shape of economic development. (type of economy) All states do this, the United States for example, has shaped the economic development of the United States by putting in place policy that protects against theft, that backs currency, that enshrines private property in our founding documents, and so on. Sweden on the other hand has shaped their economic development in a slightly different direction, one still upholding private property, but with more regulation and accountability. Even if you feel that capitalism is say, completely natural and would arise even without a state, the idea of the state staying out of the market is still a policy position that shapes economic development. This action of choosing policy that would shape the economic development of the future isn't something about fascism or state ownership, it's something that the Founding Fathers did when they wrong the Constitution, hell, it's something your example Rothbard did by participating in a capitalist, libertarian movement that would "shape" the rhetoric and policies of capitalists and libertarians for decades to come, and in turn, would shape the economic development of the country when they were in power. Did he ask for total state control? All this quote is saying is that the state would take an active part in the development of its nation and economy, rather than stepping back and letting it develop in whatever direction it wanted, all by itself. This was true of all the powers of WW2 at the time, which had all decided to use the state to shape economic development to best suit the war, and they stayed capitalist. That's why many historians point to the fact that fascism is more determined by social views than economics. "Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
(e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)." The nazis did use the state to shape economic development, mainly, by offering voluntary, guaranteed-profit contracts to private business that agreed to work with them, as well as selling off vast tracks of land to private business. "[Private Firms] 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from...
The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵s... During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
(e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; They "determined the shape of the economy" through incentives given to the private property Hitler worked so hard to get on his side, which was only contradicted in a few cases. Do you see how your reading of that line is utterly absurd? You asserted that a line saying that the state would implement policy to determine the economy of nazi germany, which the author clearly points out is economy revolving around private property, actually means they support state ownership. And your reasoning? "It very clearly does." Sure, clear as a brick.
And again I ask, why do I need your approval, when you are so willing to deny, to insult, to ignore and deflect? I won ages ago, hell, most of these arguments were made ages ago and have gone unaddressed. I don't care if you take me seriously.
You cannot do a single thing you ask of me. Hell, you can't even prove the assumptions your questions are based on. You have lost the debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HowieHellbent I brought that up in the response where I say "..I wasn't the one that brought up age, though. You first brought up age, insecurely saying "why do you call me kid? I bet I'm older than your mom." Kid, I call everyone kid. The fact that your mind went to an insecure, defensive age thing...
Now, if you're so old, why are you asking the age of random strangers online? Kind of odd behavior if you ask me, kid..."
You know, the one you responded to. Did you actually read it, or just skim it and then respond as quickly as possible?
Sounds like another lie you're telling, I suppose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@com.7869
Calling hitler a socialist literally means you deny the basis of his genocidal ideology, as well as the german and american conservatives that held it before him and supported his rise to power. You can make up whatever lie you want, but if you're seriously trying to claim that social darwinism is the same as egalitarianism, it shouldn't take much critical thought to realize that you're wrong. Stop projecting your unceasing willingness to simply believe what propagandists tell you. Despite hitler loudly and constantly proclaiming that he had nothing to do with leftism or socialism as it was understood everywhere, despite his supporters existing to this day and proudly siding with the right, despite his policies and rhetoric being literally impossible to distinguish from modern conservatism, you somehow believe that him using the word "socialist," a word he literally defined as a right-wing pro-private ideology, makes him everything he showed and said he wasn't. I'm sorry, but not a word you said is true, and I'd personally recommend you stop trying to apologize for hitler.
1
-
@marvalice3455
So, I suppose the conclusions just came out of thin air then. After all, if all the sources kept coming to the same conclusions, but some random ideologue online decides they're all wrong, who's really to say who could be considered more credible? Could it be that the person in question is purposefully leaving out or misrepresenting information that would cause the people in question to, over and over, keep coming to entirely contradictory conclusions? Facts lead to conclusions, bud. The fact that your friend up there isn't coming to the same conclusion means he isn't using the same facts. Knowledge and reaction is testable, provable. Simple stuff.
If a source says Hitler walked like a rabbit,. burrowed like a rabbit, ate like a rabbit, had live birth like a rabbit, hopped like a rabbit, had fur like a rabbit, and teeth like a rabbit, and his parents were rabbits, and his children were rabbits, and he tasted like rabbit when he was roasted like a rabbit, but then a youtuber shows up and they've decided that in fact "rabbit" means any primarily terrestrial vertebrate, that hopping is actually really similar to flying if you think about it and that he found a picture of a rabbit and a duck together once so they must be the same thing, guess what? He's still a rabbit. Given that the sources do not actually support your conclusions, you're forced to metatextually rewrite the sources themselves, changing definitions and facts around as you please. It's no coincidence that said sources keep contradicting you - when all facts are taken into account and all research is honestly and faithfully done, one simply cannot come to the conclusion that the north american, six-pound average Leporidae is in any way a duck.
The sources in question in no way "prove" he was a duck. They prove, over and over again, that he was a rabbit. However, if you redefine duck and omit key information, you can make a case that their conclusion doesn't matter in the slightest. But I doubt you'd get something that basic, given that you think historians just keep accidentally writing down conclusions incompatible with the facts they also wrote down, and it takes the mediator of a youtuber to set them straight.
1
-
@marvalice3455
Well, yes, your conclusions certainly seem to. After all, that's why you and TIK are here, aren't you?
Assuming that the whole of the study of history is wrong and you and your youtuber buddy are the only ones who get it...
well, egotistical is the understatement of the century.
Now, not only are you assuming that they're purposefully incorrect, you assume you're doing so because they have a personal stake in the matter. I suppose it doesn't matter that these books are also filled with criticism of the Nazi's enemies, socialists among them. After all, no matter what the facts say, they must all be ducks which is why they're hiding that everyone else is a duck! Tell me, how deep does the conspiracy go? How many levels of "They're all lying, and only the youtubers are telling the truth!" do you have to go down to believe this? You're now implying that the whole of history, including the very basic terms which people use to describe themselves, is all just an elaborate ploy. Why? Because if they don't make this ploy, their "worldview is fucked." Ignore that these supposed socialists have no problem condemning the atrocities of socialist parties or figures, as if you were to wonder why their worry seems so selective... well, your worldview would be fucked, huh? The conclusions, like it or not, are easily testable, and as we've seen, independently repeatable. They're about as constructed of thin air than the core of the earth. You literally have to convince yourself that they're all independently lying, that they were never going to tell the truth, and that this is the only reason you're incorrect, because you cannot fathom the fact that you are a victim of exactly what you are accusing them of. I mean hell, if they wanted to lie about Hitler, why the hell would they give as much supposed evidence to your side as they did? If they have such a complete monopoly over historians as you imply, why not bury it? Why does TIK find their sources trustworthy? It all seems awfully tiring when maybe, just maybe, you can just imagine that the reason literally everyone keeps proving you wrong is not in fact because they're in on some hyper-conspiracy spanning decades, countries and ideologies... but that, simply put, you're wrong.
1
-
@marvalice3455
But it is, bud. It's just a random youtuber and the ideological group that he aligns with, a minority by all accounts.
I mean, think about it. Besides the historians that you both claim are super-marxist-nazi-communists, which historical sources does he actually cite? That's right, figures like Mises or Hayek. Not historians, but explicitly and objectively speaking, ideologues. You have to spend paragraphs justifying why you think all of history is lying to you, and when given the opportunity to cite your claims yourself, you literally only pull up people who make a career out of scaring people away from socialism.
Sure, he constantly did socialist things, like a rabbit constantly hops up, which is clearly an example of them flying, a duck thing. He was "obviously a socialist" to people who watch youtubers instead of reading a single source they list, much less any outside sources. He was "obviously a socialist" if you redefine socialism to be anything you don't like, so you don't have to worry about the unsavory elements of your own ideology. And those "constantly socialist things?" Well, if the only way you can condemn hitler's actions is by pretending they had anything to do with socialism, I'm not at all surprised you're not condemning the same discriminatory tendencies in the modern day, or likely trying to deflect them.
No, bud. To the vast, vast majority of the world, this is the crackpot, fringe opinion we all know it to be. I guess a whole lot of the world has to be communazis, huh?
You can say that all you like. I'll go back to reading history books, you can go back to watching the person who doesn't trust his audience to read a page.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marvalice3455
I’m sorry, you’re going to have to do better than that to deflect. For one, pointing out that the vast majority of historians and average people want nothing to do with TIK’s ideology is not an “appeal to authority,” i’m merely asking you to actually read the sources you’re attempting to cite, in their entirety. If anything that would be an appeal to popularity, but I’m still not saying “believe because x said so” or “believe because x% of the population agree, but I am instead stating quite openly that maybe you should believe the facts, and the fact that so many have come to the same independent conclusion, in academia and in the general population, lends some support to the idea that it’s not just nazis and marxists that disagree. Further, your entire argument rests on mindlely appealing to the authority of a youtuber while insulting and dismissing studied and peer reviewed historians based on nothing but your dislike of their conclusions. You haven’t given any actual arguments beyond “Everyone I disagree is in on a massive conspiracy to prove me wrong, and this is totally more rational and logical to believe than the idea that I might just be wrong.” And now I have to ask, why are you attempting to deflect to “logical arguments?” This entire comment section is filled with logical argument against your fervent belief that you’re sure to ignore, but this conversation has literally always been about your view of historians and sources. You’re complaining because I stuck to the boundaries of the debate rather than randomly deflecting. And again, I’m not asking you to “submit to an appeal to authority,” I’m asking you to stop making your own, and to stop dismissing facts you don’t like because they come from authorities that prove you wrong. The statement, “...I don't have much respect for that authority's ability to reach conclusions?” especially with the reasoning you outlined, is an admission of fanaticism.
Again, I’ve literally just been responding to your points. These comments are filled with logical arguments you’ve attempted to ignore, but you engaged me in a conversation about authority and citation, a conversation you are now attempting to flee. You can’t even come up with a way to justify your own view, so you have to lie about mine and then deflect to an adjacent subject.
Let me clue you into something. In academia, the concept of skepticism is one well respected. But “skepticism” isn’t the mindless denial of reality, no matter how many times it proves itself. Coming into this with the active impression that academics are all either in on a conspiracy or entirely inept is just as biased and braindead as one who comes into the discussion by citing only names instead of the acts they portray. Your worldview is fundamentally, on a basic level, illogical. Also, refer to prior callouts on your hypocrisy, we can’t keep doing this over and over.
1
-
1
-
@CountSpartula
Lmao, I guess you missed the part where he said it first? Jesus you people really do lack reading comprehension. I've long since stopped finding this remotely surprising, but you could at least attempt to do better to defend the people who last failed at this method.
Also, lol. "I don't care that this conversation was a year ago?" Seems you're unable to properly manage your impulses to respond. The hivemind's that strong, huh?
"Spent a whole year" is a bit of a misnomer. I spent an unfortunate amount of time trying to reach out to a single person who didn't seem able or willing to understand basic reality. Since then, a number of people have replied to me, and I've managed to leave replies for their oh-so-pressing concern. I don't think my "self control" is the problem here, given that I'm not the one replying to a year old argument. I'm just more than willing to answer the pressing questions of my adoring fans, yourself included. I've been quite happy with my life, it's you children who keep roping me back into it, without even the intellect to make it worth my time. You'll notice, for all the supposed "hideous ratios," nobody's managed to actually pick up where the last guy left off. Toodles, bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CountSpartula
Is it, though? Again, I'm only here because you people keep commenting, and because every month there's a new person who wants to tie their ego to an argument that happened over a year ago. For as detached as you claim to be, for as desperate as you are to dismiss my arguments given your inability to refute them, you're the one that keeps trying to push this conversation forwards, and you're the only reason I'm still here.
And sure, sure. Whatever you need to say to yourself. I'm sure, beyond the stakes you're so anxiously defending, you have no stakes here at all. Beyond your rush to claim "no you!" are you aware of what you're typing? What need to I have to "justify?" You've quite literally admitted that your comments are void of purpose or arguments. It seems like you're just unwilling to let this go, because like the first time, letting this lie where it is doesn't look good for you.
What a stellar saying, coming from the person who started this conversation. I'm sure there's no hidden irony in the proud argument-abandoner talking about time wasting or pointless engaging.
1
-
1
-
@CountSpartula
It’s odd that you say that given that your entire presence here is literally just a desperate attempt to score “points” against me, by your own admission. I have to ask, do you have anything worth saying that I haven’t already said before? Can you not even come up with your own insults?
I’m aware you’re not actually scoring any “points” here, but my thanks for confirming it yourself. Your goal, as you’ve plainly stated, is to salvage what little of this conversation that you feel you can. Despite claiming detachment for days now, you continue to seethe and lash out with whatever insults I’ve managed to expose you to, rather than actually acting according to your words. If my “flailing” is your goal, I can see why you’re still here, despite you claiming to have met your goal days ago. This either means that, one, you are lying about your goal, or two, you have not actually met it yet. Any simple examination will point out that the latter is the truth. As you have no way to meaningfully disprove a single thing I say, you decide to take your ignorance on the subject as a point of pride, and proudly declare that you’re just here to get a rise out of someone. The problem there of course is that you’ve failed, and as I’ve continually pointed out your desperate attachment to claiming detachment and your hypocrisy, you’re falling deeper and deeper into childish comebacks in an attempt to salvage whatever ego you can. You tied your sense of worth to an argument someone else lost years ago, and you act as though the pinnacle of apathy is staying there for days, seething in my replies as I point out again and again how desperate you seem for a win.
Also, I’d recommend attempting to think about what you write before you do so. I’m doing “all the moving,” when you’re the one still actively (and by your own admission) trying to start arguments over a year old conversation that shattered your ego? You wouldn’t still be here if you felt you met your goal, and I’m still here because I know that you’re never going to meet it. All I have to do is stay here, spend a few minutes a day writing responses, and yours just keep getting longer and longer, more and more effort spent into trying to claim that you’re putting in no effort at all. The funniest part? You’re now trying to actively argue that you’re incapable of higher intellectual thought, that your entire presence here is an admission of failure, and that is the cornerstone of your justification. You are trying to win the argument that you don’t know how to argue. You’re spending hours thinking of metaphors to justify your inability to stop replying. Is it bait, or are you the snapping dog in question, raging at an unmoving leash as I prove how impossible it is to reach your goal? So yes, I’ll continue feeding you just enough to let you twist yourself into whatever shapes you want, and the whole time, I’ll abide by the same rules. I’m here because I chose to be. You’re here because if you left now, you’d have given up on your last opportunity to hide how pathetic your attempts at retorts have been up to this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulbantick8266
And there you run. You come into a long-concluded argument, are unable to present a single point, and when your attempt at deflections are shut down by the simple fact that they were already attempted and dismantled by another, off you run. Again, not surprisingly, just disappointing. As of yet, you've presented nothing to "counter," just deflected from the fact that you actually have to present an argument to have a debate.
Next time, when you have the opportunity, try reading through the thread before just making assumptions. It helps you to avoid making openly false claims you aren't prepared to back up.
All the best, friend.
1
-
1
-
@xXSCDTXx yes, in reality those things in the field of history make him what is known as a “random person.” If you’ve read the thread you would know that I’ve done more than research on the ideologue in question, but I’m not surprised you didn’t make it that far. He was a salesman, and a poor one at that, with no product to show and no proof his blueprints did anything ever but break down. He didn’t contribute to the field of history remotely. He plainly had an agenda to push, and said agenda is written into the damn titles of his books, and every page contained within. He wasn’t even a particularly important capitalist, he was a spin-off of a spin-off that most people don’t pay attention to today because his ideas don’t appeal to the vast majority of the people that claim a similar ideology to him. You’re admitting here that the only reason you think the nazis were socialists is because capitalists who proudly called eachother socialists said so. No proof, just, they said so. Face it, you don’t know how to argue that the nazis were socialists (because they quite plainly weren’t) so you just say it over and over. Of course they weren’t from Marx, they hated the left. Also, please stop falling for propaganda. They took fascist philosophy from Sorell regarding organization, as did anarchists and capitalists - he was not the primary inspiration of fascism by far, and they rejected socialism openly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidrush333
You're not doing yourself any intellectual favors by just trying to push past being corrected, rather than addressing it. Yes, "classical liberalism" is a right wing ideology, but a) that does not mean all things colloquially called liberalism and the ideas they represent are equally right wing and b) that does not mean that opposition to classical liberalism discounts one from general right wing thought, or even conservatism specifically. In any case, Herbert Croly "founded" certain concepts of "American Liberalism,." but that doesn't mean every word of his was entirely in line with it. It's also worth noting that he died over a decade before the truth of fascism would be laid bare to the world, and his "praise" existed exclusively in the early 1910s and '20s, at the height of Mussolini's attempted populist propaganda. You're also making a key mistake, and assuming that having progressive views means that all of your views are progressive or tied to progressivism. Both Roosevelt and Croly might be considered more in line with the economic left, but this was all done with the aim of shoring up a nationalist myth, and it shows through their foreign policy. In other words, progressive-type action for roundly conservative reasons, hardly out of place in the era. Roosevelt trying to say the two were synonymous, because he appealed to both, does not make it so. Welcome to populism. In any case, the fact that you accuse me of "fail[ing] to acknowledge that the liberal/conservative term changes in American politics" when I was literally the person to point this out to you after you claimed that American liberalism was right wing because someone said French liberalism was, is astounding. How is me pointing out you being incorrect, in a way you admit to, me not being willing to engage in honest debate? Seems like you're looking for an excuse to back out. Anyway, the nazis weren't tied to conservatism because they opposed (classical) liberalism, that connection was forged through many other means, but opposing classical liberalism does not discount one from conservatism. In any case, recognizing the actual history shows that TIK is blatantly incorrect, and your points go even further than his in attempting to rewrite basic history. You and TIK both can only cite irrelevant idealogues, because nobody else even bothers with your ahistorical worldview, so touchingly has it been dismantled. This is worse than just citing people who don't know what you're talking about. At least they can plead ignorance, but here you expect me to take the words of proud salesmen as gospel, merely because you can't stand for them to be wrong.
1
-
@davidrush333
Ah, now you've gone down the deep end. As previously stated, not once but twice, someone disagreeing with one right wing ideology does not disqualify them from being right wing. The monarchists were certainly no fans of early classical liberals, and yet both fall to the right of the spectrum, and both have deep ties to conservatism. But yes, these things are complicated, though you attempt to reduce them down or outright deny them doesn't do you many favors. In any case, drop the buzzwords. Classical liberalism has only been associated with "individualism and limited government" to classical liberals, most others see it as the propaganda it is. Similarly, most others find very little use for the vagaries of concepts like "collectivism" in actual political discussion. These views also aren't centered around the progressive era of american history, but that is far from your worst era. I'm sorry, but progressive labor legislation, economic and social policy all predate eugenicism by decades if not centuries. Further, they are entirely incompatible with eugenics as we understand them to this day. While unfortunately there have been progressives of their era who adopted forms of eugenics into their worldview, progressives were most notably the first and strongest opponents of eugenicism, while "Classical liberalism" and conservatism were the sources of it, the loudest voices advocating for it, and the cause of it existing in the modern day. Not only do progressive policies have nothing to do with eugenics, the very moral foundation of them makes eugenics impossible to adopt by any rational individual, hence the adoption of eugenics into conservatives of the time and the modern era. In fact, the only notably opposition to eugenics from conservatives comes from the ultra-religious, who hated eugenics only because it asserted that they needed a scientific justification for their authoritarian racism, rather than merely a religious one. To sum up, no, despite a history of some (at the time) progressives adopting limited eugeic ideology, this was because of the religiosity of the time, not the policies, as eugenics as a "Science" is entirely incompatible with progressive thought. In any case, no, progressivism did not "adopt the third way economic philosophy," third way economics are quite literally defined as neither progressivism/socialism or libertarian capitalism, and are quite explicitly a right leaning movement that arose in direct contradiction and competition to progressivism. What you just said is like saying that pacifism adopted genocide as a philosophy, it's a contradiction foundational to the terms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Squeeble00
I'm sorry, that isn't true. Yes, you have an inability to understand these positions. And i'm sorry, what? You haven't called anyone a socialist? So I assume the "ones" in your statement "Not to say that the majority of socialists aren't dunces, ones like you certainly fit the bill" must refer to magical gnomes or something? Come on man, take some ownership, stop projecting your biases in opposition to reality. And of course TIK's videos (not just this one of course, as I was previously referencing) are denying the hard work of others, and of course a lot of the "work" he does seems to be devoted to calling those that dare prove him wrong some type of socialist. Of course this isn't just because it exists, it's because of the content of his statements and "work," so please do attempt to stop making up strawman arguments. A sad attempt at denialism will never diminish the work of another, nor does that really have any relevance to the topic at hand. I never said that TIK denying those who prove him wrong actually does anything to disprove them. TIK's work stands, teeters, and falls on its own accord. And I take it you haven't scrolled through the comments? Probably better for you. There are an awful lot of people making some hilariously false claims, regarding biden, the left, democrats, you get the gist. Are you prepared to be honest?
1
-
@Squeeble00
Oh I agree, attempting to address criticism, especially as poorly as TIK does it, does nothing to actually impact the work of his critics, especially when he refuses to even listen to them or their arguments. And there is nothing "safe" about assuming all those who dare disagree with you are socialists, there is something deeply fanatic with that though. I'm sorry that you can't handle your absurdly stupid comments being easily countered and rebutted, but then again, you don't seem to have the reading comprehension skills to even understand how thoroughly you've been "owned." If these socialists use the same arguments as me and adhere to reality again your denialism, then I must commend them, though with a respectful distance. And I see you have utterly failed to read my last response, but again, no surprise. Why did I bring up biden? Well, to point out the way he is used rhetorically by fans of this video, in this very comment section! I've never even claimed that him or drumpf have anything to do with this video, I merely pointed out that this video's "value" comes exclusively in the form of right wing morons who will use it to attack anyone they disagree with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OzixiThrill
so no good reason?
The ability to make a convincing case relies upon your one's ability to actually be convinced.
There's a reason I haven't commented here recently and it's because i've found this audience impossible to convince, no matter the argument.
but feel free to assert whatever you want, I know well that I cannot at all stop you there.
But that isn't a clean and honest discourse. That would be starting from a point of simplicity, showing each side, and working into a true discussion. Asking your opposition to present a whole paper to you before you've even defended a single point is neither clean nor honest, and I have no doubts where this is going to go.
and yeah, sorry for not wanting to deal with this bs again? Oh well, here we go one last time I guess.
I'm pointing out that you're expecting me to do all the leg work of this entire conversation so far as it stands, which isn't quite fair.
For a debate or discussion to take place, both ideas must start on even ground. Demanding, specifically, I provide my piece without a peep of yours does not at all respect that spirit of good faith debate.
1
-
1
-
@OzixiThrill Oh look... it's another guy replying to a month old comment pretending that since they've seen a few threads, they know every argument i've ever made and every citation i've ever given.
How about you stop assuming that i'm as lazy as you, and realize that you're far from the first person that has asked me this, and far from the first person I have answered? Do you really think that after over a year, you're the first person to demand that I make an extremely specific and detailed argument for your benefit alone, that you'll dismiss without a second thought?
The very fact that you assume you know my commenting history because you scrolled through "multiple comments" and evidently didn't bother to read a single one tells me all I need to know.
Oh i'll answer you, but my first question is, on what authority do you demand I do anything? I've presented my points, evidently you've seen them, and you have yet to present a counter. You're trying to set some trap that i've already been exposed to tens of times by other morons that don't actually care about my answer, they just want to pretend I never gave one.
So, as i've done so many goddamn times before, let's go over a few of his comments and a few of the sources for said comments (or lack thereof) and explore a few of the very many reasons that this rabid ideologue is incorrect.
So let's go over his points, one by one, and discuss how they are laughably false, utterly unsupported, betray his intentions or contradict his sources, shall we?
Start:
" It turns out that many of them don’t know the definition of their
own ideology, claiming it has nothing to do with the ‘state’, since Marx and Engels said that
the ‘state’ would ‘wither away’ or ‘die away’."
This is a simple problem of a non-sequitur - not only is TIK conflating socialists with marxists, he is also conflating marxists with strict orthodox marxists and further suggesting that because some theorists of an ideology suggested a state, that said ideology must be statist. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that marx and engels themselves changed views on the supposed eventuality of their system and the best way to achieve it numerous times during their life, and that later Marx even supported the idea that a state need not be established in the first place, as shown by revisions to the Communist Manifesto and his Critique of the Gotha Program.
" First, it requires the setting up of a totalitarian state in order for the totalitarian
state to wither away. Secondly, since a state is ‘of the people’ - meaning, it is the hierarchy
of society consisting of the people - when Marx and Engels say that the state will die away,
they are literally saying that society will die away too. Which means, you no longer have the
hierarchy of society - you have anarchism - and you have every individual fending for himself
in control of his own economy. Individual control of his economy is Capitalism. "
Notice the amount of unsubstantiated assumptions made? He first assumes that said state must be totalitarian, even thought M&E themselves said such a thing was not necessary, refer to previous comment. Second, saying that a state will wither away, or what can be seen as a change in political systems, results in the end of organization of those who made up the previous political system, is absurd. Saying that a state made up of the people will eventually wither away is not saying that said people will be unable to organize or act as a society, ("the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community, an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.") but that there will no longer be a central organization that is made up of the people. TIK also, for whatever absurd reason, assumes that anarchism = no society, which is quite absurd given that no strains of anarchism have ever advocated for a complete destruction of social bonds or organization. It's also odd that he conflates anarchism, a leftist ideology, with capitalism, a term he appears unable to define. He asserts that capitalism is "individual control of his economy," of course ignoring that self-directed economy ("careful management of available resources") is far from unique to capitalism, and that capitalism is not defined by a complete lack of social bonds, but property relations within said social bonds. In short, he somehow thinks that marx advocating for a stateless society means advocating for a lack of society, which is somehow related to capitalism in his mind. Do you see the problem? TIK uses his own definitions and projects them onto historical figures, ignoring the intended meaning and substituting his own. If he defines communism as capitalism, why should we trust him rather than the clear intended meaning of the individuals he is quoting?
"Marx and Engels are calling for totalitarian state-control of
society, knowing full-well that the state won’t wither away at all... More likely, once all power is collected into the hands of Marx
and Engels, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao, they will be in total control and will
dominate every aspect of the lives of the people they have enslaved."
Odd he threw hitler in there, given hitler was a far right anti-socialist. In any case, do you see another problem here? Again he is, without evidence of course, deciding to interpret the intentions of vastly different groups and individuals, all while ignoring what they actually said. If Marx wanted power, why didn't he actually vie for it in any of the major parties of the time? In fact, why do these people want power at all? Does TIK not realize that this individual-dictator control of society contradicts his previous definitions? And most importantly, does TIK not realize that Marx openly advocated for socialist organization through stateless means, and many of those who similarly advocated for stateless systems were explicitly anti-state from the get-go?
1
-
@OzixiThrill "To use Karl Marx’s definition for his Marxist-version of Socialism, socialism is -
“...socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange
with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by
the blind forces of Nature...
This is a lot of fancy language deliberately designed to hide the true meaning of the words.
But, as I explained in detail in the Public vs Private video, the definition is there. To boil it
down into plain language, Marx says socialism is - a group of people, the workers,
controlling the economy together, instead of being ruled by the natural economy.”
This is false for a large number of reasons, even ignoring yet again another baseless call to conspiracy. First off, this isn't Marx's definition of socialism. Marx did not differentiate between socialism and communism, for starters, but this quote is defining neither ideology. Rather, it was on Marx's conception of "The realm of freedom." The actual quote, when it is not suspiciously cut off at the beginning, refers to Marx's notion that an individual can only be free if "labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases," or in other words, if they are not forced or coerced to work. What he's describing here isn't a definition of socialism, but a description of his view on labor and freedom, which can be seen in other quotes.
"It is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he
works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding
of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body – it is, in a word,
the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of
production and of wealth."
The nature he is talking about is not the "natural economy" as TIK describes, which he uses to tie to capitalism. This of course would make no sense, Marx did not consider capitalism any more natural than any ideology before or his ideologies which might come later. No, the "Nature" he references is a term he defines as "totality of needs and drives" as he defines in grundrisse. This makes far more sense when viewing the whole quote, "Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature... Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis." The actual quote is nothing like TIK asserts, it's in fact marx saying that one can only be truly free if they are not forced or coerced to work, and since this is impossible, a truly free society would be one in which the people as a whole work together to fulfil the needs and desires of the society while also ensuring that people are needed to work for as little as possible to support said society. In shorter terms, "shorten working days so individuals can be more free from labor they need to do." While one could read this as a description of potential labor relations under socialism, this is not a definition, as even Marx asserted that to only have this different labor relation would be "crude," would not describe communism/socialism, and would make the community a "universal capitalist." (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) In reality, when asked to define socialism, marx would often refer to, in various translated forms, a "free and equal association of the producers" as the definition, and to see what he would have called socialism (lower stage communism) all we must do is ask.
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another"
A society still marked by capitalism, but replacing capital with labor.
The reason TIK has to claim that this is "fancy language deliberately designed to hide the true meaning of the words" is because TIK is quite literally saying nothing at all like what Marx is.
TIK has this problem frequently. For example, while he correctly points out that socialism predates marxism, he then defines marxism as a type of socialism (it isn’t, it’s a method of historical analysis) and further asserts that class was not fundamental to socialism. This is all false, while a semi-scientific view of class was first introduced by marx, the notions of class conflict and class abolition were the cores of socialist belief long before him. In any case, marx never said the utopian socialists weren’t socialists, he simply disagreed with their methods and goals. It is he who called them socialists, after all. He didn’t create the notion of class and history, he just compiled it from previous sources and examined it. Hitler then came along and openly admitted to using the word socialist without any of the previous ideological attachments of the term. TIK also tries to conflate antisemetism with anti-capitalism, which is a bit… iffy. When you get to the point that you’re saying attacking capitalism, wealth, exploitation, or control through any of those factors, is actually applying all these attacks to jewish people who you’re attacking, you’re only validating nazi conspiracies.
1
-
@OzixiThrill
“And again, a collective is a group,
which is public, which is state.”
Again, leaps on top of leaps in logic. Even accepting TIK’s definitions, taking this as reasoning to declare socialism to be state ownership is silly. Let’s walk through this - First off, assuming that a collective can be described as a form of a state, despite said collective not holding central authority, we still find that this only describes one form of “state.” Let’s call this supposed statist system “social-statism.” We find then that there are versions of statism wholly distinct from “social-statism,” systems based around monarchs, technocrats, despots, ect. Are these the same, organizational-wise, as “social-statism?” Do they call for control by the collective as a whole? Of course they do not, thus defining socialism as state control is including forms of state control that have nothing to do with a ‘social-state.’ Furthermore, TIK here is trying to commit an association fallacy. He is trying to conflate his definition of state with the commonly understood definition. For example, we see that he considers “An organized political community on a piece of territory - such as a collective farm” as a state. This means that say, a group of a couple friends that purchased a piece of property and own it collectively, despite none having supreme authority over any others, is now a “State.” Therefore, statism can be classed as simple human organization. However, TIK attempts to use his definition of statism (human organization) to instances of things that are actually commonly known as state ownership. In other words he defines state as organization, but then defaults back to the common definition of state to assert that a policy of state control is socialist. In this way, his entire argument is either moot or shows his insecurity in his own points. According to his definition of socialism, the very fact that nazi germany had large businesses in power at all made it socialist. It was socialist before the nazis, and remains socialist to this day. However, he knows this is silly, so he first has to define socialism as “State control” (defining state control as social organization) and then referring to actual policies of supposed state control, using the same term but two different definitions - an association fallacy. If I define socialism as state control, and state control as organization, but then point to an actual recognized state supposedly controlling something as evidence said thing was socialist,i’m doing something wrong and either don’t fully believe my definition or am purposefully ignoring it. That would be like defining x as y and y as z but then only using examples of explicit y before your definition, not just z, to support my point. It’s absurd. Another problem TIK frequently has is pretending that words only have one meaning, and ignoring different meanings in different contexts. For example, he always defines “public” one way - state control. Now, this too is absurd. If I have a public party or visit a public address or post on a public social media page, that does not mean that any of those things are state owned. Similarly, a private phone call, a private friends-only party, or a private secret does not mean said things are “individual owned,” as he defines it. The word “public” can describe state ownership, but can also just describe places or things that are readily available to a large number of people, or those people themselves. TIK’s videos are public, and yet they are not state owned.
“Well, for starters, the reason the dictionary
exists is so that you can use it to learn the meanings of words. If you reject the language that
we speak, deciding that words do not mean what they mean, then we’re not going to be able
to communicate. This was the original issue - Socialists didn’t know the true meaning and
definition of Socialism.”
TIK shows off his problem of asserting himself as the sole expert on the subject that he is maliciously incorrect about, but whatever. In any case, again, a few things wrong. First off, the dictionaries are not meant to be studied as gospel, they are meant to reflect usage of terms. If said usage changes, so do the dictionaries, their definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. TIK is the only one that claims that only he knows what words mean, and any changes or other uses must be discarded. TIK decides to ignore this, of course. You see, if the definition of a state is so vague that a lemonade stand could be considered, this definition of state is flawed, since the vast majority of the modern world would consider this a laughable assertion. Said definition is meant to describe those things we all call states, not decide what new things we can call states. And of course its vague, things as complex as countries and governments are hard to easily define. Of course, this isn’t to say that all dictionary definitions are wrong, but just pointing out the fact that making an argument based off of what a dictionary definition can be “technically” read as does not actually connect the two concepts in any meaningful way. There are plenty of great dictionary definitions which actually do line up with usage of the term. This does not, however, give TIK free reign to shut down any criticisms of his usage of terms. If the vast majority of people would describe your definition of “State” as simple human organization, then the dictionary you’re trying to twist to your end doesn’t matter, since you’re trying to conflate a very real concept (state/country/government) with your new usage of the term. (organization) There’s a reason he defines as he does, and it isn’t accuracy. TIK has all sorts of etymological fails like this. He routinely ignores the fact that historical figures often had very different understanding of words than we do, and as pointed out earlier, projects his own understandings of the terms onto people. He also ignores the fact that economics and politics often carry their own set of terms, which have meanings that vary from person to person. Of course this can be confusing as all hell but that’s just the way philosophy and economics has always worked, not some leftist conspiracy. If you ask for the definition of “human nature” a thousand people will give a thousand answers, and if you want to rebut their answer you have to actually use their definition. TIK, of course, fails this. The issue with all of this is that TIK’s redefinitions make communication harder. When someone says “the state under lenin,” as of the current definition, we know exactly what they mean. When someone says “the state under lenin” as according to TIK’s definition, we must ask, which state? Which of the businesses he controlled, which of the committees or subcommittees or organizations or buildings or unions or collectives or friend groups or anticommunist protesters are you talking about? They are after all states, of course, and under lenin. Or, gosh, when TIK talks about the nazi state/party. Which one is he talking about? After all, even before the nazis came to power there were nazi “states,” that is to say large to small businesses controlled by pro-nazi individuals or groups, each with ‘collective power.’ See the problem yet? Add that to the fact that he’d rather use his own definition of socialism than the one socialists have used forever.. And yeah.
1
-
@OzixiThrill “Interestingly, the Fascists and National Socialists also use the
exact same logic to claim that their totalitarian Socialist dictatorships are also the highest
form of democracy.”
Given that they don’t want or produce socialist dictatorships I find this very hard to believe, but TIK seems to have missed the part where fascists and nazis were explicitly against democracy.
“Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy.”
“Democracy is talking itself to death.”
“Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.”
“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!”
“Democracy, the deceitful theory that the * would insinuate - namely, that theory that all men are created equal.”
And so on.
“Similarly, when the workers rise up to collectively take over the factory, they’re a mob that
becomes the state. A dictatorship of the proletariat. They’ve already violently overthrown the
factory owner, so it’s not like they’re unwilling to be violent again.”
This is TIK’s justification for caring more about the “social-states” than the “business-states.” Of course, in this assertion he fails to actually account for the fact that the factory in question was already controlled by violence, and he seems to take that exertion of violence as a natural force that must not be questioned, despite it supposedly being statist by his definition. He seems really concerned about “group tyranny,” but never when that same “tyranny” is exercised by individuals. Nor does he realize that a group being supposedly enslaved… to itself, makes no sense.
“Ultimately, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Hitler is trying to do. On the one
hand, Hitler recognizes that Socialism is the desired outcome, and wants state-control. But
he also sees the dangers of having total-state ownership of the economy. He - and many
other Germans - had seen what the Bolsheviks had done in Russia during and after the
Russian Civil War. They basically killed their own economy through total state-ownership of
the economy.”
This is a case of his source directly contradicting him, though of course, it is this quote that he is responding to, to begin with.
“On the other hand, the activities of private business organizations and the fact that big
business had some power seemed to be grounds for inferring that the Nazis
promoted private property. Privatization, in this analysis, was intended to promote the
interests of the business sectors that supported the Nazi regime, as well as the
interests of the Nazi elites...” The quotes go on.
Now, he openly lies about this quote, saying that “the literature is suggesting that private property was ‘destroyed’” when in reality the quote points to the fact that private property rights were abolished. TIK lying, what’s new. In any case, he further just continues to make things up and make some pretty large and pretty odd leaps in “logic.” For example, a recurring theme in this section is TIK reading a quote on the privatization of business, and noting that the privatization most often benefitted private nazi-aligned individuals, even individuals within the nazi party. He then says this isn’t privatization at all, because these individuals… are a part of the state. In other words, TIK believes that an individual belonging to an organization or agreeing with its views makes it no more than an extension of said organization. He doesn’t understand that, say, organizations were run under nazi reign, even by open nazis, that were not a part of the party or state. TIK conflates nazi ideology with the nazi party, and the nazi party with the nazi state. If one takes this idea into any other context, you see how ridiculous it is. Say, if in america, the republican party came to power. I’m a republican business owner, and they pass legislation that cuts my taxes. Am I now a part of the ruling party? You might say that the degree of power each party asserted was different and therefore they aren’t comparable, but the same truth still stands, does holding an ideology make me a member of a state? Individuals in germany were pumped full of nazi propaganda, does that make the children in the hitler youth government officials? What does this mean for those who supported the nazi ideology and party from outside the country, without citizenship? Are they part of the state too, despite not even being in the country? TIK later asserts that state control must be authoritarian and that socialism is state control, so is that one cooperatively owned farm “totalitarian” to him? TIK doesn’t want to think about this, so again he projects his definition and declares that the author thinks that the nazi party is a private business, rather than understanding that major organizations can contain private individuals. TIK does this projection further with claiming that corporations are “public sector” (to TIK meaning organized) and therefore how independent they were from the german state doesn’t matter… despite trying to previously paint them as one and the same. He asserts that the author is using the marxist definition of capitalism (without proof, and TIK calls every definition he doesn’t like marxist) and thus dismisses the point as “rubbish.” Corporations are organized entities, yes, and they are also private business. The nazi party allowed said private business to function as a private business in the vast majority of its practices, only objecting if it went explicitly against the state. They were working with the nazis because the nazis made it worth their while. Do trade deals now make one a part of the state? TIK also refers to this as “socialization,” ignoring the actual economic definition of the term, as well as the marxist definition of course, deciding to randomly substitute his own confusing revisionist definition. Apparently to TIK, collective means any collective. Finally, TIK has an issue with projecting his own views onto the views of others. For example, while skipping over the wealth of resources on Hitler’s view of private property (as well as his definition of it) TIK asserts that hitler only disagreed with total state ownership because it had failed in russia… despite at the time of hitler’s ideological formation, Russia engaging in a system that was explicitly against total government control. TIK is projecting his own views onto hitler.
“Well, National Socialism attempts to do the same thing. It says that everyone is a member of
their race - you’re born into your racial collective, just like the Marxists think you’re born into
your class collective.
…
There’s no place for individuals in Marxism, and since
class is a socially made-up concept that has no basis in reality, they can reject the idea of
the individual and get away with it.”
Few problems with this - marxists don’t think you’re born into class, while some may argue about the role of birth into, say, wealth relating to your later class, none of them argue that class is literally determined by which class you are born into.
You can disagree with dividing society according to class or examining class relations but claiming class doesn’t exist is quite silly, it’s a social categorization, critiqueable but not rebuttable. Also, Marx doesn’t reject the individual, but whatever.
1
-
@OzixiThrill One of the other clear indicators is TIK’s constant conflation of Keynesians with socialists, which is quite absurd when one actually examines the ideologies. Keynesianism is an ideology that teaches that the best way to maintain and protect capitalism is to allow for government intervention and potential social policy. You can disagree of course, but the simple fact is that keynesianism is a capitalist system of economics, designed around capitalist markets. Which makes statements like “So, Hitler and the Nazis are following a socialist and Keynesian policy” quite absurd, given that TIK is now calling the nazis capitalist-socialists.
“Keynesian” seems to be one of his go-to words for economics or social policies that he disagrees with, just like marxism. Besides his argumentum ad populum fallacies (A lot of people are saying the same thing) the man has a real problem with conspiratorial belief being presented right next to supposed historical arguments. We’ve seen how loose his definition of marxism is and how much he misunderstands fundamental concepts, so when he talks about marxism supposedly being taught in schools, it’s no surprise. He, like his audience, seems to think that any studies or papers on the efficiency of public policy are marxist in nature, that any non-capitalist book (and a fair few capitalist ones) espouse pure marxism. His only evidence for his claims is the statement “which they are,” and he doesn’t seem to realize that his claims openly mirror the nazi party that he is trying so hard to distance himself from.
He asserts that “ socialism is popular amongst the economically illiterate,” a fun talking point sure, but not one that can be asserted as supposed historical fact. He says most historians are “economically illiterate,” not because he thinks they are inept or bad at studying economic history (he openly praises them there) but because they disagree with his definitions. Actually, sorry, “disagree” is a strong word. In reality, they aren’t aware of his conspiratorial revisionism because they’re actual experts that actually deal in history, not crackpot youtubers trying to make money off of their ideological fanaticism. His issue is that the world is not centered around his ideology, when his ideology is so far to the fringe right that most of those in this comment section openly disagree with his views when actually watching said video. He has to provide this conspiracy to have any sort of backing for his claims.
In any case, let’s get to the final meat. First, topics of hitler’s views and the holocaust. Second, historians and TIK’s denialism.
“Hitler wanted to socialize the people into a racial-community (a
Volksgemeinshaft) by removing the Jews from society. Hitler’s socialism was
his racism.”
Firstly, socialism is defined by “community as a whole,” not “one random community.” The concept of “race socialism” is impossible. With that out of the way, the idea that hitler wanted to create a “Race-community” is absurd, given that many of the victims of his purges and concentration camps were members of “the race,” who were arrested or killed for reasons apart from racial identity, such as political views, age, disability, sexuality, hell even being accused of being lazy. The only “community” he desired was his party, and remember, if you define socialism as “party control” and define party and state like TIK do, all countries and movements are just as if not more “socialist” than the nazis. In any case, hitler’s desire to remove jewish people wasn’t based on a desire to “socialize” the people, for two reasons. One, his use of socialization here is incoherent. Socialization has three primary definitions: to pass on social characteristics, to make socially owned, (social ownership being defined as ownership by the collective/community as a whole) or in marxism, the inevitable centralization of labor under capitalism that happened post-industrial revolution. None of these terms at all line up with TIK’s usage. Was hitler’s goal to pass down values and social views? Sure, but most ideologies have that goal, and they aren’t nazis. Was he calling for a greater inter-production of supplies and supply chains? No, he was quite literally cutting his country off from those. So that’s the first and third down, what about the second? Well, it’s the most likely, and yet the most incorrect when examined. Imagine that, hitler wanting to “socialize the people,” meaning put the people… under social control. Have the community as a whole governed by… themselves. In other words, anarchism. Does hitler seem like an anarchist to you? No? Than none of these statements apply to him in the slightest, and using “socialize” here makes no sense. Hitler did not believe that removing jewish people would result in any socialization, nor did he want a coherent in-group besides his party to turn production over to. TIK’s attempted equation here makes no sense. Two more things, the concept of Volksgemeinshaft had been promoted by conservatives for years before hitler’s reign and also, marx doesn’t want to “socialize the workers,” he points out that labor is socialized under capitalism (as in done as a society with supply chains and interconnected labor, not social control) and that the workers are not paid or compensated socially. TIK is grabbing terms out of context and using them to justify frankly absurd statements, his explanations of the terms are false.
His whole goal with this line of thinking is to support the absurd “race socialist/class socialist” narrative, which makes no sense considering that marx did not “add” class into socialism, it was already a fundamental part of the ideology and was only refined by marx. Hitler did not want a collective in control. Marx’s “socialization” referred to labor under capitalism. Can TIK get one thing right??
1
-
@OzixiThrill “In reality, given what we have just seen, it would be fair to say that Socialism is inherently anti-Semitic.”
Of course, it wouldn’t be. TIK here conflates socialism with marxism, and marxism with the views of marx. Erasing the contribution of hundreds of jewish socialists is an odd thing to do for one so worried about antisemetism.
“Also, this idea that Marxism has nothing to do with race is equally incorrect.”
TIK’s only proof to this point is marx as an individual being racist, of course providing no proof that marxism as a method or the ideologies that spawned from it carried his individual bigotry.
“Denying Hitler’s Holocaust, or denying Hitler’s socialism, is the same thing. It is
denying History.”
And here it is. The big one. The one that TIK rightfully got a shit-ton of backlash for, notably from his jewish fans, for this piece of utter, holocaust-minimizing garbage. He should be ashamed that his ideology is helping to deny the holocaust.
TIK has, through a web of twisted “logic,” wholly artificially constructed definitions, and the tearing out and twisting of terms, somehow decided that to point out the nazis anti-socialism… is to deny the holocaust. This was truly a desperate move. No rational person would make this argument, given it’s absurdity, and especially given the antisemetic implications of it. First off, TIK blames marxists, somehow, for holocaust denialism. TIK points towards those who correctly label the nazis as far right and against socialism, and knowing that he cannot disprove their historical points, he attempts to attack them on their assertion of said points to begin with. No, no holocaust deniers are saying “If hitler wasnt’ a socialist, the holocaust didn’t happen.” Not a single one. There’s a reason he doesn’t cite any actual holocaust deniers, simply because this assertion is one he wholly made up. This supposed “massive hole” exists wholly in TIK’s head and rather than come to terms with the clear contradiction, he weaponizes it and blames others for his own ideological contradiction that weakens the arguments against holocaust deniers. TIK, of course, does not care that his hatred of marxism and belief in conspiracies run by marxists is in line with nazi ideology. TIK, of course, does not care that these videos appeal to the very people who are recreating modern-day nazism. TIK, of course, does not care that his ideological narrative allows people to argue against the existence of the holocaust, or worse, advocate for another one. He doesn’t care about any of this, he only cares about his political views. The reality is that hitler wasn’t a socialist, that “socializing the people” is a nonsensical chain of buzzwords with no basis in definitions or hitler’s own beliefs, that hitler had no desire to create a concrete community out of his own victims, and that hitler’s rationale for the holocaust, unlike what TIK asserts, was not one with “rational” intent. He’s unable to prove that the “marxists” are helping to deny the holocaust, because of course, they aren’t. He is.
TIK assumes that they holocaust deniers use the same definitions he does, and believes the same goal of nazi germany that he asserts, so he assumes that asking if they were socialists is the same as asking if they supported genocide of jewish individuals. This of course is nonsensical and disgusting, for a number of reasons. First, TIK himself denies the actual ideological basis of the holocaust. He asserts that the goal was to “socialize the people,” or as TIK tries to redefine that phrase, create a community of the remaining germans. Not only is this not true, it still would not explain his antisemetism, which opens a wide door to holocaust deniers. TIK tries to assert that the ideology behind the holocaust had a “rational” explination, that is that Hitler had a core economic ideology, however horrible, and that his genocide was a “rational” result of said ideology. In doing so, you open up the door to hundreds of “rational” answers that make much more sense than TIK’s, and sadly, when viewing the holocaust through the lens of economic ideology and “rationality,” Hitler’s actions make little sense. Only when viewing the truth do they show their true form. If your only response to a holocaust denier is to ask if hitler was a socialist, you will lose that argument. Murdering jewish people had nothing to do with socialism, nor did it have to do with any set of economic beliefs that hitler held. Hitler’s antisemetism was a pure result of the right, the anti-socialist movement TIK defends, that particular bigotry reaching back decades. TIK’s statement, “But, if Hitler didn’t murder the
Jews, he couldn’t have been a socialist or wanted to create a racial-community. I
guess he wasn’t a REAL National Socialist then, and that National Socialism doesn’t
promise to build a racial-state.” is nonsensical. Hitler didn’t want to create a racial-community, as he punished and purged said community before, after, and during the holocaust, you’re litterally taking his propaganda on it word. TIK asserts that this would end class conflict in the germans, ignoring hitler’s praise and reinforcement of class conflict. Hitler committing his genocide has nothing to do with socialism, he had no desire to “socialize his race” as you put it, and as holocaust deniers will no doubt point out, the extermination of the millions that hitler killed is not necessary if that were his goal. And congratulations, you’ve lost an argument to a holocaust denier. “But, if Hitler didn’t murder the
Jews, he couldn’t have been a socialist…” This line of argument is so bad I just have to dwell on it. A holocaust denier could easily say that he could have been a socialist without mass murder, they could point out that a national community did not require said murder, they could point out the cost and resource loss associated with the extermination of millions of innocent people that would have hurt the nazis had this been “rational” as TIK asserts. He’s trying to project his ideology and by doing so jeopardizes the whole damn argument. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, and he was an antisemetic far right genocidal prick. He can’t be both a socialist and the perpetrator of the holocaust.
TIK’s happiness with this supposed point is just sad. Does he actually think people will “squirm” if you come back at them with this? Has he ever actually tried this? The foundation of their denialism and ideology remains untouched, you’ve just given them an amazing opening to continue denying the horrible crimes of their ideology. It took me a few minutes to come up with basic counters, and he’s expecting this argument to work against those who spend hours a night combing the internet with pages of propaganda, trying to spread a narrative?
Hitler didn’t want to socialize the people, removing jewish people wouldn’t do this, and none of this corresponds with socialism. TIK’s desperation here is evident, his entire push here is based solely off of ideology and his hatred of those who dare try to correct him. That’s why this video is structured the way it is, it isn’t meant to educate, but to clap back at all the people he disagrees with. He’s given up even the pretense of a rational debate and just started biting people. He doesn’t even realize that class and ethnicity are fundamentally unrelated and different concepts, and that equating the holocaust with the abolition of class society is, again, an effort of holocaust minimization. By denying hitler’s anti-socialism, you are denying the victims of the holocaust, denying the ideology of the holocaust, and denying the very event itself.
And, the final part.
1
-
@OzixiThrill TIK’s comments on “the historians” are great examples of all that i’ve discussed above. He writes off their comments, not based on any reason, but with flippant accusations of ignorance or political bias. TIK’s definition of socialism is so wide that one could write a book about a band of friends that started a business and TIK would call it socialism. That’s the only way that he’s able to deny the findings of the historians like Richard Evans, Ian Kershaw, or any of the other historians he attempts and fails to refute. TIK must assert to “pages after pages” of socialism being shown, but he’s unable to actually describe socialism.
His response to a paragraph pointing out hitler’s opposition to the major socialist and communist parties of the time?
“Nothing to do with socialism.”
When Evans explains the history of class in socialism, and how the nazi ideology did not come from any similar analysis?
“Socialism has nothing to do with class.” See, the problem is that TIK defines all socialism as marxism, which leaves plenty of room in the label “socialism” to add in a few very much anti-socialist ideologies. To TIK, socialism and anti-socialism are just mere variants of socialism. He asserts that evans, the historians that actually provided evidence for his claims, is wrong… just because.
His response when evans points out that the nazis were a counter movement to socialism while in opposition to the moderate right?
“You mean marxism.” No, TIK, no he does not. He means socialism. TIK calls socialism marxism. TIK also ignores the fact that the nazis were hostile to all of the leftist parties at the time, of course trying to compare this to leftist parties disagreeing among themselves but having no basis to make that comparison.
The reality is that TIK does not really care about the definition of socialism. He asserts without evidence, that his sources from Tooze to Evans don’t know what socialism actually is, and that only he, a random youtube, is privy to that information. Socialism does predate marxism, yes, but TIK seems to define all socialism as marxism and seems eager to replace the word socialism with marxism when the actual definition of socialism is referenced, or when the history of socialism is brought up past his own elementary understanding of it. I mean, hell, he doesn’t even realize that there is no set economic ideology to either nazism or fascism, and chooses to define both by their economic policy rather than what actually set them apart from past movements. Socialism is control by the community as a whole. Nazism rejects that, preferring private control bribed to support the party. Fascism is much the same, preferring private control that is bribed to serve the interests of the nation. I mean, TIK literally thinks “feminist-socialism” is a concrete ideology that fits into his little namin scheme here. The problem is that TIK reads about socialism, and then assumes marxism. And when authors and historians correctly define and reference both terms, he gets a bit pissy. TIK would rather take his own ideology on its word than just once consider that the people who spent decades researching the economy of nazi germany might just know what they’re talking about.
Let me restate this - TIK’s entire argument is just him saying “all of these people? They’re wrong.” These historians list out the specific ways that nazism aren’t socialism, but rather than do his homework, TIK has elected to believe only his definition and never question why nobody else seems to actually use it. The reason he disagrees is because he doesn’t actually know the definition of the term socialism. He keeps asserting that “the historians provide evidence for my interpretation” but never actually explains why his interpretation is supposed to make logical sense. His interpretation is entirely dependant on defining socialism as human organization, of course the historians support this end because they could be describing any state in existence and it would. When the terms are actually taken on their definition though… that’s when he runs into a problem. Funny how the few actual historians he can get to support his view all have similar, manufactured definitions of socialism, not in line with history or common usage.
Oh, but his first paragraph of part five is just hilarious, the whole thing is really. TIK sits there, thinking as to why he’s come up with this amazing, brilliant new argument. He sifts through a huge pile of papers, sources and quotes, and sees that none of the actual historians in the field agree with him. His first response, like any rational human of course, is to blame the entirety of academia for secretly being socialists and to praise those who (for literally any reason at all) disagree. The living embodiment of the “No, it’s the kids who are out of touch!” meme. Like, gee man, I wonder why after writing all this, these people came to different conclusions than you, a “history” youtuber. Could it be that they don’t have the bias you do? That they have access to more research, experience, and history than you do? Could it be that in reality, they’ve all looked into the definitions of the words, all looked at the evidence of their own books, and all read necessary material to understand the topic, and still disagree with TIK? Well, it can’t be his fault, right? I mean, the guy who called WW2 a socialist civil war, and forgot about hitler not getting legitimately elected, couldn’t be wrong, right? It’s academic’s error, not his, right?
Right.
And god, this was just the start.
Sorry, hitler was a right wing anti-socialist.
Also, in regard to your last question. Why are you assuming that TIK, the guy who spends literal hours of this video just arguing against socialism and against the modern left, doesn’t have a conflict of interest when claiming that the nazis were socialists?
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 As we've been over, what favorable and positive comments? You've simply posted quotes that show that Hitler defined socialism as nationalism. Yes, he supported nationalism. But where is the socialism, child? Oh, wait, you don't want to hear what the man actually thought of socialism.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
Why do you want to deny the unfavorable and negative comments but the evil mass murderer, anti-socialist Adolf Hitler on socialism?
1
-
@mitscientifica1569 You mean how h*tler rejected marxism utterly, and used its spread to justify his horrific purges? You do realize that denying h*tler's hatred of marxism is denying his stated reasoning for the murder of millions of people, right? Why do you wish to push denial of the greatest crime on this earth, and why do you do it with no shame? The man flew banners that endlessly called for a forceful and bloody death of marxism, he fought a war of propoganda with marxism on the other side. Why do you hate history?
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“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.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
After all, one of the stated reasons he gave for the supposed failure of the Weimar republic was their reliance on marx. It was, after all, the marxist parties that the nazis had purged first. In reality, the man was far more anti-marxist than you could ever be. "The... 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. "
His differences with the communists, he explained, were at the very backbone of his ideology.
And I agree, he revealingly added that he despised marxism, felt it was the bane of a civilized world, and was quite open about it supposedly devaluing the personality in man, denying the things hitler based his entire ideology on. Why is it that you hate the simple fact that the nazi cause was about as opposed to marx as one can get?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HablaCarnage63
I'm not wrong though, and accusing me of that with zero backing, yes, is an insult. And you just described a baseless conspiracy theory while trying to assert it was anything but. Ironic.
My "head" follows the facts. I suppose that's something you aren't quite familiar with?
Basic searches, and get this, advanced searches and research finds that the system of classification in question still does hold merit, hence why it is still used by professional scholars studying political movements. While it's far from perfect by itself, it is not worthy of abandonment.
But of course, the notion that someone might actually research their points to come to conclusions is totally alien to you, so you project your own egotistical assumptions onto my logical arguments
I'm sorry, but again, that's simply false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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.
//:/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sprite Cola *So you openly admit that what you call "socialist programs" are programs that may or may not have nothing to do with socialism? You have yet to prove your assertion that all government programs are socialist.
And your comments literally never once address my arguments. I never said socialism requires multiple unions, but I pointed out that the GLF was a "union" created with the sole goal of destroying all other unions and all hope of collectively bargaining. The GLF's goal was to outlaw unions in all but name.
Not all socialism is statist, and you not recognizing this is only the fault of ideologues like you who refuse to engage with historical fact, only your own ideologically biased perceptions. And no, the only way to have "collective ownership" has never been by a state, it literally exists in absence of a state. And thank you for again trying to reinforce your strawman about "multiple unions" that you seem to not understand.
#1. I really couldn't care less what you, a fascist-adjacent individual, thinks of anarchists. Fascists have always hated anarchists and called their ideas impossible, and it seems that you aren't any sort of an exception.
#2. That's not evidence though? That's just literally you asserting that "social programs are communal society programs" but that literally doesn't follow, not every social program in existence seeks to have any control, or even benefit, for the "collective."
So, that isn't proof. You call it proof because you know you have none, so you make some up.
Saying socialists care about a "collective" any more than capitalists, or religious people, or nationalists (ect) do is just false. At least you can admit that socialism is defined by the means of production being in the hands of community as a whole though... not the state. Which means you're admitting all previous "points" by you are false.
So, no, social welfare isn't "communal," it isn't run by the community, or under the direct control of it. Neither is healthcare, or social security. "Collective over the individual" has never been the goal of socialism, we've been over this, but you are quite literally just listing capitalist policies and calling them "socialist" because you don't like them.
And of course we've been over this, the nazis openly encouraged privatization and competition between nazi-friendly companies. They weren't socialists, and you know this.
#3. The "germans," the community of germany as a whole, owned nothing. That community was too busy being in prison or in ditches to "own the means of production." Hitler was a dictator, yes, but being a dictator doesn't mean wanting centralized economies. Have you ever heard of Pinochet? No, wait, I don't think you've ever really even heard of hitler, why would I assume you knew the first thing about right wing dictators.
The nazis delegated control of labor to companies, same with most medical care and industry, as Hitler openly admitted he despised state control and centralization. These are facts you know you cannot refute, so you ignore them and continue on, baselessly asserting your nonsense.
#4. The vast majority of anarchists, just like the vast majority of capitalists, recognize the objective far right anti-socialist ideology of the nazis. I, unlike you, have brought up evidence to prove my points, while you only have insults. Thank you for proving me right. You can't even comprehend that your ideological allies are in agreement with you, despite openly sharing their ideas.
#5. Bernie is a capitalist, as is AOC. That's why they only promote capitalist politicians, they promote moderate welfare policies found in capitalist nations, and they have never preached the goal of putting the means of production in the hands of the community as a whole... the definition of socialism. So, the problem is, you pretend that everyone you dislike is a socialist, despite how stunningly different their policies are, and the fact that none of them fit the definition of socialist you admitted to. At least you're consistent.
Bernie has openly condemned the USSR, and AOC supports programs that are, again, found in various forms in capitalist nations the world over. The New Green Deal was only "admitted" to be about socialism in the eyes of antisemetic fascists, and their sympathizers
"#6. I'm sorry, but, you aren't a centrist. You have quite literally, without meaning to, paraphrased both hitler and mussolini already. You call yourself a centrist to deal with the fact that you seem to exclusively agree with the far right, while labelling anyone you don't like a leftist. You don't see a problem with that?"
I know the left from the right, in fact, I grew up right wing. Conservative, then libertarian. After a while, the right started to go off the rails, their ideas got more and more divorced from reality. So I, like every other rational right winger, left. You who remain only seek to further your extremism and victimize yourself, all while ignoring history in the pursuit of your own emotion.
I couldn't care less about "liberals vs conservatives," the US just shows us that the two groups are hardly different. In any case, every conservative i've ever seen has been an emotionally driven, ideologically closed extremist. Like yourself.
The right despises individual expression and thought when it goes against their values.
And I do happen to wonder why diverse areas that are more advanced are more left wing. What a mystery.
#7. Welfare is literally thousands of years older than socialism. Again, even ancient rome had a comprehensive welfare system. Social programs aren't socialist, that's why most social programs exist under capitalist states. At this point, you are utterly refusing to even elaborate on your ahistorical nonsense.
Socialists don't advocate "making everything a social program," as we've been over, social programs have nothing to do with community control of the means of production. Germany privatized and cut down on its own social programs that existed back when it was a capitalist state, how does reducing social programs from capitalism... make socialism? The germans despised social programs, they literally ran on denying it to people. So no, they weren't socialists at all, nor is that the definition of socialism, as you yourself have admitted.
#8. Socialism doesn't come from marxism, socialism existed before marx, and anti-marx socialism is as common as bugs in summer.
Anti-marxism is what's known as fascism, as its fascism who has presented itself as the ultimate, far right anti-marxist, anti-socialist ideology. The only ones who refuse to recognize these facts are the ones who would follow fascism by any other name.
You refuse to admit that your ideological allies are so, even though you agree with their policies by any other name. Just admit what you already know, what i've been telling you, kid.*
1
-
@UltraKardas
I agree! socialism is when property is owned and managed by the community. As in, the community must actually be the one to manage it, not just some random person who claims to represent the community. If that were the case, then capitalism would be socialist.
Aaaand there's your problem. Government doesn't represent the community, especially a totalitarian government infamous for mass murder, ethnic repression, and oppression of those who actually did want community ownership.
The nazis were not socialists. Not only did the state not own or significantly manage the economy, but the community had no say in the state, had no say over how owned property was used or anything similar.
The nazis gave the unions and the healthcare to private investors, champ.
And I agree - they repressed the community. they murdered the community. They managed, restricted, and repressed the community. So how did the community own the means of production, again?
Private ownership of the means of production in nazi germany was, as we've been over, rampant. You seem to not be able to address this fact, so you simply keep asserting the opposite. It was not the anti-socialist nazis or their party who controlled the industry, but private bosses and owners, nationally and internationally. This is a basic fact of their economy
A leader doesn't make a country socialist champ.
So yes, the nazis weren't socialists! Surprise! A middle schooler could tell you that the far right anti-socialist nazis were far right and anti-socialist, but of course that's a little fact you skip over.
Get a brain, dude. Or at least make better arguments.
1
-
@UltraKardas
I agree, authoritarianism is on a different scale to political lean. However, I hate to break it to you, a dictatorship that does not represent the people can never be socialist, by definition.
Fascism is a right leaning ideology, as you well know. First you have centrism, further to the right are the libertarians and conservatives, and furthest are the monarchists, voluntaryists, and fascists, at the edge of the political right. These systems are naturally hierarchical, and anti-leftist.
Fascism is based on the principle of domination over the weak, a very similar one to capitalism and conservatism. They simply disagree, and say the state should also be a part of that process. But of course, you knew that already.
Socialism doesn't even require centralization, and communism is by definition stateless, but again these are all facts you should already have known if you would have ever actually researched these issues yourself, or even just listened to people who knew what they were talking about, like the historians i've cited.
That's why when you look at conservatives and fascists, they all promote the same type of authoritarian right wing populism, and a rejection of leftism, which usually results in authoritarian dictators that are wholly supported at the right.
But of course, that is something you knew, you being sympathetic to fascists yourself.
This is a fact you can't even deny at this point, as you have admitted to it yourself.
Fascism is opposed on all fronts to socialism and communism, and is on the same political side as conservatism. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth, as fascism and conservatism are based on the same fundamental ideas.
So to break it into you. yes. Nazi's were anti-socialists. They took ideas from those who rejected socialism, then turned fascist Mussolini. The Nazi's were anti-socialist, and they always will be.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Alright then. You claim jester is right? Prove it.
Quote one passage from me, and then point out where in the next response to me you addressed this point, with citation and fact. Prove I never responded, or never addressed your arguments. Oh wait... you can't do that. Because both you and jester are liars, as anyone can see from the fact that I quite literally respond to both of you line by line. And of course, a state capitalist country is by definition anti-socialist.
When have I ever denied that Mussolini used to be a socialist? Of course he was, which is why I point out that when he became a fascist, he rejected his old socialist beliefs, showing that fascism is a rejection of socialism by the right. And yes, hitler, another far righter, borrowed from Mussolini's policy. You then here just jump into an endless tirade on insults, but not a single coherent point or example is made or given. This is further proof that you know you're a liar. And yes, the economies of both fascist italy and nazi germany were fundamentally different, which is why they had so much social and ideological tension.
State Capitalism is when the government acts as a private entity, managing property and workers in accordance with other private entities. It really isn't that hard, it is in the name after all. The state is the company, champ, and it works first and foremost for profit.
So yes, just like in a company, you need the permission of the board of directors to make a choice.
Nazi Germany was anti-socialist, and given the fact that i've written page upon page proving this, whereas you only give me a few paragraphs of insults, we can determine this is objectively the fact. And I'm not surprised nobody in TIK's comment section is willing to even read my responses, you're all far too brainwashed. The nazis centralized the means of production in the owning class, with the backing of the state.
The nazis were anti-socialist, and this is a fact. You assert the opposite, but not once have you responded to a single one of my points, or cited a single historians who backs up your assertions. Rather, you repeat the same nonsense. For example, you keep repeating that "Everything in germany was owned by the state!" but you have never cited this fact, and when I quote historians showing otherwise, you never respond. So yes, the nazis were much like you. And the fact is, you can't handle the truth. No matter how badly you try to run from it.
1
-
@UltraKardas
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Do you really know that little about the history of the anti-socialist nazi party?
The nazis abolished all socialist parties, when they rose to power undemocratically. They never had a voting base larger than 30% of the population
The community was not the government, the community was repressed by the government. Socialists were despised by the government, as were gay people, trans people, leftists, unionists, disabled people, and so on. Those people were part of the community, did the nazis represent them?
You are quite literally engaging in holocaust denial, nazi fanboy.
The community was repressed, by an anti-socialist party that came to power without the consent of the people, and operated against their wishes. A party composed entirely of anti-socialists, like you.
Do you believe that the average individual was represented by the nazi government?
1
-
@UltraKardas
I'm sorry, but copy pasting my point just proves me right.
Where did I say that Mussolini was a former socialist? Literally in the response you replied to. "When have I ever denied that Mussolini used to be a socialist? Of course he was, which is why I point out that when he became a fascist, he rejected his old socialist beliefs..."
And of course I am not wrong about WW2 Italy and WW2 nazi germany not having the same economy, you have yet to prove me wrong.
And I have not been wrong about nazi germany, as I have cited historians, economists, and the nazis themselves proving you wrong.
The definition of socialism is "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." community as a whole. Was the average worker, the average jewish person, the average gay person, were they represented by the nazis? Hm?
The nazi welfare system? Literally scaled down from what it had been under capitalism, managed by corporations and government allies, and only for specific groups, not the community. It was literally the opposite of communal welfare. Were jewish people allowed to use this welfare? Private welfare was all that remained.
Nazi healthcare? Again, scaled down an more restricted than what it had been under capitalism, how is that socialist? It denied access to the old, weak, sick, jewish, gay, trans, ect. How is that by the community, for the community?
I won, which is why you are unable to respond to my question. You literally can't cite a single time I haven't responded to you with facts and citation. The nazi party by definition isn't socialist, and to call it socialist means you are denying the genocide against jewish people, gay people, romani people, leftists, unionists, and the repression of the whole population. The other person stopped arguing because I had already proven you wrong.
He saw the facts. He saw the logic. He knew he won the argument, but that you would never admit it.
One day, you'll face reality. You'll stop denying the holocaust, and you'll be able to admit that the far right anti-socialist nazi party... was far right and anti-socialist.
Let's see if you can even counter a single fact i've given you here. With citation.
1
-
@UltraKardas Maybe some cold hard facts, cited yet again, will shut you up for good, nazi fanboy.
"Thus, the main difference between the Nazi war-related economy and Western war-related economies of the time can be detected only by an analysis that transcends economics."
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
"The Nazi government 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴. Privatization was also probably used to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 ... Privatization was used as a tool to pursue political objectives and to 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵"
"During the war Göring said it always was his aim to let private firms finance the aviation industry so that private initiative would be strengthened."Even Adolf Hitler frequently made clear his opposition in principle to any bureaucratic managing of the economy, because that, by preventing the natural selection process, would "give a guarantee to the preservation of the weakest average [sic] and represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value, thus being a cost to the general welfare."
- GERMÀ BEL
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
“'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45).
"According to Roger Griffin, fascism can be defined as a revolutionary species of political modernism originating in the early twentieth century whose mission is to combat the allegedly degenerative forces of contemporary history (decadence) by bringing about an alternative modernity and temporality (a ‘new order’ and a ‘new era’) based on the rebirth, or palingenesis, of the nation. Fascists conceive the nation as an organism shaped by historic, cultural, and in some cases, ethnic and hereditary factors, a mythic construct incompatible with liberal, conservative, and communist theories of society. The health of this organism they see undermined as much by the principles of institutional and cultural pluralism, individualism, and globalized consumerism promoted by liberalism as by the global regime of social justice and human equality identified by socialism in theory as the ultimate goal of history, or by the conservative defense of 'tradition' (Anton Shekhovtsov "Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir" ‘Fascism and the Far Right Series’ p. xxi-xxii).
century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1).
"After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 251).
The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century" (Benito Mussolini "The Ideology of the Twentieth Century: Political and Social Doctrine" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 253).
"Most people of the current generation lack a sense of the historical sweep of the intellectual side of the right-wing collectivist position. It represents the revival of a tradition of interwar collectivist thought that might at first seem like a hybrid but was distinctly mainstream between the two world wars. It is anti-communist but not for the reasons that were conventional during the Cold War, that is, because communism opposed freedom in the liberal tradition. Right-collectivism also opposes traditional liberalism. It opposes free trade, freedom of association, free migration, and capitalism understood as a laissez-faire free market. It rallies around nation and state as the organizing principles of the social order—and trends in the direction of favoring one-man rule—but positions itself as opposed to leftism traditionally understood" (Jeffrey Tucker "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty" 2017 digital: loc. 105).
"Perhaps the best definition [of fascism] comes from Robert Paxton professor emeritus at Columbia University and holder of the Legion d’Honneur, despite all the books he has written on wartime France’s pro-Nazi Vichy regime. Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism analyzes the stages by which 20th century fascisms rose and fell. It should be essential reading for any student of fascist movements, and especially for anyone thinking of founding one. Fascism, Paxton says, is a dynamic process, rather than a fixed ideology like socialism or communism. There are five steps on Paxton’s road to hell, and not all fascist parties made it past the second step" (Dominic Green "The Elusive Definition of 'Fascist'" ‘The Atlantic’ 2016 web)
Unlike them [“liberalism, conservatism, and socialism”], fascism does not rest on formal philosophical positions with claims to universal validity” (Robert Paxton “The Five Stages of Fascism” ‘The Journal of Modern History’ 1998 Vol. 70, p. 4).
1
-
@UltraKardas "Fascism, by contrast [to liberalism, & socialism], was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by the use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. …Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. …Fascism is 'true' insofar as it helps fulfill the destiny of a chosen race or people or blood, locked with other people's in a Darwinian struggle, and not in the light of some abstract and universal reason" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16).
"This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
“ Above all, it was by offering an effective remedy against socialist revolution that fascism turned out in practice to find a space. If Mussolini retained some lingering hopes in 1919 of founding an alternative socialism rather than an antisocialism, he was soon disabused of those notions by observing what worked and what didn't work in Italian politics. His dismal electoral results with a Left-nationalist program in Milan in November 1919 surely hammered that lesson home.”
“Above all Mussolini bested D'Annunzio by serving economic and social interests as well as nationalist sentiment. He made his Blackshirts available for action against socialists as well as against the South Slavs of Fiume and Trieste. War veterans had hated the socialists since 1915 for their "antinational" stance during the war. Big planters in the Po Valley, Tuscany, Apulia, and other regions of large estates hated and feared the socialists for their success at the end of the war in organizing the bracianti, or landless laborers, to press for higher wages and better working conditions. Squadrismo was the conjunction of these two hatreds.”
“... Long after his regime had settled into routine, Mussolini still liked to refer to the "Fascist revolution." But he meant a revolution against socialism and flabby liberalism, a new way of uniting and motivating Italians, and a new kind of governmental authority capable of subordinating private liberties to the needs of the national community and of organizing mass assent while leaving property intact. The major point is that the Fascist movement was reshaped in the process of growing into the available space. The antisocialism already present in the initial movement became central, and many antibourgeois idealists left or were pushed out. The radical anticapitalist idealism of early Fascism was watered down, and we must not let its conspicuous presence in early texts confuse us about what Fascism later became in action.”
"There was no space in Italian politics for a party that was both nationalist and Left."
- Robert Paxton, “Anatomy Of Fascism.”
Are you ready to admit you're wrong yet, nazi fanboy?
1
-
@UltraKardas Amazing. In all of those quotes, all of those fascists, nazis, and historians telling you exactly how wrong you are about nazi beliefs... you still manage to apologize for them. So, why are you such a nazi fanboy? Why do you put so much effort into denying the genocide of the nazis? Why do you pretend that your ideological allies are socialists?
You lost this argument the first time you responded to me.
I quoted multiple figures, but I suppose you would actually have to read said quotes to figure that out.
"In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to ***organizations within the party***."
Exactly! It isn't socialism... because it was literally transferred to private, anti-socialist organizations. So does this make it socialism when any group holds a political opinion in line with the government in power? Are you really going to argue that privatization is socialist?
I'm sorry, but no part of "policy meant to privatize public land and take it away from worker control" is socialist. By the few, against the community.
And yes, i'm sorry, but the definition of socialism (for the third time, you seem to be a bit slow) is "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." The only way to argue the nazis were socialists is to say they represented their whole community. Which includes jewish, gay, trans, ect people.
And i'm sorry, but you just proved my point. Even at the height of the nazi party, when it already controlled the vast majority of the government... only 1 in 8 could claim to be members. Of course, they rarely had any power, that was given to the higher ups. So tell me, is 1 in 8 "the community as a whole? If you were at a party of eight, and only one was asked their order for food, would you claim that you were represented?
And of course, the anti-socialist nazis had some competition, including the left wing capitalist Social Democratic party,
"Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (USPD) — "Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany" - left-wing faction that had split from the SPD in 1917. Parts of it split off, forming the Communist Party, while the majority reunited with the MSPD in 1922. It was a Marxist party that sought change through parliament and social progressive programs."
You also had one of the key socialist parties, besides the KPD.
"Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands (SAPD) — "Socialist Workers' Party of Germany" - left-wing faction that had split from the SPD in 1931. Parts of the USPD and dissenters from the KPD and the KPO joined it, but it remained small. Its political positions were near to those of the USPD, wavering between the SPD and the KPD. "
Funnily enough, both of these parties were outlawed by the nazis, their party leadership either being driven out or killed, their members among the first and last to oppose nazi rule.
And then of course, you have the far right nazis, which even the section you quote describes them as being only against capitalism in rhetoric... and then gained support of the private market.
"Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP
Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although this was later downplayed to gain the support of business leaders, and in the 1930s the party's main focus shifted to antisemitic and anti-Marxist themes.[11]"
"Pseudoscientific racist theories were central to Nazism, expressed in the idea of a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft).[12] The party aimed to unite "racially desirable" Germans as national comrades, while excluding those deemed either to be political dissidents, physically or intellectually inferior, or of a foreign race (Fremdvölkische).[13] The Nazis sought to strengthen the Germanic people, the "Aryan master race", through racial purity and eugenics, broad social welfare programs, and a collective subordination of individual rights, which could be sacrificed for the good of the state on behalf of the people."
And I agree with this passage, as nothing it states is socialist. Racial purity and eugenics goes about as far from socialist equality as you can get, and you'll notice the passage touches on the fact that all social welfare pushed by the nazis was only for those not "deemed either to be political dissidents, physically or intellectually inferior, or of a foreign race." So in other words, it was a less expansive system than the one that existed under capitalism.
Germany at the time was in a war between the left wing forces of communism, socialism, and social democracy, and the right wing monarchists, conservatives, and nazi/fascists.
What do you get when you get a far right, traditionalist, anti-socialist party that claims to want to restrict social welfare, create a strong border, "protect traditional families and values," and takes power away fro the worker?
What do you get when said party outlaws unions, collective bargaining, and socialist organization, and privatizes vast swathes of the economy.
You get far-right, anti-socialist fascism. Like you love
And yes, I quite agree. You, like the nazis, are in favor of private party, restrictive welfare, and the ability for individuals to dominate eachother based on false power hierarchies. You also seem to oppose marxism with the same anti-semetic fervor the nazis had, which led to them executing literal children, and burning medical books, both of which were deemed to be "marxist." So yes, you will literally pretend your best friends, the nazis, are socialists, because you aren't willing to face the truth. They were more anti-socialist than you.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Ah, and amazing! Another response admitting that I was correct, and that you were wrong, and a promise that you'll stop being another nazi fanboy.
Oh wait, no, its another response in which you repeat the exact same claims I have already debunked time and time again, this time just adding an extra space after every line, as if this does anything. I'm sorry, but the facts have been laid out, and you lost. It really is amazing that such a right wing, anti-socialist party exists, one you defend and deny the crimes of, but you're still not willing to admit that your nazi buddies aren't socialists. You lost this argument the second you replied to me.
You lost it a second time when I showed you their anti-socialist policies.
Restrictive welfare and healthcare policies that were defunded and privatized by the nazis, as cited to you, in both the works of historians and economics papers. The nazis had a smaller and more private system than what existed under the pre-nazi german capitalist system. You, of course, have been shown this, and what is your response? Nothing. You just repeat the same claim again. You can't even come up with a lie about why these programs are socialist.
You can't even admit that Nazi Germany had more restrictive and privatized social programs than many modern proudly capitalist nations.
You lost this argument for a third time, when you denied the holocaust, and asserted that rather than the nazis leading an oppressive regime of suppression, silencing, and genocide, you decided to defend the nazis, and pretend they represented the community... the same community they were shooting in the back and stuffing in mass graves.
Private welfare, private healthcare, abolition of unions and the right to collectively bargain, gosh it sounds exactly like the goals of the conservatives of both then and today... because it was.
And I agree, let's look at all of the left wing parties that the nazis killed off, while they promoted right wing politics, and continued to repress socialism.
"Kommunistische Arbeiter-Partei Deutschlands (KAPD)
Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands
Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (USPD) — "Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany" - left-wing faction that had split from the SPD in 1917. Parts of it split off, forming the Communist Party, while the majority reunited with the MSPD in 1922. It was a Marxist party that sought change through parliament and social progressive programs.
Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands
Deutschsozialistische Partei"
You want to know all of the commonalities these parties had? The nazis despised them, worked actively against them, and upon taking power, killed their leaders and banned their actions. Do you see a pattern? How hitler openly sided with the conservatives against the socialists?
See, oddly enough, conservatism and fascism have a few things in common. Hatred of Karl Marx, constant power struggles of nations or races, a government ore than happy to force a nationalistic attitude into existence, right wing social views, anti-socialism, and so on.
But of course, conservatives, despite their historical figures (like Churchill) proudly praising fascism, conservatives are happy to deny their ties to fascism, even as they march side by side in agreement with neo-nazis.
But make no mistake.
The nazi's weren't socialists, just like you aren't, and in fact, your two world views seem remarkably similar.
Mussolini was in fact a part of the group that invented fascism, which is why I find it funny that you ignore every time I cited to you his quotes openly rejecting socialism, and embracing the right wing. But of course, you're still hung up on nazi propaganda, aren't you? what a shame.
You can attempt to insult me all you want, I find it funny. However, your insults will never change the fact that the far right anti-socialist nazis... weren't socialists.
The real question is: why do you deny the holocaust? Why do you deny the definitions of fascism, socialism, and communism, and their ideological history?
Why does it annoy you so much that I correctly point out that by definition, communism must be stateless? Why do you deny the holocaust, deny the tens of millions that the nazis killed, and the tens of millions more that were repressed, and silenced? What "community" did the nazis even represent?
Of course, you will never answer these questions, just as you never have before. As you, like every neo-nazi before you, do not base your ideology off of logic. Only ideological gain.
After all, if you weren't sympathetic to the nazi's actual policies, you'd be able to admit the truth.
If you claim to hate nazi germany because you imagine them to be socialist, despite all historians, fascists, and nazis themselves telling and showing you otherwise, you do not hate the nazis at all. You simply hate socialists, and empathize with the nazis, and in order to mask this, you try to fit the nazis under the label of socialist. You detest social security? You must detest capitalism then.
And Hitler would quite agree with you! He too hated marx with a passion, believing his ideas ignored human nature, and were a conspiracy against conservative values and western civilization.
You can claim i'm the "nazi lover." But I don't even support the existence of a state, while you refuse to answer every time I call out your holocaust denial. I am proud to say you have been easy to outsmary.
And I know you claim to get into arguments with socialists a lot. Likely because you call everyone from far right fascists to random moderate capitalists a socialist. But, for some reason, I am confident in saying that this post is you taking out your frustration on me, from you losing to them so often
So why are you such a fan of Mussolini and Hitler's opinions, even as you deny their influence? I mean hell, i've pointed it out more than a few times, you practically paraphrase them when talking about your own opinions.
Oh, and I know you love private property, as well as the industrialists behind capitalism. Funny, that group was the one to support hitler the most, and private property, well he was a huge fan of it.
Did you really think I wouldn't respond line by line again?
So here's a goal for you, and i'll put it in another reply as well, since I know you aren't going to read down this low. Provide a single credible citation for a single one of your claims in the top half of this response, and then defend it against the historians and fascists I have already cited, proving you wrong.
I'll wait.
1
-
@UltraKardas Oh, a few more things:
1. Can you cite a single one of these claims, mainly those found in lines 4-7, which I have explicitly provided citation proving wrong?
2. Do you agree with this line: “We... see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
3. If the nazis were socialists, and 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," where was the community represented? Unless you are truly willing to deny the holocaust and surrounding atrocities, you must admit that millions in nazi germany were killed, while the vast majority of other people were oppressed or repressed, even if they joined the party. This is not even a small amount of community representation, such as that found in a liberal democracy, much less the "community as a whole."
4. Why do you keep repeating the same lines, even though I have directly addressed and rebutted them, and you have not even admitted this?
Thought I would make a more contained response for you as well, so you could keep up :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
Oh wow. I have to assume that you're a troll at this point, as this response has no counters to the objective facts I brought up to you.
And hey, you're the one denying the holocaust, dude. Not me, but sure, keep projecting.
The funniest thing is though:
You think parties... directly correlate to ideologies. Fascist ideology existed long before the nazi party, and the nazi party did not even carry hitler's ideology until he purged the rest of the party.
The nazis, initially, were made up of multiple competing ideologies, all within the same party.
It was only later, after hitler seized full power, did all those ideologies vanish. You are, quite literally, correlating the formation of a party with the ideology behind the party, ignoring that outside ideologies always influence existing parties, and no new party is created without an ideology first existing that it represents.
So, of course, the nazis were never socialists, and hitler was especially a good case to show how rabbidly anti-socialist the nazis were, like you.
So... yes. Of course they were fascists. Why does a fascist party have to exist first, if a fascist ideology already did?
So you don't understand basic politics.
You do realize that the fascist party was only created... because fascism already existed as an ideology, right?
An ideology that developed in multiple places, and, surprise surprise, was the ideology the nazi party was founded on.
Hitler despised the name socialist, so he redefined it to be, in his own words, pro private property, pro religion, and pro corporation. They suppressed, ignored, and murdered the community. They ran an anti-socialist campaign against the community. But go ahead and keep denying the truth, and ignoring the questions that prove you wrong.
Nazis like yourself always do.
Unlike you, I don't enjoy the existence of nazis :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
Well of course unlike you, I have no desire to counter the truth, as the truth is that the nazis weren't socialists.
The anti-socialist, right wing nazis... were unsurprisingly, not socialists. The nazis that you defend, that you refuse to answer to your defense of, were not socialists. And yes, they were fascists.
By your own logic, the nazis could only be socialist if they were benevolent rulers, and the holocaust didn't happen. As both of those things were not true (and they didn't want socialism) they were not socialists, holocaust denier.
And yes, by definition, socialism is community ownership. The community, as a whole, must be represented or in direct control.
You really don't even have an argument, you refuse to cite a single source for your assertions, just insults.
Socialism does not allow for any capitalism. By definition. Which is yet another reason the nazis could not be socialist, given their defense of private property, and them allying with international capitalists.
But of course, you call every country you don't like socialist, despite the economic and historical reality of the term.
What you are describing is the right wing economic system known as state capitalism, where the state acts as a vessel to private needs. In other words, the opposite of socialism. And again, saying the nazis "ran everything for the community" is false, and denies the holocaust.
They privatized huge swathes of the economy, as i've cited to you, shown you, and told you over and over again. But you don't have a good counter argument. You don't have any citations. You simply repeat the same nonsense, and then act as though I haven't already disproven it.
And of course I agree, you lost the argument, when you first replied. After all, that's why I can so easily debunk you, I have more likes than you, and everyone reading this can see I have more arguments, counters, and citations than you. People stopped arguing with you because they proved themselves right... you were just too dumb to see it. I already proved you wrong... i'm just here to humiliate you further :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
Uh. Yes. A government that works together with private interests to crush the worker, the leftist, the unionist, and the socialist alike... isn't socialist. What is your response to that fact? "You're insane." The germany community was split between the far right, as in nazis, conservatives, and monarchists, and the left, that being progressive capitalist and socialist parties... which the nazis wiped out. I'm sorry to break this to you, but the nazis actually didn't keep the vast majority of their promises, and in fact openly admitted that they disagreed with the ideas of the vast majority of them, only promising those things to get elected. Beyond that, i'm sorry, but a road isn't actually socialist... especially considering this particular Autobahn project was already alive and well under the capitalists. That, and given the holocaust, and how the nazis repressed the community.
You can continue insulting me, but it is hilarious for you to admit that socialism cannot include private interests at the heart of it. I'm sorry, but yes, by definition socialism cannot be run by private interests.
The nazis are what happens when one tries to implement a system that is fundamentally anti-socialist in nature, from the smallest to the biggest policy, from their rounding up of leftists to be shot, to their mass privatization of social systems.
Funnily enough, the vast majority of historical authoritarianism has been from the right, in the forms of corporatism, monarchism, fascism, imperialism, colonialism, ect, but I guess we can count that as another fact you are too ashamed to admit to. And uh yes, I hate to break it to you further, but private interests, as in the interests of capital, are anti-socialist.
And I know you understand very, very little of Lenin, the NEP, or the later economic states of the USSR, as well as fascist economics, but if you did then you would see why your statement is so ironically funny.
I hate to break this to you (Again) but putting lies in all caps does not make them true. The government itself in nazi germany was largely ran and motivated by private interests, hence them constantly allying with conservative capitalists. However, especially in the case of welfare, the system was privatized, not nationalized. You have yet to cite your claim here.
The greatest interest, the greatest desire for the community under the dictatorial rule of Adolf Hitler, was to kill Hitler. The vast majority of his citizens had been tricked into supporting him, and discarded when he no longer needed their support. Things like the Autobahn were already happening under the capitalists. The community ran nothing, they either conformed, or were killed.
The government was literally a grouping of conservatives, capitalists, and rabid anti-socialist fascists. If a person in charge deviated from those ideals, they were repressed, meaning the community as a whole was not represented.
And I find it funny how I point out numerous historians who directly prove you wrong here, but you have come to me saying the exact opposite! ...with no citation.
I'm sorry, but the nazis objectively abolished collective bargaining.
As historically shown, and cited.
"Employers could demand more of their workers..."
"The organization, by its own definition, combatted... revolution against the factory owners and the Nazi regime."
"One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.[49] Hitler believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all".[50] Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.[51] Between the fiscal years 1934–35 and 1937–38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.[52] There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people.[53] The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.”[53] Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.”[54]
The month after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[55] In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[56] Many of these businesses continued to support Hitler even during the war and even profited from persecution of the Jews. The most infamous being firms like Krupp, IG Farben, and some large automobile manufacturers.[57] Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore "willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany."[58] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[59] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[60]
The Nazis granted millions of marks in credits to private businesses.[61] Many businessmen had friendly relations to the Nazis,[57] most notably with Heinrich Himmler and his Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft.[62] Hitler's administration decreed an October 1937 policy that “dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000,” which swiftly effected the collapse of one fifth of all small corporations.[63] On July 15, 1933 a law was enacted that imposed compulsory membership in cartels, while by 1934 the Third Reich had mandated a reorganization of all companies and trade associations and formed an alliance with the Nazi regime.[63] Nonetheless, the Nazi regime was able to close most of Germany's stock exchanges, reducing them “from twenty-one to nine in 1935,” and “limited the distribution of dividends to 6 percent.”[64] By 1936 Germany decreed laws to completely block foreign stock trades by citizens.[65] These moves showed signs of Antisemitism and a move towards a war economy, with the belief that the stock market was being operated by Jews."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
So you're saying the country run by contributors to private interests, who were controlled by private interests in turn, and created a program (the DAF) that abolished the right to collective bargaining, and gave millions to private businesses who repressed the workers... had nothing to do with private interests? Strange.
1
-
@UltraKardas Why would I want to counter the truth, that the nazis weren't socialists?
You don't seem to understand that the ideology of fascism existed long before there was a party named after it. This should be a pretty basic concept, so let me explain it. Political parties are organizations based around an idea. An idea needs to exist before the party, for the party to organize around it. Fascism existed before the first named fascist party. The nazis were fascists, and far-right anti-socialists.
I'm sorry, but fascism, like the nazis, and socialism are completely antithetical system.
And as we've been over - the only way to claim the nazis cared about the community is to deny their unending crimes. Those who ran the camps, and orchestrated those mass killings, they weren't a "community," they were a vast minority of people, who often didn't even want to be there in terms of the guards or executioners.
Trains aren't a community, if they were, the USA would be socialist. Police aren't a community, in fact, historically police have been used to repress the community as a whole from gaining worker's rights. And a dictatorship isn't a community, it is a tiny minority of the population with all of the power.
You don't need a community to make people work, all you need is a weapon. And you don't need a community to dispose of the dead, as your next victims can be forced to do that themselves. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but according to your statements here, all capitalism is socialism.
Socialism, by definition, must be of "the community as a whole." Any system which bases itself off of the constant political repression and even mass murder of those it claims to represent cannot in any form be socialist. To claim otherwise is to claim that you think the victims of the holocaust had any sort of political control in nazi germany. The nazis were the opposite of the "overwhelming majority," they were a tiny minority oppressing the rest of the country.
Funnily enough, most concentration camps were built willingly, by private corporations, as were the tools within used for mass killings.
"@Sprite Cola "And yes, by definition, socialism is community ownership. The community, as a whole, must be represented or in direct control."
This statement is objectively true. Socialism is, by definition "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*." This means that the community as a whole must be represented, or in direct control. Pretty simple.
And why do you think banks would exist under socialism? Do you understand what socialism even is? Why do you not think individuals should be in direct control of their own lives and production? That seems pretty simple to me.
Community ownership and government property are not the same at all, because community ownership is ownership.... by the community. IF a government does not represent said community, then government ownership cannot be community ownership
And I know you're far more interested in making up quotes and insulting people who prove you wrong, but it is worth pointing out you have yet to cite a single fact.
Why are you so obsessed with capitalist banking? Why, when socialists have historically hated banking, do you think they would simply diversify those owning the banks?
Make no mistake, the community within anti-socialist nazi germany was repressed. The population was forced to go along with hitler, even if they disagreed, and the vast majority did. There was no more voting, no more unions, and if you were deemed to be even slightly deviant from the nazi's ideal citizen, you were thrown in prison or killed. The community would have never won a war against hitler, though thousands died trying.
He hated the majority, which is why he held a gun to their heads.
Nazi germany by definition was not socialist.
You can keep saying I lost the argument all you want, but I, unlike you, have posted quotes, facts, and citations. You, on the other hand, have denied the holocaust, and decided that any country with a state must be socialist. Hell, you haven't even rebutted a single one of my points yet, nazi fanboy. Why do you keep defending the nazis?
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
Except government institutions are, more often than not, funded, guided, and created by private interests.
Basic economics.
I keep citing you historians and economists proving you wrong, and then you deny them all, and pretend everyone you don't like is socialist.
The labor front was a direct way for german private interests to profit, by abolishing the right to collective bargaining, and putting the workers under a private directed institution.
Now, I know you're an authoritarian, but we don't always need dictators.
Insulting me proves you have no point.
Socialism, by objective definition, is defined by the community owning the means of production.
A government, especially a repressive, genocidal, nationalist government, does not represent the community or their interests, the community had no power over the means of production.
You continue to deny the crimes of the nazis with every new response.
A private institution is one that is owned privately, and I hate to break it to you, those were common in nazi germany.
Private property thrived, collective bargaining was abolished, and private welfare reigned supreme above all.
I'll remind you that business owners supported the nazis far more than any other group.
And that, as historically cited, the right to collective bargaining, as well as worker representation, was abolished.
The nazis were less socialist than you, child.
When your organization is guided and created for private interests... it isn't for any community.
When the government is run by those private interests, industrialists, conservatives, ect, it is not for the community.
You can keep running in circles all you want, it won't change the fact.
Nazi germany was a huge fan of private property, as was hitler. You even agreed with a hitler quote.
Private does not mean individual, child. Grow up and crack open a dictionary.
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
...yes. Public being not communal, and public can also be influenced or even owned by private. Not too hard to understand.
I agree, it is awful for you to have me so easily come in here and debunk you whenever you get the courage to respond again.
Government is, at best, the smallest part of a community. In reality, often it works directly against a community. A government run "union" that exists only to serve private interests, like the nazi's did, is not communal.
You have previously tried to tell me that everything from monarchism to capitalism is socialism... because you don't know the definition of socialism.
Your stupidity is incredible.
You somehow think that having different unions means having private unions, when this is not at all the case? You somehow think that a government created and private run "union" with the goal to oppress workers is socialist? You think that socialism is just "when unions?"
No, child. The "union" you are talking about was controlled exclusively by private interests, and was created with the sole goal of abolishing worker power and actual worker unions. The german labor front was controlled by private interests, and as i've proven to you, private does not mean individual.
And here's the part of the response where i've beaten your argument so badly, all you can do is run away and cry while proclaiming "I won! Ignore all the citations, facts, and logic Aidan gave, I won because I insulted him!" Socialism is when the community owns the means of production. The government is not the community, which any non-totalitarian should know. The goal of the germans was to create an anti-socialist economy. This statement, "Socialism is when the community, and industries of a community are run by the government" is an objective lie, which is why you have no citation.
China quite literally admits, daily, to not being socialist. They have a market economy, private business, private property, worker rights and protests are suppressed and repressed in favor of private interests.
You refuse to even acknowledge all the historians I cited that prove you wrong.
How does it feel knowing that your only "argument" left is to claim the same things i've already disproven, and then run away while shouting "I won!" like a toddler? Your argument has been obliterated for the millionth time. Congrats!
1
-
@UltraKardas
Oh, child. You really think the system capitalists have been praising as capitalist... is socialist.
So you literally call every policy that has anything to do with the government... a socialist policy.
Socialized medicine has been proudly shown as a capitalist policy for, without exaggeration, decades. It has literally been used as "proof" that capitalism is better than socialism. Your only proof it is socialist... is that you think the words sound similar.
A government doesn't need a community, that's why most government, historically, has been extremely repressive and given the people they rule, be them citizens or serfs, no say in the world. The leaders, the dictators, they don't care about the community. What you're describing isn't socialism, it is basic human organizational structure. By this logic, everything people have ever done has been socialist.
Socialized medicine is not under the control of the community as a whole, it is paid through taxation, which is not given to everyone, and those who it is given to are given so in unequal amounts. The government is not a community.
The services you're describing are literally, as we speak, being done under capitalist countries for the sole purpose of profit. You really do think that all human organization on any greater level is socialism, don't you? holy shit.
So to repeat - you think that a healthcare program is socialist, because it is run through the government collecting taxes, and leaders organizing those below them. In other words, by that logic, Adam Smith was a proud socialist.
Socialism, by definition, means the community as a whole is in charge of the means of production. That means they by definition must actually have control, and that means every individual in the community needs to have a say. Even capitalists, like Hoppe and Hayek, say that socialism and communism are the direct results of democracy. And again, you keep naming random countries as "socialist" with no proof.
Socialism is when the community as a whole manages the means of production. This can be done through the government, but only if the government represents each individual, as they are the individuals that make up the community as a whole. Socialism can be done without a state.
Now I know that your insults are the last "argument" you have, but frankly it is sad that you continue to say such silly things when i've long disproven you.
1
-
@UltraKardas
That is false, though. I know you're a child, but are you going to claim that every government, ever, has represented all of its citizens?
The definition you cited is not public as in public property, but public as in a public of people. What you are looking for is the definition of private property.
"State ownership, also called public ownership, government ownership or state property, are property interests that are vested in the state, rather than an individual or communities."
public property noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
Definition of public property
: something owned by the city, town, or state
So you see where you went wrong? Or will you keep up your lie?
Socialized medicine definition (since you just made up yours)
so·cial·ized med·i·cine
/ˈsōSHəˌlīzd ˈmedəsən/
Learn to pronounce
nounUS
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
So in other words, just government owned.
Public property is defined as property owned by the government, not a community. That is why things like individual companies can be nationalized, and thus made public, but they are not staffed, controlled, or working for, every person in a community.
Private property is property used by a single, private individual.
A private bathroom can be for a community, and a publicly owned bathroom can be for a restricted for people.
So you see how you literally don't understand basic definitions, and how the word "public" literally means different things in different contexts? You lost, again.
1
-
@UltraKardas
State capitalism is, by definition, capitalism, simply helped by the state. I know you don't know the definition of capitalism, child, but you could at least do a little research.
State capitalism and socialism are fundamentally opposed. By your definition, the founder of capitalism was a state capitalist, and a socialist. Industries in nazi germany were privatized.
The state is a group that goes against the community, and usually goes against the interests of the community.
I am glad you agree that China has been a non-socialist and anti-socialist since the 70s. You, however, are so propagandized you think that open capitalism is socialism. The nazis were socialists. They privatized more of their economy than most capitalist nations did. They openly encouraged private competition and abolished a right to collective bargaining.
And, like most capitalists, if they didn't like the result, they moved funding elsewhere. State. Capitalism.
You just helped me win an already won argument, champ :)
tate Capitalism isn't capitalism. Capitalism is private owned and private trade.
State Capitalism is called socialism. Its cause THE STATE IS INVOLVED. THE STATE controlled industry in Nazi Germany. The state is the group of the community that leads the country.
China is and has been state capitalist since 1970s. They've also been socialist for years. The Nazi's were SOCIALISTS! They publicly controlled all industries. They controlled how much workers got paid.
And if they didn't like or enjoy how industries were run, THEY EXTRAPOPOLATED the industries.
You lost the argument, idiot.
com·mu·nal
/kəˈmyo͞on(ə)l,ˈkämyənəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: communal
1.
shared by all members of a community; for common use.
"a communal bathroom and kitchen"
Similar:
pub·lic
/ˈpəblik/
1.
of or concerning the people as a whole.
"public concern"
Similar:
common
communal
collective
universal
open to or shared by all the people of an area or country.
"a public library"
Similar:
open (to the public)
communal
not private
free
community
Opposite:
private
restricted
of or involved in the affairs of the community, especially in government.
"his public career was destroyed by tenacious reporters"
Similar:
2.
done, perceived, or existing in open view.
"he wanted a public apology in the Wall Street Journal"
3.
of or provided by the government rather than an independent, commercial company.
"public benefits"
state
national
social
municipal
community
local
communal
nationalized
state-owned
Opposite:
private
public property noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
Definition of public property
: something owned by the city, town, or state
The library books are public property.
I agree, not everything has to be public (as in state owned) in socialism. Everything, on the other hand, must be owned communally. And as those definitions you use point out... public ownership (not just the word public, nazi fanboy) means state ownership. And the state, in most cases, does not represent the community. Anyway, no, not just a majority needs to be in communal control - the entire means of production need to be. In any case, literally none of nazi germany was owned by the community as a whole - it was majority operated by private corporations, and the rest was the government, who worked with said private enterprises.
There is no such thing as a "state run community," fascist. The nazis privatized everything from healthcare, welfare, industry to the concentration camps themselves. By denying this, and claiming what you do, you are denying the holocaust.
And thank you for proving my point - capitalism, according to you, is socialist. because you simply think everything, including your own ideology, is socialist.
1
-
@UltraKardas So, let me condense your love of nazis into an argument -
You recognize that the definition of socialism is "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 do realize that this means the community as a whole, right? That means for a country to be socialist, the people either have to own the means of production directly, without a state, or they must own it through the work of a state that is representative and democratic. BY DEFINITION.
That means that if, in the country in question, if millions of people are oppressed, demonized, or even murdered, than this country is not representing the community as a whole, right? In fact, it is doing less to represent the community than most capitalist countries! Especially if said country is ran by a dictator who is the sole ruling power, a dictator that follows international capitalist needs before the needs of his own citizens, and represses/takes away economic and political power from even those he claims to represent.
So you understand that claiming this person is representing "the community as a whole" is holocaust denial and hitler apologia, right? You do understand that claiming hitler was a socialist means you're denying his crimes, correct???
1
-
@UltraKardas
You'd think the whole capitalism part of state capitalism would mean something to you as well.
And as we've been over, nazi fanboy - socialism is not "when the government does stuff."
Also, state and government are not interchangeable. That is why multiple states can exist under one government, multiple governments can exist in a single state, or one can exist and not the other.
And yes, i'm glad you realize that state capitalism is rampant in China, and in fact, that state capitalism is not socialism, as it does not fit the definition of socialism, that being "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."
And the fact that you're using literal propaganda from the CCP instead of objective economic data given by professionals, and you don't see the problem here. Of course China wants to claim it is socialist, so that it has a reason to justify its continued existence as pretend to have a difference between them and every other nation on earth.
State capitalism is just that - state capitalism. It neither comes after, nor before, nor during capitalism. In fact, communism doesn't even need to be brought up for state capitalism to exist.
During WW2, the USA objectively held more control over its economy than the nazis did. This is because of the mass privatization policies the nazis were quite famous for.
You know, the thing I cited to you, so many times before?
Are you even aware of how easy it is to prove you wrong, every single time?
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
But... that isn't true.
You don't understand what a contradiction is, and you show that here.
Exactly - government is terrible at representing its people, and socialism either requires there to be no state and the people to represent themselves, or for there to be a state representative of all. If the second is not popular, it must be the first :)
Socialism is not, and never has been, state control child. You know this.
Did nazi germany control the state? Well no, they privatized the welfare, the unions, and they abolished a right to collective bargaining, among so many other things.
They were less socialist than you.
You are the same person who thinks a public gathering means a government owned gathering.
Screaming "you lost!" while you run away crying proves my point exactly. The nazis were less socialist than you, and you've been disproven yet again, nazi fanboy.
Nope.
Contradicting yourself is when you say two opposite ideas.
You literally said "No government fully represented its people" and you contradict yourself saying socialism needs to 100% represent itself.
No. It doesn't. Socialism needs one thing. STATE control.
Did Nazi Germany control the majority of it? It controlled welfare, healthcare, the unions, and how much the workers get paid.
Its socialist.
You are the same person who thinks a public bathroom is different then a community bathroom..
You lost dude. Again. You lost. National Socialism. Aka the goddamn Nazi's were filthy socialists. You lost
1
-
@UltraKardas
But... that isn't true.
You don't understand what a contradiction is, and you show that here.
Exactly - government is terrible at representing its people, and socialism either requires there to be no state and the people to represent themselves, or for there to be a state representative of all. If the second is not popular, it must be the first :)
Socialism is not, and never has been, state control child. You know this.
Did nazi germany control the state? Well no, they privatized the welfare, the unions, and they abolished a right to collective bargaining, among so many other things.
They were less socialist than you.
You are the same person who thinks a public gathering means a government owned gathering.
Screaming "you lost!" while you run away crying proves my point exactly. The nazis were less socialist than you, and you've been disproven yet again, nazi fanboy.
Nope.
Contradicting yourself is when you say two opposite ideas.
You literally said "No government fully represented its people" and you contradict yourself saying socialism needs to 100% represent itself.
No. It doesn't. Socialism needs one thing. STATE control.
Did Nazi Germany control the majority of it? It controlled welfare, healthcare, the unions, and how much the workers get paid.
Its socialist.
You are the same person who thinks a public bathroom is different then a community bathroom..
You lost dude. Again. You lost. National Socialism. Aka the goddamn Nazi's were filthy socialists. You lost
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
I already have though. With citations, historians, definitions, ect.
You can claim stateless societies are impossible, sure, and show just how much you agree with fascists. But what you're saying isn't that socialism is bad - you're saying it was impossible. So which was it, were all the random countries you named socialist, or is socialism an impossible dream of an ideology that can never be achieved? Stop contradicting yourself.
And um... what? You do realize that plumbing, electricity, and internet aren't powered by the state, right?
That is, by definition, not a contradiction. Because, as I pointed out, statist socialism doesn't seem all that plausible. You'll notice though - I pointed out not all socialism is statist :)
Socialism is a system defined by collective control, by objective definitons.
And i'm sure you have examples of what you call socialism, right? Or will you name more capitalist or fascist nations, known for their extensive privatization programs.
Ah, and here it is! Sorry, kid, but the nazis weren't socialists, nor were they known for loving government control (they hated it more than you) which means your unsourced, unexplained "point" falls flat on every conceivable ground. Government is terrible at representing people, and socialism requires representation. You've admitted it, kid - those states were not socialist.
The truth is, you're only still here because you want to reassure yourself that you have a point. You don't. You constantly contradict yourself, and pretend like I haven't proved you wrong weeks ago now.
And again, another lie told by you. I pointed out that both nazi germany and fascist italy were both fascist, and yet, both had different economies. Do you admit that you fabricated a quote, and don't understand what contradiction is?
Fascism is not determined primarily by economy, but by policy relating to social aspects of a country, those being nationalism, eugenics, traditionalism, anti-modernism, and so on. So, yet again, this is not a case of contradictions, but of you not understanding basic history.
1
-
@UltraKardas
You're working honestly? And yet, you seem to refuse the citation given to you, and provide none of your own. So no. You're not.
As I said before, child - the insults of one as bigoted, incorrect, and ignorant as you mean little at all to anyone who knows what they're talking about, myself included.
And how does you not understanding that a crowd and a government are different things "disprove" the fact that the nazis were more fans of privatization than you?
The public sector is the parts of the industry that are public property... government owned.
And i'm sorry, but you just proved my point yet again.
A public sector is what the government owns. But it is, as we've been over, not what the community owns. Do you think that the community has a say in every government protocol? Can the community as a whole, say, run the FBI? No, the government does.
And i agree, the problem is with this little statement here, you admit to your ignorance. What part of the military do the people, the community, as a whole control? What about law enforcement? Well, frankly, none of it. The community as a whole has very little say over the public sector, if any.
Now, as we've been over, socialism is not state ownership, socialism can exist without the states, and many states you call socialist were huge fans of privatization. However, you do manage to correctly point out that governments are famous for horrible atrocities, in which they terrorize, oppress, or murder huge amounts of the community as a whole, taking political power and ownership away from them. Which is, of course, antithetical to socialism.
Concentration camps were funded by the private sector, built by the private sector, and staffed by a low amount of individuals, most of whom didn't even want to be there. They weren't communities, they existed to repress and murder communities.
Socialism is when the community, as a whole, owns the means of production, yes. Not when the state does so, as we've been over, and as you have yet to refute. You assert that a community is the same thing as a government, but refuse to acknowledge that this isn't true. Most governments do not represent their people, especially violent genocidal dictatorships. The jewish people of nazi germany were a part of the community as a whole, and they were nearly wholly wiped out. You are denying the crimes of the nazis.
You have, quite literally, come up with a definition of socialism that does not fit history, that does not fit reality, and does not fit the actual definition of socialism. According to you, every country that has a government... is socialist.
As we've been over, and as you're unwilling and unable to refute, state capitalism is not state control, nor is it socialism. Socialism is not state control. Socialism is not state power. And your favorite nazis were not socialists.
And no, while china is state capitalist, they are because of that not socialist. Nazi germany was a huge fan of the private sector. Welfare? Privatized. Unions? Privatized? Healthcare? Privatized.
Germany had more privatization than most capitalist countries before it, and quite literally dismantled any social policies that the capitalism Weimar Republic had instituted. It was less socialist than capitalism.
Communism is, by definition, a "stateless, classless, moneyless society." So, mark that down as another word you do not understand the definition of. So, when the communists faced opposition from other capitalist countries, they decided to reject socialism in all but name, and adopt the economic programs of self-admitted capitalists. Today they continue this trend, shutting down actual socialist protests and political parties, while openly celebrating the private market and private property. This is about as far from socialism as you can get, state defended capitalism, but to an economic illiterate like yourself, that must be hard to understand. China is state capitalist, which by necessity, means it is not socialist.
Not only is this not true, as China often bases companies that have nothing to do with the interests of china, but it wouldn't make them socialist if it was true. The private sector owns the government, child.
Capcom, for example. It releases plenty of games that China would absolutely not approve of, including games that include criticism of China. They publish, and even flourish, in other nations, where as local regulations in china may see these aspects tuned down, but more likely, Capcom will just try to appease its audience and remove said changes themselves. Private control.
If China refuses, than the company simply does not share its games in China. This is true of most chinese based video game and general media companies, something you seem not to have figured out yet.
The truth is, despite being told the definition of socialism, you deny it.
See, neither China nor the far right anti-socialist germany of the nazis were socialist, but they were both not socialist in different ways. They both oppose socialism for their own reasons, and push different economic policies for those reasons. China and Germany are vastly different, and the nazis were less socialists than you.
You don't care about the definition of socialism because you're ideologically invested in hating socialism. You don't care what socialism actually is, you just want it to be bad. You'll continue to argue against me, against history, against facts and basic economic knowledge. You continue to lose, and lose harder and harder every time. But you will keep this up because you hate socialism, just like the nazis did.
But I will prove you wrong over and over again, with logical loopholes in your arguments you refuse to address, with citations you ignore, with facts you glass over. A stateless society is possible, despite what fascists like you wish.
Socialism, by definition, is impossible with complete government ownership. You, a pro-fascist, have been told this time and time again. But like i've proven - you don't care about the definition of socialism.
Socialism is not state control, but control by the community as a whole. The nazis were far right anti-socialists, who oppressed even the "natural born citizens." You don't know what a government even is, and you don't know what socialism are.
When you're honest, you'll listen to the professionals, to the facts, even to the nazis themselves, and you'll see that germany was not socialist. It was not even state run, it was privatized more than you like.
My sources are unbiased, and even TIK uses them, as I cite the top minds and sources in the field. You claim to have the truth, and double the sources, but you haven't provided a single source, and haven't told the truth once.
But you are a fascist at heart. So you will deny the truth, to protect your narrative.
You already lost the battle. Proof? The dozens of anti-socialist political groups in germany, who allied with the nazis to abolish the socialist groups. The existence of some socialist parties does not make all parties socialist. Proof? The privatization of policies like welfare and healthcare, and the fact that socialized medicine is a capitalist policy. The nazis hated social programs, hence them defunding them, privatizing them, and spreading propaganda about how much of a burden they were on the state.
You lost, and you admitted it. The nazis were less socialist than you. You can't have a nazi and a socialist - they're antithetical to eachother.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Child.
China pretends to be socialist in propaganda.
The nazis admitted they were not socialist.
You are the denier here.
Socialism is not state control, and your examples do not fit your statment.
The government began its economic reforms in 1978 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.[44] As a result, China has the world's fastest-growing major economy, with growth rates averaging 10% over 30 years.[45][46] China has four of the world's top ten most competitive financial centers (Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shenzhen), more than any other country.[47] China has three of the world's ten largest stock exchanges (Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen), both by market capitalization and by trade volume.[48][49] As of October 12, 2020, the total market capitalization of Mainland Chinese stock markets, consisting of the Shanghai Stock Exchange and Shenzhen Stock Exchange, topped US$10 trillion, excluding the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with about US$5.9 trillion.[50] As of the end of June 2020, foreign investors had bought a total of US$440 billion in Chinese stocks, representing about 2.9% of the total value, and indicating that foreign investors scooped up a total of US$156.6 billion in the stocks just in the first half of 2020.[51] The total value of China's bond market topped US$15.4 trillion, ranked above that of Japan and the U.K., and second only to that of the U.S. with US$40 trillion, as of the beginning of September 2020.[52] As of the end of September 2020, foreign holdings of Chinese bonds reached US$388 billion, or 2.5%, of the total value, notwithstanding an increase by 44.66% year on year.[53]
According to the IMF, on a per capita income basis, China ranked 59th by GDP (nominal) and 73rd by GDP (PPP) in 2020.[55][56] China's GDP was $15.66 trillion (101.6 trillion yuan) in 2020.[57][58] The country has natural resources with an estimated worth of $23 trillion, 90% of which are coal and rare earth metals.[59] China also has the world's largest total banking sector assets of around $45.838 trillion (309.41 trillion CNY) with $42.063 trillion in total deposits and other liabilities.[60][61] Direct foreign investment in China, which totaled about US$1.6 trillion as of the end of October 2016, directly and indirectly contributed about one-third of China's GDP and a quarter of jobs there.[62] As of the end of June 2020, FDI stock in China reached US$2.947 trillion, and China's outgoing FDI stock stood at US$2.128 trillion. Total foreign financial assets owned by China reached US$7.860 trillion, and its foreign financial liabilities US$5.716 trillion, making China the second largest creditor nation after Japan in the world.[63] China is the largest recipient of foreign direct investment in the world as of 2020, receiving inflows of $163 billion.[64] It has the second largest outward foreign direct investment, at US$136.91 billion for 2019 alone, following Japan at US$226.65 billion for the same period.[65] As of 2018, China was first in the world in total number of billionaires and second in millionaires – there were 658 Chinese billionaires[66] and 3.5 million millionaires.[67] According to the 2019 Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse Group, China surpassed the US in the wealth of the top ten percent of the world's population.[68][note 5] As of 2020, China is home to the largest companies in the Fortune Global 500 and 129 are headquartered in China.[69][70] China is also home to more than two hundred privately held technology startups (tech unicorns), each with a valuation of over $1 billion, the highest number in the world.[71] China has the world's largest foreign-exchange reserves worth $3.1 trillion,[72
Wow, how socialist. China is as socialist as you are, champ.
The nazis, similarly, were pretty open about their economic privatization and allying with capitalists.
You lost. When you have to quote an article that literally proves that China is one of the biggest private powers in the world, and yet you call them socialist?
I have given you citation, time and time again, from economists, historians, and the very economic managers of both countries. The evidence is overwhelmingly that neither are socialist.
But you do not live in objective reality, do you?
China isn't socialist. State ownership isn't socialist. Crying at the fact I won won't change reality - you lost :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
So you admit it! You admit that you are an open and dishonest liar that cannot provide a single piece of evidence for your factless and false statements.
Your entire argument has boiled down to "the historians are wrong because I made up new definitions"
A. "Socialism doesn't need to represent everyone."
This is simply false. 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." That means that if done under a state, every individual must be represented. Socialism is not state ownership, or state control. The nazis were anti-socialists like you.
B. "Yes. This is how pathetic your argument was."
You don't even have a counter argument. Tell me, are all public gatherings government owned gatherings?
C. "Oh, but socialism has been tried."
You say, after asserting that "socialism is when whatever I don't like." The nazis, like you, were rabid anti-socialists, that did everything in their power to stop the spread of socialism, and they were praised by capitalists for this very reason. Germany's socialist parties were purged by the nazis, while their conservative parties were protected by the nazis. You've already been told this.
You've lost already, time and time again. You think that capitalist healthcare, in capitalist countries, is socialist... because you don't like it. What proof did you give? Literally none, you just say a name and then say "this destroyed your argument." Where? I'm still waiting. Every "point" you try to make is backed up by not a hint of factual reality.
Socialism is not state control, child.
You lost. And your argument is so weak that you can only keep repeating it, and you admit you don't have a shred of proof.
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas What truth, you mean the "truth" that all experts, historians, and economists disagree with, the "truth" you admit you have no citations for? No, i've told you the truth. And it broke you, fascist.
"This may either mean a system where the means of production, distribution and exchange are nationalised or under state ownership, or simply a system in which social values or workers' interests have economic priority"
China is neither of these systems.
"The government began its economic reforms in 1978 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.[44] As a result, China has the world's fastest-growing major economy, with growth rates averaging 10% over 30 years.[45][46] China has four of the world's top ten most competitive financial centers (Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shenzhen), more than any other country.[47] China has three of the world's ten largest stock exchanges (Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen), both by market capitalization and by trade volume.[48][49] As of October 12, 2020, the total market capitalization of Mainland Chinese stock markets, consisting of the Shanghai Stock Exchange and Shenzhen Stock Exchange, topped US$10 trillion, excluding the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with about US$5.9 trillion.[50] As of the end of June 2020, foreign investors had bought a total of US$440 billion in Chinese stocks, representing about 2.9% of the total value, and indicating that foreign investors scooped up a total of US$156.6 billion in the stocks just in the first half of 2020.[51] The total value of China's bond market topped US$15.4 trillion, ranked above that of Japan and the U.K., and second only to that of the U.S. with US$40 trillion, as of the beginning of September 2020.[52] As of the end of September 2020, foreign holdings of Chinese bonds reached US$388 billion, or 2.5%, of the total value, notwithstanding an increase by 44.66% year on year.[53]"
"The Communist Party of China maintains that despite the co-existence of private capitalists and entrepreneurs with public and collective enterprise, China is not a capitalist country because the party retains control over the direction of the country, maintaining its course of socialist development"
Again - literal party propaganda. You are believing party propaganda over economic reality.
"Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[89][90][91] In his book The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[92] Bremmer draws a broad definition of state capitalism as such:[93]
In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain.
Following on Bremmer, Aligica, and Tarko[94] further develop the theory that state capitalism in countries like modern day China and Russia is an example of a rent-seeking society. They argue that following the realization that the centrally planned socialist systems could not effectively compete with capitalist economies, formerly Communist Party political elites are trying to engineer a limited form of economic liberalization that increases efficiency while still allowing them to maintain political control and power."
"Analysis of the Chinese model and the socialist market economy by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is the existence of financial markets in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in the market socialist literature and in the classic models of market socialism; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a basic income/social dividend or similar scheme, which are major features in the market socialist literature. They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[96]"
Market Socialism or Capitalism? Evidence from Chinese Financial Market Development, by Julan Du and Chenggang Xu. 2005. IEA 2005 Round Table on Market and Socialism.
So, wait. You give one "citation" (that is literally chinese state propaganda) and this disproves the tens of citations I gave you? Your argument is as dead as the people the nazis killed, the deaths you deny. China is not socialist, they admit it. Nazi germany is less socialist than you.
You lost weeks ago, and you're only cementing how foolish you look to the rest of the world.
Nazi Germany was, and always will be, far right and anti-socialist. It's why hitler hated the name socialist, and killed those that gave it to his party, later choosing to redefine the term.
It's why you support hitler.
1
-
@UltraKardas
But you, as proven, aren't. You admit that your assertions have no historical or economic basis, and that you are a liar with not a single source to provide. You have seen the far right, anti-socialist nazis. You have seen their anti-socialist policies. And you can't even try to argue against these facts any more.
Where are these "many historians?" Even the historians TIK cites agree that the nazis were not socialists. The only people who disagree with that fact are far right think tanks, as biased as you.
But instead of actually address my citation, or argument, you deflect yet again, and simply reassert the same nonsense i've disproven weeks ago. You lost, child.
I have given you 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." You made one up, one that differs.
Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole. socialism is not state power, as you've been shown and cited, countless times. The definition of socialism you gave has no historical basis. You lost.
1
-
@UltraKardas
No you didn't. You showed me a quote from state media.
Not an economic paper, not an unbiased view, you showed me a quote from China's division of state propaganda. But you don't care about the validity of a source, only that it agrees with you. This is why your argument fails.
You don't know enough to argue your own point, that's why you constantly contradict yourself, change your arguments, and make things up you know you can't cite. I cite historians, and then I explain their reasoning. Because in the end, you are uneducated, and the facts are against you.
But go ahead, go have your temper tantrum.
And yes! The vast majority of accredited and respected historians, and all those without a bias, admit that the nazis were not socialists.
I caught you in an obvious lie yet again, and you didn't even look up the definition of socialism.
Here is the definition of socialism, from Oxford Dictionaries.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1. 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.
2. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
3. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
And you cite the 25 point plan... a plan that was never implemented, that was created before hitler had full control of his party, that was created by a group that hitler purged, and that hitler did not approve of. Here is what he said on the 25 point plan -
"
In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books):
https://archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of National-Socialism?’
‘ I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’
At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism.
Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of the Party's official programme.
‘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.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’
Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP":
Hitler also said this, regarding private property.
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
" 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.”
And here is statements given, by historians, on the foundation of Hitler's party.
Tubluer “On 5 January 1919, Drexler created a new political party and proposed it should be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP).”
“To increase the party’s appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party). The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers.”
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
The vast majority of these policies, save Point 13 (which hitler explicitly opposed) exist in capitalist countries. I must conclude that you've never even read the 25 points, because among them it discusses GREATER VOTING RIGHTS and EQUAL RIGHTS AMONG CITIZENS, two things the nazis despised. Alongside that, it also claimed to support an expansion of the welfare state, despite the fact that the nazis privatized the welfare state, and before they got into power they were putting out propaganda films like Erbkrank which protested against a welfare state. See the issue?
You lost the argument, and in such a hilarious way.
I know I can't dissuade you, or convince you. Because your viewpoint is fundamentally irrational, and is supported only by your ignorance. Each reply you only show me more and more how much you fail to understand history.
Does the fact that hitler did not agree with the 25 point plan, the fact that the plan was created before he took power, the fact that he purged those that did support the plan, the fact that the plan was covered with numerous other lies, and the fact that historians and economists have pointed out that the plan was never followed, do those convince you? Not to mention that all but one of the points of that plan already exist under capitalist countries.
Feel free to claim you are laughing. We both know you have no rebuttal.
1
-
@UltraKardas Since I know you have a reading problem, let me answer your final question, again, in a separate response as well, as it has already been cited in the previous response.
The 25 Point Plan was a piece of political propaganda that was handed out before hitler ever took power, and before his faction was even the dominant faction in his party. The plan was written, and endorsed, by an opposing faction, which hitler later purged. The plan's points were all things found in capitalist countries, and can still be found to this day, besides one - Point 13, which hitler explicitly opposed. The plan was never implemented under Hitler, as the plan also called for greater individual and voting rights, neither of which he supported. In short - the 25 Point Plan was one that for the vast majority of its points was not socialist, was not created or endorsed by hitler, and in fact, was never implemented or planned to be implemented by hitler.
1
-
@UltraKardas You lost, child
You have shown yourself to be exactly as I guessed - a far right, history denying, nazi supporting child. You call me a nazi in one breath and an anarchist in the next. You fail to tell the truth in every response and it is plain for all to see
You claim to condemn the far right, anti-socialist nazis, and yet you agree with their every policy, and push their ideology wherever you go. You claim I, an anarchist, support the nazis... nazis you admitted to agreeing with. What a sad child you are.
History shows the nazis weren't socialists. You can try to argue, but it is easy to prove you wrong.
You really are bad at this.
You lost. So, while you keep typing at me in a nazi rage, I will continue to show you the objective truth.
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
So by "icing on the cake" we both know you mean "thing you just figured out about," right? Glad we could agree.
Hitler purged the socialists, and supported the conservatives. He hated socialism, and so he purged it from germany. He supported the conservatives, so he elevated them to positions of power in germany.\
"But the 25 point plan was literally followed by Nazi Germany." Cite to me that this was the case. I have just proven to you that it wasn't, and you have no rebuttal.
I already explained how it wasn't socialist - it does not fit the definition of socialism, and all of the policies existed under capitalist countries. So why do you ignore that I did this?
The 25 Point Plan was rejected by Hitler, in full. There's a reason you can't provide any citation for your claim, while I have already provided citation for the truth. He privatized healthcare, welfare, and public services.
The fact that he hated the 25 point plan is yet another piece of proof that he hated anything even approaching the left, much less socialism.
Yes, the numerous marxist parties that he purged, the numerous marxist doctrines he tried to wipe out, the fact that he publically opposed the state controlling everything. You're a liar.
"…We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens…"
The nazis privatized welfare, healthcare, and sent millions to prisons and death camps. They despised welfare, and privatized it.
Hence the fact that they got more people than ever to work for the benefit of the private market.
Is your statement propaganda? Yes, it is. And now you are denying the crimes of the nazis, the nazis who were openly more anti-socialist than you. The strength through joy program was ahcieved through privatization.
"…The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work, mentally or physically..."
"…The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality
[the state], but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all..."
As we've been over, this is anti-socialist,. The idea that all citizens must work for private corporations, and sacrifice any small aount of control over the means of production that they had held, is about as far from socialism as you can get.
"…We demand the
nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries..."
"…We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries…"
As we've been over, this never happened. The nazis were huge fans of privatization, and both in public, and in private, hitler was very open about his reluctance to at all interfere with private german industry. Private welfare was strengthened, not abolished, and government welfare was privatized. The government controlled less of the economy than ever before, and had les control over the industry than ever before, as I have cited.
This is the nationalization of all industry. Which the Nazi's actually accomplished. This is where private welfare was abolished and government welfare was established. So government controlled all the economy, and had complete control of industry to the people's welfare.
"…The state is to care for the national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young…"
This is literally a capitalist healthcare system that the nazis never implemented.
So. No dice! You proved that all you have are unfounded assertions. Congratulations. The 25 Point Plan? Hitler despised it, and it was never put in place.
1
-
@UltraKardas "This is the nationalization of all industry. Which the Nazi's actually accomplished. This is where private welfare was abolished and government welfare was established. So government controlled all the economy, and had complete control of industry to the people's welfare. "
CITE
YOUR
FUCKING
SOURCES.
I have cited around 15 separate historians that directly prove this claim incorrect with straight economic data. You have cited precisely zero and have never actually explained how, when, or why this was done, or offered any proof as to how you think it happened. The nazis, objectively, never abolished private welfare. They strengthened it. They privatized more than ever before, and the government objectively did not control all of the economy. From now on, every time you make a claim that you do not cite, I will add a tally. Every time you cite a claim directly after making it, I will remove a tally. Seems fair. let's see what your score will be, fash.
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
You literally claim that a "credible source" is a quote from a chinese official, who is saying "we are socialist but only if you pretend we are, and we say we're going to be socialist in the future, although this clearly contradicts economic data surrounding the country.. In other words, we're capitalist."
Unlike you I have literally studied the economy of china in an academic setting
Your sources are not economic papers - they are statements of propaganda from party officials. You know that, right?
The chinese government lies about its crimes, its claims to land and culture, hell, it lies about its history. But you believe the chinese government... because you want to agree with their propaganda.
In his article "We're All State Capitalists Now", British historian and Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University Niall Ferguson warns against "an unhelpful oversimplification to divide the world into 'market capitalist' and 'state capitalist' camps. The reality is that most countries are arranged along a spectrum where both the intent and the extent of state intervention in the economy vary".[93] He then notes: "The real contest of our time is not between a state-capitalist China and a market-capitalist America, with Europe somewhere in the middle. It is a contest that goes on within all three regions as we all struggle to strike the right balance between the economic institutions that generate wealth and the political institutions that regulate and redistribute it."[93]
In the common program set up by the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1949, in effect the country's interim constitution, state capitalism meant an economic system of corporatism. It provided as follows: "Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of state capitalism."[95]
Analysis of the Chinese model and the supposed socialist market economy by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is the existence of financial markets in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in the market socialist literature and in the classic models of market socialism; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a basic income/social dividend or similar scheme, which are major features in the market socialist literature. They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[96]
The definition of communism is "stateless, classless, moneyless society." So that's another lie from you. They were never communist, and they were never socialist. According to the definition of socialism.
All the sources prove it - state capitalism is about as far from socialism as it can get, and it isn't even a system of state control.
And it doesn't matter if I tell you about actual economic data, you don't believe it. Because you would prefer to never change your mind, than to be right. You would prefer to listen to a genocidal regime than those that try to be objective.
Socialism, in every example, in every definition, is not state control. I have already proven you wrong - which is why you cannot even respond to me :)
1
-
@UltraKardas State capitalism, by definition, is a system in which the state acts as a private entity, a corporation, with the goal of profit. Everything, including the government, is in private hands. Socialism, by definition, is a system in which the means of production are not in private hands, but in the hands of the community as a whole, each and every individual within having representation, or direct control.
You claim these are the same thing - I can only laugh at your ignorance.
1
-
@UltraKardas So you just gave me a giant quote... that says absolutely nothing about state capitalism within it. Hell, the term didn't even exist in any sort of popular context back then. So you lied about hitler talking about state capitalism.
The man quite literally said, in this very quote " it meant building a National German economy which appreciated the importance of *private initiative.*" State capitalism is objectively not socialism.
As we have seen in both anti-socialist china, and your favorite, far right anti-socialist germany.
So let's see some actual economic data about nazi germany!
Other historians dispute the Buccheim and Scherner thesis that the general absence of state coercion means there was no real threat of it. They believe that many industrialists actually did fear direct state intervention in private industries if the Nazi government's goals were not fulfilled, and that their choices were affected by this concern. Peter Hayes argues that although the Nazi regime "wished to harness business's energy and expertise" and "generally displayed flexibility in order to obtain them, usually by offering financing options that reduced the risk of producing what the regime desired", the government was nevertheless also willing to resort to direct state intervention as a "Plan B" in some cases, and these cases "left an impression on the corporate world, all the more so as government spokesmen repeatedly referred to them as replicable precedents."[70] Thus, the Nazi state did not resort to "blunt-instrument forms of coercion" because it did not need to, not because it was unwilling to do so. After 1938, "examples had been made, fear inspired, and the lessons internalized, on both sides of the business-state divide."[71] Hayes describes Nazi economic policies as a "'carrot-and-stick' or 'Skinner Box' economy" in which corporate decisions "were increasingly channeled in directions the regime desired" through a combination of "government funding and state-guaranteed profit margins" on the one hand, and a series of regulations, penalties, "the possibility of government compulsion, and the danger that refusal to cooperate could open opportunities to competitors," on the other hand. As such, he argues that "the Third Reich both bridled and spurred the profit motive."[72] Hayes concludes that "Nazi economic policies structured opportunities and thus corporate executives' choices. Did businessmen retain free will? Of course, they did."[73]
The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[74] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[75] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare.[76] Thus, Nazi programs such as the Winter Relief of the German People and the broader National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) were organized as quasi-private institutions, officially relying on private donations from Germans to help others of their race—although in practice those who refused to donate could face severe consequences.[77] Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill."[78] Successful efforts were made to get middle-class women involved in social work assisting large families,[79] and the Winter Relief campaigns acted as a ritual to generate public sympathy.[80] Meanwhile, in addition to being excluded from receiving aid under these programs, the physically disabled and homeless were actively persecuted, being labeled “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters.”[81]
The Nazis banned all trade unions that existed before their rise to power, and replaced them with the German Labour Front (DAF), controlled by the Nazi Party.[82] They also outlawed strikes and lockouts.[83] The stated goal of the German Labour Front was not to protect workers, but to increase output, and it brought in employers as well as workers.[84] Journalist and historian William L. Shirer wrote that it was "a vast propaganda organization...a gigantic fraud."[84]
So where's that dreaded socialism again??
And now china
The government began its economic reforms in 1978 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.[44] As a result, China has the world's fastest-growing major economy, with growth rates averaging 10% over 30 years.[45][46] China has four of the world's top ten most competitive financial centers (Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shenzhen), more than any other country.[47] China has three of the world's ten largest stock exchanges (Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen), both by market capitalization and by trade volume.[48][49] As of October 12, 2020, the total market capitalization of Mainland Chinese stock markets, consisting of the Shanghai Stock Exchange and Shenzhen Stock Exchange, topped US$10 trillion, excluding the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with about US$5.9 trillion.[50] As of the end of June 2020, foreign investors had bought a total of US$440 billion in Chinese stocks, representing about 2.9% of the total value, and indicating that foreign investors scooped up a total of US$156.6 billion in the stocks just in the first half of 2020.[51] The total value of China's bond market topped US$15.4 trillion, ranked above that of Japan and the U.K., and second only to that of the U.S. with US$40 trillion, as of the beginning of September 2020.[52] As of the end of September 2020, foreign holdings of Chinese bonds reached US$388 billion, or 2.5%, of the total value, notwithstanding an increase by 44.66% year on year.[53]
China has had the world's largest middle class population since 2015,[99] and the middle class grew to a size of 400 million by 2018[100] and is projected to reach 1.2 billion by 2027, making up one fourth of the world total.[101] As of 2018, China was first in the world in total number of billionaires and second in millionaires – there were 658 Chinese billionaires[66] and 3.5 million millionaires.[67] In 2019, China overtook the US as the home to the highest number of rich people in the world, according to the global wealth report by Credit Suisse.[102][103] In other words, as of 2019, a hundred million Chinese are in the top ten percent of the wealthiest individuals in the world – those who have a net personal wealth of at least $110,000.[104] In 2020, China has the world's highest number of billionaires, which is more than the US and India combined,[105] and as of March 2021, the number of billionaires in China reach 1,058 with the combined wealth of US$4.5 trillion.[106] According to the Hurun Global Rich List 2021, China is home to six of the world's top ten cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Hangzhou and Guangzhou in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th spots, respectively) by the highest number of billionaires, which is more than any country.[107]
A working paper from the World Economic Forum stated that “China’s private sector - which has been revving up since the global financial crisis - is now serving as the main driver of China’s economic growth. The combination of numbers 60/70/80/90 are frequently used to describe the private sector’s contribution to the Chinese economy: they contribute 60% of China’s GDP, and are responsible for 70% of innovation, 80% of urban employment and provide 90% of new jobs. Private wealth is also responsible for 70% of investment and 90% of exports.” Today, China’s private sector contributes nearly two-thirds of the country’s growth and nine-tenths of new jobs, according to the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, an official business group.
Again I must ask, where's the socialism????
Oh wait - there isn't any, even by your definition. As you don't know what socialism is.
1
-
@UltraKardas So, let's recap. You gave me a response where you made up a definition of state capitalism that you refused to cite, and then said a quote would "destroy me," despite said quote proving that the nazis... had a military, and were not fundamentally different in economic organization than capitalist countries at the time. You then also, hilariously enough, cited an opinion piece from a website that admits to being biased, a piece that does not actually cite historians, but funnily enough, said piece is found on a website named after a man who praised nazi germany for being anti-socialist.
And let's see who Mises was, hm? Well, he was an ideological extremist that denied the scientific method.
"Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts."
He also held some... views on fascism.
"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
"The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs [in Germany], faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Stalin."
These quotes aren't really surprising once you realize that he was an open and powerful member of the Austrian fascist party before he left.
Oh, and funnily enough, he, like you, was prone to calling random people socialists, including Hayek and Freidman, two notoriously influential figures in libertarian capitalism :)
What a coincidence, hm?
Ooo, and even better! The Mises institute has a long history of supporting:
- Neo-Nazis
- Phrenology/Eugenics
- The fascist dictatorship of Pinochet
- Open Homophobia
- Strict Border Control
- Anti-Vaccine Conspiracies
- Child Labor
- Monarchism
Hell, the founder of the Institute was a notorious racist who supported the Confederacy.
Citations:
https://mises.org/library/libertarian-case-monarchy
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/william-l-anderson/when-accusations-are-proof/
https://mises.org/library/trouble-child-labor-laws
https://mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property
https://mises.org/library/public-accommodation-and-social-engineering
https://mises.org/wire/cdc-pharma-and-mainstream-media-same-team
https://mises.org/wire/general-augusto-pinochet-dead
So, to recap - you posted a "citation" from a biased think tank, that does not prove your point, does not cite its information, and even more interesting, the site is well known for putting out baseless conspiracies and right wing extremist propaganda. What. A. Coincidence.
It must also be noted that your previous arguments, those being on things like the 25 Point Program, and if capitalist policies were socialist or not, and the reliability of chinese propaganda, are now abandoned by you. You also appear to have ignored the quotes and citations that prove you wrong... as usual. You instead appear to have now conceded those points to me, which as you said, means I have proven you wrong. Your lack of a response, lack of meaningful citation, and lack of facts speaks volumes.
In any case, I am happy to have educated you here :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
State capitalism is by definition, capitalism of the state. As in, a system in which the state itself is capitalist, and acts as if it is a private corporation. No, as we've been over, this isn't socialist.
And i'm sorry, child, but this isn't a citation. This is a opinion piece, written by an institution that was named after a man who praised nazi germany as being an anti-socialist force. It, like you, makes assertions about the nazi economy it does not cite. It claims that socialism is somehow compatible with private property, competition, and business, despite this clearly not being the case. It says this is possible because the business is regulated by the government, which is false for several reasons. For one - that isn't state control, that is state regulation, and given that many cited historians have pointed out that the state did not have that much power over the private sector in nazi germany, not only would this not be socialist if true, it isn't even true. It also, like you, assumes the definition of socialism is state ownership, when it has never been. You see the problem? You just posted a source that agrees with you, but said source is equally unwilling to back up its statements. So let's look at some facts, hm?
The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[40] However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[41] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[42] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”[42] However, the privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference,"[43] as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels, which gave the government a role in regulating and controlling the cartels that had been earlier formed in the Weimar Republic under the Cartel Act of 1923.[44] These had mostly regulated themselves from 1923 to 1933.[45]
Companies privatized by the Nazis included the four major commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public ownership during the prior years: Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank.[46][42] Also privatized were the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), the second largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. The government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities companies.[47] Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies.[48]
One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests.[49] Hitler believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all".[50] Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds.[51] Between the fiscal years 1934–35 and 1937–38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues.[52] There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people.[53] The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.”[53] Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.”[54]
The month after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[55] In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[56] Many of these businesses continued to support Hitler even during the war and even profited from persecution of the Jews. The most infamous being firms like Krupp, IG Farben, and some large automobile manufacturers.[57] Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore "willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany."[58] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[59] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[60]
The Nazis granted millions of marks in credits to private businesses.[61] Many businessmen had friendly relations to the Nazis,[57] most notably with Heinrich Himmler and his Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft.[62] Hitler's administration decreed an October 1937 policy that “dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000,” which swiftly effected the collapse of one fifth of all small corporations.[63] On July 15, 1933 a law was enacted that imposed compulsory membership in cartels, while by 1934 the Third Reich had mandated a reorganization of all companies and trade associations and formed an alliance with the Nazi regime.[63] Nonetheless, the Nazi regime was able to close most of Germany's stock exchanges, reducing them “from twenty-one to nine in 1935,” and “limited the distribution of dividends to 6 percent.”[64] By 1936 Germany decreed laws to completely block foreign stock trades by citizens.[65] These moves showed signs of Antisemitism and a move towards a war economy, with the belief that the stock market was being operated by Jews.
And sure, let us look into the German ministry of anti-socialist economics! Oh... you haven't actually read the quote, have you?
"From 1933 to 1945 (the time of National Socialism ) the Reich Ministry of Economics was a central institution with whose help the Nazi regime put many of its political goals into practice, for example fighting unemployment, arming the Wehrmacht , promoting the armaments industry , preparing for the war economy as well as the Aryanization of German economic life. By the end of the war, more and more tasks and responsibilities were given to other Reich ministries. The former economics ministers Hjalmar Schacht , Hermann Göring , Walther Funk and Albert Speerlater counted among the defendants in the Nuremberg trial of the major war criminals ."
I hate to break this to you child, but nothing about this is socialist. Hell, it isn't really true either. As cited previously, the nazis didn't care about unemployment rates, they raised them through all the murder and privatization they were doing. And yet, you present to me an anti-socialist governmental force, that did nothing that other nations (like the USA) weren't already doing. So, sorry, how does this "destroy me?" You just proved that nazi germany was no more socialist than the USA.
This quote, in all honesty, describes all military to the letter. It says nothing about socialism, even the aspects that do touch on social regulation are done within capitalist countries. Are you going to tell me that no capitalist country has ever tried to lower unemployment, or tried to take land/arm people? China has privatized their job market. They have very little say over what the market does outside of their small, immediate influence. The "pattern" you describe goes as follows: finding a random country, accusing them of being socialist without proof, claiming they have total state control without proof, and moving on.
China isn't socialist, nor is it even a state of state control, as you assert.
But hey, fascists like you have never won this argument before - why would this be any different?
1
-
@UltraKardas Part 1
Aww, you're running away? And so soon? Well, thank you for admitting you lost, and that you are a fan of the nazis.
Hm, and Ian Kershaw. Interesting name. It's almost as if...
Oh right! It's almost as if I cited him before!
“Ian Kershaw, a major expert on Nazism” (Roger Griffin “International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus” ed. Roger Griffin ‘Arnold Readers in History Series’ 1998 p. 11).
"[Read] Ian Kershaw's chapter 'The essence of Nazism: form of fascism, brand of totalitarianism, or unique phenomenon?' in his seminal work The Nazi Dictatorship (third edition: London, Edward Arnold, 1993)" (Roger Griffin “International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus” ed. Roger Griffin ‘Arnold Readers in History Series’ 1998 p. 325).
"[A] world expert on the Third Reich [...] Ian Kershaw was now prepared not only to classify Nazism as a form of fascism but to assert that ‘The quest for national rebirth lay, of course, at the heart of all fascist movements’" (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 54).
"The preeminent biography of Hitler is now Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1889–1936: Hubris (New York: Norton, 1999), and Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis (New York: Norton, 2000). Kershaw relates the dictator to the society that imagined him, and that 'worked toward' its leader without needing to be forced" (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital, loc. 4,302).
And let's see what he said about your favorite nazis -
"Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. There is little point in inventing terms to describe such an economic ‘system’. Neither ‘state capitalism’, nor a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism suffices. Certainly, Hitler entertained notions of a prosperous German society, in which old class privileges had disappeared, exploiting the benefits of modern technology and a higher standard of living. But he thought essentially in terms of race, not class, of conquest, not economic modernization. Everything was consistently predicated on war to establish dominion. The new society in Germany would come about through struggle, its high standard of living on the backs of the slavery of conquered peoples. It was an imperialist concept from the nineteenth century adapted to the technological potential of the twentieth" (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031).
Hm. Well that would appear to put a wrench in your argument, yeah?
After all, you claim that Germany needed a "Return" to a market system, but we can see that they already existed within one. "This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
And funny that you claim that "socialism and communism" have problems with food... since you don't know the definition of either term, and you are writing this from a country that has starved millions.
And oh, child. I do hope you realize that there is not just one type of market economy, right?
A market economy is defined as "A market economy is an economic system in which economic decisions and the pricing of goods and services are guided by the interactions of a country's individual citizens and businesses." See, the problem with your statement, is that not all market economies are capitalist, and not all capitalism is primarily based on markets.
Goerdeler supported the nazis, even up until he started to plot against them in a violent way. See, Goerdeler wasn't some sort of libertarian capitalist as you make him out to be - he was a nazi supporting monarchist. He wanted a market system under the old monarch, not an anti-statist capitalist force. Capitalism and state capitalism are merely different forms of the same thing. Goerdeler knew this... which is why he, like all other nazis, opposed socialism above all else.
Despite his disagreements with Göring over the best economic course to follow, on 6 August 1936, Göring commissioned a report from Goerdeler as a leading economic expert about whether or not Germany should devalue the Reichsmark.[28][29] Goerdeler began his report by rejecting the policies of Schacht's New Plan of 1934 as untenable.[28] Making a U-turn from his stance of 1934, Goerdeler now embraced devaluation of the Reichsmark as the best solution to the economic crisis. Goerdeler argued that the tolerance of other Western nations, especially the United States for the German state's subsidising the dumping of exports was wearing thin and would soon result in harsh new tariffs being applied against German goods.[28]
It is worth noting however, that Goerdeler disagreed with the nazis on far less than, say, the nazis and socialists disagreed on, hence his continued support. And I wonder why that is?
After his discharge from the German Army, Goerdeler joined the ultraconservative German National People's Party (DNVP). Like most other Germans, Goerdeler strongly opposed the Versailles Treaty of 1919, which forced Germany to cede territories to the restored Polish state. In 1919, before the exact boundaries of the Polish-German border were determined, he suggested restoring West Prussia to Germany. Despite his strong hostile feelings towards Poland, Goerdeler played a key role during the 1920 Polish–Soviet War in breaking a strike by Danzig dockers, who wished to shut down Poland's economy by closing its principal port. He thought that Poland was a neighbour that was less undesirable than Bolshevik Russia was.[5]
Oh. Makes sense.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Part 2
And sure, let's talk about statism, as in the ideology you support and push, despite apparently not realizing that you are now arguing against your previous points.
First off, you make a problem in assuming that market economies and statism are incompatible.
Statism can take many forms from small government to big government. Minarchism is a political philosophy that prefers a minimal state such as a night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud with military, police and courts. This may also include fire departments, prisons and other functions.[8][9][10][11] The welfare state is another form within the spectrum of statism.[12][13] Authoritarian philosophies view a strong, authoritative state as required to legislate or enforce morality and cultural practices.[14][15] Totalitarianism is that which prefers a maximum, all-encompassing state.[16][17][18][19][20]
And now state capitalism.
State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as private (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor), or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of public companies such as publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares.[1] Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state. By this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[2] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist.[3] Many scholars agree that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems, and that the current economy of China also constitutes a form of state capitalism.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to the economy of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[21][22][23] This practice is held in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[24]
And I hate to break it to you, but let's see what lenin thought of the supposed "socialism" of the Eastern Bloc.
"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable."
He admitted it was capitalist, champ.
And, as we've been over, "statism" and "large amounts of statism" are not the same things.
And here you give a quote that simply asserts that some people use the two terms without differentiating between them, but that does not mean that usage is correct. Let us look at the economy of the USSR.
Lenin understood that economic conditions were dire, so he opened up markets to a greater degree of free trade, hoping to motivate the population to increase production. Under the NEP, not only were "private property, private enterprise, and private profit largely restored in Lenin's Russia," but Lenin's regime turned to international capitalism for assistance, willing to provide "generous concessions to foreign capitalism." Lenin took the position that in order to achieve socialism, he had to create "the missing material prerequisites" of modernization and industrial development that made it imperative for Soviet Russia to "fall back on a centrally supervised market-influenced program of state capitalism". Lenin was following Karl Marx's precepts that a nation must first reach "full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization." Future years would use the term Marxism–Leninism to describe Lenin's approach to economic policies which were seen to favor policies that moved the country toward communism.[16] The main policy Lenin used was an end to grain requisitions and instead instituted a tax on the peasants, thereby allowing them to keep and trade part of their produce. At first, this tax was paid in kind, but as the currency became more stable in 1924, it was changed to a cash payment.[2] This increased the peasants' incentive to produce, and in response production jumped by 40% after the drought and famine of 1921–22.[17]
NEP economic reforms aimed to take a step back from central planning and allow the economy to become more independent. NEP labor reforms tied labor to productivity, incentivizing the reduction of costs and the redoubled efforts of labor.
And again, your quote here does not talk about if the usage of these terms is correct, merely that it is done. Furthermore, as we've been over, hitler clearly did not make economic policy with the goal of the construction of socialism, and he was explicitly against marxist-leninist beliefs that were common at the time, hence his support of private industry and private property over communal ownership.
And... that's it? That's your argument? Oh child, this is sad. Your entire argument is quoting a wikipedia page that says that "some people may choose to use a word a certain way." I hate to break it to you, but as i've shown with evidence, those few people are rightfully rebutted by the same article. Nazi germany wasn't socialist - it was his policies on privatization that were running their industry into the ground.
And yes, we've already been over how both the USSR and China were capitalist, state capitalist specifically. But, i'm sorry, where was it "proven that state capitalism is INTERCHANGEABLE with state socialism"? You provided a single uncited wikipedia quote that claims that, "in some cases" the two are used interchangeably, specifically relating to the USSR. Not Hitler's anti-socialist policies, and not China. Your sources, upon actually being read, show that none of the countries were socialist.
Case is closed, and frankly, this response you have made is quite sad. You claim I "cannot argue... and win" and yet all it takes is for me to cite the full articles in question and point out your lack of reasoning/evidence, and your entire argument falls apart. The three states had separate and distinct economies and policies, and none of them were socialist. The nazis didn't even claim to be.
You claim I cannot refute this... and yet I did. Easily. Welcome to objective reality, child. Now run away, like you said you would :)
1
-
@UltraKardas So, to wrap up - You recognize that the USSR and China are examples of state capitalism, that being defined as when a country treats itself as one large corporation, and even the state is capitalist. You, however, seem not to understand that this is incompatible with socialism, and despite me and you both citing numerous cases of people saying "state capitalism is not socialism, though some push propaganda claiming capitalism is the stage before socialism," you appear to not have caught on yet. Socialism is defined by social ownership, that meaning collective ownership - not state ownership. You have already been shown this a few times, which is why you've stopped arguing that point and conceded it. As a final ploy, you attempted to write one long response quoting a bunch of unrelated figures and wikipedia articles, which, when actually studied, prove you wrong even further. Your final claim, that "state socialism and state capitalism are the same thing" is based off of a single, uncited sentence in wikipedia, that states that some people (who are not fact checked or even named) use the two terms in similar contexts... relating to only the USSR. Which, of course, says nothing about the ideologies of China or Nazi Germany, as the three countries were vastly different in numerous ways.
In short... your entire argument is based off of a single line of wikipedia that you misread.
God this is easy :)
Anyway, goodbye fash!
1
-
@UltraKardas
Oh, child. And here I thought you would be honest for once, and run away like you said you would. Goerdeler is was a proud monarchist, and I don't think I need to tell you this, but knowing the depths of your stupidity I guess I will - monarchists are no fans of capitalism. And, of course, command economies are not state capitalist, and nazi germany was not running a command economy.
Statism. He was a fan of statism, wanted to reinstate the old monarch, wanted the state to continue to exist with significant control over people's lives. Statism and socialism don't go along that well.
As in state capitalism, the state is by necessity acting as a private entity, state capitalism and state socialism are as far from interchangeable as you can get.
And how does wanting hitler replaced with another right wing dictator make hitler not right wing? They were competing factions of the right, not its exclusive sides. Hitler was right wing. And you would be right, replacing hitler, a right wing dictator, with another right wing dictator, would have done very little. Which is why Goerdeler is usually written off, historically.
And i'm glad you yet again admit that nazi germany was not socialist, as Ian Kershaw pointed out! In any case you say my argument "died" when yu pointed out two other state capitalist countries, that were self admittedly not socialist.
The republic of china, an anti-socialist, market economy, held up by private backing, the USSR, a private state turned corporatist, and nazi germany, an anti-socialist far right corporatist economy. They all had vastly different economies... did you not realize that?
And i'm sorry, but this is simply false. Lenin went from monarchism to state capitalism, not socialism to state capitalism. Your statement, makes no sense given linear time.
"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable."
The quote you gave was from only a few short years after the USSR had even started to exist, how can you claim they were moving "away" from socialism when even in the quote you gave it is admitted that they had never put socialism into place?
State capitalism was the first economic system of the USSR, not the second, and it is what immediately followed monarchism, not what followed socialism.
Mussolini, ever a fan of conservatives, put in place a classical liberal to manage his economy, yet again promoting private enterprise first, and any sort of common ownership... not at all. Mussolini didn't "follow lenin's example" here, Mussolini had his own reasons for these policies, and as we'll see, the two differed in quite a few ways.
So we have determined that there exist countries who have different economies in important ways... that you label to all be the same, without citation or proof. You continue to call capitalism a type of socialism, without argumentation or citation. Furthermore, state capitalism was not used by every socialist, and in fact, many non-socialists or fascists used it too.
USSR? Temporary state capitalism, which it changed out of later, with an emphasis on trade and agriculture. China? State capitalism with an emphasis on manufacturing. Italy? Not state capitalism, corporatism. And nazi germany - again, not state capitalism, corporatism.
So, you have "proven me wrong" by... making unproven assertions?
I have proven you wrong on literally all of your baseless assertions here.
Goerdler defeats you, when he admits that he, a raging conservative, loved the nazis until they personally hurt him. The fact that all of the economies you named were different hurt you get again. And the fact that you continue to assert that "the state regulated all private industry" when you have never cited this, and it has never existed in a single one of the nations you gave as examples.
And that... literally isn't true. The USSR was an agricultural state, China creates and sells cheap products to the world, Italy and Germany had systems of government that were fundamentally private in nature.
Hitler was less of a socialist than you are. Fact: He did not employ any remotely socialist models of healthcare, welfare, union, or economy. In fact, he utilized fundamentally anti-socialist models of all of these things, as has been cited and proven to you previously.
Socialist healthcare, you have admitted, is a capitalist policy. State socialism, you have admitted, is different from state capitalism. State capitalism, you have admitted, is a form of capitalism.
You have lost, and I proved this months ago. Come on, child.
You started off losing the argument. You ended off proving me right.
But hey, thank you for never managing to even come up with a counter to the fact that public is different from community.
Hell, you're so embarrassed you got such a simple point wrong, that you've run away and refuse to even rebut that point :)
1
-
@UltraKardas So your entire argument rests on you not understanding that all of your examples had different economies, and that you don't want to admit none of the countries had total state control, and that total state control is not the definition of socialism? Also, hilariously enough, you assert (without evidence) that the USSR moved "away from total socialism" to put in place the NEP. Kid, the NEP was started only two months after the USSR was founded. How exactly had they achieved "total socialism" in that time?
So let's address your unproven claims, hm?
"statism is a natural part of socialism" Uncited, false. Stateless socialism has existed for longer than most statist socialism.
"That implies that Hitler was not in fact right wing" Uncited, false. How does a raging conservative who was a bigger fan of the nazis than literally any left winger, saying that he wants a better hitler, mean that hitler was not right wing?
"Lenin acknowledged that he had to back away from total socialism and allow some capitalism." Uncited, false. The NEP was the first economic model of the USSR
"Mussolini followed Lenin’s example" - False, uncited. They had different economies.
"So we have come to the conclusion that every socialist, fascist, and communist country had... SHOCKER. SIMILAR styles of the economy" False, uncited. See above.
" all have State capitalism? " False, uncited. See above.
"social healthcare, welfare, union, and socialist economy model that he did" False, uncited. You have refused to provide citation proving these policies existed. Because they didn't, these societal aspects were privatized.
"as socialized healthcare, welfare, and STATE socialism/capitalism are already proven to be socialist/communist programs." False, uncited. State capitalism, socialized healthcare, and welfare, are all capitalist.
"as the two terms were admitted to be interchangeable. " False, uncited. Capitalism and socialism... are different.
9 false and uncited statements. That's over half of your response :)
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas exactly! And, as we've been over, goerdeler was a fervent conservative, and a happy right winger. And also, of course, a huge fan of the nazi ideology
He wanted "less statism" in the specific area of the value of german currency, child.
Socialism, as we've been over time and time again, is not state control, and never had been. This has been proven to you so many times, in so many different ways, it's almost funny to see you repeating it for the hundredth time.
You lost child, and it is apparent to see
Goerdeler quote literally loved the nazis, loved their right wing anti socialist policies, and only disagreed in a few small places. He didn't want Capitalism - he wanted monarchism.
Instead of his plan, the nazis promoted far right anti socialist fascism.
And you can keep saying "you lost" for all those future months. If you were actually confident that I lost, you wouldn't need to keep responding. But you do keep responding - because you know I've disproven you, and you want the last word. Of course I haven't convinced you - facts can't do that, you're too propagandized
1
-
@UltraKardas @
yeah... They weren't. As I've proved with citations, and shown to you with examples. Also, you yet again get the definition of state Capitalism incorrect
And I agree, it is really sad that I can do easily prove you wrong, and you refuse to even engage with the arguments I have brought to you. Perhaps one day you will grow out of your nazi fanboy phase. The citations proved that they were state capitalist... And not socialist :)
And I was correct in proving that state capitalism isn't socialist, as we've been over.
You assert that china is socialist, not based on economic data or objective definitions, but on the propagandized of a genocidal state.
They have state capitalism. You cannot be both state capitalist and socialist. I continue replying with counter arguments, and every time you say I have none, you admit you can't respond to them. Welcome to reality, fash :)
1
-
@UltraKardas you can claim that I haven't proven you wrong - but we both know the truth.
You've done such absurd things as claim that capitalism can be socialism, and that socialism is somehow state control, which is counter to the definition
You think that cuba, china, the USSR, fascist italy, and nazi germany had the same economies.... Jesus, you really need to do some research. Or maybe just listen to the sources I cited?
And yes, publix doesn't mean community! You haven't even come up with a rebuttal to this point.
And yes, socialized healthcare, which exists primarily in capitalist countries, working with capitalist corporations, is not socialist.
Every single "argument" you've made has been easily and instantly proven wrong.
Even your statement that the Nazis must have been socialists because they... Had state control (?) has been proven wrong, both in that it isn't true, and in that your definition of socialism is an ahistorical lie. They got rid of all worker and socialist unions, in favor of a private "union "to suppress the workers. you don't even know the definition of private property.
You can insult me all you want - it into proves you have nothing else.
Face the facts, child. Every statement I have said is correct - you have been proven wrong
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
Your last message actually cited that state capitalism is when a state acts as a private entity. Now, I know you don't actually read your definitions, but is still capitalism - private owners are in control.
State capitalism is not state control, and neither is socialism, as both of us have cited.
Examples of state capitalism include anti-socialist modern China, Mao's china (which shut down socialist protests) the USSR under the NEP (which lenin admitted wasn't socialist) and... not nazi germany. They were corproratist, and also, even by your definition, not state capitalist.
How surprising that all examples of state capitalism were not only not systems of state control, but were all also admittedly not socialist.
And exactly, let's talk about the conservative fan of nazi germany, Goerdeler!
See, goerdeler mainly opposed nazi germany on not their statism, nor their economic policy. He was, after all, a strong conservative and thus a strong supporter of the nazis. The main difference is that goerdeler was an internationalist... the nazis were nationalists.
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
You capitalized words... that prove my point.
And sure, let's see, that definition of autarky is interesting... oh, wait.
Internationalism
Political ideology
Internationalism is a political principle that advocates greater political or economic cooperation among states and nations. It is associated with other political movements and ideologies, but can also reflect a doctrine, belief system, or movement in itself.
Protectionism is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents argue that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors. However, they also reduce trade and adversely affect consumers in general (by raising the cost of imported goods), and harm the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies and in the countries protected against.
So, you think that self sufficiency is only adopted by left wing people, when as it has been pointed out, nationalism and autarky are especially intertwined. Of course, you ignore this.
"According to Roger Griffin, fascism can be defined as a revolutionary species of political modernism originating in the early twentieth century whose mission is to combat the allegedly degenerative forces of contemporary history (decadence) by bringing about an alternative modernity and temporality (a ‘new order’ and a ‘new era’) based on the rebirth, or palingenesis, of the nation. Fascists conceive the nation as an organism shaped by historic, cultural, and in some cases, ethnic and hereditary factors, a mythic construct incompatible with liberal, conservative, and communist theories of society. The health of this organism they see undermined as much by the principles of institutional and cultural pluralism, individualism, and globalized consumerism promoted by liberalism as by the global regime of social justice and human equality identified by socialism in theory as the ultimate goal of history, or by the conservative defense of 'tradition' (Anton Shekhovtsov "Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir" ‘Fascism and the Far Right Series’ p. xxi-xxii).
Now, back to the nazi's policies.
The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[40] However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[41] The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[42] State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”
Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies.[48]
The month after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[55] In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[56] Many of these businesses continued to support Hitler even during the war and even profited from persecution of the Jews. The most infamous being firms like Krupp, IG Farben, and some large automobile manufacturers.[57] Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore "willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany."[58] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[59] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[60]
And so on. so I must ask again, where is the statism? Where is the "Total state ownership?" You've been unable to cite this.
State socialism? The nazis don't fit the definition. As we've been over, only a few people have used state socialism and state capitalism as the same term... and only with the USSR.
State capitalism? Again, where is the state ownership?
And state interventionism, according to your own logic, is the best definition... but you deny it, without a strand of citation.
The nazis did not have high concentration of state owned enterprises, they empowered the private market far more than previous capitalists. They did not control welfare, healthcare, unions, banks, or labor, these were all privatized. Your statement here are presented without citation.
They did not control wages, in fact they gave bosses more power to determine the wages of their workers without regulation, as you yourself admitted.
Hitler wrote:
“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
as well as
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
And hitler being against "economic sabotage," by which he meant "socialists and communists trying to gain workers rights," in no way disproves his anti-socialist policies.
Goerdeler shows up and proves that the nazis had a market economy, however, it was a strongly nationalist one, lining up with protectionist capitalism. They did not, in any way, have a state controlled economy, nor a socialist one.
The government did want to be fully self reliant... by expanding, and becoming an imperializing force. However, within this country, there was a high level of economic competition and private property.
So, you assert that "every other communist and socialist" government was like that, despite a. not defining these terms, and b. said countries (like china) being highly internationally reliant.
So to answer you again, after yet another stunning dunk on your sad, unproven arguments. Was nazi germany socialist? Of course it wasn't. The nazis purged socialist and marxist parties, and protected conservative ones. Fact.
The nazi economy rejected socialist and marxist political doctrines. Fact.
The far right, anti-socialist nazis rejected socialist and marxist style of government. Fact.
Nazi Germany was not socialist in every sense of the word, and does not fit even your warped definition of socialism. Fact.
Nazi Germany wasn't Socialist. You lost. And this has only gotten easier.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Oh sure, you can claim that. Sadly for you, like every single one of your other claims, you present it without citation, and it is entirely false.
Because, after all, you're only still here because every time I reply I easily prove you wrong. If I really hadn't done that, you would have run away hours ago. And I know logic will never appeal to you - after all, you somehow think that china was socialist.
cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
And yes! this is the definition of capitalism... not state capitalism. And, once more, nazi germany was not defined by state control.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.
Hm, all present in nazi germany.
state cap·i·tal·ism
/stāt ˈkapədlˌizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.
State capitalism is an economic system in which the state controls business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor). The definition can also include the state dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along business-management practices) or of public companies such as publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares.[1]
This is one definition of state capitalism, and even so, as we've been over, nationalization of production is not something the nazis were fond of, and similarly, socialism is not defined as state control.
But then again, this is your specialty, isn't it? Present a citation for something unrelated, and then claim it applies, without proof, to your original statement? I'm sorry to say, but no nazis actually had proposed that, much less implimented it.
Marxist literature defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism with ownership or control by a state. By this definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[2] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist.[3] Many scholars agree that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems, and that the current economy of China also constitutes a form of state capitalism.
"So both Mao and modern China who were communist and socialist respectively had state capitalism."
And yet another unproven citation. How was Mao's state, one that was not even socialist, manage to abolish the state, class, and money? How is modern china owned in part by each individual? Well... neither of those things are true. Mao's china wasn't communist, as he admitted, and modern china doesn't fit the definition of socialism. Because state capitalism... is antithetical to socialism. I can hear your argument exploding from here.
State capitalism is used by various authors in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state, i.e. a private economy that is subject to economic planning and interventionism. It has also been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers during World War I.[10] Alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment.[11] This was the case of Western European countries during the post-war consensus and of France during the period of dirigisme after World War II.[12] Other examples include Hungary under Viktor Orbán, Russia under Vladimir Putin, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew[13][14][15][16] and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as military dictatorships during the Cold War and regimes such as Nazi Germany
Hm, funny. Just now you claimed that nazi germany couldn't be a form of interventionist economy... and yet, right here, you cite the opposite. But thank you for posting examples of anti-socialist countries that practiced state capitalism!
I've noticed for a while now that any time I disprove you, you simply ignore said argument. You also have a nasty habit of making claims and then pretending that they're true, without evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
But... you didn't. You never cited many claims, such as your claims that the nazis were state socialists, that Mao was a communist, or that the nazis had total state control.
As I quoted, your citations prove me right.
I cite the same sources you do, even cite your same lines, and it sends you into a rage you cannot even rationally escape from.
You think I lost? Prove it. Be confident in your "points," for once.
You can't take the capitalism out of the nazi's privatized healthcare. You can't take the conservatism out of the nazi's preferred political groups.
And you can't take the idiocy out of the statement "socialism is state control." Because, as we've been over, it isn't.
There aren't three types of statism, as we've been over. Capitalism is statism. Libertarianism is statism. Your quote literally states this. The nazis were not socialists. And socialists are not all even statists.
The saddest part is, no matter what, you know you're wrong. Today, nazis March with the right. They always have. If you saw a neo Nazis by any other name, you would agree with them. Sad. Indeed.
1
-
@UltraKardas
When have I tried to "hide" from objective reality? I have offered you the facts of historians, scholars, and economists. I have rebutted every single one of your statements, one by one. You have offered me wikipedia articles, that prove me right, and the uncited conspiracy theories of an anti-vaxxer. I have countered Goerdeler - in fact, he proves my point, that the nazis were conservatives.
You lost the argument, child.
Goerdeler's goal was to promote internationalism - the nazis already had a protectionist, national market. Free market reform can happen within free market systems, child. And, as we've been over, you do not know the definition of socialism.
So your argument is that a conservative promoting a different type of market economy, somehow means he was the only one promoting a market economy, despite evidence and statements proving you wrong there.
The nazis were not communists, as they didn't want a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
The nazis were not socialists, as they did not want a system where the means of production were controlled by the community, and everyone in it, as individuals.
End of the day? Even your own statements prove that the nazis were not socialists, and your anger at me pointing this out only reinforces that fact. Privatized Union. Privatized healthcare. They were anti-socialists, and while you have claimed that they had "nationalized healthcare/unions," you have not once cited it.
I agree, we can argue for months, and that is my full intention.
Every time you respond, I will calmly dismantle your pro-nazi lies, and point out that you don't care about objective truth in reality.
You flip open a history book. You look up the history of the nazis. You find a passage explaining how the nazis weren't socialists.
Either that, or you'd find a picture of yourself, nazi.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Oh, child. I'm sorry, I thought you had left to learn, to educate yourself. Now, I see you haven't learned much at all. Most states are not private, yes... unless said state is state capitalist. You really do think that private means individual, don't you? Sad?
Private does not mean a single individual owns something, but even by that definition, a dictator is a single individual child, and it is a fact that in nazi germany, hitler could fire or imprison any government official he does not like. Now, I know you don't understand government, but monarchism was also a system of many people working together and against eachother.
And finally, you admit it! Yes, hitler did not own germany, he did not direct its industry and he did not hold the favor of its people. He did, however, own the government. And, as we've been over - private is not individual.
And... no, it isn't. State capitalism is defined as a system" where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production," (private state) or "alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment" which as your own source admits, was the case of nazi germany :)
So, you have been educated.
State capitalism is when a state is private, or works directly for private interests.
State socialism is a system in which the people are individually represented in a state, and their desires are reflected in the operation of the means of production. State capitalism is antithethical to socialism, and socialism isn't just "when welfare."
If you genuinely think that capitalism is when "individuals are responsible," then capitalism has never existed, and most capitalists are now socialists according to you. In nazi germany, the economy was undoubtedly private.
Thank you for making my victory easy :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
No you didn't. You "cited" conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers with a clear historical bias and no facts of their own (mises) as well as wikipedia articles. (that literally prove you wrong) The problem is, you'll then make claims like "nazi germany nationalized their entire economy" or that "nazi germany instituted a welfare state" and you provide zero citation for those claims. When I provide citation proving you wrong... you ignore it. But you won't admit that, or even bother reading my citations, because they prove you wrong so easily.
Your citations explicitly pointed out that the economy of nazi germany was majority private, and that China is not socialist. You have not even been able to admit to this... the thing your citation pointed out.
And again, here's another claim you did not respond to. Goerdeler didn't push for "free market reforms" in the sense that he was reforming into a market, he simply wanted a less protectionist market system. How hard is that to understand?
Goerdeler was a proud conservative, and like most conservatives of his time, supported the nazis on all but the smallest things. There was no "state controlled" economy in nazi germany.
Goerdeler wanted a more internationalist market, as the private market economy of nazi germany, in his eyes, was far too nationalist to be profitable.
I hate to break it, but you've just provided more proof that the nazis were conservatives.
Ah, and another uncited claim! No, child, the state is not the community. You know who was the community of nazi germany? The people hitler killed, the people he sent to prison camps to starve, the people who he oppressed and repressed and wiped from the earth. A state is not a community, and the German Community was one of hitler's greatest enemies.
The Nazis granted millions of marks in credits to private businesses.[61] Many businessmen had friendly relations to the Nazis,[57] most notably with Heinrich Himmler and his Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft.[62] Hitler's administration decreed an October 1937 policy that “dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000,” which swiftly effected the collapse of one fifth of all small corporations.[63] On July 15, 1933 a law was enacted that imposed compulsory membership in cartels, while by 1934 the Third Reich had mandated a reorganization of all companies and trade associations and formed an alliance with the Nazi regime.[63] Nonetheless, the Nazi regime was able to close most of Germany's stock exchanges, reducing them “from twenty-one to nine in 1935,” and “limited the distribution of dividends to 6 percent.”[64] By 1936 Germany decreed laws to completely block foreign stock trades by citizens.[65] These moves showed signs of Antisemitism and a move towards a war economy, with the belief that the stock market was being operated by Jews.
The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government—mainly by participating in government contracts for military production—but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and historians Christoph Buccheim and Jonas Scherner state that "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[66] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[67] The regime generally used monetary incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[68] According to Buccheim and Scherner, the reason why businesses sometimes refused these incentives was out of long-term profitability considerations.
Strange how you think that the privatization of health insurance is a socialist policy. Do you... understand basic definitions?
And how does the privatization of healthcare prove that anti-socialist nazi germany was not private? It proves quite the opposite.
Private does not mean individual, child. And let me remind you of a few words: "Community, as a whole." Tell me, do you, like hitler, think that jewish people weren't part of the community, that they were somehow subhuman? Or do you admit to hitler's anti-socialism?
If hitler was actually a socialist, you wouldn't agree with him on so much.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Child, child, calm down. Saying lies in all capital letters doesn't make said lies any more true. Yes, as we've been over, and as you're unable to refute (thus proving me right) public and community are different things, unless you think that "public gathering" means "state owned gathering."
And you've said I had said this a number of times...
And yet you have never cited where I said it. Strange. Yes, the economies of fascist italy and fascist germany were different.
And here we see, you do not know what capitalism is.
Saying "many times" is not a citation, child. State capitalism, as i've cited, is a form of capitalism. Capitalism is not a form of socialism, and I really shouldn't have to point that out. State Capitalism is not defined as "state ownership," and if it was, countries like anti-socialist nazi germany and modern day capitalist china would not fit said definition.
And, as you already know, a state can be private. Or did you forget that already/
And of course every historical text agrees with me. That's why your only citations have been from biased conspiracy theorists, and wikipedia pages that prove you wrong.
And do you remember when I showed you that TIK admits historians disagree with him?
Your last mistake was thinking you could rewrite history, and remove the anti-socialism from nazi ideology.
Child, you can insult me all you want. You're an open denier of the nazi's crimes, and you cannot see the truth.
And, as we've been over, there are different types of state capitalist economies... but not one of them is socialist. You should know this, child, we've been over it.
The nazis hated marx more than you, which is why they share similar features with your ideology. Fascism is similar to most right wing ideologies, which is why it shares traits with you.
You simply do not understand the definitions of a single term you continue to use.
Funny, and now you decide to participate in holocaust denial to "prove your point." No, child, the holocaust did happen, and it killed millions. Why do you keep trying to defend the far right, anti-socialist nazis?
And as we've been over, this is a lie. The USSR, for all of its crimes, never had the death camps of fascist italy, nazi germany, or other capitalist owned countries, like British-India, or the Belgian Congo.
The fact that you're so much of an antisemetic prick that you compare the death of Anne Frank, a leftist child that was killed at the hands of your ideological allies, to an unrelated country, proves my point exactly.
The USSR and Nazi Germany had very different economies, as we've been over. The time that they were most similar was under Lenin's NEP... a policy even he admitted was anti-socialist. Nazis are anti-marxists, anti-communists, and anti-socialists.
That means that, as we've been over, the nazis were anti-socialists! Wow, who would have guessed!
You hide from reality when you claim the NEP was somehow a "Socialist" policy.
Do you really not understand that major privatization, international markets, and private property... isn't socialist?
Nazi Germany was a nearly entirely privately owned economy, as we've been over. And as you are unable to disprove.
And no, the USSR was never communist.
1
-
@UltraKardas "You see, China, USSR and the Nazi's all share in marxist based ideologies, they should share similar features. If Fascism is similar to Socialism, it would share traits. "
Interesting quote from you here. See, the funny thing is, the nazis didn't share traits with marxists, or socialists. Socialists upheld the weak, opened borders and lessened class divides, called for greater worker and minority rights, and so on. The only places they didn't do this was when they tried, and failed. The nazis were as far from this as you can get. Hell, the nazis hated the marxists so much, that when they wanted an excuse to execute a child, they would call said child a "marxist" to justify their death.
Nazis loved privatization, hated minority groups, loved nationalism and closed borders, and tried to burn the history books almost as much as you. Combine that with them constantly working with conservatives and capitalists, while killing progressives, and what do we see?
Well, we see the truth.
You see, capitalism, nationalism, and nazi ideology, all share in right wing based ideologies, so they share similar features. Since fascism is a right wing ideology, it shares similar features with other right wing ideologies.
Which is why you refuse to admit that when hitler says that he wants to protect private property at all costs, and that the nazi ideology preaches that private property is the most efficient... you agree with him.
1
-
@UltraKardas Here is a definition of state capitalism, from the article you linked to me. "Alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment." If one continues this line, you see they give examples. "This was the case of Western European countries during the post-war consensus and of France during the period of dirigisme after World War II.[12] Other examples include Hungary under Viktor Orbán, Russia under Vladimir Putin, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew[13][14][15][16] and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as military dictatorships during the Cold War and fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany .[17][18][19][20]"
To shorten it... "Alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE PRIVATELY OWNED, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment... such as [in] Nazi Germany."
In other words, by citing this article as fact, you admit that the definition of state capitalism is not "state ownership," and that the nazis had a private economy :)
1
-
@UltraKardas
How is me pointing out that you cited an anti-vaxxer... a strawman? Do you understand the definitions of words? You cited a source, I pointed out that the source is well known for spreading conspiracy theories with no evidence. Just lie you.
But hey, you don't care about citation anyway.
You have a clear historical bias, you want to hurt socialism in any way you can, and so you label a bunch of different anti-socialist nations as "socialist," simply because you wish to deflect from the evils of the right.
You try to bend the definition of socialism as to be so wide that even the writers of your propaganda would be considered socialists, but you haven't thought that far, have you?
And yes, as we've been over, those two terms coincide. Yes, socialism by definition needs to represent all people, and yes, governments are sometimes bad at representing people. Why do you disagree?
And here's the perfect sentence from you. You believe that your bias, your hatred of socialism, your political bias... is the same thing as the truth. Right now, you've admitted you don't care about the truth, only your bias.
When anti-socialist nazi germany has more in common with policy and politics with the conservatives it loved, not the leftists it killed, I think we can tell where their politics leaned - against socialism. Like you, nazi fanboy.
1
-
1
-
@YourLocalMemeAndAnimeDealer ...They didn't. As i've cited time and time again. There were businesspeople who worked for both nazi germany and the allied powers. There was open competition in the nazi regime. There was open disrespect of nazi wishes in the nazi regime. So, I ask you people again to please actually read my comments before replying.
"The month after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[55] In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[56] Many of these businesses continued to support Hitler even during the war and even profited from persecution of the Jews. The most infamous being firms like Krupp, IG Farben, and some large automobile manufacturers.[57] Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore "willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany."[58] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[59] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[60]
The Nazis granted millions of marks in credits to private businesses.[61] Many businessmen had friendly relations to the Nazis,[57] most notably with Heinrich Himmler and his Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft.[62] The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government—mainly by participating in government contracts for military production—but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest. However, such threats were rarely carried out in practice, and historians Christoph Buccheim and Jonas Scherner state that "companies normally could refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state without any consequences."[66] Private firms refused government contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel, a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if its demand was not met.[67] The regime generally used monetary incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally respected even in projects important for the war.[68] According to Buccheim and Scherner, the reason why businesses sometimes refused these incentives was out of long-term profitability considerations. The government usually tried to persuade them to join military projects, but firms were worried about overcapacity in case the armaments boom would end. They did not want to commit themselves too much to war-related production for the future.[69]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YourLocalMemeAndAnimeDealer
So your only reasoning as to the country of cheap market goods and billionaires bring socialist is... Because you say so? I'm sorry, that isn't an actual argument. China had long abandoned any pretense of promoting socialism, which is why they have such an open admittance of their free market state. Socialism is defined as when the means of production are in the hands of the community, as a whole. Billionaires, even billionaires working with the government, do not fit that definition. If you honestly say that china, one of the go to economic examples of private markets in the world, is socialist than you don't know what you're talking about. Hence, your only argument being "they're socialist because I say so"
And again, false. The US law is decided by the US. If they want to break that law, who can stop them? Nobody. They don't have to do anything, they don't even have to hold elections, using the power of the military the US could suspend elections at any time and the civilization population could do nothing about it. Also, yes, the government did kill people and take their things. Like the Red Ark of the early 20th century. You seriously believe the government's is restricted by rules it made up and can break at any time? The contract binding the US is not physical, it is social.
1
-
@YourLocalMemeAndAnimeDealer @Your local meme and anime dealer so again. You have no concrete reason that china is socialist, you simply assume they are and then twist their actions to justify this assumption. China asserts it is socialist only because to do otherwise would remove their very reason for existence. They claim to be a force against the exploitative capitalist west, and yet they themselves are an example of this exploitation, so they have to lie and pretend otherwise. Also, secretive government, suppression of dissent, and top down ruling isn't exclusive to socialism, just authoritarianism, which as history shows, has been happy being anti socialist in more than a few occasions. Calling me a moron has less weight to it when you can't even prove your own assertions.
And... What? You think that a government having the ability to write its own rules is not how the real world works? Child, you literally give an example of it, state government writing the rules of government. Do you honestly thi k that if Joe Biden and all the necessary government officials, tomorrow, decided to use military force to suspend elections forever in this country, that the citizenry could do anything to stop it? The only reason this doesn't happen is because the government has a hard time agreeing with itself, but that is not always the case. your entire paragraph here shows your ignorance because you literally use two parts of the same government as proof that "government doesn't write its own rules."
And I am aware that there are three branches of federal government. The problem is, the people in these branches aren't always interested in checking or balancing eachother. What if the legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch all agree, but the citizenship does not? Who checks their power then? Who even has the power necessary to do so? No one, pretty much.
The fact that you've never heard this argument is painful. This is a pretty basic libertarian argument - "the government doesn't need to follow its own rules, which is why we need to keep the government weak and fractured." But hey, insult me all you want. Your ignorance is showing. Tell me child, if the US government was to take your house tomorrow, and the judicial branch approved of it, the executive branch, the legislative branch, your local government, state government all approved as well, and all write laws making it legal. So, what can you do? Pretty. Much. Nothing. All states are the same child. Stop invoking Hitler to argue for totalitarianism.
1
-
1
-
@YourLocalMemeAndAnimeDealer well there really isn't a point but oh well, no stone left unturned.
Anyway, ...yes? I think that objective definitions are way more useful for determining the ideology of a nation than the words of governments and dictators that have a reason to lie, and are already known to be liars. It isn't "up to me to decide," it's up to the definitions I've been bringing to your attention. So I must ask, how the hell can a country be free market, majority private, and still be socialist? And why do you trust the words of a known genocidal dictator over the words of economists and historians?
And again, you're acting under the assumption that a new totalitarian government... Would allow those things?? History be damned, I guess. Does china allow the television of opposing opinions and candidates to run the country? No, not really. What did china do when a bunch of students and socialist workers tried to protest the government and unionize? Well, they ran them over with tanks and made pictures of the events illegal. I'm sure most of the people in china don't like their work, their country, or their lives in that country, but they really can't do much to oppose a totalitarian government. So what could you do if the US government followed this exact path? Pretty much nothing. you are being your statements on the assumption that a totalitarian US wouldn't be totalitarian at all, and would still allow democratic measures. Why?
the other guy is a chikd who cites sources that prove him wrong, which is still better than you, as you've cited no sources at all and you've shown a fundamental misunderstanding about the roll of government in modern society. As I've said time and time again, insulting me will not make totalitarianism disappear. Please grow up and stop defending the words of nazi apologists.
1
-
1
-
@YourLocalMemeAndAnimeDealer totalitarians will enforce those laws, as they always have. Seriously, you're arguing against observable reality here. Right now, today, in counties like North Korea, guards protect borders that they want to jump over and that they stop their friends and family from jumping over. Government officials pass legislation that hurts their voters, but more than that, their community, their family and friends. I agree, it sounds absurd and inhuman, but humanity really can be that bad, preferring to be powerful, even if the weapons they put in place can easily be turned on them. And your claim that anyone can build a bomb or a weapon to resist the government in no way makes my point "moot," child. The government literally has billions of dollars available for making the same thing you can, but more effective, and in hundreds of times greater numbers. Can any make a fighter jet? An aircraft carrier? A nuclear bomb? Nope. If they could, people who were already fucked over would have revolted a long time ago
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas Every proof... besides them actually, you know, fitting the definition. Or your historical claims being accurate. Or their propaganda being accurate. Actually, you don't have anything, do you?? So no proof at all.
#1 North Korea claims it is democratic. They admit it. They tell you to your face "We are democratic." And yet, they aren't. Governments lie.
#2 More uncited lies. Nazi germany was a far right anti-socialist fascist regime, while china is merely a corporatist regime. Nazi germany despised large public unions, which is why they did not have any, choosing instead to privatize unions. I see you are conflating all unions with public unions... again.
And I agree, they both shared antisocialist economic systems.
#3. Socialism is defined as control by the community. The state, especially a dictatorial state, does not speak for the community.
You can not have individual control over anything in china unless you agree with the government - therefore, the community as a whole has no concrete power over the means of production. This is anti socialist.
And again, you don't seem to realize that regulation of business is a capitalist policy, not a socialist one. But then again, you think capitalism is socialism, so this is no surprise
#4 Social Credit has nothing to do with socialism.
China has had the world's largest middle class population since 2015,[99] and the middle class grew to a size of 400 million by 2018[100] and is projected to reach 1.2 billion by 2027, making up one fourth of the world total.[101] As of 2018, China was first in the world in total number of billionaires and second in millionaires – there were 658 Chinese billionaires[66] and 3.5 million millionaires.[67] In 2019, China overtook the US as the home to the highest number of rich people in the world, according to the global wealth report by Credit Suisse.[102][103] In other words, as of 2019, a hundred million Chinese are in the top ten percent of the wealthiest individuals in the world – those who have a net personal wealth of at least $110,000.[104] In 2020, China has the world's highest number of billionaires, which is more than the US and India combined,[105] and as of March 2021, the number of billionaires in China reach 1,058 with the combined wealth of US$4.5 trillion.[106] According to the Hurun Global Rich List 2021, China is home to six of the world's top ten cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Hangzhou and Guangzhou in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th spots, respectively) by the highest number of billionaires, which is more than any country.[107]
The government aka. the anti-community machine tries to force people to comply, rather than letting the community as a whole have any sort of power.
The chinese government operates a primarily private, market economy, which you yourself have admitted, but yet again you refuse to remember that. As we've been over, socialized healthcare is capitalist healthcare, credit scores exist under capitalism to this very day.
You literally cannot pretend in any way that China is socialist. Every facet of the country is controlled by private demands and goes against the wishes of the community as a whole. You, yet again, deny the crimes of dictators.
Just how weird how many similarities the nazis and right wing corporatists have, hm?
1
-
1
-
@UltraKardas
"Show me the Private charities in Nazi Germany."
Ok, will do!
The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[74] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[75] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare.[76] Thus, Nazi programs such as the Winter Relief of the German People and the broader National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) were organized as quasi-private institutions, officially relying on private donations from Germans to help others of their race—although in practice those who refused to donate could face severe consequences.[77] Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill."[78] Successful efforts were made to get middle-class women involved in social work assisting large families,[79] and the Winter Relief campaigns acted as a ritual to generate public sympathy.[80] Meanwhile, in addition to being excluded from receiving aid under these programs, the physically disabled and homeless were actively persecuted, being labeled “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters.”[81]
"Show me the private welfare unions"
You got it!
The Nazis banned all trade unions that existed before their rise to power, and replaced them with the German Labour Front (DAF), controlled by the Nazi Party.[82] They also outlawed strikes and lockouts.[83] The stated goal of the German Labour Front was not to protect workers, but to increase output, and it brought in employers as well as workers.[84] Journalist and historian William L. Shirer wrote that it was "a vast propaganda organization...a gigantic fraud."[84] The Nazis granted millions of marks in credits to private businesses.[61] Many businessmen had friendly relations to the Nazis,[57] most notably with Heinrich Himmler and his Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft.[62] Hitler's administration decreed an October 1937 policy that “dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000,” which swiftly effected the collapse of one fifth of all small corporations.[63] On July 15, 1933 a law was enacted that imposed compulsory membership in cartels, while by 1934 the Third Reich had mandated a reorganization of all companies and trade associations and formed an alliance with the Nazi regime.[63] Nonetheless, the Nazi regime was able to close most of Germany's stock exchanges, reducing them “from twenty-one to nine in 1935,” and “limited the distribution of dividends to 6 percent.”[64] By 1936 Germany decreed laws to completely block foreign stock trades by citizens.[65] These moves showed signs of Antisemitism and a move towards a war economy, with the belief that the stock market was being operated by Jews.
I'm sorry child, but you lost. You claim that the private welfare didn't exist... when it was right there. Same with private unions. And you continue to assert state control, when even your own sourced admitted no such thing existed.
Example A: Nazi's privatized the previous capitalist healthcare.
Example B,-G
The autobahn was started under capitalist weimar germany, not socialist. The production of cars and tourism was done with the help of the private industry who willingly worked with the nazis, not socialism. There was no nationalized government union, just a private one that abolished all others. The antisocialist state press, which published constant hate towards socialism, up to the Volkswagen, the product of a capitalist corporation that still exists today, which worked voluntarily with the nazis for personal benefit.
So... where's the socialism???
1
-
@UltraKardas
Oh, child. So you admit you're wrong, once again, without even having the courage to say it.
From my own words, yes!
You actually disproved yourself without even knowing it. Shame you don't have a brain.
"Thus, Nazi programs such as the Winter Relief of the German People and the broader National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) were organized as quasi-private institutions, officially relying on private donations from Germans to help others of their race—although in practice those who refused to donate could face severe consequences.[77] "
Quasi, as a word, does mean "partly or almost." As in the NSV was a mostly private charity, with government oversight.
The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[74] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[75] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare.[76] Thus, Nazi programs such as the Winter Relief of the German People and the broader National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) were organized as quasi-private institutions, officially relying on private donations from Germans to help others of their race—although in practice those who refused to donate could face severe consequences.[77] Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill."[78] Successful efforts were made to get middle-class women involved in social work assisting large families,[79] and the Winter Relief campaigns acted as a ritual to generate public sympathy.[80] Meanwhile, in addition to being excluded from receiving aid under these programs, the physically disabled and homeless were actively persecuted, being labeled “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters.”[81]
And thank you for pointing out that hitler was opposed to all forms of socialist welfare, but child, this simply is not true. Afer all, your quote only shows that he "called for" the abolition of all other private charities. "The NSV was not private by any means?" This is false, and you do not cite it. The NSV was responsible for disbanding all other private welfare, as it was a private system, as you have admitted. Germans were free not to donate.
"No private charities were allowed under hitler after 1933?" This statement is, as per your own statements, false, as the NSV was a private charity. Congratulations! You admitted you were wrong yet again.
1
-
@UltraKardas What proof, though? The only proof provided has been mine, which is why you refuse to admit that china does not fit the definition of socialism, as you've admitted.
#1. That isn't what a strawman is, kid. North Korea is an example of a dictatorship that lies. China is another example of a dictatorship that lies. The fact that you don't know what an example is, and you get this annoyed when I provide one, is hilarious.
#2. This is false, as you've admitted, the nazis were far right anti-socialists
There is overwhelming evidence to this.
The nazis did not oppose the right, instead, they supported it. They worked with capitalists, and the parties that were protected from Hitler's purges were exclusively conservative.
Secondly, as shown with Carl Goerdeler, the nazis were fans of statism (like right wingers) and had the goal of autarky (like right wingers.
Statism is not a fundamental feature of socialist societies, as stateless socialism exists, and all communism is stateless.
Statism is not "when the state is in control," as per your own definition, statism is when a state exists. Even (again, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCE) libertarian capitalists are statists.
Autarky was the goal of conservatives and capitalists like Bush and Reagan for decades, and Trump most recently. Are they socialists? Do you not understand that nationalism is autarkism in most cases?
#3. Exactly, Goerdeler wanted another right wing dictator, which is why he supported hitler for so long. He knew hitler was a right wing dictator, but not the right kind. Two right wingers not liking eachother doesn't make one not right wing.
Replacing hitler with a mildly less nationalistic rightist was Goerdeler's goal.
Goerdeler actually agreed with hitler for the vast majority of his political career, and in fact, only ever disagreed on every small things, which is why hitler was praised by goerdeler so often.
Goerdeler wanted an international market, as a market already existed in germany. Also, not all right wing ideologies are in favor of free markets, what? That's why he and Goerdeler agreed on most things.
Spoiler! The two very rarely opposed each other.
Spoiler! The two constantly opposed each other.
"Aidan B
3 days ago (edited)"#3. Socialism is defined as control by the community. The state, especially a dictatorial state, does not speak for the community."
This is still true, child. After all, the state is not the community, especially a genocidal state that kills millions of the community. Ruling over a people does not mean the people agree with you.
Claiming a dictatorship "speaks for the community" is literally a neo-nazi talking point.
I'm sorry, but this isn't true. The people of every country you have mentioned were not fans of said country. The people, the community, were not spoken for. The community of nazi germany was killed, repressed, and oppressed. And you deny this.
Shocker for you, child. Anti-socialism is a fundamental part of the holocaust.
Shocker for you. The economy of nazi germany, by your own definition, does not fit any definition of socialism.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Face the truth. The holocaust happened, despite how much you want to deny it.
ace the truth. A state is a political community.
Aidan B
3 days ago (edited)"#3. Socialism is defined as control by the community. The state, especially a dictatorial state, does not speak for the community."
Socialism is defined as control by the community as a whole. Socialism is not defined by state control, and the definition of state control is not statism. The "political community" has never been the goal of socialism, child.
state
/stāt/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
Politics
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
Anti-socialist nazi germany was a dictatorship, under which the community was subject to unspeakable crimes, and often the community would be purged. Socialism is not control by the political community, child. It is control of the community, as a whole.
AKA, the nazis were lesss socialist than you.
Socialism, as you yourself have admitted, does not refer to any sort of government ownership, as the government does not represent every individual, or the community as a whole.
The next snippet is for you.
Libertarian socialism,[1] also referred to as anarcho-socialism,[2][3] anarchist socialism,[4] free socialism,[5] stateless socialism,[6] socialist anarchism[7] and socialist libertarianism,[8] is an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian[9][10] political philosophy within the socialist movement which rejects the state socialist conception of socialism as a statist form where the state retains centralized control of the economy.[11] Overlapping with anarchism and libertarianism,[12][13] libertarian socialists criticize wage slavery relationships within the workplace,[14] emphasizing workers' self-management[15] and decentralized structures of political organization.[16][17][18] As a broad socialist tradition and movement, libertarian socialism includes anarchist, Marxist and anarchist or Marxist-inspired thought as well as other left-libertarian tendencies.[19] Anarchism and libertarian Marxism are the main currents of libertarian socialism.[20][21]
How could this exist if socialism is state control?
Holy shit, you think that Nazi germany had worker's interests as a priority? So you're a holocaust apologist.
"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘳-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from."
"However, that does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance. In fact the opposite is true, as will be demonstrated in the second section of this article. For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦. As a rule freedom of contract, that important corollary of private property rights, was not abolished during the Third Reich even in dealings with state agencies."
And thank you for admitting to your disgusting nazi apologia. Your argument is destroyed by the simply definitions you refuse to understand, and the history you refuck to acknoweledge.
So we are back to you stating that "state control is socialism, and the nazis had state control!" Despite literally neither part of that statement being true. A country, as of yet, has not existed that follows the definition of socialism, that being "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." Not "political community," child. Community as a whole.
Was nazi germany run by the community as a whole? No. Did the community as a whole have control? No. But thank you for admitting that the nazis have an anti-socialist economic view that utterly destroys your argument, yet again
You are literally stating that socialism is when a government has political control. Child, all governments have political control. According to you, every government ever, including the radically anti-socialist USA, is socialist.
1
-
@UltraKardas
Ah, another uncited quote! Let's try some that are actually true.
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and organizational self-management of enterprises[8][9] as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.[10] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity[11] in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them,[13] but social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[1][14][15] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary; how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[16]
Your "source" literally cites Venezuela, a 70% private economy, and China, the country best known for cheap capitalism, as socialist. Hilarious
Funny how every "totalitarian socialist" example you give does not actually fit the definition of socialism.
The USSR publicly admitted to being state-capitalist, and only hoped to reach socialism. China is much the same, though that hope has faded in time.
In a socialist economy, there need not even be public officials, or even a "public" to speak of. After all, anti-state socialism has existed for just as long, if not longer, than statism socialism. Free market economies, on the other hand, have always proven to be filled with genocide, bloodshed, and starvation. See: the nazis.
Anti-socialist germany had everything from private charities, to mass privatization, to companies openly competing for the "right" to build death camps, where millions were murdered. Socialism has nothing to do with setting prices or wages, under socialism, there is no capitalist market. Hell, the goal of socialism is the abolition of wage labor. By your definition, capitalist countries are more socialist than countries claiming to be socialist.
Socialism is not state run, as we've been over, and you've admitted. After all, how could socialism be state ownership, if the definition and history shows that stateless socialism is just as common? Socialist economies aren't regulated capitalism, child. Those are mixed economies... capitalist mixed economies.
So, to sum up - you think that socialism is state control, and that the nazis had state control of industry.
This is false, on both counts. Socialism means community control of the means of production. Not one community of many, like the state, speaking above all others. It means that every individual is represented, either in their workplace, their local community, or the national level. This is how socialism can exist without a state, as has been long known. The nazis did not have a system of state ownership, they had a "private economy," as you've admitted.
1
-
@UltraKardas So, in other words, you are unable to refute the fact that your own citation proves that the nazis had an economy "where the means of production were privately owned." Are you calling your own source a liar? In trying to refute it, you make claims that you refuse to cite, such as the claim "There were no private welfare institutions." This is false.
The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish.[74] They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection.[75] Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare.[76] Thus, Nazi programs such as the Winter Relief of the German People and the broader National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) were organized as quasi-private institutions, officially relying on private donations from Germans to help others of their race. Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill."[78] Successful efforts were made to get middle-class women involved in social work assisting large families,[79] and the Winter Relief campaigns acted as a ritual to generate public sympathy.[80] Meanwhile, in addition to being excluded from receiving aid under these programs, the physically disabled and homeless were actively persecuted, being labeled “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters.”[81]
The Nazis banned all trade unions that existed before their rise to power, and replaced them with the German Labour Front (DAF), controlled by the Nazi Party.[82] They also outlawed strikes and lockouts.[83] The stated goal of the German Labour Front was not to protect workers, but to increase output, and it brought in employers as well as workers.[84] Journalist and historian William L. Shirer wrote that it was "a vast propaganda organization...a gigantic fraud."[84] Meanwhile, the Chamber of Economics (whose president was appointed by the Reich minister of economics) absorbed all existing chambers of commerce. By 1934 these two groups merged somewhat when the Chamber of Economics also became the economics department of the DAF.
You have never cited a single source that says that private welfare was banned in nazi germany - and you never will. As, in truth, no citation exists that actually proves your nonsense, made up point.
So until you manage to address that comment, you are at a crossroads - you can either stick by your citation, and admit the nazis had a private economy, or call your citation a lie, and you by association a liar. Which is it? Are you a liar... or a liar? :)
Until then I shall simply copy-paste the response that infuriates you so.
Here is a definition of state capitalism, from the article you linked to me. "Alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment." If one continues this line, you see they give examples. "This was the case of Western European countries during the post-war consensus and of France during the period of dirigisme after World War II.[12] Other examples include Hungary under Viktor Orbán, Russia under Vladimir Putin, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew[13][14][15][16] and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as military dictatorships during the Cold War and fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany .[17][18][19][20]"
To shorten it... "Alternatively, state capitalism may refer to an economic system where THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE PRIVATELY OWNED, but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment... such as [in] Nazi Germany."
In other words, by citing this article as fact, you admit that the definition of state capitalism is not "state ownership," and that the nazis had a private economy :)
1
-
@UltraKardas Also, just to help you out with another word you can't figure out. That word being, statism.
So here's a quick quote from you:
"Statist or Statism is a fundamental feature of socialist and communist societies.
Since the community, or the state is in control of the means of production, all power is in the hands of the STATE. Its 100% Statism. "
As you've already admitted, community control is not the same as state control, but also, statism isn't when the state owns the means of production. Statism is a term that simply describes any ideology that promotes the existence of any state, large or small. That's why your "three types of statism" argument is so silly.
"In political science, statism is the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree.[1][2][3] "
"Statism can take many forms from small government to big government. Minarchism is a political philosophy that prefers a minimal state such as a night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud with military, police and courts. This may also include fire departments, prisons and other functions.[8][9][10][11] The welfare state is another form within the spectrum of statism.[12][13] Authoritarian philosophies view a strong, authoritative state as required to legislate or enforce morality and cultural practices.[14][15] Totalitarianism is that which prefers a maximum, all-encompassing state.[16][17][18][19][20]"
Statism is not "when the government owns everything." You're a statist. I am not, as I do not believe the government has legitimate authority.
Nazi germany was statist... as is the USA. As is the UK. As is every modern nation. They were, however, a right wing state.
The fact that you don't even know what statism is, is sad.
The economy of nazi germany was, according to your source, a system "where the means of production [were] privately owned"
Modern capitalists promote Protectionism, and they always have. All nationalism by definition strives for autarchy.
There are many examples of leftist societies that promote internationalism over autarky, but you appear to not realize that. Do you realize that autarky is inseparable from nationalism, or not?
1
-
@UltraKardas Oh, and one final thing. Let's take a quiz! If you refuse to answer, i'll take that as you admitting defeat. If you fail the quiz, i'll take that as the same thing.
1. Who is more likely to agree with the following quotes?
“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”
“We... see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
“ Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; [our ideology] 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.”
A. A Right Winger
or
B. A Left Winger
2. How did Hitler describe the left?
A. "Amazing! I love leftism."
or
B. "God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction." (followed by "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.")
or
C. "It's ok I guess."
(hint: only one of these is a real quote)
3. Hitler's economy, according to your own source, was what?
A. Completely 100% totally state owned (against hitler's stated wishes, and would not be socialism)
or
B. Stateless anarchist commune
or
C. A system in which "the means of production [were] in private hands."
4. In relation to welfare, healthcare, and unions, Hitler did what?
A. Went against his ideology and developed public health and welfare services (this answer is a denial of nazi eugenics and the holocaust, and is false)
B. Abolished public unions, replacing them with a private "sham" union, privatized huge amounts of healthcare and only gave access to healthcare to those who were healthy enough to pay, and created a private donation-only "welfare service" that was only given to those who promised to work, and were white.
5. Socialism is defined as?
A. State Control/Political Community Control (false, because stateless socialism exists, neither of these are forms of collective control as each individual in the community is not represented, and all governments have a political community in control)
or
B. Collective control (which, of course, is not state control, as public=/=community (remember that public gatherings are not state owned gatherings) also considering that collective, community control must be control of "the community as a whole," meaning each individual must have a degree of individual control, or they must be entirely represented by a state middle-man)
6. The right and left, politically, are defined in relation to what?
A. To government power/state ownership (false, as totalitarian right wing ideologies are older than libertarian ones, as well as libertarian and anarchist left wing ideologies existing as long as the label has)
or
B. They are defined in their support or rejection of hierarchy. The left opposes hierarchy, instead promoting equality and progressivism in capital primarily, but also in a state (attempting to reach stateless communism) while the right upholds hierarchy, either fluid (capital) or rigid (dicatorships)
(Bonus Fact! This is what the nazis thought of equality. From Gregor Strasser: "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!")
7. Hitler was what, according to the sources you have provided, I have provided, and the overwhelming historical consensus that I have cited multiple times?
A. A socialist (false, as you've admitted, and promotes holocaust denial)
or
B. Not a socialist, by any argument you've attempted (objective, anti-nazi reality)
Tell me what you picked! i'll tally up your scores :)
1
-
@UltraKardas So, let me get this straight. You think hitler couldn't have been right wing... because some right wingers disagreed with him on small issues? Oh this is hilarious. Were you not the person that called hitler left wing and socialist, despite him not just "disagreeing" with those groups, but purging all those even remotely close to them? Hitler killed socialists, communists, leftists, anarchists, liberals, unionists, gay people, trans people, disabled people, poor people, people of other races, people of other religions, ect. He, on the other hand, protected conservatives and worked with capitalists, until they opposed him, which they rarely did, and even when they did often he did not or could not do much about it. Goerdeler wanted an international market, as well as international immigration/emigration, but he also wanted a monarch. Hitler wanted another form of right wing dictator, a more nationalist market, and no/minimal international immigration or emigration. Goerdeler did not oppose hitler as much as the leftists did, until his last few attempts, he was still within nazi government, attempting to influence them from within, leveraging their agreements to solve their disagreements. He didn't oppose hitler as much as the leftists, because he didn't disagree with hitler as much as leftists did. Hence, why he only began to work against hitler in even the smallest thing, years after hitler had taken power, whereas the leftists had opposed him from day one. You say Goerdeler being an international-monarchist makes hitler left wing. Two right wingerd disagreeing doesn't make one left wing. You say hitler and goerdeler disagreed about nearly everything, and yet unlike leftists they worked together for years, Goerdeler had a high position in nazi government, and for a while, until he started preaching a different type of right wing ideology, Goerdeler was respected by hitler. Do you understand how you got it wrong yet, child? If disagreeing with hitler and trying to bring down the dictator means that hitler is opposite to your side, then he must be right wing, because far more leftists disagreed with, and acted against, hitler far more. Right wing politics is not about free markets, after all, monarchists (like Goerdeler) are right wing, and many of them do not support markets. Hitler did support markets, just national, autocratic markets. Like many capitalists do, to this day.
1
-
1
-
@cupcakes7308
Or it's something they do when they want to mock a title or profession, and you would be kidding yourself if you don't think that right wing zealots despise fact checkers for so constantly proving them wrong.
So referring to fact checkers as "socialist defenders" who " can't tell fact from feeling or belief and don't know actual objective facts" is nothing but a baseless attempt at dismissing the opposition without responding to their points. Bud, they aren't "socialist defenders" just because they tell the truth about socialism, and just because they don't agree with your feelings, doesn't make their facts invalid. They don't become bad at fact checking just because they show you facts you don't like.
Yes, and despite saying this, the only evidence they provided was their own emotional reaction to arguments that they didn't like, agree with, or that they could not easily refute.
The fact that you somehow think I was confusing his attacks for statements on his own self, rather than pointing out that his attacks are more applicable to your own behavior, makes it clear that you literally cannot even read my ow response. The OP here is nothing but emotional and full of bias.
Their response is nothing but mindless attacks and ad hominem dismissal.
See, that's the problem. I ma happy to provide factual information to those who ask and those who create an argument needing it. The problem is, your OP here isn't. They aren't able to do anything but ideologically attack those they disagree with, and you're much the same, both neglecting citation in favor of emotion. I'm unsure how you managed to deflect this onto me, when their entire argument only consists of flowery words and insults. It's really all you have, hm?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Biggiiful
But it isn't. Not every community is a state, and most states are not organized in such a way that they even claim to represent the community as a whole. If you want to define this as a "state," then feel free to, but you've made the word "state" synonymous with "organization" and therefore rendered it pretty much meaningless in this discussion. I'm sorry you're so attached to denialism, but this is basic logic. You absolutely can have the group or community run itself without hierarchy, in fact, that's just about the only way to do it. Sure, one way to create a socialist economy is in voting in leaders, but that's far from the only way, and this method only works if those leaders actually represent that group and are elected, rather than just claiming those two things. So, here you're trying to claim that all representatives are inherently a state. Fascinnating. Even if we take all this as true, which it plainly isn't, it still doesn't support your next claim - "socialism is state ownership of the means of production." Unfortunately, even under your expanded definition of "state," this definition still a) excludes anti-state socialists and b) includes all sorts of random other ideologies, which are now apparently "socialist." I hate to break it to you but even if you call a community a "State," it is only one kind of state, and thus defining socialism as control by any state would be false. This is the same as declaring that potatoes are fruit, and then defining a potato as a fruit that grows in the ground. False from all angles, a tangle of lies that unravels rather easily, but you've tied yourself in so you don't have to face reality. So no, your "definition" is false. I do agree, TIK attempts to misdefine socialism in a similar way, (over and over again) and similarly attempts to misattribute it to various nations, but as we've been over these assertions are riddled with holes and fall apart under any objective analysis. Why you can't accept this and can't argue against it is no mystery. If a system only gives power to random government officials and their friends, exactly how is this representing the community? How is this meaningfully different from your cultishly adhered to social-apathetic ideologies? You call it "mass coping" because you're unable to disprove it, and unable to even conceive of how objectively flawed your position is. You have to claim I, a proud non-socialist, have a "religious attachment to socialism" because you stake your pride, emotional stability and fervent religious beliefs on blaming socialism for everything. I'm sorry everything you said is so easy to disprove, and I'm sorry that you didn't have better counter arguments. If TIK was honest, he would have given you some, yet here you are. Grow up, think for yourself, and then come back to me. I can't wait to see when the realization finally hits you.
1
-
1
-
1