Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.

  1.  @peaknonsense2041  It wasn't, though. You literally just proved my point, and can't admit it. Those sections are a refutation of other systems But not a single one of those mentions hitler's "National Socialism" He doesn't describe that at all, as that system, or the concept of "socialism for race/nation," didn't even exist yet. Marx describes nothing of the sort either. What talking points are you even repeating at this point? Face it, you know you got proven wrong.
    41
  2.  @Kainis80  First off, that isn't even accurate? Land and resources were not "communally shared," especially not among the serfs. They worked for a boss, a dictator, that extracted wealth from their labor. There was nothing communal about it, the community had no power. And I do have to love the way you warp history. A regime by definition is an authoritarian government, so yes, most socialist "regimes" were authoritarian. However, not every socialist government has been a regime, nor is socialism confined to just government, when there is a long and storied history of socialist movements and anti-state socialists. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, the existence of a strong central government leader in two different cases doesn't make those cases the same. Your assertion that "Not a single one of any "socialist" attempts have been without an iron-fisted ruler at the top and his nobles there to keep him propped up" is utterly false, in several ways. First off, because you're happy to list countries that have no desire for socialism, or do not fit the definition of socialism, an example of both those things being the far right anti-socialist nazis, or the 70% private country of Venezuela, hereditary dictatorship of North Korea ect, which shows clearly you have no idea what socialism actually is. Including the nazis is especially disgusting, not only because it so openly proves that your attempted accusation of "hypocrisy" comes not from genuine observation, but from casting such an oversized ideological net that you've managed to call anti-socialism "socialist," but also because to even casually attempt to conflate far-right nazism with your other examples is utterly ahistorical, and leads to nazi apologia. Second off, because none of the countries you name have ever had a system of nobles, proving yet again your historical and economic illiteracy. Third off, I hate to break it to you, your list is far from the extent of historical socialism, especially considering the list's anti-socialist elements. Child, there are other socialist countries that do not fit your definition, not to mention socialist movements, organizations, communities, ect. And then, as if to prove my point, you go ahead and try to spread the nazi talking point of public education being overrun with leftists and socialists, rather than actually addressing the economic and definitional reality of a term you are unable to understand. Hell, you can't even admit the education system is built to make obedient capitalists, nor can you admit that your understanding of socialism is worse than any child who has attempted to do cursory research on the subject. Who "lived through socialism," champ? Come on, let's get some examples. I'm absolutely sure you don't have even the most basic understanding of basic history or economics, but hey, thanks for the empty nazi talking points, I guess.
    25
  3. Hitler was anti-socialist according to the definition of the word, even the "original" definition you support. I hate to break it to you, but falling for nazi propaganda and declaring all socialism to be "marxist" is exactly why your type has such a hard time with history.
    18
  4.  @ttthttpd  Yes, TIK had the "smarts" to recognize that his point made no actual sense, so he raced to attempt to disqualify those that proved him wrong before they could be listened too. And of course, his argument is nonsense. It attempts to paint an equivalence between Marx's socialized man, and the nebulous concept of "socialized race." Marx wanted socialized production, and he described society under this mode of production as "socialized man." He did not seek to "socialize" a group of people, but rather, to put production into social hands. Now of course this statement makes no sense when turned to a racial lens, because one cannot control a race collectively. We can twist the meaning a bit to get to TIK's point and attempt to make it make more sense, but what we are left with is that "socializing a race" means to put said race in collective control. First off, removing jewish people did not put "aryan" people in any more control of the economy, in fact, as TIK will readily point out, it put them in less control. Add that of course to the mass execution, repression, and imprisoning by the nazi regime of even "aryan" citizens, and it is clear that hitler wanted nothing to do with the race of people having collective control. Furthermore, as we've been over, saying that "group control means socialism, the only difference is the group" is absurd, given that it would qualify capitalism as a form of socialism. In any case, TIK's argument is nonsense. "Socialized man" does not mean a group of people banding together into a society, it refers to the mode of production in a society with socialized means of production. Marx didn't want a "Worker's Society," he wanted worker ownership. Hitler did not want a society ran by that race, so even by TIK's own definition, his words are inaccurate nonsense. TIK's simplification further shows the blatant, ahistorical assertions that his argument rests upon. Marx wanted a society in which the means of production were collectively owned. Hitler wanted a society in which his ideology held power, not the collective of people, even the people of one race. Marx wanted a worker collective. Hitler never believed in a race collective. Marx didn't call for a dictatorship of the proletariat, that was Lenin. Marx wanted socialism, and justified it through marxism. Hitler despised socialism, and justified it through reactionary conservatism. The problem with TIK's attempts to utterly construct an ideology out of nothing, with no historical backing, is that it is hilariously easy to disprove when actually examined. I don't think you understand the history behind TIK's attempted arguments, nor do you seem to understand the arguments being made to oppose his ahistorical assertions.
    17
  5.  @Kainis80  Well... yes? I hate to break it to you, but when you list a bunch of different countries from different time periods with vastly different social and economic policy, most of which do not fit the definition of socialism... i'm going to point that out? You complaining about that is like me calling nazi germany pacifist and then trying to mock you with "bUt tHeY wEreN'T REaL pAciFIsTS!!" when you try to correct me. Yes, sorry, some countries aren't socialist. Not because they didn't fit "my" definition of socialism, but because they didn't fit the 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." So no, you aren't right. And you certainly aren't right in asserting that 3/4ths of the population has lived under socialism sometime in the last 150 years, which is why i'm not surprised you give no source on that. Again, you're casting a net so large that most types of anti-socialism are socialist to you. There's no need to tell people they were living a lie, as the vast majority of people you're talking about don't care about the name of the regime that they lived under, or what ideology it claimed to practice, and many are just fine with correctly pointing out that they didn't fit the definition of socialism. I'm sorry you don't have the balls to admit that. And again, your ignorance shines through as always! Of course the nazis weren't socialists, if you'd have actually watched the video you would know TIK's own sources, his "extensive bibliography," asserts this very fact! You would have to have been paying attention to notice that, though. Of course, TIK decides he knows better than actual historians, and so do you, I suppose. By hitler's own words they were anti-socialists, despising equality, defending private property, and rejecting the left in all forms - something you'd know, if you ever bothered to check. Stalin never recognized the nazis as socialists, hell, he ciuld hardly even recognize them as allies in their tentative, temporary peace agreement. Their "different end game" was not a socialist one, put plainly. And put plainly again, you know nothing of the history of socialism as an ideology. Where did historical socialists "never agree on the definition of socialism unless it ended up with them somehow being the monarch equivalent"? Do you actually have a source for this bizarre assertion? Of course you don't. Little history lesson for you here, kid. The nazis weren't socialists - there's a reason why the vast, vast majority of historians recognize this fact. And it's the same reason you can't refute it - it's true. There wasn't communal sharing of any form, there were basic market practices and serfs were sometimes allowed a fraction of their own product, but no examples of any systems of "communal sharing" could be found. The reason the merchant class rose wasn't because of a communal system, quite the opposite, it rose because an immense shortage of workers meant that the serfs could now sell their labor for better prices, not share. What you're describing, and trying to relate to what you call socialism, is literally just people trying to profit from their situations. Why bring up Cuban taxi drivers, when taxi drivers in the USA are a far more apt comparison? Chinese manicurists, when there's one just downtown from you doing the same thing? Why Cambodian prostitutes, when Chicagoan prostitutes are a better example of the circumstances you describe, taking advantage of a bad situation to profit? A nazi miller fits this even better, as they'd likely be working directly under a private boss. What you've described is nothing unique to what you call socialism - why not throw the USA into the mix? Very similar characteristics, indeed. But hey, you can't even be bothered to actually watch a video that you claim proves me wrong, and watch how TIK admits that the very historians he cites point by point refute everything he tries to say. Instead, you try to do anything to justify your hatred of socialists and ignore your similarity to nazis, and this seems to have manifested here in a rabid attempt to ignorantly defend your lack of understanding of the world, of basic history and economics, and about the very subjects you so fanatically argue for or against, in the comment section of a video you've never watched. Bravo kid, bravo. Your little rants and ahistorical tirades don't change any facts, but hey, at least you've given me a great opportunity to educate you.
    16
  6. Ah yes, another one of these people who claim to have belonged to an ideology they can't even describe. Odd, that. Almost as if you're making it up.
    13
  7.  @gb4206  The nazis weren't socialists, though.
    13
  8.  @dreisiglps2451  The simple fact is, he was an extreme right winger, by any definition. You don't know the definition of individualist, socialist, collectivist, or capitalist. You try to deny the crimes of your ideology.
    13
  9.  @Kainis80  Oh it's far from a "claim," it's an objective fact, one you are unable to address, much less disprove. Why would I need then to fill in those who lived under said regimes, when the majority of them are well aware of this fact, and had made it known in the past? I'm pretty sure they, they who openly profess the non-socialism of their regime, know better than some fatass named Kainis slurping at macaroni in some costal apartment. And oh gosh, your misunderstanding of Proudhon is just painful. Alright, first off, of course he knows better than you, i'm glad we agree on that. After all, his, and all the other definitions of socialism at the time, do not fit with the vast majority of countries you call socialist. It's especially funny when you assert that the nazis somehow got their program from Sidney Webb or the fabian socialists, given that the nazis rejected socialism, openly disputed the fabians, and got more policy from their monarchist and capitalist cousins than any sort of socialist source. Your attempted "point" is also funny because you attempt to assert that Proudhon didn't consider state socialists to be socialists, or that he had a different definition of socialism than them, when this is plainly false. He openly called both socialist, and while they both used the same definition, the difference between state socialism and anarchism is the methodology of collective ownership. Pretty simple stuff, and quite the opposite of your "they couldn't agree on a definition" assertion. And now you oppose the assertion of your previous comment, where you claimed that the end goal was different, but the means were the same. Now you say that the means are different, but the end goal is the same. Sadly for you, this is false. The reality of the situation is that, of course, both the means and the end goal of countries like nazi germany did not align with socialism, and hell, they didn't even align with other countries you compare them too. What you assert hasn't been true in Hitler's Germany vs Stalin's Russia, not true in Stalin's Russia vs Maoist China, and still absolutely false in Maoist China vs Pol Pot's Cambodia. None of these comparisons you try to make are even between countries with similar economics or rhetorical ideology, how can any of them be true when they not only contradict socialism, but eachother? You don't even understand the basics of say, Venezuela's economy, which is majority private and by no definition socialist. Do you even know what you're saying, or do you just pick random countries you want to be socialist and hope I don't notice? Oh, and why do you keep including Hitler's far right anti-socialist germany? I also find it odd that you try to call the statement "the workers do not have a right to the product of their labor but rather satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." one that supports feudalism, because... how? First off this isn't a definition of socialism but a description of one socialist system, second off, this has nothing to do with the central, right wing monarchist government that didn't satisfy the needs of the serfs or other subjects. It's like you just take random examples and then do everything possible to warp them to fit your predetermined opinions, not caring if the "evidence" actually fits. It must be pointed out of course that you haven't read a single author you mention, nor can you accurately describe their ideology, nor the contents of their works. After all, you call Marx a state socialist... with no backing, of course. First off, Marx was a communist, second off, he opposed the state and said that the best socialistic experiments were those lacking one. Marx and Proudhon did have their fair share of differences, but those were in methodology, not definition, and both at other points praised the other's works. Tucker is another example of that same thing, an American anarchist and proudly-identified socialist that worked with state socialists, marxists, communists, ect all the time as their definitions and ideologies aligned in key aspects. I'm not sure if you understand this either, but bringing up that Marx and Proudhon disagreed, or that they helped to found major aspects of their respective ideologies while still feuding, doesn't mean much. I hate to break it to you, but intellectuals feud. For example, the leftist group The Young Hegelians, which included state socialists, communists, and anarchists, from Engels to Stirner, were in an almost constant state of intellectual disagreement. And yet, they maintained the Young Hegelians, because they knew that they had ideological agreements. In any case, Proudhon's statements on the commonality between his definition of socialism and state socialism quite literally disproves your point, but of course you don't recognize it. And, as if to prove my point, you show that you've not read the works of either Proudhon or Marx with your following statements. No, Marx did not want to "nationalize everything," in fact he called for a stateless transition to his socialism, based off of his observances of the Paris Commune. Proudhon advocated for much the same thing - the means of production in collective worker hands. Both called for violent revolution, Proudhon never called for some form of democratic reform in any way, he openly said that mass democracy was a state to be abolished. So no, Karl Marx was no more a father of state socialism than he was of anarchist socialism. Proudhon and Tucker also disagreed immensely, a point you miss, but they still called for the same definition of socialism, collective ownership of the means of production. The thing you miss however, is that none of these systems have anything to do with the nazis. Even state socialists use the state as a means to an end, that end being the collective ownership of the means of production - a system the nazis never called for, never desired, and of course, never put in place. Similarly, it wasn't anarchist socialists that allowed for the rise of the nazis, but a weakened capitalist state, taken advantage of by political sabotage by conservative figures like Franz Von Papen, which allowed for Hitler's popularity and eventual election in the first place. Your attempted "arguments" are quite literally just stitched together talking points even you don't understand. You accuse Bernie Sanders of being "a lazy jackass" and "getting kicked out of a russian commune." Sorry, when did this happen? Sanders never worked for a Russian commune, he visited one in America for a time... as a journalist. He didn't live there, he didn't work there, how did he get "kicked out" again? You have the same arguments against anarchism that fascists have, that doesn't surprise me, but your "evidence" is horrible. "CHOP?" Sorry, how is that an example of "anarcho socialism?" They were literally a block-wide protest, where's the economic system? The closest thing they had to that was the merchandise sold for capitalist currency within. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but anarchism is far from dead as a species of leftist thought, and is more popular in places like the United States than ever, save perhaps the early labor movement. As well as that, the reason state socialists even existed, and why they still exist in some numbers today, is not because they call for a state to manage resources and products, but because they call for a state that protects the worker's ability to do this collectively. So your idea that socialism needs a king, (as in a far right leader) a feuhrer, (another far right leader) or any sort of dictator is utterly unfounded. Socialist have no desire to "make themselves kings," hell, they want to tear down the modern kings and level their playing field. We saw this with Lenin and the bolsheviks, creating a revolutionary party system, not a monarchy. And by god, your counting "abilities" are about as bad as your economic knowhow. Um, no, the majority of the world has not lived under socialist states. Your problem is, of course, that you name random countries you want to be socialist, and completely ignore any historical definition in order to label them as such. For example, far right, anti-socialist nazi germany. Not very socialist, and yet you list it twice. You call China, the modern hub of capitalism, innovation, and billionaires "socialist." You call india, the long right wing and proud nation, socialist. You call venezuela, the 70% private economy, socialist. You call cambodia, the country quite literally paid by the US government to purge socialists, socialist. You call North Korea, the hereditary monarchy, socialist. And so on. Do you see the problem? You call random systems and countries socialist in order to bump up the numbers, numbers you know are false. You're just a little guppy in some small global backwater that feels like they have the right to tell anti-socialist countries with anti-socialist populations that they're wrong. Hell, you can't even define socialism, and neo-feudalism is an ironic title, given that it better describes your system than any other. Ask anyone from any of those countries we've been over listed - the Germans will be particularly interested in correcting your denialism.
    11
  10.  Marek Kac  But that isn't the topic of conversation, it never has been. I didn't come here to debate the applications or specifics of modern ideologies, I came here to debate their historical meanings and significance. You've asked me to participate in an entire other activity, and have yet to justify why. Assertions aren't the same things as points. Saying "no it's not" isn't a valid point, you have nothing backing it. One doesn't need to assume "law=capitalism" to recognize that capitalism is a system that just could not exist without statism, and forced, coerced, unnecessary participation in it, as well as the ideological purging of any anti-capitalist sentiments. In capitalism if you don't want to work, you don't eat, drink, have a home, and that's just if you're lucky, in reality you're most likely going to have a bunch of private institutions take even more from you because of your debt. In communism, a system without a state, without classes, without money, how can you be forced to work? Who forces you? Just saying that communism has to have labor camps doesn't make it so. I don't think you can define tyranny, or communism. Ok, and again, just saying "a classless society has classes" doesn't make it true. How can there be a ruling class with no state or money to actually give it power? Why does this system have to be "managed?" Do you know what communism is? I'm sorry, how is that the case? How is me saying that socialism is the social ownership of the means of production proving that companies with private ownership of the means of production... don't have that? That is capitalism, and it exists in plentiful amounts around the world, especially in the USA.
    11
  11.  @VincentK.McMahon  This is my favorite part of every debate. When some random person comes in and does their best to strawman the other person's point, to cope with the fact that the person they agree with was beaten in an argument. The definition of socialism isn't something "nobody knows aside from me," hence me, you know... quoting the dictionary definition. Unless you think I made the dictionary too? Oh, and i'm not a socialist, but nice try. Have you tried actually... addressing arguments? It does wonders.
    11
  12. And what talking points and tactics might you be referencing? I constantly hear the right using the same rhetoric as the nazis, to the degree that many of their catchphrases are just mild rewordings, their modern rhetoric near interchangeable. Hell, many just openly fly Nazi flags. The right uses the rhetoric and facts of the Nazis, the Nazi we're right wing, simple. That I unless you're willing to argue that the Nazis represented some push of tolerance and inclusivity? Child, child, what are you even talking about? This is blatantly and absurdly false. The nazis rose to power constantly talking about some threat from migrants, about the disabled and old draining the state, about the supremacy of individual domination, about the failures of democracy and central control, about the supposed success of traditionalism, the importance of conservatism, conspiracytheories regarding communism/marxism/leftism in academia, the natural aspects of inequality, the 'crime' of abortion, "Germany First," and so, so much more, I could go on for paragraphs. The modern right literally waves their flags, shouts their mottos, and holds their beliefs. How can you claim that the ideology of martin luther king shares more in common with the nazis than the ideology of Evola? The right literally has all of the same talking points and tactics as the nazis, and you somehow blame this on the socialists?
    10
  13.  @r0ms43  No? If private property is abolished and social ownership is in place, nobody but the worker themselves needs to exist to "give them credit." Asserting that higher authority is needed for something humans have done without said authority for centuries isn't a good point.
    10
  14.  @diatonicdelirium1743  Socialism isn't public/state ownership of the means of production though, given that anarchists were calling themselves socialists before, and in opposition to, marx. You don't seem to understand that your definition has no actual backing.
    10
  15.  @audrius337  But socialism isn't inherently pro state, and capitalism isn't inherently against it.
    9
  16.  @MCCrleone354  All of those things are capitalist. Just because you don't like that type of capitalism doesn't make it not capitalism.
    9
  17.  @Kainis80  Sorry child, but that's what we call a "strawman argument." I never said anything like "bUt ThEy wEren'T sOcIAliST bEcAUse tHeY wEren'T MY bRanD oF sOcIAliSisM." What I actually said was that the countries in question were not socialist... because they didn't meet the provided dictionary definition of socialism, which I quoted previously. And that was far from my only argument or refutation, as well as that, you haven't provided any facts to speak of as of yet. Strawmanning and deflection seems to be all you have as an answer. For example, you attempt to "refute" the fact of Venezuela's decidedly non-socialist, 70% private economy, by... incorrectly assuming those numbers were gotten from before Chavez or Maduro, when in reality they came long after Chavez's term, and while Maduro had been in office for a while. So, yeah, either you don't know a damned thing about Venezuela or have been sleeping under a rock for almost 20 years. That's not ok at all, you should at least attempt to keep up with the facts of the nations you accuse of random things, but I now that's too much to ask of you. 've found that most anti-socialist advocates have only ever read propaganda about socialism in coloring books or listened to some online right winger that never even got their education, and try to convince ignorant rightists with cartoons- instead of actually speaking to people that have supposedly "experienced it," people that would happily prove you wrong. I mean, you aren't even willing to read a definition of the term, how am I supposed to take you seriously? But no, I guess according to you they couldn't have possibly lived under non-socialist systems, because that makes your fanatic hatred of socialism look bad. You really do need to leave those online echo chambers and go off into the real world, find a job, a life. Get an actual education, not by talking to random right wingers that agree with you, but by studying the issues and coming to the correct, objective conclusions. Not an indoctrination by regurgitating the same tired, brainwashed right wing bs.
    9
  18. I personally find it extremely weird that your type seems dead set on pretending there is some mass movement calling hitler a capitalist, when in reality historians are simply, calmly, pointing out that his regime in no way fits any sort of socialism, and that he did not push for or support a state based or state centralized economy. Something you should know by now. However, some people want to deny this history, so they spend hours on youtube trying to fool others into denying reality due to their own political biases. A trap you have sadly fallen for, likely without even watching the video in question.
    9
  19.  @AppliedMathematician  But that wasn't Hitler's system. At best, Hitler's inclusion of the title socialist in rhetoric could be seen as an attempt to conflate his movements with others and gain support, but more realistically it was the result of the genuine political pushings of a part of his party he despised, and later purged. They decided his name and early promises, and none of those ever came to something meaninful. In any case, TIK doesn't cite his sources particularly well, one only has to look at the fact that most refute his conclusions to see that. Again, if you want to criticize socialists, have at it, i've done that more than my fair share of times. But doing it by trying to associate them with an entirely different movement makes no sense, it's like asking a drug addict to get better at driving, as if that will solve the problems of their addiction. Asking socialist to atone for the actions of anti-socialists makes no sense. And I would argue that yes, his narrative is dangerous. first, because it conflates forces of society with opposing goals. According to this, MLK Jr and Hitler were both socialists, and thus, socialism is dangerous... or is it? How can one claim the two had the same ideology, the same problems? The other problem is that it obscures the actual political nature, and origin, of fascists. In an age where political violence is ramping up, we see people comparing random politicians like Sanders and AOC to hitler, while swastika-carrying nazis murder in the name of the right. How is advising we blame the first group, rather than the latter, not dangerous?
    9
  20.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  The general here seems not to realize that his definition disproves his assertion.
    9
  21.  @diatonicdelirium1743  The definition used in the video is made up though, that's the entire point. The definition of socialism you give does not predate the marxist one, nor do you have any actual proof to the contrary. Your dictionary definition further proves this. Not "state control," but control "by the community as a whole" Ehm, I'm simply using the definition that is used throughout the video: "Socialism is the state control over the means of production'; this differs from Marxist socialism but clearly predates it. Dictionary definitions corroborate this as well '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.' Owned or regulated, i.e. controlled.
    9
  22.  @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. //:/
    9
  23. @IL NGR They very much are, and your own bias discloses as much. I'm afraid to tell you this, but objective history does not always agree with conservatives. This is largely nationwide, if not world wide. And by the way, your example doesn't much help your case. After all, a party switch did happen, and it didn't have much to do with Al Gore. Here's a quick question - in the 1800s, which party were the socialists in?
    8
  24. Oh my god you are actually a literal child. There is no concentrated attempt to "pressure" TIK, as can be seen with his older videos on the subject, it is largely his own previous fans that are criticizing his new move into political fanaticism. In reality, his supporters are new to his channel, and come primarily from outside right wing sources, seeking to integrate his video into their echo chamber. In other words, they're attempting to silence those offering genuine criticism, by presenting an overwhelming horde of people that don't even take the time to watch the video, but leave comments of support and likes merely because the video looks like it falls in line with their political ideology. Literally "if we gather up a few people, and make our voices loud enough, the opposition will believe they are outnumbered and thus - shouted down". "What [TIK] does" is propaganda. Those that criticize it are largely those who used to see him as a source of history, but simply cannot any longer, due to his fanatic beliefs. Those who have "liked" the video are those who agree with said propaganda, who have a vested interest in spreading said ideology, and who would rather spread the video among those that already agree with it, than those who can open it up to objective debate, debate that instantly destroys TIK's narrative. So sure, let's let the numbers speak for themselves. Let's watch as TIK turns away from 6k historians, previous fans of his, and towards 30k ideologues, who have made sure the video's criticism is never shared openly, but who integrate the video into their echo chamber. After all, if the video left the echo chamber, TIK would have to deal with the overwhelming majority that protest his fanaticism, and the mindless ideology of the few that champion it. Academic dishonestly and echo chamber ideology aren't things I think are worth "thanking" someone for, but you do you. Let it be known, however, that you are so insecure in his points, you (and him, having lent his support) openly advocate for the dismissal of academic criticism... as if we didn't already know that. .
    8
  25.  Marek Kac  First off, why ask this, why to me, why does this matter? We're talking about history, not the ideologies of the people in this conversation. Why are you asking me, i'm not a socialist. And what are you attempting to prove? In any case. Socialism is a system defined by the social, or collective, ownership of the means of production. This can be done through a state that either represents or grants direct ownership to the workers as a whole, or through a stateless society of direct collective ownership. Note that in every case, the goal of social ownership is there. As for socialist countries, what do you define as a socialist country? One achieving socialism, or one striving towards it? I would argue that a few small communities have achieved the system of socialism, but yes, some countries have strived for socialism, for some amounts of time. In any case, your assertion on communists is also pretty funny. Like, you realize that capitalism is a system in which physical force is inevitable to keep capitalism in effect? And that communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, devoid of countries and the force you apply to it? See the problem?
    8
  26.  Marek Kac  Yeah, that tends to happen. In any case, I hate to break it to you, but that (A.) is false. Not only did the first capitalists, people like Adam Smith, proudly and openly called for some state owned land, psuedo-progressive taxation, and social programs, but the most successful modern capitalist states as well, the Nordic states, are also places with high levels of regulation and social programs. Calling a basic historical and economic fact "insane and delusional" isn't a counter, nor does it actually disprove my statement. The purest capitalism is not "0% tax," capitalism has always needed a state to function, and most modern capitalists advocate for far more than 5%. Ergo, real capitalism is all around us and has been for decades, and the USA is capitalist. Your assertion of 0% tax being capitalist is not backed by reality, or even your own arguments. B. I never claimed people are bad, though. I claimed that people will look out for their self interest, and historically, the best way to help one person is to help many. Again, calling me delusional isn't an actual rebuttal in any way. And why do you have to manage people, authoritarian? You do realize workers understand their own jobs and duties, right? Insults aren't arguments, champ. And what rationality is in that? How is a system of mutual cooperation dystopic? Why would you steal beds when you have as many as you need for free? How could you profit from stealing beds when anyone who needed them already has them? Nobody needs to stop you, because the utter uselessness of your own actions would do that first. There's no need for force, such as the type you constantly advocate for. There's no need for law, and no need for workers or "police officers" to be violent in any way. Sure, you could try to steal all the beds from the bed factory... and then die of old age on a massive pile of beds you never profited from, because everyone already has them. You seeing the problem yet? Let me explain this basic concept yet again - everyone needs a bed to sleep in, right? So, when someone decides to start making beds, and they need wood for the frame, the wood-cutters give them wood, knowing that the bed-maker now has the ability to make bedframes, which they and others will get. The bedmaker needs cotton, cloth, shoes, clothes, food, ect, and all of those other industries support the bed-maker, because they need beds, and the only way to get beds is to make sure the bed-maker has the resources they need. In turn, the bed maker provides the beds back to those helpers, because if those other industries have no beds, they get no sleep, and are unable to work as efficiently, and unable to provide the bed-maker with the necessary resources for him to survive. Everyone works together because it helps everyone, including themselves. C. Um...no. God no. Getting a car for a small amount of money is not social ownership of the means of production. Getting a car made by other people, in a number of years, is not social ownership of the means of production. Do you know what the means of production even are? Do you know what socialism is? A person owning a car is not private, cars are not capital, and you genuinely don't know what the means of production even are. I hate to break it to you, but you disagreeing with socialism as an ideology doesn't change the definition of it. You don't want the workers to have direct control of the industries they work in? Ok then, you're not a socialist. How does that do anything to change the definition though? It just proves you don't know what socialism is. People don't need a math degree to work their job, and nobody is forcing them to take that job in the first place. And education is about education, not some inherent intelligence. Also, education isn't a class? Especially if it is equally available for all citizens? Um... yes. "Their," as in multiple people, as in from the context of the sentence, the workers as a whole. Not sure why you felt the need to quip there. And why is voting over the use of their own labor "nightmarish?" Is the thought of emancipation from constant servitude that disgusting to you? And once again, where is the other class?? How is doing something that is available to all people something that creates a class? We've been over this, there is no need for enforcement, you're just trying to come up with strawmen and then using them to justify your nonsense. In communism the government doesn't exist, yes. I was talking about socialism in that passage though, something I explicitly state. Socialism very much can be a system with a government, though it too is defined by social/collective ownership of the means of production. And I mean... yes? If everything was owned directly by the community, there would be no need for some external vessel to push for political change, the people could do it themselves. Sadly, that is not the society we live in, so we must appeal to the government.
    8
  27.  @r0ms43  No. Why would it need to be? Why would government need to step in to ensure people work until enough people get beds?
    8
  28.  @josephkempinger  Yeah but socialists don't call to unify against an enemy, they say that the absorption of that "enemy" into the unifiers is inevitable, and a good thing. In any case, that isn't core to socialism, it's just a populist rhetorical strategy. The problem you have here is that you're implying this is something to make note of, when in reality, it's something found in literally every ideology. If it's central to socialism, nazism, and fascism, it is also central to conservatism, capitalism, libertarianism, anarchism, monarchism, and so on. If the only difference you care about is the ingroup in question, and you think ideologies that value an ingroup are all similar, your analysis isn't going to get far.
    8
  29.  @TheImperatorKnight  Oh, we're at this stage now. Mate, you're literally in comment sections denying genocide and devaluing the term "nazi," all while encouraging your base to compare figures like Bernie Sanders to the nazis, and you have the nerve to call use anti-semites? No, fuck you. Seriously. Give your fucking reasoning. Because we know you're long past logical arguments, you lost those ages ago, but this is a step too fucking far.
    8
  30.  @farmerchick3040  Yeah, that isn't true though. On any level. Hitler was a right wing fascist dictator with right wing ideals, one cannot be left wing and a fascist. You can claim "all sides are bad," but you can't even correctly label a single one of those sides, and it's honestly disgusting. He was right wing, not only because of his belief of "Aryan supremacy" or his persecution of minorities (most importantly jewish people) under his regime, but because he proposed, advocated for, and put in place a violently right wing economic and social system. Being a "left wing terrorist" doesn't mean advocating for violence in favor of socialism or communism, and hitler despised both of those ideologies anyway. He had a violent takeover in favor of an anti-socialist and anti-communist regime. He was right wing through and through, and your assertion that he "did both" is utterly absurd.
    8
  31.  @waltermh111  Yeah, neither of those things are true though. Socialism isn't "government central control of things," it's 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." The nazi party also wasn't defined by government ownership, but rather by private ownership. So, not socialst by any definition. The nazi party was a political party that created organizations and policy in favor of private property and against leftism/socialism. They weren't socialist, they were as far from socialist as you can get. Your ignorance is asrounding.
    8
  32.  @waltermh111  Sorry, literally all of that is false. The nazi party openly insulted systems of government ownership and control, they thought that said systems were disasters that would destroy the german economy, and so instead, they advocated for systems of private control. Furthermore, no, the government is not "considered to be the people" under communist or socialist systems, the people are quite literally the people. The government can represent them, but it is not them. In nay germany, private industry was not controlled by the government, but by private owners. While China and Germany at the time have some similarities, they also did not adhere to the same economic theories or practices. In any case, china too does not fit the definition of socialism, nor does the state actively control the economy, rather the state and private market are both smaller parts of the ideology, of one bigger group as a whole. The businesses do still remain private whoever, because the government collaboration is a voluntary choice of both parties, most often at least, and is done for explicit purposes of profit. A case that breaks a trend does not itself make a new trend. Restrictions aren't total control. China's system is dominated by private interests being projected onto government bodies.
    8
  33. Oh, this is hilariously ironic. Primarily because you, like TIK, love to blame the "butt hurt socialists," rather than egage with opposing arguments, because you can't address their arguments. But even funnier, you point out exactly why TIK's definition doesn't work. You would be right then to say that "...the confusion in academia comes largely from a complete misunderstanding of capitalism, as much as a misunderstanding of socialism." I would actually agree with that fully, as well as the notion that Hitler was not a capitalist. However in calling him a socialist, you do the exact same thing you complain of these people doing, just with your term instead. You adopt an incredibly broad definition of socialism, that just doesn't historically make any sense. For example, for some reason you, TIK, and Hitler think that "marxism," or "marxist socialism," means socialism based on class and giving the workers the means of production, and that is simply not true. Those concepts and definitions of socialism existed long before marx, and they also existed among those that were heavily critical of Marx himself, and later marxist figures. What you're doing here is taking all of known socialist history, putting it under a single name, and then trying to pretend that there is room for more socialisms. That historically and definitionally just doesn't make logical sense. As well as that, you're also participating in a misunderstanding of what capitalism is, and heavily narrowing what capitalism can be defined as. Capitalism means "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than the state." There is no mention that the state cannot interfere, or that the ownership by the private market has to be absolute. Adam Smith himself was in favor of an early graduated tax,basic welfare, and the ability of the government to hold public property. Does that make him secretly a socialist? But none of that matters, because it shows the clear hypocrisy in your comment. After that, you go on some random rant against the strawman you made up which I really couldn't care less about, but do you really not see the inherent contradiction in you doing exactly what you claim the "others" are doing?
    8
  34. @Bruno Niedermeyer He didn't, though. He wanted private control, backed by party support, not collective in the slightest.
    8
  35.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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.
    8
  36.  @TfuckyoutubeC  "racial collective" can't be socialists. They were right wing, and didn't desire any collective control, so they cannot be called socialists. Hitler initially opposed the term socialism, and later tried to redefine it, stating socialism was just nationalism under a different title. With all that considered, his words and actions do not line up with the title of socialism. feel free to ask further but its quite obvious.
    8
  37.  @TfuckyoutubeC  I've made "how I come to this conclusion" abundantly clear and your hostility towards having a simple question answered proves that you never asked it in good faith. Of course a "racial collective" can't be socialist, 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." As a whole, of course, being the key terms, given that any system that artificially excludes members from this community as a whole cannot be considered socialist, as they don't represent, again, "the community as a whole." I'm not entirely sure why you're asking my nationality. In any case, my point is explained, but your further comments are... well, silly to be honest. Hitler didn't like any "brands" of socialism, given that he was a rather open far right anti-socialist. Child, your assertions here are sad. You assert that my statement on hitler attempting to redefine the word "socialism" for his usage is in fact just "peak copium nonsense." I hate to break it to you but this is not a rebuttal, and hitler openly declared his attempted redefinition many times. "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." You're free to insult me, as long as you're aware of how immature it makes you look. I've already defined my terms, but let's be honest, why would I want to continue with you? You don't care about the truth in the slightest, you're an angry child that had their ideology called out and thus has turned to insults when arguments failed them. What could I possibly gain from that?
    8
  38.  @TfuckyoutubeC  You heard it here first, apparently responding to someone's points in full, while providing citation, is just a "meme," or a "rambling wall of text." I must assume you open history books and say the same. Where was the "spiraling," hm? Is that just your excuse for why you neglect to respond to the quotation and citation I provided that proved your uneducated assertion completely wrong? So yes, let's address what I said in my own statement here: "Of course a "racial collective" can't be socialist, 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." As a whole, of course, being the key terms, given that any system that artificially excludes members from this community as a whole cannot be considered socialist, as they don't represent, again, "the community as a whole." Now, I must ask where's the "redefining?" Community as a whole is pretty self explanatory, the community as a whole, everyone. Your problem is that you can't actually accept this idea, so you attempt to deflect to something utterly unrelated, that being that people form their own communities, and that a number of these communities exist, mixed in with a good deal of american exceptionalism propaganda. I'll simply point out that you're missing the whole point. If we decide to redefine socialism to now be one grouping or community, rather than the community as a whole, everything becomes socialist. Monarchism, technocracy, capitalism, all ideologies where one loosely defined group is in control. this is what sets socialism apart, rather than advocating for one group to control with the exclusion of others, it advocates for all people regardless of grouping to control the means of production, the formation of one group of all people. You're attempting to ignore that, it isn't working. The problem then being that your assertions just don't make sense. Adolf comes along, siphons away the policies of the authoritarian right, and runs with them. Hitler was a populist, yes, but he never claimed to work for all german people. Even in his propaganda, he made it clear that those who opposed him, the lazy, the unionists, the old, the gay, the trans, the immigrant-citizen, the jewish citizen, and so on had no say, and would get no benefit. It becomes even worse when looking at his actions, where we see a concentrated effort to harm "the whole german community" in order to help a concentrated, small grouping of people. At no point did hitler enact or even desire "redistributing their wealth to the german people. the WHOLE german community." Sure, they attempted to justify attrocites any way they wanted, but they never claimed that they were for the equal distribution of even benefits for the few that remained official citizens. So even from your own attempted redefinition, he could not be considered socialist. And what happens if we substitute the variables? Well, we find that the nazis resemble their modern counterparts, right wing, authoritarian, populist, and so on. It's not even like these groups try to keep it a secret, they literally wave nazi flags. The fact that you don't have a single argument to present... is sad.
    8
  39. They largely are.
    7
  40.  @JohnStopman  TIK lacks that ability.
    7
  41.  @coyote4326  Once again, you've shown that you literally just don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is, and you seem to think any insult or derogatory remark counts as one. What you're doing is known as am argument from fallacy... which is a logical fallacy. Utterly ignoring the point and trying to make up fallacies because you know that you can't argue against the actual contents of the response. After all, you're unable to actually address the core of my argument at all. Rather, you prefer baseless insults which even you can't back up, and deflections. What is illogical about proving you wrong? I'll wait. Your entire "argument," at its core, is based around your own misguided assumptions. For example, you seem to think that arguing in favor of history makes me a socialist... while refusing to provide any argumentation as to how this is the case. You also seem to think that me refusing to give up arguments and rather addressing every point possible until the very end, means I must just be trying to "get the last word in." Of course, this is a rather silly assumption to make unless you have experience with that very thing, which would not surprise me in the slightest. I have never stopped presenting arguments in favor of insults and nonsense, is that more projection from you. Arguments are won by people who are willing to go beyond "you're so mad," something you are incapable of doing. And again, why should I care about one person's channel analytics? This is an argument about a topic that has been talked about for nearly a century, why does one fanatic's video show the extent of this conflict in your mind? And there is actually an accurate way to tell the positions of his new vs old supporters - the comments. All of his old videos on the subject are dominated by old supporters arguing against him, conflicting with new ideologues supporting him. It's only this video in which said new ideologues made up a majority, and even now they loudly proclaim that this is their introduction to his channel. Child, I hate to break it to you, but seeing a comment and posting a reply doesn't mean someone's "feelings are hurt." It seems, once again, that you're trying to project your own ideological insecurity onto me. Oh, still not a socialist by the way.
    7
  42.  @devocles1644  Just so you know, your other response was deleted, so I don't know what you said there. In any case, where to start? First off, the reason I tend to put forward criticisms rather than my own positive points is because it's far more rhetorically effective. I'm here to prove others wrong, and only once that has been done, is there room to attempt to say why I think i'm right. Of course, the "I think" part doesn't even really apply to the definition of socialism, something objective, but whatever. In any case, I acquired my knowledge on socialism, history, and economics over years, before and then through university, in academic settings as well, but primarily my own individual research. My statements come from the combined knowledge of tens if not hundreds of books, hundreds of articles, and uncountable sources. I would be happy to provide any number of these for you, but I don't think youtube has the comment capacity for that entire reading list, and I have no desire to overwhelm you with thousands of pages of history that no human could absorb in one setting. So, when you ask for recommendations on socialism and history, what would you like me to provide? Sources on the ideological origins of socialism, on the various movements of socialists, on many different individual socialist thinkers, on the prevalence of said thinkers, movements, and origins in history, on socialism in the modern day, ect For history, do you want sources on socialism's part in it? Do you want all of history, just the modern bits, or just the post-modern bits? Do you want sources on say, the ideologies of WW2 and the prevalence of socialism and anti-socialism in the world before and after that point? Again, I'd be happy to provide, but let's take it one step at a time. As for your other comment, I couldn't read much since it only showed the first line or two before loading an empty reply section, but the definition of socialism I have found the most often espoused in academic and historical works on the ideology, that best aligns with the historical definitions of socialism and other competing ideologies, as well as by socialists and economists today, is collective control of the means of production. Now, what else can I do for you?
    7
  43.  Marek Kac  Because it has no relevance to the conversation at hand. A physics expert can still be an expert, but it would be odd to ask them about complex physics when they're trying to discuss babysitting your kids. We never lived under "true capitalism..." because capitalists purged people in the name of capitalism? I'm sorry, how exactly does that follow? Where's the logic? Ok, you do realize that the creation of basic necessities does not necessitate top down control or statist organization of labor, right? Someone decides to make beds, because beds need to be made. They collectively own the bed-making business, alongside all of the workers in the same business. Other collectively owned industries support the bed-making business with supplies and support, because they all need beds. Teachers teach people basic skills, because they profit from a world where people are more educated. Do you understand the basics now? Egoistic altruism, people work together because it benefits them all. No need to hinder that with mindless accumulation of capital or competition. Nobody needs to "manage" the project of bed-making, or house-making. Individuals, collectively organized with ownership over their own labor, do it. People don't need to work for themselves by themselves, as capitalism forces. They can work for themselves and for others at the same time, with greater direct benefit. In capitalism, you work for your boss and you're lucky if you get anything back for your labor. If nobody makes a bed, someone will step up to make beds. After all, everyone needs a bed, and they recognize that, therefore any push to make beds would be supported. What force is necessary to ensure humans will act in their own benefit, again? You have no aristocracy under communism, no ruling class, as both those concepts are antithetical to communism as a concept. Communism, all communism, not anarchocommunism or anarchism, is a system defined by no state, no classes, and no money. In communism someone has to create a bed that I will sleep on in a collective home/pod. Someone has to create it, Aidan. Somebody has to build the house. Someone has to learn how to do it and teach other how to do it. Someone has to manage this project. You need transportation, you need people to make bricks, steal etc. Are you telling me people should do those things for themselves in order to eat food, have a shelter and drink water? In a capitalist system they would get paid in money to do it. What if they don't do it? Are they going to live under the trees eating bugs? ("if you don't want to work, you don't eat, drink, have a home, and that's just if you're lucky"). Or they will be forced to do it? Again, you have an aristocracy under the communism and it is a ruling class. Stop mixing anarcho-communism or anarchism with communism. And i'm sure you have proof of this supposed "communist/socialist" doctrine of course, right? You don't? Oh, i'm so shocked. I hate to break it to you, but politicians lie, and more than that, those that fanatically believe them lie as well, you being a perfect example. Where was this communism, exactly? I hate to break it to you, but taxes, rules, and "social help" have always been concepts not only allowed but encouraged by capitalism, by the first capitalists to modern day ones. What's not capitalist about capitalism? And this is just false. Again, social ownership is ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, collective ownership. How does the Eastern Bloc, or the USSR, fit this definition? Did the average worker have control of their industries directly? Did the workers decide what was to be done with their labor, and produced with their tools? Did the government represent these workers, and push for more political power and rights for the average citizen? Where is the "socialist utopia?"
    7
  44. @Grey Donovun Yeah, sorry, that isn't and never has been the definition of socialism. At all. Government ownership of the means of production is not the definition of socialism, social ownership is.
    7
  45.  @AppliedMathematician  I'm not complaining about some narrative simplicity, I'm pointing out the fact that TIK's conclusions, his definitions, and his argument as a whole is not based in history, so calling him a historian is a title without basis. Trying to get back at the socialists by wrongfully attempting to connect them to hitler is silly, and ahistorical. One can absolutely criticize the socialist movement, ideology, or aspects of either of them without invoking such ahistorical nonsense. If you want to criticize socialists for falling for the words of power hungry dictators or malicious movements, go ahead, just do it with actual history in mind. Furthermore, I have to break it to you, but precise, concise, and most importantly, correct wording is always important, even with broad audiences.
    7
  46. You mean the 5 hour coping denialist video thats disproven by its own sources, or by a simple consultation of a dictionary or history book? There's nothing irrefutable about TIKs long disproven denialism. Im just guessing you didn't know refutations existed because you can morw about ideology than history. But sure, thank TIK for pitting out a video you didn't watch, so you can ignore history you didn't read and rebuttals you want to pretend don't exist, l in service to your fananticism.
    7
  47.  @zaydeshaddox7015  It's funny because "the sense of looking at all people, all humans, ignoring the individuals, and conjuring up grand schemes of evolving or transforming them, the entire species. This creepy desire to engineer humanity towards their own vision of perfection" fits the modern right far more than any progressive. There's a very obvious fact about hitler, he was about as anti-progressive as you can get, and was a staunch and proud right winger. Though I will admit, it's pretty funny that you're trying to call hitler a socialist while comparing his views to that of capitalists.
    7
  48.  @dreisiglps2451  Nope. Collectivism and individualism are meaningless terms designed to excuse your collectivism while vilifying that of others. Historically, the right has been "collectivist," the left individualist.
    7
  49.  @dreisiglps2451  Nope, he actually first and foremost targeted jewish people because he thought they were actively participating in some left wing plot.
    7
  50.  @travisadams6279  Your entire argument rests on the fact that you can't and will not view or cite the definition of socialism, quite honestly because your definition is shot full of holes.
    7
  51.  @vidard9863  Oh this is hilarious. You've genuinely fooled yourself into believing all this, wow. No, they weren't socialists, and they were right wing, which is a big reason they opposed socialism and leftism. The Weimar republic, despite being capitalist was more progressive than the nazi party, which is why the nazi party constantly talked about them abandoning traditional and allowing for "moral decay," the same things conservatives talk about today. Nothing about them was progressive or leftist, by modern or historical standards. They were economically conservative, and corporatist. Their "breeding programs" were the literal opposite of progressivism, literally designed to enforce the "tradition" of the nuclear family. Marx being racist has nothing to do with this, given Hitler's racism came from a specific long line of right wing antisemetic conspiracies that predated him. Other regimes being totalitarian doesn't make them all related. In order to deny their right wing nature, you have literally had to present the exact opposite of their actual policies. What is progressive about traditionalism? Socialist about the right? Left wing about conservatives? Your statements are absurd.
    7
  52.  @vidard9863  Oh I agree it was a horrible policy that did very little to achieve hitler's deeply conservative and traditionalist goals, but failed policy doesn't mean that the policy in question suddenly abandons its roots. No, it just seems you've finally stumbled upon the inherent problems with conservatism. Unlike you children i've watched the video above, and unlike TIK i've actually been willing to look through the evidence that quite easily disproves your "point." Perhaps you should stop trying to convince others that prove you wrong to not bother arguing with you? If you don't want to accept reality, don't want to listen to evidence, and would prefer to push vague ahistorical bs, that's not my problem.
    7
  53.  @TfuckyoutubeC  I hate to break it to you kid but just asserting things with no evidence that have already been disproven, and refusing to even argue for them, is not an argument. You assert that they not only desired, but pursued collective control. No evidence, no argumentation, you just say it. Sorry, that isn't how this works. They didn't desire collective control of any sort, and they certainly didn't pursue it. First off, state control is not collective control. The collective can be represented through the state, but that is still collective. If you just have a government in control, you don't have collective control at all, as the community as a whole is not represented. Even if every single one of your claims was true, they still could not be considered a party that pushed for collective control. No, the state is not the collective, and you would do good to stop repeating nazi propaganda. In any case, none of your statements are true, so this is a moot point. They didn't nationalize industries, they privatized them. They didn't nationalize unions, they abolished them, and replaced them with an organization that existed with the primary goal of protecting the power of private owners. They didn't "collectivize" people, nor is such a thing even possible. They didn't control all aspects of life, not only is that physically impossible but it evidently isn't true, given their dealings with, say, american private companies outside of their control. That, and the millions of his own citizens that celebrated when he lost the war. So no, not every aspect of life was under their control, nor did they desire that. In any case, that still would not be collective control. That's one person deciding what the collective does, not the collective deciding what it does. The literal difference between free will and threats. And this is the problem with your arguments, you're willing to lie about the nazis goals and ideology, willing to lie about their actions, and willing to lie about the definitions of the terms in conversation. To claim that the collective is the state is to say hitler's victims were willing and happy with their deaths. It's disgusting. Of course right wing isn't a synonym for authoritarian or totalitarian, those things can and do exist on the left. However, when comparing nazis to left and right wing authoritarians, we find a simple truth, they are right wing. Hell, they set the foundation for modern right wing authoritarianism. To call them left wing is to ignore their entire ideology and attempt to rewrite the definitions of left and right. The nazis were right wing authoritarians, something his attempted victims seem more than willing to point out to denialists like you. You're free to insult me all you want, but it's hilarious given the context that only the naïve, western americans even doubt the simple fact that hitler was right wing. I answered your question, and you hated the answer. Tough.
    7
  54. Because that isn't the US perspective, nor does that perspective apply. In the US, conservatives frequently claim that the right as a whole represents less government/libertarianism, but more often than not their actual actions only reinforce the state and allow it further power to influence the citizens under it. I mean, it's worth pointing out that at the time, the Founding Fathers would have been considered the left of the 18th century, as opposed to the right wing monarchists. The right is far from alien to authoritarianism or strong states. So yes, the notion that is is right wing is true. The political infighting between the libertarian right and authoritarian right doesn't change that. Sadly, TIK doesn't understand that. He would, of course, be incorrect. He seems to believe in some leftist conspiracy to paint random things as right wing by the whole of the left, of course ignoring that he's doing the same thing, except painting all those he sees "bad" as "on the left." You can see this by the ideological way he claims "the left" ("They") said trotsky was right wing in the 1930s, apparently forgetting that trotskyists exist, and that "They said..." when facing an ideological grouping as large and vague as "the left" is a rather awful citation.
    7
  55.  @Anthony-jo7up  So you're a liar. Either that, or just willfully ignorant. If you're for controlling the way people act and what they can own, historically that would mean you'd be throwing in your lot with the capitalists or other ideologies on the right, a trend continuing to this day. To say anarcho-communism is contradictory is like saying ice-cold and fire-hot are contradictory simply because you randomly decided to define fire as "snow" and ice as "boiling water," it just doesn't make sense. There is nothing contradictory about anarchism and communism. I understand you hate it when people correctly define communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society) but that doesn't give you a right to dismiss the definition out of hand. The core feature of communism is nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth, no communists ever wrote about that being the cornerstone of their ideology. The phrase "redistribution of wealth" wasn't even used until relatively recently, and has always described the stage before even socialism, which itself is long before communism. Furthermore, you evidently don't know the first thing about economics or the state. Force does not require statism, and the seizing of private property has never required statism. In fact, the maintenance of private property only exists through the actions of a totalitarian state, that defends the notion of property with endless violence. So you don't know what communism is, nor can you accurately justify even your interpretation. The original and most accurate term for capitalism is not "free market," given that markets existed before capitalism and will exist afterwards. Capitalists didn't even advocate for a "Stateless" system until recently, and that sect has little to no political influence. If one wants a stateless, classless, moneyless society, they may well support a free market, but said market cannot be capitalist. Capitalist cannot be stateless, classless, or moneyless. Capitalism is not a system in which people are offered fair chances, rather it's one where you succeed based on political ideology, familial lies, race, class, gender, and so on. A true system in which individuals can prosper on their own merits has nothing to do with the entrenched power structures of capitalism. Socialism isn't "when the government does stuff," we still live in a capitalist system and have for the entirety of this country's history. Of course, you don't like this system, so have to call it non-capitalist to justify the constant failure we see in it today. So, in short, anarcho-communism isn't a contradiction but self evident, anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron, capitalism is defined by private ownership not free markets, and there is no such thing as classless and stateless meritocracy under capitalism. You don't know the basics.
    6
  56. An "obvious fact" that's so easily disproven that a child could do it. Do you ever wonder why your perspective is so unpopular?
    6
  57.  Wicker 2  I'm sorry, but that's false. I asked that specifically on this video because I know that there are many ignorant people like you in this comment section, that have a utopic view of the right that needs to be corrected. The modern right advocates for the government to control your bodily autonomy, for never-ending wars and huge government bailouts, where's the "small government?" The modern right thinks that people have no right to even verbally defend themselves against the police and that minorities shouldn't be able to own weapons, where's the "armed populace?" The modern right will cancel you if you say anything bad about any of their leaders, about america, or even just say something they disagree with, where's the "free speech?" The modern right actively upholds a white supremacist system that structurally hasn't changed since the days they fought for slavery, how are they not benefitting one race? They actively trust every word of government officials who may be proven liars, but who share their party affiliation, where is the distrust? They literally have the biggest media company in the country, one of the biggest in the world on their side. No, hitler's rhetoric was remarkably similar to right wing rhetoric, especially concerning welfare, the poor and "lazy," immigrants, the left, and so on. I mean he, like the modern right, advocated for disarming those that opposed him, made the military and police all powerful, hated those that spoke out against his right wing policies, ect. I hate to break it to you but "I have a jewish friend" doesn't nullify the fact that antisemetism literally comes from conservative religious beliefs and is perpetuated in majority by the right, including by ben shapiro. The right just can't seem to stop outing themselves as antisemites. And please for the love of god stop assuming people who disagree with you didn't read your revisionist bible here. I have. You're wrong.
    6
  58. @Grey Donovun You mean you use a random definition of socialism that doesn't fit with historical or modern definitions, and call it the "Real one" because you despise critical thought?
    6
  59.  @junkaccount2535  So what I guessed from the start is right. You have no idea what communism is, and instead, have created a strawman in your mind to represent it. When that strawman contradicts itself, or seems silly, you project this onto communism, despite not actually knowing what communists want, and despite your fake numbers. If you want the ideology that has brought more sickness, disease, poverty, hatred, and death to people at any point in existence, then look no further than capitalism. What you're describing literally isn't communism. Communists don't call for leaders to "force others to hand over their wealth," communism calls for a stateless, classless, moneyless society. This is no way goes against human nature, as the only thing human nature calls for is survival and thriving of the self and community, which said ideology would achieve. The other thing is, you assume every person is the target of "communism." The vast majority of people would gain, not lose. Those that had wealth to "hand over" were the overwhelming minorities. Furthermore, those people were already imparting force on the other citizens, and those nations already had large militaries. As well as that, communism is literally a system based on the emancipation of the individual, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but marx didn't think that. This is the problem, again, you make up a strawman and then blame other people when said strawman doesn't make sense. Marx's work has existed for centuries and been hailed as revolutionarily applicable through all of that, what makes you think the man was "Stupid" besides your own ideological presence? Marx didn't believe in redistribution of wealth, nor did he even believe in a state. In any case, thanks for putting on display your ignorance and fervent narcissism. The world doesn't revolve around you, and you making shit up doesn't make it true.
    6
  60.  Joseph Jones  Of course I have yet to answer a question you only now asked. Because you only asked it in this response, and I couldn't have answered it... before you asked it. You have yet to name an actual socialist system. You don't know the definition of capitalism, socialism, or even right wing. For example, you seem to think that "conservatives, capitalism, individual freedom, armed population, individual rights" is what makes a right winger, which is false. Monarchists hate all of the following besides conservatives, and they are right wing. Modern conservatives oppose all those but capitalism and conservatism. Capitalists despise individual rights and freedom, while historically, leftists have advocated for all these things, besides capitalism and conservatism. Your "every single aspect of the right" isn't actually every single aspect, it's the propaganda put out by a small segment of the right. In reality, what defines the right is "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" and what defines the left is "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" (Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations (2d ed.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015)) The nazis fit, without a doubt, on the right. It's not "msm propaganda," it's historical facts that you deny because you're ashamed of the right wing history of the nazis. Yeah, I hate to break it to you, plenty of people "refute" that and easily, given it isn't true. It's a shame a child like you feels the need to lie about their political history. You can hardly handle basic grammar and you expect me to believe you're some lifelong political individual? Your life has probably only been 15 years.
    6
  61.  @josephkempinger  The community as a whole under socialism refers to the whole of those who operate their means of production but do not own it.
    6
  62.  @josephkempinger  I would not say that socialism has changed, but rather that the most popular type of socialist has changed. Once it was the statists, who had the success of their jumpstarted economy to turn to, but no more. Now it is the democratic and libertarian socialists who seem to be far more popular. I'm not a socialist, but I don't think socialism is "flawed at the core" any more than other ideologies we see spread around today, it is entirely sustainable, just not in a world where it is the active victim of constant ideological attacks from other powers attempting to stamp socialism out.
    6
  63.  @josephkempinger  The "us vs them" mentality isn't a core of socialism, nor is it unique to socialism. After all, capitalists participate in it too. Socialists, far more than capitalists even, seek to find the root causes for societal problems, rather than creating a boogeyman or blaming individuals. There's no reason that a populist movement that eventually creates a world without a need for that populism would "tear itself apart." And the goal of socialism is to create a society not of turmoil, but where the modern turmoil that already exists doesn't occur.
    6
  64.  @josephkempinger  Nah i'm not a big discord person, prefer youtube where I can write in semi-long form and have the ability to respond when I have the time.
    6
  65.  @Aneko101  Child, you literally just pulled a "No true capitalism!!!" There is nothing in Capitalism even remotely close to slavery? How about... slavery, the thing that happened under capitalism, supported capitalism, and was advocated for by capitalists? No, child, socialists were abolitionists, who hated the involuntary labor, force, and coercion inherent to capitalism. These people were proud conservatives, they never called themselves "market socialists." Funny how you claim others haven't watched the video when you claim that capitalism is a new concept that doesn't describe the "free world," directly against the claims of the long debunked video. I'm sorry you can't deal with the simple fact that the history of capitalism and the history of slavery are one and the same.
    6
  66.  Reuben  *wasn't. Wasn't a socialist. You can dislike socialism as much as you want, but that doesn't count as evidence.
    6
  67.  @radioactiverat8751  thanks for citing jordan peterson, as to effectively completely discount your point. Peterson's assertions are roundly debunked by this point, but that won't stop you sadly. The simple fact is, the right shares many similarities with hitler, and thus they will do anything, rewrite any definitions, in order to get rid of that correct association. They, you included, will pretend that "socialist/marxist/communist ideologies" have similarities to hitler, and yet history shows us the vast majority of the similarities to nazism lie in other right wing systems and ideologies. Furthermore, the "collectivist vs individualist" distinction is useless, and the fact that you honestly think to list Venezuela next to the USSR in terms of political theory proves how little you know what you're talking about. With the points historians have provided, among other reasons he isn't a socialist. Nor is socialism even close to what Adolf aimed for.
    6
  68.  @radioactiverat8751  It was two comments, kid. Chill. I'm sorry that you have to come to terms with the fact that Hitler was a far right anti-socialist, as we have known since his very rise to power. You'd think it wouldn't be a surprise given no historian has made any effective argument for hitler's supposed socialism, and nor would they want to, given how ahistorical that assertion is. The simple fact is, hitler wasn't a socialist, and that isn't even a notion of surprise or controversy. I'm sorry you can't keep up with basic historical fact.
    6
  69.  @radioactiverat8751  what an amazingly eloquent response.
    6
  70.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I really don't see at all how your assertion of my supposed reasoning from using a term that you seem to not understand the definition of applies here. Hence, why you deflect away from Mosley's stated actual beliefs and instead deflect to a book written anonymously with you asserting to the contents of the book without evidence. Also, the definition of syndicalism is not "when the economy is controlled by differing corporations," but "a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers' unions." Nationalism by nature is supremacism, the belief that one nation and the people of it are superior, often if not always to the detriment of others. Your "definition" is openly revisionist.
    6
  71. I'm sorry that your history class failed you so much, and failed their duty as objective educators, though in reality you probably made this story up. Perhaps you should consult actual historical sources, which of course point to hitler's anti-socialism, than continue your nonsense.
    6
  72.  @waltermh111  So in other words, a bunch of nonsense assertions with no basis. No, he openly spoke out against not just government ownership but government control, and in their place constantly praised private property and private industrialists as the heads of the ideal economy. He didn't have control over business, nor did he desire to force them to obey, rather he got their support through positive incentives. This, of course, isn't how the chinese economy works, nor is your described system similar to Mussolini's fascism, especially given Mussolini's also-outspoken support of private property. I hate to break it to you, but marx didn't write anything like that. He didn't even differentiate between the terms "communism" and "socialism." Perhaps you're thinking about his theory that socialism comes after capitalist socialization has alienated the worker to such a degree that they revolt, but that isn't "getting money for communism." Are your "documentaries" also random youtube videos? And I mean, yes, socialism by definition excludes private ownership/control completely in favor of social ownership/control. You can't change a definition of a word by saying "the definition is wrong because I incorrectly applied it." China does not fit the definition of socialism, though one can argue that they intend to eventually change that. Mussolini's system certainly didn't, hence his support of private property and hiring of capitalists to run his economy. Cuba runs nothing like that. I'm not sure you even know what communism is, as you continuously apply it to random examples that do not fit the definition. Venezuela, for example, cannot be called communist in any reasonable sense, nor even socialist, given their over 70% private economy. They didn't desire to nationalize everything, nor would that even fit the definition of socialism. Communists recognize that social ownership, historically, is far more efficient than private ownership, but you believe in a fantasy world where communists think capitalist things, and somehow remain communist. No, child, you think that private industry is better, and you think that these random people are communist. So, when it turns out that they agree with you, you claim that one can agree wholly with capitalism and yet still somehow be a communist. You don't even know what a communist is, communists don't believe in a state, they certainly don't believe that said state should have total control of capitalist industry and continue to run it for profit, they believe in an eventual stateless, communal economy. In any case, the nazis certainly didn't want state control either, they praised private property out of ideology, not necessity. You're staggeringly ignorant.
    6
  73.  @killercollectiblesforu6598  The propaganda is that hitler was a socialist. This propaganda, of course, being false.
    6
  74.  @mitscientifica1569  no, as neither were right wing, a defining trait of fascism :)
    6
  75.  @travisadams6279  I'm sorry, but all of that is false. Quite literally all of it. More than that, it's all false statements i've already addressed and disproven, which you have offered no rebuttal for. I have cited the literal dictionary definition of socialism to you multiple times, and have not once deviated from it. You argue like an ideologue because you can't handle being wrong. But of course, everything the nazis did contradicts the definition of socialism. Not every citizen of nazi germant was a nazi, therefore the nazi party wasn't the community as a whole. Furthermore, the nazis didn't own and run the means of production to serve the community, they gave it to private hands to serve the strong. Also, as we've been over, socialism isn't when one group has power, but when the community as a whole owns the means of production. You can't handle making arguments so you just reassert the same disproven nonsense. Did they control everything and have price Kommisars? No, not at all, nor did they want either of those things given their private leanings. Your personal hang up is not even wanting to deal with or acknowledge the fact that your definition of socialism is disproven, and that socialism is not when one community of many takes control, nor does that definition even fit the nazis. The nazis weren't socialists, as is proven. Sorry?
    6
  76.  @travisadams6279  So apparently to you, living in a fantasy is when you... cite definitions and make arguments. Alright, that doesn't sound nearly too bad. Cope and seethe, kid, and maybe educate yourself.
    6
  77.  @Xpistos510  Close. They didn't make their own version of socialism, they just took the term and added an entire new definition that had nothing to do with previous socialisms, marxist or otherwise, which I suspect is what you're getting at though your phrasing suggests otherwise. Other than that absolutely right, "National Socialism" isn't nationalistic or racist socialism, it isn't socialism at all.
    6
  78. The problem of course is that his argument is entirely incorrect. Let me give one example why. Hitler defined socialism as nationalism. He did this for a variety of reasons. First, he was married to actual socialists since the formation of the NSDAP out of the DAP who were also nationalists and socialists. Hitler was never a socialist as we understand the term socialism. Words do actually have meanings. Hitler needed the socialists that remained in the NSDAP to solidify his power, until he had that power. When he had that power, he killed all the socialists, or exiled them, or sent them to concentration camps. Yes, the first people sent to Nazi concentration camps in the early 30's were socialists. How can someone be a "socialist", if they claim to NOT be a socialist. Redefine the term to fit their agenda. Then purge their party of all the actual socialists the moment he no longer needed their political support. It would be like saying, "I'm a martian", but Martians are really not from Mars, they are from British Columbia Canada. It was only the Martians who stole this term and twisted it to mean "From Mars". Here is another quote from Hitler. "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; 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. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew." I'll comment on this. Hitler is saying there are only two possible outcomes for German political life going forward. Either socialism, to which he comments "and then God help us!". Or, to a right wing Aryan party. I'll give you one guess as to which of those futures Hitlers NSDAP would represent. He casts it as a struggle for survival. "Victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the Victory of the Jew (Jews are socialists in Hitlers world btw). He sees Germany's future as a struggle between Jewish Socialism/Bolshevism and a right wing aryan party. Three paragraphs later in the very same speech from April 12, 1921 Hitler goes on to say the following. "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, eve 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. Again, I will comment. In this paragraph, Hitler is changing the definition of Social to National, and Socialism to Nationalism. Keep in mind that Hitler is still allied politically to people who had actual socialist beliefs at this point. Hitler needed their political support. Hitler himself was never a socialist. Hated socialists. However, he needed the socialists in his political alliance. So he CHANGES the definition of Socialism to be Nationalism, so that he can in good consciousness say "I am a socialist". Of course this is all moot, because Hitler PURGED all of the socialists in the NSDAP once he siezed power. It was this little thing called the Night of the Long Knives. All of the socialists in the NSDAP and Germany that Hitler could get his hands on, were either murdered, exiled, or sent into concentration camps. Hitler was a socialist? Not even close.
    5
  79. Wow, TIK at it again with more antisemetism and historical denialism. Why am I not at all surprised? It seems now that despite hitler's influence from christianity, he was "fundementally anti-christian," despite the fact that antisemetic christians have always existed and that antisemetism in the modern world is primarily a result of modern and historical christian prosecution of jewish individuals. But, according to TIK, hitler's "religion" was the ideology he hated most. He doesn't seem to understand that not only is socialism not a religion, it is not an ideology that hitler held anything but contempt for. Perhaps what TIK meant to say is "Calling hitler a socialist is my religion." But, in TIK's growing antisemetism, as long as it makes excuses for the right, he accepts it. This is likely due to the fact that no matter the academic pushback to his ahistorical denialism, he never seems to take historical facts or honest criticisms into account, seeking instead to deflect, deny, and dismiss. Did you know, "his socialism" didn't exist, given his hatred of the concept?
    5
  80. So wait, capitalism is when a large group of people, for no direct or quantifiable benefit, collectively pool their resources to support a project that they all enjoy and support, even though there is no profit motivation to do so? How, might I ask, is this capitalism in work? After all, the only one capitalizing off of it is TIK, not his patrons.
    5
  81. The fact that you can watch a video full to the brim of ideological zealotry and random cultish assertions, and somehow come away with this interpretation, proves just how far this rhetorical brainwashing has spread. What is "grounded" about his attempt at denialism? How is his work free from religious like fanaticism, when the whole thing exists explicitly to push an ideological agenda, and in doing so, encourages audiences to reject history and objective fact in favor of faith in TIK's ideology? His video is not free of fanaticism, it encapsulates it, shows the worst of it, a man arguing against modern strawmen and twisting history to support a narrative, and claiming to fight for history all the while, tearing down historians and economists alike with no rhyme or reason. This is a religion, you just don't like admitting to it, because you're a follower.
    5
  82.  @bastulainen  still crying are we
    5
  83.  @junkaccount2535  You don't have to ask that though at all, it's an entirely different subject that serves only to deflect. But given that the definition of communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless post-scarcity society, one physically could not have existed yet.
    5
  84.  Joseph Jones  Communism is by definition stateless. Asserting the opposite with no evidence, and no historical backing, doesn't make a lie into a truth.
    5
  85.  Joseph Jones  Have you... read the responses? What am I talking about, of course you haven't. I respond directly to every line he types, and you assert I don't read what he's saying. I destroy him in an argument and you run in, cover your ears and start trying to convince everyone it happened the other way around. I correct his misinformation with examples, argumentation, and citation, and you have no rebuttal to a single piece of it. You're getting destroyed. I've been showing you facts and all you can do is repeat the same nonsense lies over and over again. We've already established that both you and him don't know and haven't read the works in question.
    5
  86.  Joseph Jones  Yes, you're attempting to assert something just as silly and incorrect of the rest of the things you're baselessly asserting. Am I supposed to be surprised?
    5
  87.  @josephkempinger  I think that's a very real possibility, but I don't see that as a necessity. The majority of socialist movements have not been ones that call for state control directly, but for worker control, or even just increased quality of life for workers. However, since the statist group managed to take entire countries, they get most of the notoriety. In any case, I don't think society needs any top down force, be it market demand or state ownership, to be able to keep up with private entities or economies. Modern Coops do that just fine. Furthermore, the idea that the diversity of ideas and individuals would somehow run counter to social ownership just isn't true, in fact an economy in which innovation is not driven by profit, but interest and need, is one in which the individual, normally subjugated to office desks and factory conveyor belts, can truly shine. There's no need for someone who "knows what's best" to take control, even in a state-oriented failing economy. While some politicians may try to push that, it goes against the ideas of socialism, not in favor of them. Individuals choosing how to organize their own labor wouldn't create some mass turmoil either, more often than not individuals when organizing and delegating jobs are more than willing to organize and work together in concrete and far reaching ways that benefit all.
    5
  88.  @goforbroke4428  I mean it quite literally is, asking your opponent to make an entire new argument against you just because you can't handle the last one being proven wrong is the definition of shifting the goalposts, not sure how that isn't the case.
    5
  89.  @mitscientifica1569  Exactly, nice try trying to rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis: "For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism The quote you're talking about This quote: “National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1] In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact. Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out: "Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. " He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought. Sources: [1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159. [2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1. //:/
    5
  90.  @HablaCarnage63  And how is that? I am not arguing for socialism, nor am I arguing against capitalism. I am simply pointing to the historical fact that Hitler was not a socialist, and to assert otherwise has always been an attempt to tarnish history, and to polish away the association that modern adherents of hitler-like or even nazi ideologies hold with them. And Socialism has been defined, for a long while now. He has already had a label, multiple in fact, those labels being "Nazi" and "Fascist," which both describe systems that are neither capitalist nor socialist. TIK suggested an ahistorical revision of these terms, I suggest we keep the factual ones. And I very much doubt that those that made money off of Hitler's deals with them and then spent their live openly praising Hitler's ideology could be considered "deceived," at least not any more so than the average german Nazi was deceived. Ford, for example, was awarded the highest honor a non-citizen could be awarded in Nazi germany, for his industrial work and antisemetic propaganda. Does he sound deceived? They supported him, not because he was some lesser evil flavor of socialism, but because he wholly opposed socialism and leftism generally, and made as much very well known. That, understandably, draws the support of the rich of society. While Hitler was certainly an opportunist, it would be silly to pretend that this means we can write off all of his allies and his views towards said allies as not mattering. It is clear that there is a huge difference between Hitler's temporary alliance with the soviets, which neither party intended to honor for long, and his ideological association with western industry. And yes, it does seem like there's a lot of similarities between entrenched capitalists and aristocrats, hm? Wonder why that is. The rest of the world was keenly aware of Hitler's anti-socialism, hence their industry often jumping to support and praise his efforts. They wouldn't have supported him otherwise. Trying to separate these people, who owned and profited from capital, from the very word capitalist makes no sense. They were capitalists, by the oldest most historical definition, and trying to de-associate them does nothing. And again, i'm not calling Hitler a capitalist. But it is clear that his ideology did have a basis in the right, in conservatives, in some capitalists, without whom he could not have taken power and could not have fueled his war machine. Hitler's alliances with the right were ideological, not based off of only convenience. I think trying to equate that with Stalin's choice alliances with capital, when said capitalists (like Ford again, for example) often collaborated with the soviets for either pure convenience or for the expressed purpose of delegitimizing soviet rule by exposing soviet citizens to casual western luxury, makes no sense and is a bit silly.
    5
  91.  @Aneko101  Corporations are inherently capitalist, impossible without capitalism. the conservative ignorance of economics is staggering...
    5
  92.  @grimmwolf6695  Perhaps you can't help but assume I'm "ignoring" something because you have yet to realize that what you said wasn't true. The majority of abolitionists were secular, northern liberals and leftists, up to and including key figures in leftism like Marx. The majority of slave owners, on the other hand, were right wing conservative white christians, who advocated that the government abolishing slavery was impeding their property rights. As the parties sectionalized, they dominant ideologies for them changed. In any case, authoritarian governments aren't a "leftist ideology," the history of right wing authoritarianism is centuries long. Similarly, slavery itself has a long history of being defended by capitalists and conservatives, primarily existed for the purpose of profit and markets, and was fought by leftists. The right not only has more to do with slavery than the left... the right's legacy is the legacy of slavery. It's odd how you try to "both sides" it right after making your bias clearly known. In any case, no the alt right are not "far left," nor is their ideology the same as the left's. They're right wing.
    5
  93.  @AppliedMathematician  That is the natural result of capitalism. A system where workers live for another, their boss, whoever they sell their labor to, and not themselves. And in this system, to reject that labor is to reject all that labor buys, be it food, housing, water, medicine, and so on. Where is the freedom to walk away? Can one simply walk away from a need for food? Because the means of production are not literally anything that can aid in capitalist or socialist productions. But again, simply reasserting this doesn't make it true. The idea of the Volk was one that existed on the far right long prior to hitler, he simply drew upon it. He didn't implement socialist ideas, he explicitly rejected the notion that the workers should have any say in how the state or economy is run, preferring to hand it off to private backers that counted themselves as loyal to the nazi party, mostly for reasons of profit. The simple problem here is that one can criticize authoritarianism, one can criticize the history of socialist movements or the history of ideology altogether, one can easily criticize the movements and political pushes of the left, all without trying to lie about hitler's ideology. Hitler was, resoundingly, anti-socialist, and he wore this proudly. The only reason people in the modern day try to deny this is because they are fed up about rightfully having their movement criticized by comparing it to nazism, and the similar types of rhetoric and policy that the nazis and modern far right share. I don't care about utopianism, or tribalistic politics, or some end-all solution to the world's problems in the form of politics. And this is precisely the point. You simply don't care about the labels of ideologies, and yet feel the need to insert your ahistoricism in a conversation exclusively about labels and their historical application to ideologies.
    5
  94.  @OUTERPANGEA  The nazis weren't socialists, and the modern nazis aren't either, hence their constant support of right wing anti-socialism. Cope harder, child.
    5
  95.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I'm sorry but that is simply not true, his issue with the labor party was in no way that they weren't "left wing" enough, his criticism was that they were not nationalistic and corporatist enough, which led to his run in the New Party and later his own fascist movement, born of his rejection of the left in favor of reactionary and nationalist groups.
    5
  96. He literally threatened to delete all of my comments because I proved him wrong
    5
  97.  @admontblanc  The issue of course is that your analysis is false on all levels. Because as it is an objective fact that the nazis were not socialists, primarily, but also because your analysis doesn't even apply to what the nazis even were. You assert that they were somehow only different from "other forms of socialism" because they replaced economic classes with racial ones, which is just... wrong on all levels. For one, class, and the workers as a whole, are the base of socialism. To remove them from socialism would result in a system that is no longer socialist. That would be like taking feminism, replacing every instance of "girl" or "women" with "demon" and still calling it feminism. It just doesn't work. Furthermore, they didn't even do what you said. They didn't put aryans in control of the means of production, nor did they want to. They kept the MoP primarily in private-held state-guided hands, far away from the workers. That's not even to mention the fact that both philosophies came from entirely different places, had hundreds of differences, utterly reject eachother, ect. I truly have to wonder if you've done any research in this subject beyond the video, and even then, if you've even watched it. Your analysis of the economic reality of nazi germany is just objectively wrong.
    5
  98.  @killercollectiblesforu6598  Funny, the only places you tend to find absurd terms like "race socialist" are in youtube videos and on far right blogs, never in the works of actual historians and economists. I say funny, but it really isn't, really it's sad the lengths those groups go to denying the history of their movement. And you don't even know what marxism is.
    5
  99.  @killercollectiblesforu6598  You mean a video that openly admits to its historical falsehood? Right. He didn't want a "unified state of aryans," hence him constantly throwing those very "Aryans" into jail or death camps. He didn't want to "Socialize a race," nor does "socializing a group" make one a socialist. If this were not the case, today we would live in a sex/gender-socialist regime.
    5
  100.  @diatonicdelirium1743  Owned and regulated by who again? Oh, right, the people as a whole. How much did the people as a whole have power under hitler' regime?
    5
  101.  @travisadams6279  The definition of socialism is quite literally when the means of production are owned by the community as a whole. Synonyms for ownership by the community as a whole include collective ownership and social ownership. The argument you were attempting to make was that somehow, the far right anti-socialist nazi party and its leader "hero of the far right" hitler were somehow socialists, and in order to make this argument you had to quite literally deny and then lie about the definition of socialism. Hitler and the nazis were neither socialist nor capitalist, they were far right and owed no allegiance to the left. Again, by your definition of socialist, you are a socialist, as is every other country not just in modern existence but in history. Feel free to run, but your statements have been noted.
    5
  102.  @TfuckyoutubeC  so your response to facts is to complain of "religiously devout socialists." I'm sorry that you want to deny history, but it really isn't my problem. The nazis weren't socialists, as i've proven. cope. except a response, in full :)
    5
  103.  @TfuckyoutubeC  “You heard it here first, apparently responding to someone's points in full, while providing citation, is just a "meme," or a "rambling wall of text." I must assume you open history books and say the same. Where was the "spiraling," hm? Is that just your excuse for why you neglect to respond to the quotation and citation I provided that proved your uneducated assertion completely wrong?” This remains true. In any case, “brevity is the soul of wit” is a statement made by those that can’t handle the fact that history doesn’t fit into their neat little boxes and needs more than two sentences to properly explain and understand. I’m sorry that you feel that length, rather than argumentation, was what I was going for, but I fear I cannot change your fanatic mindset on anything, so there’s no use trying to correct that misconception. Child, i simply made the effort to prove you wrong. You can call this whatever you want, insult me for doing it in whatever way you want, but that doesn’t change the facts. I’m still not a socialist, child, please calm down your coping. The very fact that you’ve proven that you are willing to skip past points that prove you wrong proves exactly my point here. So let’s start! 1: Child, this is just false. You’re attempting to redefine terms again, and it really isn’t a good look. Again, I already addressed this. You are attempting to argue against the concept of the community as a whole by pointing out that many small communities exist. I addressed this directly, saying that these are one group of many, and socialism is specifically defined as the community as a whole, all of these groups combined. Not “a community,” “The Community as a whole.” If you attempt to redefine socialism to be able to exclude certain parts of this community as a whole, then every ideology becomes socialist. The problem following this attempted redefinition is that you are willing to make false assertions to back it up. You say “you're using community to represent the whole of society, which a community may well be, but isn't necessarily.” Again, already addressed this. The definition specifically points to the community as a whole, not just any community, thus you invoking the ability for any community to be made up of any group does nothing to address the definition. You further say “community of nazi germany was germans.” This is, of course, false. The german people under nazi germany did not own the means of production. Certain, individual german citizens did, who were private owners, but their workers (obviously) did not own the means of production. The whole of the “german community” did not own the means of productions, tiny groups out of those germans did. So again, one group owning the means of production wouldn’t be socialist, but one group didn’t even own the means of production collectively in nazi germany, which you falsely assert to the contrary. The other problem is that you’re back to using the definition of individual communities. You can see this specifically with your usage of “*my* community.” Again, we’re not just talking about your community, but the community as a whole, all groups, not just one small group. Is a family owning their own farm socialist? Why not? According to you, that would fit the definition. The “german community” did not own the means of production under nazi germany, and child, ownership by one small group to the exclusion of all others isn’t socialism. 2. Child, what I said stands. You can’t actually accept the definition, so you deflect to definitions of individual communities, rather than dealing with the concept of a community as a whole. You are attempting to ignore the “as a whole” part of that definition, and trying to define socialism as control by any community, and thus any community in control must be socialism. I will point out again that if one is to remove the “as a whole” from the definition of socialism, all ideologies become socialist. This was all stuff I pointed out in the last response, you didn’t even bother rebutting it, you just ignored it. And I hate to break it to you but swallowing nazi propaganda, again, isn’t a good look. The germans of the 20th century were everyone from jewish people to immigrants and people of any descent. It was only the nazis, and other ethno-nationalist racists that tried to paint those people as any less german than the other groups thathad lived in germany for so long. There was no national ethnicity, and the fact that you somehow think america, the country literally notorious for doing its best to keep one group in power for hundreds of years, presents some sort of exception to the rule, you are wrong. The “common beliefs’ myth is quite silly when actually looking at historical american citizenship. I’m sorry you think history is a cult. 3. Child, you can’t just keep saying “you don’t understand x” when x is a point you’ve clearly been disproven on time and time again. Nothing I said in the following statement is false: "If we decide to redefine socialism to now be one grouping or community, rather than the community as a whole, everything becomes socialist. Monarchism, technocracy, capitalism, all ideologies where one loosely defined group is in control. this is what sets socialism apart, rather than advocating for one group to control with the exclusion of others, it advocates for all people regardless of grouping to control the means of production, the formation of one group of all people. You're attempting to ignore that, it isn't working." The nazis weren’t just exterminating “non-germans” according to your own racist interpretation of that label, they were exterminating anyone that opposed their view of society. They killed leftists, immigrants, socialists, trans people, gay people, and so on. They didn’t want to redistribute wealth into any greater community’s hands, and that literally isn’t the definition of socialism. They felt no desire to put that wealth into the hands of the “german community,” they literally explicitly passed laws that allowed factory workers to keep wages low and keep germans poor. The state worked far less for the people of german under the nazis than under the capitalist Weimar Republic. Just saying things doesn’t make them true, and it is a simple fact that there was no effort to exclusively harm “non-germans” for the exclusive benefit of “germans.” The average german citizen starved under hitler, and the state did more to help them under pretty much every regime prior to hitler than under hitler’s. The german citizens did not receive redistributed wealth, and their economy was not collectivized. It was quite literally a situation where “their community” was not germans, given that they threw millions of germans into prison or worse, and left those that weren’t behind bars to starve or live their live sout in fear. Similarly, non-germans like Ford were welcomed in when they showed to have shared the right wing ideology of the nazis. And child, you need to start making things up. Socialism is quite literally defined by putting all people, regardless of grouping, in control of the means of production. There is one group, that group being literally everyone. You can try to insert as many buzzwords into your argument as you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that this argument has nothing to do with “universal humanism,” and has to do with the simple definition of the community as a whole, all groups, all individuals. You’re trying to deny the basic foundation of the definition of socialism, and don’t even have a good argument to do so. No, I don’t how a single assertion of yours can be taken seriously, but I can easily prove them all false. “True socialism” doesn’t matter, i’m literally telling you the dictionary definition of socialism, and you’re trying to argue that this definition doesn’t actually matter because you don’t want it to. Sad.
    5
  104.  @TfuckyoutubeC  4. If you describe my words as a “mess,” I must have hit home with most of them. I’m sorry you refuse to actually adhere to facts but all of your assertions to this minute have been quite simply, openly, false, and i’m more than happy to point out your justification and defense of his ideology and the crimes its committed. You’re free to be as lazy as you want when responding to me, but I hold no such burdens, and I will be happy to respond to you, as usual, in full. The problem here being that you don’t actually know the definition of the political right, and you don’t understand the policies hitler ran on. First, there’s nothing inherently left wing about nationalization, I urge you to look at the entire history of european state control under monarchies, and same goes for “repossession of wealth.” In any case, once again moot point, given that hitler specifically spoke out against the nationalization of german industry, and specifically said that he thought nationalization of said industry would destroy his economy. He also held no desire to collectivize unions, instead openly advocating for them to be abolished. He ran right wing, appealing to the right’s traditionalism and hatred of their wasteful nanny-state, as well as xenophobia, racism, homophobia, and I could go on. Next point. A populist, politically, is one that rhetorically claims to have the support of a certain large group of people to back them. This could be a party, a country, or a race, but not necessarily literally all people. Hitler, again, never claimed to want to work for all germans, openly making clear his position on say, gay germans, from the start. He was opposed to those who went against him, not the collective, as the collective more often than not was the very group opposingf him. I find it funny how I list out a number of “ethnic germans” as you’d call them (the lazy, the unionists, the old, the gay, the trans) and you say that hitler thought they opposed, defied, or hindered the collective hitler supposedly prized. Child, which is it? The germans were the collective, or only a very, very small portion of germans counted under hitler’s favor? Hitler hated these groups not because he cared for the collective, but specifically because he despised it. These people, despite being a part of the collective you claim had ownership of the means of production in nazi germany, were “excluded from the collective.” A policy, i’ll remind you, that disqualifies one from socialism all on its own. Child, what are you on about? Do you think opposing smoking means one doesn’t want to harm people? Come on. Why are you trying to deny his crimes? He was, objectively, a disaster for the average german, who was no better off economically, and was now under constant threat of being sent off to prison, or just a basic street execution if a nazi officer felt like it. Geman is a nationality, not an ethnicity, at least not in the eyes of people who can actually reject nazi propaganda. And the fact that you seem to try to mock the fact that hitler and the nazis were about as evil as human beings can get? That’s certainly… an argument to make. A horrific one, but an argument to be sure. His policies, objectively, benefitted only a small minority of private property owners and nazi party supporters, who were often one and the same, while the majority of the population (the “german collective,” as you call them) were worse off now than before. And yes, hierarchical structures in the workplace are directly counter to socialism as an ideology, and again, you need to stop projecting your own conception of ideology onto history, your “theory vs practice” deflection shows this clearly. Just saying that I somehow don’t know something doesn’t make it true. I, unlike you, am more than happy to do the research and find the facts, whereas you seem more than happy to ignore the facts and just make random assertions. He didn’t desire the redistribution of wealth, and again, this is something that democracies the world over participate in, it isn’t even the definition of socialism. One can literally attack your argument from any angle and it falls apart. And again, stop assuming i’m as uneducated as you. The promises of the german right during the collapse of the Weimar Republic were exactly what put the nazis in power, the economic and social policies they were calling for lined up almost exactly with the policies of the established conservative parties, which is why the conservative parties got the nazis elected and were rewarded in turn. Hitler didn’t care about the theft of wealth, given that he’d praise a german citizen and kill a jewish one for doing the exact same thing. And how is “equal distribution” moving the goalposts? You claimed he was for the distribution of wealth, do you think that any and all distribution is leftist or somehow socialist? Do you understand the definition of socialism or communism? I’m guessing not, given you’re unable to actually define either and felt the need to bring up communism to describe a capitalist policy. Once again, I invite you to actually read up on their policies, not just deflect. 5. The problem is that you’re asserting that anything you don’t like is “the equation socialism,” and aren’t actually interested in hearing about the real modern parallels between the nazis and their modern counterparts. I mean, again, come on, the right literally waves nazi flags, how much more explicit can you really get? Your “substitution” problem is silly, when you actually look at it. “You can substitute the group variable german for a different race, or maybe class for example.” I’m sorry, what? What socialist groups want to protect class differences like hitler wanted to protect race differences? If you look at contemporaries and somehow get yourself looking at the modern leftist, I have to be frank, you’re an idiot. The modern american leftist shares literally nothing in common with nazis.Are you seriously saying that poc queer democratic socialists are anything like the nazis? If you look at the modern right, again, they are literally see those who are flying nazi flags, shouting their mottos and praising their names. How is that not proving a point? The left burns nazi flags, the right flies them. Pretty self explanatory. And yes, you literally don’t have a single argument. You have assertions, and you have propaganda, but you have been unwilling to actually argue to prove any of your points. And please, stop lying. American leftists use their constitutional rights to protest and to refuse to platform people. The right wants to remove this right to free speech, so we all have to listen to them. I hate to break it to you but there exists no groups of “black ethno-nationalists,” please go outside. If (and this will likely never happen) you actually look into nazi policies, see their hatred of a nanny welfare state and immigration, their hatred of progressivism, their hatred towards those that break their white conservative norm, you see the right in its purest form. I hate to break it to you, but trying to call them similar to democrats is especially funny, given the democrats also pretty heavily oppose leftists. The right in america claims to care about the constitution while literally advocating for the most important parts of it to be removed. The left, on the other hand, ranges from working within the constitution to attempting to amend it according to popular will. This is perhaps your most telling line: “as the world can see freely on youtube if you search” Child, you’re swallowing propaganda whole. You’re listening to right wing youtubers rather than actual history, rather than the actual facts. If you search for right sign ideologues on youtube, you’ll find them, without a doubt. It seems you’ve fallen into their cult of denialism, and think that looking up your favorite grifter on youtube means that everything they say must be true. Insults won’t change that. Again, hate to break it to you, but actually going in dept into your claims and disproving them at the source isn’t just some “wall of text,” you can’t “mucho texto” yourself out of arguments you don’t like. Why would I shorten my arguments when the subjects of the arguments themselves cannot be shortened in such a way? I’m sorry that you feel the need to call random people socialists, just like the nazis before you, but that still isn’t an argument. You’re free to run away to your heart’s content, but it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about here, and you seem wholly unwilling to actually look into the subject matter or any primary sources discussing it. And again, lol, just showing you’re some child that gets all of their nonsense from youtube. No, I don’t think i’ll take the fanatic right wing denialist’s cope on its word, I’ll actually do the research and look at the real world, real history. TIK, like you, is a long debunked cope machine. I’m sorry you can’t handle the fact that the nazis weren’t socialists, and they remain that way totally to this day. On a completely unrelated note: “Some of us may be capitalists… but definitely none of us are communists, and definitely none of us are socialists.” - Modern self-proclaimed fascist of the far right organization “Vanguard America,” on the ideological makeup of fascist organizations.
    5
  105.  @TfuckyoutubeC  "fascism is when you're someone the fascists would hate."
    5
  106.  Kimmy Anfo  He isn't that good at this, it seems, likely because his understanding of fascism is completely shot, and based only in his own ideological delusions. He knows that TIK is just as ignorant as him on this matter. For example, it is a simple fact that fascism is an ideology of contradictions and redundancy, an ideology with very little concrete political or economic goals beyond their social assertions, and that finds itself formed different ways time and time again. The idea of fascism as a reactionary, totalitarian, and militaristic movement is one supported by the actions and views of fascists themselves, and is about as far from "no definition" as one can get. In fact, it proves a wonderful definition that can be further expanded upon to understand the commonalities and differences between fascist systems. The way people like you attempt to deny this is by artificially limiting what can be called fascist, ignoring historical context and the study of ideology to suggest that their fascism is the only "true" fascism, and that all other examples can be discounted, for one fabricated reason or another. Of course, these ideological links are between different expressions of fascism, proving the lack of clear ideological foundation and the difference of expression in fascist thought. This isn't a flaw in the definition, this is simply how definitions work, and when one core concept is found to be a certain way, it is silly to then attempt to separate said concept into different groups, as if hindsight can change their historical association. These regimes are fascist, they fit the qualifiers, and come from the same place as other fascists. Now, while Orwell did make note of accusations of fascism being used as a rhetorical tool by politicians and the like, he didn't assert that fascism itself had no definition or that regimes often called fascist were not so. In fact, he presented a rather concise and complete definition of fascism, one that contradicts his denialist narrative. What you mean by "Read between the lines" is "suppose conspiratorial intent." Of course, the vast majority of those accurately defining and labelling fascism are not marxists, nor does your assertion of "countering marxism" explain the vast majority of labelled fascist regimes. These historians don't care about marxism, unlike you they have no reason for ideological nonsense, they're simply pointing out reality. He seems to have not quite left fascism behind, given that he still believes in the same fundamental conspiracies that "justify" it. The accurate definition of fascism, the one that you assert is some marxist conspiracy isn't incorrect, and though it may counter your ignorance on the subject, that doesn't discount simple historical fact. The problem is, there is no marxist conspiracy, these definitions and facts are not "socialist" in nature, and so predictably, they are often reasserted by non-socialists, because they anage to disprove falsehoods coming from the various denialists camps. You assert that these people are just ignorant, that they "Get it wrong," just because they disagree with you. TIK didn't try to figure out what fascism was, if he did that, he would have to be honest about fascism's long history of anti-socialist beliefs and actions. He didn't want to know what fascism was, rather, he wanted the most convincing argument possible to support his ideological position, that being that everything bad is somehow socialist. So, rather than deal with the whole of the material, he ignored, attempted to discount, or just denied huge amounts of accurate information that contradicted his narrative. This is why he doesn't show, say, fascist speeches in which they distance themselves from socialism and the left and support the right, why he doesn't show fascist writings which show their ideological opposition to socialism and desire to replace it with a right wing movement, why he doesn't explain the alliances or simple overlaps between the old guard conservatives/capitalists with new fascist actors while at the same time socialists and leftists were purged and repressed, because it doesn't support his narrative. It's not the mouths of fascists that TIK wants to hear from, but the mouths of those that agree with him politically, and that have been failing to deny history for decades now. Sadly, for him at least, we both know he's wrong, and the only way to assert otherwise is to hold on to the fascistic conspiratorial mindset that you're so proud of. No, child, fascism is not a socialist ideology, by any definition. It has never been, and never will be. Fascists "didn't want to openly admit it" because it isn't true, hence their constant support of anti-socialism. Fascism was not, and has never been a socialist ideology. Fascists didn't want to be associated with socialists or socialism, directly or indirectly because acceptance of fascist ideology by necessity means a rejection of socialism and the left. It was at this era that marxism was at its strongest in terms of ideological pull, the "people" you're talking about being terrified of this movement were not the people as a whole, but a small group of people, private owners that fascists appealed to. They had no need to disassociate from the "marxist socialist" movement, their rejection of it was plainly published, hence the anti-socialist third way economics. Those terrified of marxism, those that the fascists appealed to, were the capitalists, the conservatives, the statist traditionalists and the rabid right wing nationalists. That's why their anti-socialist movement was so successful in drawing power at the time, because even though they failed almost everywhere in terms of popular support, they had the backing of the political and economic establishment, hence so many capitalist countries from austria to poland, with huge conservative political movements, turned towards fascism, and why it is out of modern conservativism that fascism has been created again in those very same places. The people that fascists appealed to were the people that wanted neither socialism nor marxism, but more power. After all, the populations of these countries were already turning towards marxism, hence the fascist rhetorical push towards emulating pro-worker terminology, up until they actually took power. Fascists did bring a new option, a new option that allowed capitalists to keep their power and wealth without worrying about competition or unions, an option that allowed conservatives to consolidate political power and enforce their social views, an option that got rid of socialist and criminalized socialism as an ideology. Fascists, of course, knew they weren't socialists. Funny he mentions Orwell, given that Orwell himself was well aware of the connection between fascism and the right, going on record numerous times to connect it to conservatism and capitalism, and to correctly point out the ideological foundations of fascism on the far right. At the time Orwell wrote that, as well as in the many years before and after that statement, fascists didn't like saying they were socialists, or as you put it, "openly admitting they were socialist," because they weren't. Similarly, socialists despised fascism, and at that point no movement had been created to attempt to link the two, as right wing denialists had done after the fact. Socialists didn't like "openly admitting fascism was socialist," because it wasn't and even at the time that was considered absurd. However, conservatives and capitalists were openly admitting to their support of nazism and fascism. Today, of course, little has changed. Fascists today don't call themselves socialist, and in fact, they proudly march under the symbols of the right, and admit to their opposition to socialism and the left as a whole. Fascists today do not "openly admit to being socialist..." because they aren't, and they now it. Hence, the constant support of the right and anti-socialism, and the right's support of them. The only one in denial here is him, who somehow thinks that modern fascists shouting "Hail Trump" means they're openly socialist now? Orwell did figure it out, being as open about fascism's ties to capitalism, conservatism, and the right as he was, but you didn't actually read any of his works, jut parroted TIK. Orwell had nothing to "admit," he published the truth about fascism often. But of course, in your conspiratorial mind, the only reason he didn't agree with your denialism was because it would... keep socialists away from his writing. Despite the fact that, of course, he didn't "admit" to his position because he knew it to be false. . So no, fascism is not nationalistic centered rebranding of socialism. Fascism, historically, is a movement that rejects socialism in all forms and all ways possible, and further rejects the left by associating it with socialism. Fascism is a movement of reaction, a movement of the right, and a movement of deep conservatism and hatred of the left. We know what nationalist socialists were. They weren't fascists. You don't want a super simple explanation, you want denialism. A simple explanation would be more along the lines of, fascism was an extreme form of totalitarian conservatism that appealed to all aspects of the right, and shifted the blame for failing economies from private owners, to socialists. A simple populist rebranding of conservatism.
    5
  107. shame it's been so thoroughly disproven.
    5
  108. @Victorian Spiritualist In the comments, in other videos, and in the very historians he cites. It's pretty common.
    5
  109. the far right is responsible for 76% of all terror in the US.
    4
  110. Ok, so no offense, but you kind of admitted the fault in your argument here. Hitler was not a socialist in any traditional sense, rather he called himself a socialist and built up a new meaning around that word, as well as distinctly cutting off it's meaning from the other forms of socialism that already existed. His was a "prussian" socialist, which was already not left wing before he got his hands on it. Also, while there is no one concrete definition of socialism, they all have things that must happen, and most have certain factors in common, factors hitler did not believe his ideology should follow, at all. Here is some quotes that show that, as well as some modern right wing organizations that use similar tactics. The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. Basically, that means to use saleable words – such as freedom, identity, security, democracy. [...]Once we're in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, 'yes, every last one must go'. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. [...]There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas, and the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable." - Far-Right British National Party. "Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism "We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house." "We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight." - Adolf Hitler "Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and the fields blue ought to be sterilized" -Adolf Hitler Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda. "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism " And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." " Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national." "“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." "Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1 https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/ https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKBN1K331J So the question now is - how do we use the term socialism? Because the thing is, modern day socialists have no connecting with this ideology, despite the implications of the title. Hitler technically called himself a socialist, but how do we define him? He had nearly nothing in common with any other denomination of socialism, even if we consider him technically a kind of socialism, he's the only right wing kind that protects private property, wealth, and nation, as well as many other key distinctions. So why is he a "socialist?" I suppose that's more of a subjective question, but my view is that no, we should not call him a socialist. The modern socialists have nothing to do with this man, so calling him by that title only muddies the water, and it isn't even worth the effort of applying the title. We already ahve a word for what he was, a fascist, a far right ultra nationalist leftist hating fascist. So what would you prefer, you call him socialist as a needless attack on modern leftists because the connection between nazism and socialism is practically non-existent, or, we just call him what we've been calling him for a while - a fascist. I say the latter, makes things more simple. If not, then they may technically be a socialist, as in a prussian socialist. But at that point, they are removed from all other socialist movements, so the name is useless.
    4
  111.  @slashdotbeckett6020  ​ @SlashDotBeckett I don't mean to start this off on the wrong foot, but "postmodern" as a term is one of those terms you speak of, one that people just take to mean anyone who is vaguely someone they don't like. I mean hell, TIK readily admitted to being a "historical revisionist," and he's the one calling others "postmodernists?" And sure, you can find me all throughout this comment section - i'm always down for a chat. Socialism, as defined since the beginning, (and yes, that does include pre-marx and anti-marx socialists) is defined as essentially a system in which the workers collectively own the means of production.
    4
  112.  @TheImperatorKnight  TIK, every time you decide to enter the comment section to give hearts to the comments you like and a link to your video to those you don't, I know what you'll say. You'll call me a troll, and you'll encourage your base to hide from all criticism and debate, to shut themselves out to any who could provide any such opposing evidence. We know why you do it as well, it's because you and I have interacted personally and you were not able to substantiate your argument. If you lost your own argument, don't advise others to bow out of theirs. Go back to your "job." If your argument relies so heavily on me supposedly not watching the video, then it's an argument my continued engagement should have disproven.
    4
  113. He's neither right nor doing the work of an entity that bases itslef around freedom and equality, given that TIK despises both those concepts. And I can see why you get tired trying to assert this idea, likely because it's a lot harder to argue for ideas that have no basis in reality. Nazi ideology, of course, is not socialism. You're attempting to write off anti-socialism from the right as "variety in socialism." What you just said is basically " I get so tired explaining muslim religious faith is christian; just because there is variety in christianity doesn't mean that muslim religious faith isn't christian." Try again, denialist.
    4
  114.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Oh, child. You really just can't understand the basics, can you? Why would I call him a child? Because I felt like it, and because I believe it to be accurate. Does that somehow disqualify the argumentation that stands with or without those remarks? Apparently, to you, it does. Of course, to you, your actions can never be fallacies, despite your inability to realize that you only argue from accusations of fallacy, accusations you can't even back up... which is, of course, a logical fallacy. You have yet to even touch upon these supposed conclusions, much less prove any fallacious methods... because you can't :) But you don't, you really don't, and I'd say that's pretty relevant when your definition of ad hominem relies on the accuracy of insults.
    4
  115.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Child, just listen to yourself. Listen to reality, for once, and recognize how silly your ramblings are. An ad hominem argument is, of course, not a "red herring" argument, but rather, an argument that hinges on an insult. This is the objective definition, and the one you keep running away from, because it proves you wrong. Of course it has no bearing on if the OP is wrong or not, because it isn't a part of my argument, which is exactly what makes it not an ad hominem, argument. He is a child, regardless of my other points. You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. It has no bearing on the argument, and is, therefore, not an ad hominem argument. an insult being unrelated or unproven doesn't make it an ad hominem argument, as I keep telling you, time and time again. "You are admitting it has no bearing on whether OP is mistaken and is, therefore, a red herring of the ad hominem variety." Literally none of this is correct. Ad hominem fallacies aren't a type of red herring, they are an argument that is reliant on unrelated insults rather than the core of the argument. Therefore, an insult given with no bearing on the arguments presented, by definition, cannot be an ad hominem fallacy. You're unwilling to admit to your own fallacies because that would require you to actually define them correctly, and for you to have even a speck of decency. However, you have neither. Of course, as i've proven time and time again, my statements are devoid of ad hominem fallacies, and fallacies all together. Unlike yours, of course, which rely on red herrings, non sequiturs, and of course your favorites, arguments from fallacy. You, quite literally in this response, said that ad hominem arguments are judged on the accuracy of the insults. Which means that you consider "accurate" ad hominems to be free of fallacy (which is why you so often engage in them) and "innacurate" insults to be fallacious. No, the definition of ad hominem is not "an argument directed at the person," the definition is as follows: "Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occur in formal logic where the validity of an argument based on syllogism or deduction is independent of the person putting it forward." The problem is, by the actual definition and by your cop out, I have not engaged in ad hominem. I have not argued "directed at the person," i've argued against his position, while insulting him. My arguments are neither based on, not hinged upon, his character in the slightest. You notice how, if you take the word "child" out, the argument remains exactly the same? right. Because i'm not arguing against his character or person, and my argument does not rely on personal attacks to function. I'll say it one more time - an ad hominem argument would be "You are wrong, because you are a child." A non-fallacious argument, if a bit spicy, would be "You, child, are wrong, and here's why." I did the second of those two examples. Of course, it isn't a fallacy at all that I have no reason to "prove" offhand snide remarks, but if you insist, I would say that believing that the entire scope of public opinion surrounding a decades long debate with thousands of hours of media created surrounding it can be synopsized through the analytics of a single video on a platform primarily used by actual children... is pretty childish, right? But you don't care about that, you just want to scream "fallacy!" because you have no other argument. If only there was a term for that type of argument...
    4
  116.  Wicker 2  Yes, one of those people that adhere to fact. Trust me I already guessed you weren't a fan. I suppose you don't see the hypocrisy in proclaiming that a system cannot prioritize or primarily benefit one race simply because a select few individuals from other groups are allowed the opportunity to fight against a white supremacists system and assert themselves where so many do not want them? I suppose you think it's pure coincidence that the amount of major leaders of color in this country's past is one that can be read through in a few minutes, as opposed to the pages and pages of white leaders? You mean the "active advantages" you and so many on the right seek to abolish totally? It's amazing that you think long proven statistical facts are only appealing to "cultists," but you've never been one for reason, have you? I'm showing people reality, proving it even, and it's sad to watch you deny it simply because it proves you wrong. The side that fought for slavery didn't just disappear, champ. What do you think happened to those people? But they aren't "unborn children," they're clumps of cells. And in order to "defend" them, you have to actively attack the rights and lives of pregnant people, or even people who have the ability but no desire to get pregnant. It isn't ok to use state force to force people to give birth and support another human life just because you think a clump of cells is the same thing as a person. Your policies actively murder those who hold pregnancies they cannot care for. Even making the absurd assumption that pregnancies and people are the same, why does the "baby" take precedence over the parent? And how does your side advocating for coerced infections have anything to do with this? Trump didn't "end" a war, he pulled our troops out of a war that we started, and by "we" i mean right wing american leaders that defended it up until their leader told them to stop. Isn't it interesting that despite his base being unabashedly nationalist and interventionist up until his election, they're so in tuned with him that they don't even care about their own policies unless they line up with Trump's? And how is war not the biggest government out there, one that spends trillions with the sole purpose of murder and oppression? Hypotheticals don't matter, what matters is the reality of massive US military spending. You're joking with me, right? Who else do you think is pushing for and passing massive corporate bailouts? Whenever a person, usually black (I wonder why) is shot or attacked by the police, what is the right wing response? "They shouldn't have been there! They shouldn't have been acting suspicious! They should have complied! It doesn't matter if the police broke into your home and shot you in your bed, to not totally comply with state force, in the eyes of the right, puts the blame of your injury or death solely on you... not the poorly trained state officials that shot you. Erm, no. If we look to the past of gun control, and try to find examples of people specifically trying to disarm minority groups, we see right wingers like Reagan, who were in favor of lax gun control laws... until minority groups started to arm themselves, which is when he passed gun control legislation. Democrats advocate for equal gun control, impacting groups equally. Right wingers advocate for gun control when minorities start to arm themselves, and no gun control when they want to arm themselves against minorities. Felons don't have anything to do with that. "We don't care if someone has an R after their name" is one of the funniest things i've seen today. No, you don't actually care if they are in line with your policies, but your rhetoric. If those in your party don't adhere completely to false and long debunked narratives that the right loves, they're kicked out. If they show a desire to listen to facts, or to compromise, they are labelled fake republicans and kicked out. The move to "tear out the old guard" is one with the sole purpose of consolidating a narrative and creating an ideologically consistent echo chamber of a party. Are you really going to pretend that the right wasn't essentially screaming in hate against people like Malcolm X and the Black Panther movements deciding to arm themselves? Are you going to pretend the right didn't do all they could to disarm their jokes? And just saying "I don't like this fact" isn't a rebuttal. The right has done all they can to consolidate power and allegiance with the military and police. Sorry? It's sad that you don't know anything about the history of antisemitism but i'm not surprised. Modern antisemitism is quite literally a direct result of christian conservatives in the middle ages spreading malicious and hateful lies about jewish people, barring them from travel and activities, spreading conspiracies about them, and so on. The belief that jewish people are the upper parts of society and control society from the top is quite literally a part of that religious hatred, as working with money was seen as sinful when this bigoted movement was started. As for railing against "twisted and degenerate culture," what better describes the modern right? So willing to talk about "cultural marxism" and "the fall of the west" the second someone dies their hair. I'm sorry that you think an education on the history of antisemitism is false simply because you disagree with it, and i'm sorry you think your long disproven bible of this video is the only source on the history of antisemitism that it so often denies. Anti-religious nazis is like saying anti-christian roman catholics, champ. Christianity, and christians, was the start of their bigotry and claim of heritage.
    4
  117.  @TheImperatorKnight  Second plot twist: the first bloke was right and you're a hopelessly ideological hack.
    4
  118.  @junkaccount2535  But no, actually. Ok so you have no idea what you're talking about, thanks for the "contribution."
    4
  119.  @junkaccount2535  Another useless question yeah. What do you mean by "good?" Historically human nature has shown that it s willing to work together for the benefit of all, and there's no need for "good" human nature to achieve that system.
    4
  120.  Joseph Jones  Again, you say you're "Waiting" when this is the first time you've asked such a thing. I've already defined it, and why are you trying so desperately to deflect? Why do you assume i'm a socialist, just because I have a better graps on history than you? Are you projecting your own ideological basis for your arguments?
    4
  121.  Joseph Jones  So, let me get this straight. You want to run away from a debate you're losing, right now... for some hypothetical future debate, backed up by money you don't have, on a platform you aren't old enough to access? Kid, this is the "backing up" part of the argument. You haven't actually provided a single counter argument as of now, i'm still waiting for you to even respond to a single one of my arguments. You've talked crap, and you can't back it up. You really can't, can you?
    4
  122.  Joseph Jones  So again, you're running away from this debate, that you lost, in some bolstering attempt to deflect to another, future debate... right. Well, you have fun with running away then, i'll just take the victory.
    4
  123.  Joseph Jones  So again, I effortlessly proved you and many, many others wrong, and your only response is pitiful insults, and again, an attempt to deflect away from the debate at hand. No, kid, if you actually had a point worth making, you would have made it now, or hours ago, even. You lost the bet, you lost this debate, and you are continually proving how easy it is to destroy you in arguments. You got smoked. Now run.
    4
  124.  @josephkempinger  I mean, there's no one answered to that question, that's why there are different types of socialist. Some think that the collective should own their respective workplaces directly, some think individual communities should own the industry of their area, some think that every individual should just own their means of production directly, some want ownership through trade unions, some want state ownership by a state that accurately represents the collective in one way or another, and so on. There's not just one way to "do socialism." But none of these systems advocate for the removal of labor organization all together, they just state that labor should be organized around the workers owning the means of production, rather than property owners.
    4
  125.  @josephkempinger  And while it can be seen like that, that doesn't mean that viewpoint is accurate, as historically attempts to enrich the upper class to have that wealth trickle down to the average person are fruitless. I agree that it would be very different than just letting these companies topple, but that still doesn't address the top-down aspect of modern market systems. when I said effectively the people, I was referring to how the bailout money comes from the people, so it can be seen as a roundabout way to supply them money from consumers, vs what would happen if the government butt out of things like that and let shitty spinet companies topple like in 2008 with all the banks. I’ll read the rest now
    4
  126.  @goforbroke4428  They don't, though. You're presuming some sort of rationality that is utterly unfounded given your actions. Why are you so annoyed when I call out the fallacies committed by your allies? Why would I go along with deflections and allow people to shift the goalposts, when we could instead discuss the actual topic of the conversation? I've already tried your method, brought up the examples you asked for, and clearly it wasn't enough for you. Again, you're presuming a level of rationality you clearly don't actually have.
    4
  127.  @goforbroke4428  You refuse to actually acknowledge the topics I have addressed, even if they are based in deflection.
    4
  128.  @HablaCarnage63  Ok but anarchism isn't "when chaos," anarchism is a system defined by an opposition to hierarchy, including the state, capitalism, authoritarianism, and so on. I'm beginning to think you just generally don't understand the ideologies in question here.
    4
  129.  @a.r.5695  You can attempt to deny reality all you want but that doesn't mean that denial is based in any sort of factual information. You don't know what socialism is, and have been convinced that actually, all the experts and dictionaries are wrong. And yes, I wonder why reality so often seems to align with left wing beliefs... it's almost as if said beliefs are based in reality.
    4
  130.  @TheImperatorKnight  I'm serious about this, by the way. This is vile. We've had our fun, throwing buzzwords back and forth, you calling us harmless things like "postmodern marxists" (which, coincidentally plays into an anti-semetic conspiracy theory) but now you just straight up have the nerve the level that accusation on us, all while you've invited literal holocaust deniers to your comment section. Yeah, no. Fuck you. Do you have any, any reasoning for this bullshit? Or are you so high on your own nonsense that you yourself have become the postmodernist and decided every person you don't like can be slapped with whatever labels you feel like, no matter the actual ramifications of those labels, because you're angry and need some way to vent that. You're literally showing yourself to be everything you claim the "postmodern neomarxist" critics of you are.
    4
  131.  @TheImperatorKnight  I have to wonder if one day, TIK, you'll stop projecting onto people. You know that if someone were to take your ideology in in full, they would be anti semetic, racist, and deny the holocuast just like you, right? "He was an economic advisor trying to persuade the guy in charge - Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss - that Facsist/socialist policies were ridiculous." Incorrect. He was literally putting into place fascist economic policies, that's what Mises' job was. He didn't get to his position of power in the Front by opposing fascist policies, he got to that position because he was promoting fascist policies. If you are a high-ranking member of a fascist party, and the policies you promote are in fact policies that this fascist party supports, then you are proposing fascist policies. This is a matter of fact. He fled not fascism, but the nazis, as he had in fact been working to put fascism in place for years now. And we've already been over your Holocaust-denialist newspeak of "fascist socialism." "But also The Fatherland Front in Austria was opposed to capitalism and liberalism." Odd then, that such a prominent figure in the party, who accomplished so much and implemented so much policy, was a capitalist and a liberal. You'd think if the entire party was devoted to the exact opposite desires as him, that the party then would not promote him so high within their ranks, and include him in so much of the creation of their economic policy. Really odd. "No, that's exactly what you're arguing when you say that Mises was a Fascist." Look, I know you want to keep up the anti-semetic trope of dissecting down minority groups arbitrarily so you can justify discriminating against certain members of said group, but you must understand, that is exactly what you are doing when you are saying that socialism is fascist. Also, you're putting the cart a bit before the horse on this one, asserting that marxism is anti-semetic along with socialism, something you've been wholly unable to prove. "Marxism is just fascism by a different name." Close, but you have it reversed. Fascism is a system of right wing ultra-nationalism, where the state and the corporations are one, and the workers are eternally crushed under the combined boot of both. It takes inspiration from social darwnism, traditionalism, and capitalism. Fascism is not socialism on a national level, not only because that's already an oxymoron, but because it differs in nearly every other way. The fact that what you call socialism is what most call capitalism has not yet seemed to hit you, which is quite funny because you're proving the socialists point. "You're the one spitting on them, not me." This coming from the guy that said the fascist italians weren't racist. But, of course you'd take the next "logical" step forward, and seek to devalue the newest word in your arsenal, Holocaust denial. Now this is for one of two reasons. The first, and most likely, is that you feel ashamed of the nazis and holocaust deniers that you have attracted to your own video, which are engaged in a mini flame war with the socialists, and want to blame the parts of your content that appeal to that crowd on anyone but yourself. In this way, you can be faulted with immature, devaluing the very real threat of holocaust denial that you seem to have had experience with in this very comment section by blaming it on anyone but yourself. The second, and still entirely possible reason is because you purposefully want to normalize Holocaust denial, just as you are trying to normalize anti-semitism. After all, if you call everyone a holocaust denier and an anti-semite, the actual anti-semites are free to roam without prejudice. I don't think it's quite hit you yet that there are literally people who are still alive, who actually have to deal with anti-semitism at the hands of the right, or who have literally survived the Holocaust. These are not careless insults like your previous accusations of marxism and post modernism, no, these carry some weight. weight you utterly deny, and seem to pride yourself in being able to remove. If you gave two shits about anti-semitism, you'd stop calling those who correct you anti-semites, and get to actually calling out the literal people saying "it wasn't 6 million" in your own comment section. Oh, wait, the socialists are doing that for you. Gee, odd, that. Almost like no matter how much you try to smear socialists, you don't actually warp their opinions into your maliciously false version of them, because unlike you, they seem to have beliefs that last longer than a single response and actually use definitions according to history. Oh, and also unlike you, they don't seem to promote racism, false historical revisionism, and a mindless hypocritical hate of all they oppose. I didn't think that arguing with you would lead to me having to point out socialists doing something good and me having to compliment them, but it seems like compared to your deflationary lies with the purpose of normalizing fascism and Holocaust denial, everyone is a saint. Well, just another reason to not want to deal with your nonsense anymore.
    4
  132.  @christopherdukett4158  First part, correct, though odd that you phrase it as "leftist defending socialism," when the critics of this video are defending history, not socialism, and many are not leftists. Second part, however, is a strawman. Leftists don't disagree with this video to "defend socialism," nor do the critics of this video advocate that one consumes only leftist information to come to a conclusion. The problem of course is that you see a "leftist historical POV" as any point of view that differs from yours, and thus, all leftists must be advocating that, since they disagree with you.
    4
  133.  @christopherdukett4158  There very much is, when the said examiner goes into their examination with a predetermined goal, and is willing to do just about anything to justify getting the answers they want. In the case of this video, in reality, Hitler's own words show a fondness and ideological adherence to private property and the right. Yes, he used the word socialist, though in his own words he gave the word no meaning relating to its previous definitions or users, and instead constructed an entirely new definition for the term, unrelated to any and all other uses. He defined socialism as nationalism. Even back then, not based on modern scrutiny or views, people were calling out his use of the word socialism in rhetoric and not policy, even those among his party did it. If the reason you believe hitler was a socialist is solely because socialists use the term differently, let me lay that to rest. First off, yes, in the very beginning the term socialist was used to describe different ideologies, few of which have more than a passing resemblance to the concrete ideology. Communism and socialism, for example, were synonymous. However, years passed and the term became more concrete. This was all decades before hitler was born. The definition of socialism from the moment of its true ideological birth is and has been "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Now, some socialists describe this differently. They say worker ownership, or socialization of the means of production. It all means the same thing, collective/social/community ownership. Socialists also differ in how to best achieve this, but again, that isn't a definition difference but an application difference. Your issue is not that socialists have different definitions, but different conclusions based on the same definition. Furthermore, even if there was slight confusion, that doesn't justify the mingling with an entire different term. There are blues and greens, but there are also colors that seem both at the same time and can be called either. That doesn't allow yellow to suddenly call itself blue, does it? Furthermore, your issue is mainly in that you have been told countries or leaders are socialist, and when socialists attempt to correct this by explaining the definition, your impulse is to dismiss them rather than consider that your initial assumption may have been flawed. And yes, there is right and wrong. Specifically in terms of history, we rarely know the absolute full story, but we do have an array of factual information and with it we can guess, assume, and eventually piece together the true story. While assumptions like these are never black or white, they aim to reach the truth, the totality of it, even if they may not necessarily always reach it. The idea of nazism being a wing of socialism is long debunked, which is why the recent revival of the discussion rests not on historical information being discovered, but on an ideological position seeking to defend itself. The reason socialists don't associate with nazis is obvious, they're opposed in practically everything. The reason the right tries to distance itself from nazism is because there are modern day right wingers repeating the rhetoric and flying the flag of the nazi party, and they don't want to have to deal with that historical legacy. Notice I said right wing, not capitalist. This video does not represent a historical movement, or a movement of logic, you can see as much by the fact that he's more interested in opposing socialism than actually making his arguments. Rather, it represents an ideological push, reflected by the views of the supporters of it. If you genuinely are open to having your mind changed on this subject, I offer you a few options. If you have questions or criticisms, arguments or statements, that you would like to run by me to see what the counter is, to see what arguments exist against the video, go ahead. The video is wrought with flaws and the conduct of TIK should show you as much. Or, if you don't care for that, don't take my word, go and read TIK's historical sources themselves. He does make mention of them disagreeing with his conlusions, so why not see if he's right, hm?
    4
  134.  @polpol2739  I'm sorry, that's just false. Hitler was a right wing anti-socialist, and he hated the internationalism that capitalism brought, but had no problems with the processes of capital within his own borders. Capitalism is a right wing ideology, yes, though not the only one. Hitler was not in favor of "seazing" (sic) the means of production or regulating them through the state, he saw that as an insult to the supposed superiority of german private business. Nor, of course, is regulation an intrinsically socialist thing. He used Christianity and openly followed traditionalism, and inventing new systems of morality isn't at all "part of the left" as a baseline. Hitler was right wing and anti-socialist, and the phrase "liberal socialist" is an oxymoron.
    4
  135.  @Aneko101  But it isn't. You're just attempting to redefine the terms "right" and "capitalist" to fit your utopic fantasy, ignoring what those words have always meant. Instead of deal with the crimes in your history, you just redefine them to not be yours anymore.
    4
  136.  @Aneko101  Love how, when you're faced with the similarities between fascists/nazis and their right wing brethren, conservatives, your first response is just to claim "not real conservatism!"
    4
  137.  @Aneko101  Oh, child. You're afraid of debating me because I've been... destroyed? Riiight. Telling excuse. No, child, you're afraid of debating me because you know how easily I can prove you wrong.
    4
  138.  @Aneko101  "Um actually conservatism is authoritarian and collectivist and thus not right wing" is one of the biggest copes i've ever heard. You'd think that after the entire history of the right was revealed to be authoritarian and collectivist, by your own word, you could admit that those values are not "inherently anti right wing." No, child, despite you being proven wrong on this exact point, time and time again, nazi ideology is not "socialism on a national level," nor is socialism of any type possible with corporations (private entities.)
    4
  139.  @grimmwolf6695  But that isn't the definition of capitalism. If it was, capitalism and socialism/communism could exist at the same time, for the same people, in the same place. Capitalism is private ownership, not "the free exchange of goods." And how can you claim that capitalism is not at least partially if not wholly to blame for the historical crime of slavery, particularly in terms of the americas, given that the whole point was profit in a market economy? No, it isn't "left wing governments like communists and socialists" that carry the legacy of slavery - that would be the right. And no, if you look at it rationally, you see that an ideology encouraging people to profit above all other things, including respect for their fellow man, is absolutely to blame for much modern and historical misery.
    4
  140.  @grimmwolf6695  Yeah, nah. Capitalism is a relatively recent ideology only arising in its modern form at the end of the industrial revolution.
    4
  141.  @grimmwolf6695  Again, the "free exchange of goods" is something far from unique with capitalism, and capitalists call for very specific systems of exchange and trade, which is what distinguishes them. Hence, economic fact teaching that your definition makes no sense.
    4
  142.  @grimmwolf6695  I'm not sure what that assertion has to do with what I said? I mean good for you I guess?
    4
  143.  @grimmwolf6695  I don't disagree.
    4
  144.  @jonathanrealman8415  For one, that wasn't really socialism, at all. It inspired socialism, sure, but it was literally centuries before any such rigid ideological system as socialism would be actually formed. However, even then, it was based on class, that is the class of the politicians and intellectuals, and the class of the common folk. Even then, it had basis in class. And now I have to wonder if you are even listening, because I specifically addressed the claim that this is "marxism," and hegelianinism isn't a socialist thing, Hegelian Dialectics have been attached to everything from psychology to the inner workings of capitalism. So I really have to wonder what you're even talking about, or what you think you're talking about. I hate to repeat myself, but here goes - both you and him ignore the fact that socialism is not older than class struggle, it was invented by class struggle. Again, even the pre-marx, and even vehement anti-marx socialists both before, during, and after his lifetime had an ideology wholly entrenched within class. Yes, they were different classes, as the earlier socialists primarily targeted feudal serfs as the "proletariat" and marx expanded some facets of the class struggle by trying to quantify the new growing middle class, but the issue of class struggle is literally the basis of socialism. Hell, mate, I hate to clue you in but the first socialists were around before private ownership was even a thing, they fought against monarchs that had a state that owned *everything" and they still brought up class struggles.-
    4
  145.  @fraser_mr2009  'Just saying random things are socialist because you want them to be does not make them so. Why are you so eager to call anti-socialism socialist? Come on now, I thought this was a lesson you all had sort of learned by now. Apparently not. Actual evidence points to the fact of the nazi's anti-socialism. Assertions are just that, assertions, and largely useless. It wasn't just anti-socialism, it was staunch anti-socialism. Unlike you, I get my history from actual reality, rather than right wing denialist propaganda. But hey, keep trying to deflect from actual history. It doesn't work champ.
    4
  146.  @Hopgoodd  I hate to clue you in, but you saying you may have an argument isn't actually having said argument. I've been debating this for years, and not once has anyone actually managed to prove Hitler is a socialist. There's a reason for that. I would love to cite some specific books, Richard Evans' trilogy on the Third Reich is a rather good source, but I hate to clue you in, hitler took huge steps to never call himself a left wing socialist, or even a socialist by any definition but his own. And, from his definition, we can see that hitler defined "socialism" as "nationalism." Hell, the man never wanted the workers in charge, he was in favor of protecting private property and wealth. The only one trying to convince anyone that black is white is you here, and by extension, TIK. Because we've known hitler wasn't a socialist, well, since he began calling himself one.
    4
  147.  @AppliedMathematician  Great, have fun with that. Just remember that you're putting together capitalist and socialist "concepts," and not the ideologies themselves. One can take from an ideology, a philosophy, an economy, ect, and still not be an adherent of that ideology or that system, in any form. No need for utopian dreams to see that. And good luck not getting private owners to undermine that system. Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis only works when you have a concrete grasp of the first two parts and can reliably predict the third, which is more often than not, not the case among real life economic and political systems. But again, good luck I guess?
    4
  148.  @AppliedMathematician  Yeah, the thing is, even that is wrong, and ahistorical. Even TIK's cited historians disagree with his conclusions, TIK's definition of socialism has nothing to do with actual socialist history or definitions, and this video only goes to show both of those. Hell, the only reason "socialist" is even in the party name is against hitler's objections, who first disliked the name, (that was picked by a faction of the party he did not control or agree with) then tried to redefine the name, and finally purged those that put it in place. Of course they weren't stupid, they knew the name was good for propaganda, but they had no desire to actually put in place any form of socialist. They didn't even call themselves socialist according to any definition of the term, hitler defining socialist as a term fully compatible with private property and essentially meaning nationalism. They weren't just against "other socialists," they were against all socialists, all leftists, and all those that those groups appealed to. Hell, you can even point out the actual definition of socialism. So stop with the "everything's a true scotsman!" lark and get to the point. In what way did hitler's ideology or actions fit the actual definition of socialism? You have been unwilling to say, and I have no idea why you cite TIK when he openly disagrees with your definition. I don't care about your proposed system, I care about the fact that your mislabeling of nazi ideology is allowing an open door for the far right to spread their ideology under the guise of anti-socialism, while managing to deflect their greatest crimes to those who were the victim of said crimes. Calling the nazis socialists is not only utterly ahistorical and not supported by any sort of objective history, but actively harms political discourse and allows actual modern fascists and neo-nazis to remain uncontested while blaming their policies on the left. Do you really not see the problem with that? The swastikas are at the Unite the Right rally alongside conservative symbols, nothing to do with the left, and yet here you are saying that group is secretly socialists. See the issue? Hitler wasn't a socialist - that's just a fact you'll have to accept.
    4
  149.  @AppliedMathematician  It quite literally isn't. Sure, that's the buzzword your type turns to when they have no other argument, but at some point you have to realize not everything is actually everything else. What you're doing is equivalent to pointing at an orange and calling it an apple. I correct you, point out it isn't an apple, and you say "No true scotsman fallacy! That orange isn't a 'true' apple!" It's silly, and absurd. Hitler just wasn't a socialist. Hitlers ideology is not socialism, not despite historical facts, but because of the historical facts of his regime, a regime that abolished collective bargaining, mass privatized business, sided with conservatives while purging the left and their allies, and so on. Your supposed "fact" of german society being socialized isn't true, nor is it accurate to the definition of socialism i've discussed. You don't even want to deal with the actual origin of the name! If you want to at any point admit that your stated definitions and application of the terms do not line up, you are more than free to do so. However, again, I think we've been over the facts, and that requires more self awareness than I think you're willing to engage in. Why do you feel that you are immune to this fallacy, then? Could I not just turn it around, point out that Hitler's anti-socialism is no 'true' anti-socialism in your eyes, and that your no true scotsman attitude shines through? Again, your stated definitions just don't line up with the reality of the systems you're labelling, and your assertions on historical reality are utterly unfounded. Broad, sweeping claims about random groups of people doesn't change that. The issue here is that you've been saying essentially nothing since the beginning, just these vague, sociological assumptions that you're trying to project on me. Best of luck resolving your inner ideological and historical contradictions, then.
    4
  150.  @AppliedMathematician  You've told me your ideology time and time again, when I have not once asked. Stoic, Classical Liberal/Libertarian, Critical Rationalist, and so on. Stop projecting. You, rather than blaming poor driving or a model of car, seek instead to blame an increase of car crashed on an entirely unrelated factor, say, the consumption of oranges. And when it is pointed out that the two have nothing to do with eachother, and that criticizing the victims of car crashes for eating oranges is silly, you just accuse the other person of not thinking big enough, of defending the consumption of oranges, of making excuses, ect. You seek to absolve the anti-socialist far right of their actions. Why you feel you are justified in this ahistoricism I cannot say, but you refuse to give it up, hence me correctly pointing out the ideological basis to your constant "arguments," as opposed to a historical one. I expect you to follow the actual historical definitions, and if you don't do so I have no need to "destroy your mode of thinking," I can just prove you wrong, as I have time and time again. And if reality doesn't appeal to you, if proof and facts aren't enough, as they seem to be in this case, I can just write you off as the ideological zealot you are. A lot of people have died from far right anti-socialist experiments, and you try to define the biggest example of said ideology away, with no proof at all? Why do you kneel to those so openly dedicated to an overwriting of historical fact, in favor of right wing ideology? Why do you continue to try to blame socialists for the actions of anti-socialists, and then act like refuting this criticism means socialism must not be criticized? Well nobody can care about a concept that exists completely in your own mind, that being the "Socialism" of hitler, a well known right wing anti-socialist. I hate to break it to you, but again, you're blaming an eaten orange for a car crash and then trying to insult those that point out the lack of correlation. Hitler wasn't a socialist, criticizing socialism using hitler makes as much sense as criticizing socialism using Adam Smith. Oh gosh you really don't understand the basics of economics, do you? Do you know what the means of production are? What commodity form is? Do you know the definition of socialism, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Tell me child, where is the "working" ownership of the means of production by the people in china? Do you even understand that "the rest" of the economy doesn't actually have a place under non-capitalist systems? "Implicit ownership" doesn't exist, what you mean is "future potential ownership" which is an ability all states, even capitalist, share. And that isn't how socialism works, socialism is not "when the poor people are less poor/rich," socialism is, again, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." How would community ownership over only banks or debt allow for community control? His ideological tool was one of far right anti-socialism, which explains his actions. His hatred of the poor, the LGBT, the migrants, the "Work-shy," the old, and so on. If one wants to understand his actions, they turn towards his ideology, and if one calls him a socialist, than his apparent ideology and his actual actions don't line up. Do you see the problem there? Perhaps then you should stop trying to push association fallacies to facilitate guilt where it has no historical basis, hm? Perhaps stop kneeling to those that will do anything to avoid their history of anti-socialist nazism, including placing it on the enemy's side. And furthermore, stop deflecting from your actions. There is no need to invest into training people to use a certain way of thinking and wording to avoid the consequences of guilt by association fallacies. Teach to avoid the gilt by association fallacy in the first place, if you invest the time to teach them anything. I hate to break it to you, but the funny thing about the Historikerstreit is it clearly showed the nazi's origin in the right - the right wing conservatives did everything they could to defend the nazis, to minimize their crimes, while the left wanted to correctly portray the full, devastating scope of their crimes. By trying to erase the history of the right, you enable them to repeat it. The simple fact is, Hitler's ideology shares origins in ideas and concepts with anti-socialist conservatism, with traditionalism and militant right wing ideology. His basis was one of opposition to socialism, and his policies reflected that. Denying this is, again, ahistorical and makes no actual political sense, given that we can clearly see in the modern day that the nazis take the sides of the conservatives and vice versa. You wish to include a bullet among a list of fruits known as socialism, and you get annoyed when I tell you a bullet isn't a fruit.
    4
  151.  @mitscientifica1569  No, as they were not right wing, a key component of fascism :)
    4
  152.  @nicholashodges201  Well of course, it's quite sad the things TIK gets into. People like TIK say things that are objectively false, and make him look like an uneducated halfwit. When people point this out, he will deliberately twist anything they say to make them seem like marxists, liars, ect, and his audience eats it all up. He can't actually dispute those who criticize his work, not honestly anyways, so he attempts to gaslight, namecall, insult, and just generally try to ignore, reinterpret, or downright lie about what they're saying. He's long disproven, and it's sad to watch his lashing out after being backed into a corner like that.
    4
  153.  @WatcherPrime  sadly for you that isn't what happened under the nazis then, hm? I would stop with the nonsense assertions.
    4
  154.  @CantusTropus  that is literally the definition of socialism, the one already agreed upon by all socialists. They speak for themselves. The problem is that you're trying to act as the socialist pope, attempting to redefine the term and add in opposition under the guise of unification, which makes no sense. History reinforces the definition of socialism, not a pope, and though you may try you cannot change that definition.
    4
  155.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "was" being the key word, as in, he rejected the position and moved to the right. Not sure why this is so hard for your type to understand.
    4
  156.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  No, it's a synonym for state backed private property which is what he pushed for, not any type of syndicalism, as we've been over despite your baseless assertions otherwise, and despite your denial. And nationalism is right wing because it promotes a hierarchy of nations and those within them.
    4
  157. It does nothing of the sort - it excuses far right ideologies while seeking to redefine left wing ones. Propaganda should never be mandatory viewing, especially when it's this bad.
    4
  158.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah, but here's the problem. Anarchism is anti-capitalist by default.
    4
  159. otherwise known as "history," but ok bud. Love it when any and all history is labelled "communist propaganda," we really are living through another red scare.
    4
  160.  @genericlegionaryrecruit7235  well you'd be wrong but that's never stopped you guys before.
    4
  161.  @dgray3771  it isn't socialism though. I'm sorry that you feel the ned to deny history, but that has no basis on the actual facts. Sure, it isn't capitalism, it isn't marxism, and it isn't socialism. It's a right wing ideology that rejects the left in all capacities and belongs to the right in policy, action, and idea. You can keep ignoring the policy of the era, but that won't work well for you for long. Ignorance is no defense, and accusations don't work out for those that can't back them up. I'm not sure why you're somehow concerned with the left, while we're speaking about a right wing ideology. How is the left denying facts? Or are you just projecting onto them?
    4
  162.  @dgray3771  Denialism isn't an argument. Child, I hate to break it to you, but "environmentalism" doesn't map onto left vs right differences, and i'm sorry, but the only one here dismissing facts is you. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that the nazis were clear and open right wingers, but it is no agenda to simply point out this fact. They aren't just like the right wing, they are right wing. not just in racism, but in politics, common law, and everything else. They were right wing on every front, which is why they share so much in common with their fellow right wing racists.
    4
  163. @UC1dO23tnRN0ilrJNqdQrj9g I'm sorry you're so desperate to excuse nazi crimes, but that is genuinely a horrible thing to do.
    4
  164.  @dreisiglps2451  I agree, you keep trying to redefine words and it doesn't work out well for you given that your statements have zero coherency to them.
    4
  165.  @dreisiglps2451  And how is that "my logic," hm? It's quite literally your logic, you think that collectivism and individualism determine left and right, which just isn't true. Collectivism can be both left and right, though it is absolutely true that the left is generally more inclined to individualism while the right values authority and power in the state. So yes, of course you're wrong, and you don't even understand my statements.
    4
  166.  @dreisiglps2451  Nope, monarchies are literally the definition of right wing, and the first labelled right wing ideology. Same with nazism, a right wing ideology.
    4
  167.  @mitscientifica1569  Funny, George Orwell actually 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." Your quote has no backing, fash. In fact, it comes from Orwell quoting stalin's pre-war propaganda...
    4
  168.  @dreisiglps2451  I'm not a liberal though, I don't find myself partial to liberalism. And while i'm fine with recognizing that we have clear disagreements at a fundamental level and that it isn't much use trying to get through to you, but this isn't a simple disagreement. If it were just a difference of opinion, I would be fine to disagree, as it is clear that we disagree on a lot, but this is a matter of factual reality, of history, politics, and the study of those subjects. Those aren't the realm of opinions, but realities and facts. But sure, you're left, i'm right, you believe what you want and nothing I say can change that. Good day.
    4
  169.  @KameradVonTurnip  I would disagree, but I overall see your point. I would put it more like this. Socialism is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, ect. They differ on many issues, but worship the same god. The nazis are like some doomsday cult, or perhaps to relate it to real life a group like the KKK, that decided to just make up it's own head cannon of those religions several thousands of years later, and declares itself to be the only true version of religion, despite being founded long after said religions were already prospering. After all, nazi ideology comes not from leftist socialism, but from prussian socialism, and yet tries to assert that it is the only true socialism, despite being opposed to all others and being founded nearly a century late. But that's how i've seen it. also, few things worth pointing out. fascism and nazism were born as opposition of socialism, not from it, and differ from socialists on most basic philosophical issues. They took some inspiration, but one could just as easily say then they were born from darwin or imperialism. Mussolini was never an anarchist, he claimed to be a socialist for a while, (despite opposing the socialist of his nation on most issues and later renouncing them) but then joined the remnants of the "National Syndicalist" movement which would become the fascist party. National syndicalism to explain it briefly was not anarchist, rather it aimed to create a revolutionary movement from the reactionaries, and would separate up nations and ethnicities. Basically it was a nice way of saying that they wanted an ethno-state with corporatism control. On top of that, your example of many nazis being socialists or communists isn't much of a good one, as I could point out the nazi purges of their more left wing sections, or the conservatives/classical liberals that got them into power ans supported them rabidly. Also, one final thing, religious socialism has been a thing for a while, and in fact socialism's origins can be traced back to some religious movements. In any case, just a few things I thought were worth bringing up. Although I do agree that they certainly shared some things in common drew inspiration from eachother in cases, and were born of similar circumstances, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it was shared ideological goals and ideas that created them (like "heaven is good") but more shared crisis and criticism that brought them to relevance. (in terms of religion, something like "the world sucks and we need faith or an afterlife to keep us going.") In any case, I remember speaking to you previously and leaving it off at somewhat of a civil compromise, and I don't want to start up anything major again, but I thought it was worth pointing some of this stuff out and how things like fascism are a bit more than just a small variation of any other system. Have a good one.
    4
  170.  @TheImperatorKnight  Oh, i'm not calling for that. Your comment section, the people you seem fine with associating with, are. Did you read this person's comments before you were singing their unwavering praise? Perhaps you should do that befoe engaging in your usual fallacy-filled semantic nonsense. Perhaps, you should also stop trying to normalized holocaust denial and anti-semetism, and agreeing with those that peddle it. Perhaps as well, finally, you should confront the similarities with fascist rhetoric you seem to be showing more and more of.
    4
  171.  @mitscientifica1569  Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. " His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it! Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view. Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx. Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
    4
  172.  @vidard9863  but the nazis weren't at all on the left, by any rational explanation.
    4
  173.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    4
  174.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, MIT came up with a new copy-paste spread of nonsense! Of course, all of it is false. Child, what is utopian about the goals of fascism? Endless struggle, constant domination, hierarchy and authority. The goals of fascism specifically reject utopianism, in favor of constant struggle. Neither erased traditional concepts regarding good or evil, you just consider both evil from your own perspective. Fascism is specifically against the idea of any sort of international order, fascism facilitates the existence of the upper economic classes, and fascism specifically rejects utopia, though recruiting individuals into an ideology is about as baseline as you can get. You consider both on the same level because you understand that the nazis were horrific, evil right wing ideologues, and in order to attack the left as well, you need to minimize the crimes of the nazis by attempting to equate them with things that cannot be equated. Your assertions are, historically, false and serve only to benefit those in favor of nazism. So let's try this again. Here is why conservatism, capitalism and fascism are similar. These three\ deeply unequal, murderous abhorrent and vile ideologies promised a return to a tradition, and a natural human hierarchy, vision that would ensure infinite happiness. They both stemmed from a political, social, and cultural construct that erased traditional ideas regarding good and evil. Both believed in the destruction of the old world, to build a new international order; each deplored what they saw as the left, progressivism, and any movement against their hierarchy; each ideology’s shared purpose was to recruit members of the new utopia. Both evil ideologies brought an orgy of violence, killed millions, and led humanity to its darkest hour, where the final destination was deplorable mass starvation/forced famine and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Of course they are opposite, but to claim that they share similarities such that you assert is quite ahistorical. Jeffrey Tucker, American capitalist economics writer of the Austrian School, noted frequently that even as members of the American right tried to declare their ideology one wholly separate from fascism and nazism, the matter of right wing collectivism was one that mirrored nazism in all but name, and gripped onto many who claimed to hate collectivism in all forms. He noted that this deeply authoritarian form of collectivism relied on the state to spread right wing ideas, and that it opposed many of the things that right-libertarians claimed to stand for, all while relying on the radical right, traditionalism, statism and hierarchy to spread its ideological goals, in constant conflict with leftism of all forms. This one man hierarchical rule is further explored in "Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty." And of course, we both know that this is not the only figure to point out the similarities between the modern right and fascism. Robert Paxton, for example, a world-renowned historian of the foundation of fascism, detailed in "The Anatomy of Fascism" the forming of the ideology, and how it took from the right, from traditionalists and conservatives, to construct its whole ideological foundation, noting again the spread of right wing collectivism in the interwar period and how exactly this influenced the burgeoning ideology of fascism, one just as authoritarian and right wing as its founders. This is how he proves, quite openly, that to consider fascism closer to communism or the left than its foundations in conservatism and the right is a fundamental error. So, MIT, i'd recommend you stop stealing from sources that prove you wrong.
    4
  175.  @TfuckyoutubeC  Ok, so you're a child with a childish understanding of the world, who is willing to lie to push an ideological point. The nazis were right wing totalitarians. Objective fact. You are a liar, or terribly uneducated. also fact.
    4
  176.  @TfuckyoutubeC  I thought you wanted my points to be concise? What's wrong child, you had no need to respond with such a wall of text to the brevity and wit found in my initial response. And I have to agree! You made incorrect assertions, and then tiringly, over and over again, just asserted that you were correct. No proof or anything, just the claim. And yes, your constant accusations of socialism to random people proves my point rather well, I think. Again, child, as we've been over, I was more than happy to write a full response, I just wanted to give you the most concise, dumbed down form, just for you. I know i'm right, I know I proved it, and I can respond to you word by word just to prove it further. But hey, feel free to make assumptions! I will say that the majority of them are incorrect, however. I don't vote democrat, for example, don't hold much love for the nordic systems, i'm not an atheist, double-major in english secondary education and european history, not male, and so on. The funniest thing however is that the vast majority of the things you've listed were positions despised by the fascists, who would laugh at me alongside you. And if my very existence gets them that riled up, i'm more than happy with that result :)
    4
  177.  @pietrayday9915  Yeah, the problem is that socialists actually have a consistent definition, and conservatives get pissed when they stick with it, rather than dealing with constant attempts at redefinition from opposition. After all, every socialist I have ever spoken to, and every socialist and marxist I have ever attempted to understand through theory and historical record, has stayed pretty damn consistent on their definition of socialism. The problem arises when people like you attempt to make new definitions, and become annoyed when socialists actually say consistent. You also appear to be calling the whole of philosophy some sort of marxist ploy, given that you don't understand that people from economists and historians can easily use the same word to mean different things in different contexts. This isn't some moral failure on the part of socialists, it comes with trying to understand any concept to an academic degree. And I hate to break it to you, but the basics are there if you want to talk about the basics, but your problem seems to be that the history and philosophy surrounding one of the world's most well-known and historically relevant ideologies... is complicated. I would hate to see what happens if a person like you got an education in capitalist economics, how angry would you get when terms are shifted, reused, or differentiate from context to context? You would prefer to accuse socialists of actively, purposefully, shifting the meanings of words, than admit than you just might not know what the words mean. If you don't understand the rhetorical evices and terminology of the conversation, then educate yourself or ask to be educated in god faith. Not too hard. Like, is it physically impossible for you to come up with an argument that isn't a strawman? Socialists don't accept their ideology without question, they actively try to examine it and its place within the modern world, and if its policies can be adapted to the modern times while staying consistent with the original goals and methods of the ideology. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what the "not true socialism" argument even is. That argument usually revolves around a country or leader having external or internal pressure, and for that reason, cannot successfully transition into socialism. The problem is that so few are even able to "follow the directions to the letter," and of those few, many give up, are voted out or deposed, or just ignore those goals all together as time goes on. You seem to think socialism is so easy to set up that it takes a matter of days, and yet so fallible that it'll collapse in just the same amount of time. You can't even handle that socialists criticize their own pursuits, you need to pretend that they instantly denounce every failed project as the worst of the worst, most likely as an attempt to minimize the occasions when those accusations are correct. Sad.
    4
  178.  @travisadams6279  As I said, I have yet to see an actual example of ethnonationalist socialism, and you continue that trend. The nazis were far right anti-socialists, following in the footsteps of the conservatives before them. They had no desire to set up a socialist system, ethnonationalist or otherwise. They failed in the end, as their goal to exterminate all minority groups that opposed them and leftists failed.
    4
  179.  @MadsterV  Wait do you actually think that "right wing monarchists" is at all a conspiracy, leftist creation, or even controversial issue? Holy Shit TIK's fanbase is brainwashed. Like, they are literally the first labelled right wing ideology. How did you not know that?? How does my statement at all reflect hypocrisy? I hate to break it to you but the whole of the modern and historical world outside of your echo chamber is unanimous in the fact of right wing monarchism. Like it literally isn't a debate because it's so basic and well accepted by all people, all across the political aisle. The fact that you dispute this is genuinely baffling. So yes, that wild conspiracy imagination that you partake in. It's like, in your attempt to point out imagined hypocrisy you've just made a fool of yourself.
    4
  180.  @MadsterV  I mean you've been in denial of the basic fact that hitler was a right wing anti-socialist, like you. And you can't take that fact. Classic. He said it himself, his usage of the word "Socialism," to him, meant nationalism, support of private property, and opposition to the left. He didn't name his party, and opposed the name at first, before purging those that put it in place later. Yes, he bribed private industry to help resist and placate unionism. He hated jewish people, but was more than fine with white capitalists, industrialists, and bankers. He was obsessed with race, and was an authoritarian. Like the modern right. No, not all socialist things, and you couldn't even tell the truth about them. Some libertarians actually defend the monarchy, but I hate to break it to you, two ideologies being right wing and not believing in eachother doesn't mean one isn't right wing. Furthermore, communism by definition is incompatible with dictatorships, hereditary rule isn't monarchism, and there are no modern examples of the phenomenon you're asserting to beyond potentially north korea. If you could stop your tirade of insults and unproven denialist assertions, you might be able to see that.
    4
  181. Try again. 5 hours denying the research, providing more myths, and creating loose ends and hypocrisies that the author doesn't want to deal with. It's the perfect video for denialists such as yourself, who like ideology more than reality.
    3
  182.  @cheapbongs  May I direct you to the video right above this comment for the answers to that question?
    3
  183.  @StoneCoolds  i support neither, but you would have to be a fool to call hitler, the same guy who said that the left would lead to the end of civilization, and socialists, the ones wh actually want to get rid of the state after giving the people the means of production, the same.
    3
  184. Yes, TIK's argument is a complete strawman and non sequitur. That isn't a "refute," it's a sad attempt at deflection. By that logic, I might say "Hitler killed nazi prisoners of war, that doesn't mean he wasn't one! Hitler killed hitler!!!" Two people being enemies doesn't make them secretly lovers. Hitler killed socialists because they differed ideologically with him, and killed the allies and political descendants of socialism. Therefore, he wasn't a socialist. Did hilter kill himself because he disagreed with his own ideology and existence? No, that might indicate he was not the same hitler that held those beliefs. Rather, he killed himself because he was a coward. Historical context easily disproves TIK's non sequiturs. Calling this a "Refute" is an insult to argumentative logic, it's a nonsense comparison that only proves TIK's ability to argue in bad faith. All he has are snappy one liners that ignore reality. Hitler killed socialists. Hitler wasn't a socialist. Please do try to keep up.
    3
  185.  @captainremington5109  Well, simply put, because it isn't true. The definition of socialism, yes, is social ownership of the means of production, social ownership being synonymous with "ownership by the community/collective as a whole." Tell me, did hitler give ownership to german citizens as a whole, to jewish people as a whole, to the workers as a whole? No, he didn't. Hitler saw private citizens owning the means of production and praised it. He saw those that wanted to give those means to the society, and he purged them, and outlawed their ability to organize together with the goal of social ownership. He put the means of production squarely in private hands. Unless you're willing to argue that jewish citizens were given ownership over the companies they worked at? How is that so hard for you to understand?
    3
  186. The reason he supposedly deals with "the most extremes" is not because he's actually dealing with the most extreme, but because he tries to paint them as such in ad-hominem attacks. Also, just to let you know, he defines things like private companies as socialist entities, and indeed says all of politics and society is socialist. No, i'm not kidding. So of course you'll find some contradiction.
    3
  187.  @lexlex44  The modern russian state is poorer, worse for citizens, and less powerful than it was before. Your only rebuttal is "no," no citation to be seen.
    3
  188.  @paulrevere2379  They aren't benefitting from "capitalism," though, they're benefitting off of the good will of others, again something capitalism explicitly rejects and does its best to disincentive. Why would anyone regret not throwing themselves into the capitalist machine if they had no other option? Meaningful, I can understand. Marketable is meaningless. What's actually hard to find it the former person, not the latter. In capitalism, there are very few who can say that they loved their job, that they enjoyed their work, throwing themselves into it, who were paid fairly from it and that survived on that work of theirs alone. I am one such lucky person, and I very much regret participating in a system that forces others to pretend they were given the benefits I have. I have yet to meet any sort of sizable force of the former person in the world. It simply isn't possible under capitalism.
    3
  189.  @phonox  And yet, capitalism historically has not at all represented those values, and those values can be found in numerous other ideologies as well. There, of course, is no profit motivation in supporting something for pure occasional entertainment or because you agree with them. The only way to even argue that they would profit, that is by gaining more of his content, is to argue that they do so collectively rather than individualistically, which goes against capitalism at its core.
    3
  190.  @phonox  Wrong in every way. Capitalism is an ideology, one that contains other frameworks/methods. And, of course, the mass industrialization of capitalism has led to a system in which the individual is nothing more than a machine, and being rapidly replaced by literal machines, at that. What's more "collectivist" than that? If capitalism was just "choice to support," then hey, socialism is capitalist.
    3
  191. What? No, they work for everyone who doesn't care about history. You don't need to be a marxist to tell he's just wrong.
    3
  192.  @TheImperatorKnight  I'ts five hours because you wanted to hide your inability to prove your point behind empty requests to "watch the video" and then blatant dismissal when they do. Be honest.
    3
  193.  @MCCrleone354  And? The government intervening is the very basis of capitalism in the real world. After all, mass ownership of private property is impossible without the state violently enforcing it. Socialism isn't nationalized industry, either, but those policies are undoubtedly capitalist. They are bandaids on a capitalist economy, passed with the explicit goal of making up for capitalist shortcomings without changing to another system. The means of production are still privately owned, nothing about this isn't capitalism. Also, "free markets" are largely antithetical to real life capitalism. So you're saying you... like things that you don't think work? That's a bit absurd. Why do you claim to like them though, if you call them anti-capitalist policies that don't even work?
    3
  194.  @MCCrleone354  I mean yes, your whole argument is a massive no true scotsman fallacy. Government intervening in the world, in the market, is the very basis of capitalism. the government, every day, forces people to abide by "private property rights," and does so violently. Without that force, there is no capitalism. Government forcing itself into the contract between private individuals exchanging goods and services doesn't diverge from the thesis of capitalism at all, rather, it serves to reinforce the existence of capitalism. Capitalism is not defined as free markets, nor is capitalism defined as the market of goods being voluntarily and peacefully exchanged, free from the state. Capitalism has never been free from the state, and for the vast majority of its history the concept of stateless capitalism wasn't even considered. Capitalism has never been voluntary, and never been peaceful,. by its nature it cannot be. That's why terms like State Capitalism are and always have been valid, as they just describe a slightly different form of capitalism. As I said, you are engaging in a no true scotsman fallacy. Your definition of capitalism is false, your understanding of it fallacious. And you really are an economically illiterate child. Yes, capitalists need the state to enforce "private property rights" in order for capitalism to even exist. Without a state, people would not respect private property rights unless said property was defended by individual uses of force, and even then, that provides the basis for even more theft of property. In the modern world, rather than individuals using authoritative force to defend "their" property, the government does it for them. Violently. Mass ownership cannot exist without a state, even if we were to abolish the state tomorrow, a new one would arise through the process of gaining and enforcing ownership over land and capital. You just can't stop engaging in fallacy. We have had capitalism for the last 100 years and longer, despite your no true scotsman fallacies. Why can't you deal with the truth, and want to hide that basic reality? No, socialism is not and never has been "the advocacy, the accomplishment and management of nationalizing a private industry &/or means of production." Nationalization and state owned industry existed long before socialism, and socialists + their offshoots like anarchists have a long history of anti-state action, and a goal of stateless socialism. Socialism is defined as the advocacy, the accomplishment and management of social ownership of now-private industry. Nationalization isn't inherently socialist, your definition is false. Please don't waste my tie with lame attempts to redefine socialism as "when the government does stuff"/"nationalizing things"/"state control" when it's never been defined by those things. ...Yes? Is that hard to understand for you? Perhaps I should word it more... simply. Those policies are capitalist policies, that address the failures of other capitalist policies. They are capitalist bandaids, meant to cover the failure of a capitalist economy. Those that pass those laws think that just another type of capitalism will solve the failures of their capitalist economy. So yes, they can be both, and furthermore, they are. They are passed with the goal of mitigating the failures of capitalist policies, by introducing different capitalist policies. Yes, a silly solution, but it worked for a time. Minimum wage laws were passed because the capitalists didn't understand that underpaying their workers led to a stagnant capitalist economy, and thus capitalist laws were passed with the goal of enriching a capitalist economy. Same with federal taxation, capitalists realized they needed more money set aside for the state to defend capitalism. Why else do you think some of the richest people alive, like Bill Gates, have called for more taxation? If the word band aid is offensive to you, try a split, or a metal plate stuck inside the ailing body of capitalism. Permanent capitalism unless voted against. But they aren't. Again, by your definition of capitalism, most anti-capitalists would qualify under it. You know you've got a problem when some of the most famous historical socialists qualify as capitalist under your definition. Yes, you're trying to engage in a real scotsman fallacy. I am no socialist, nor do I take the definition of capitalism from socialists, your problem with ideological bias is projected. But let's turn that statement on you. “Real socialism is going be what I a capitalist, critical of socialism, want it to be." Yeah, that sounds like a problem. And of course I know bad faith, i've been dealing with you engaging in it all day. But you did say that, and pretty explicitly. You said that you don't not like things that you don't think work. I mean, it's quite painfully simple, why are you going through all this effort to deny it? "I don’t dislike minimum wage/mandatory paying to Soc Security/Medicare/Federal income tax; I don’t think they work." So you don't dislike (like) things that you don't think work. Pretty simple. You are framing them as policies that don't work, not because they actually fit that definition, but because you don't like them. You're actually describing, sadly, some of the most successful capitalist policies out there in the modern day. You say you like them when you said you don't dislike them. What's the opposite of dislike, hm? It's no strawman, it's what you said, and yes your statement was absurd. Have you thought about not blaming others for what was apparently your mistake? And yes, it does logically follow that if someone says they don't dislike something, you would assume that they don't dislike it, which means liking it. So must I ask again, why do you dislike policies that don't work? Or, more accurately, why do you dislike policies that work given the circumstances, but claim otherwise?
    3
  195.  @MCCrleone354  Just saying "No! No that isn't true! No that's what you want!" isn't an argument. Can you explain why you think that is a false framing? Can you explain why you think that's projection? No, you can't. In reality, property "rights" are impossible without statist intervention. If that wasn't true, there wouldn't be so many laws relating to theft and ownership. If state violence wasn't needed for capitalism, why is the state the first force involved when property is stolen by an individual or group? I have no desire to use government force like you violent fanatics do, I certainly know that all one must do to destabilize and abolish capitalism is to remove the statist institutions that violently enforce it. And of course you aren't talking private (not public) corporations, because in your no-true-scotsman fallacy argument, the biggest proponents of, defenders of, and profiteers of capitalism are somehow "non-capitalist entities." No, corporations are private, capitalist entities, and they often depend on tax payer funded bailouts from a capitalist state. Much like how all businesses depend on the violent defense of private property by a capitalist state. If you let them compete in an economy like the one you suggest, a new state would form, as we've been over. And it wouldn't really be capitalist, hm? No, your argument is the definition of a no true scotsman fallacy. The definition of capitalism you've provided is false, as i've pointed out, and apparently your reading ability isn't up to shape either given that i've already provided the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a system that requires the violent enforcement of private property "rights," that's something even capitalists know. The very fact of capitalist "individualism" (capitalism rejects actual individualism) separates people and ensures that there is no peaceful respect of property, as long as there is something to be gained by rejecting it. Your system is one of authoritarianism, and rampant violence and theft. The notion that people would reject the core of capitalism, individual need, in order to maintain perpetual peace under capitalism is a utopian fantasy. So in other words, you're running away from actually responding to arguments you know you can't disprove, simply because I don't agree with you and you can't figure out how to prove me wrong. Trying to project your own inability to accept reality, and your fear of the truth, isn't going to work. Of course the long recognized term of state capitalism is valid, and described a long historically observed system. The truth of course is that you call anyone who uses the term a critic of capitalism or a socialist, so of course you assume that the term only comes from those groups! Of course you can't respect people that understand more about economics or history than you, since your ideology is based on perpetual ignorance. A system in which the markets serves needs and wants from consumers in the context of private ownership of the means of production that is distinct from and yet guided/supported/helped by the state is capitalism. In fact, that's most capitalism in the world, state capitalism just describes a more extreme variant of that capitalist behavior. Nothing about that is remotely socialist in the slightest, nor is "socialism OR fascism" a statement that makes any sense given the fundamental ideological incompatibilities there, but at least you can see the similarities between far right fascism and right wing capitalism.
    3
  196.  @MCCrleone354  I know you deeply desire to flush any argument that proves you wrong "down the toilet," but that doesn't really work in reality. I'm still accurately describing your position, and you're still blaming me for your horrible ability to phrase your thoughts. I simply pointed out that you said you liked policies that you said didn't work. You quite literally said you didn't dislike them, what's the opposite of dislike? At least you admit that you oppose them because you dislike them, which contradicts your previous claim that you didn't dislike them because you say they didn't work.
    3
  197.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Oh, child. You again? New name, same nonsense. It's almost sad how much you cult tries to make the same points, over and over, and yet falls into the same pitfalls every time. No, child, an ad hominem argument is not determined by how "Relevant" the insult is, but rather, if the argument itself is based on an insult to begin with. As my argument was not based on him being a child, but rather that being a simple observation of mine, the fallacy does not apply. What's funny about this is that you both have given vastly different definitions of the term (both false, yours hilariously so) so by all accounts one of you must be wrong. But that's just another one of those pesky facts you hate so much, right? Of course, arguing exclusively through accusations of fallacy, especially when said accusations are made without argumentation or evidence, and most especially when they are false, is in and of itself a fallacy. Though, given you apparently don't even know the definition of the term "child," i'm not surprised you haven't picked up on that one yet.
    3
  198.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Oh, child. You just keep doubling down, even when proven wrong. Is that all you cultists can do? Repeat the same nonsense, laughable assertions, over and over, in hopes you might fool yourself into believing them?
    3
  199.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Child, you still have no idea what an ad hominem fallacy is, you've been getting it wrong this whole time. I have not yet used an ad hominem argument - even you admit this.
    3
  200.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  i've corrected you so many times, and you still have literally no idea what an ad hominem fallacy is. this is pathetic.
    3
  201.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Why are you so afraid of the definition of ad hominem? Is it because you know that you've been using the word incorrectly this whole time, to cover for a person that didn't even know how to spell it?
    3
  202.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Child, for once, just attempt to argue your point instead of making silly assertions that I easily disprove, that you just go back to making. Why the silence? Are you afraid of the definition?
    3
  203.  @john211murphy  I have to agree. When he starts lapsing into "everything is socialist, so everything bad is socialist" territory, I have to hope this is some odd phase he's going through. I like his other content, which makes this all the more disappointing.
    3
  204.  wannabchomsky  Oh, I had heard as much. Odd that if you carry his own logic past the sentence he uses it in and apply it to his other statements, it all unravels.
    3
  205.  @TheImperatorKnight  Hey TIK? We Already figured out you were an idiot on this exact basis. Do I need to copy paste in the response where I tear apart your flawed reasoning piece by piece and expose your post-modernist "logic" again?
    3
  206.  @jonnybgoode7742  "this guy" didn't do anything close to that. He proved, objectively, that the only way to call the Nazis Socialists is to redefine Socialism to be a term so broad that all of mondern and historical society fits under that umbrella. Even now, he contradicts his old points, and tries to bury the internal contradictions of his argument. In making such a terrible argument, he has proven himself wrong.
    3
  207.  @jonnybgoode7742  ok, well to be fair, let me fill you in on a couple things. One, it's not like you've been entirely good faith this whole time yourself, hm? I mean, emoji spam and flat out denial aren't exactly examples of good argumentation. Those, in and of themselves, are disingenuous. Your examples are also kind of silly. First off, yes, saying that experts generally agree on things is a pretty reliable source. Because, you know, they might actually know what they're talking about, and have written millions of words proving so. And alongside that, you might not be aware of the person you're agreeing with here, but Tik literally does define Socialism as any system with a state. Oh, and he defines states ad any collections of people working together, and yes that includes private companies. He himself has said that yes, literally every country and really even every society currently existing would be considered Socialist. Hell, the man called hierarchy and society, as broad concepts, socialist. That's the problem, his arguments themselves are lacking in nuance to an extreme, and you're incorrectly shutting that burden onto us because we pointed that out to you. And again, yes, I'll trust an expert over a man who calls everyone he disagrees with Marxist postmodernist anti semites. The problem is, when you actually dive into the arguments made by these so called educated people declaring the Nazis to be socialists, you find more often than not that they actively attempt to redefine the term Socialist, or cherry pick the actions and inspirations of the Nazis, to get their results.those fee do not go against the set trends. And I mean yeah, if you don't want to respond then... Just say so? Seriously. I know it's fun for some to sit back and watch the whole thing crumble around them, but that's just not how arguments actually, you know, work. In fact, the only time it seems you've engaged with an argument was your two examples above, which funnily enough took only a few seconds to address. You see the problem yet?
    3
  208. ​ @jonnybgoode7742  The point of a debate isn't to show your "genuine reaction," though. I mean no offense, it's very characterizing for me to be able to envision how you are supposedly laughing or grinning behind your screen... but I don't really care? You've been saying, over and over, that we're somehow arguing against a "misquote." Alright then bud, if you're so confident, then prove it. Tell us where we've gotten you wrong, and point is in the right direction. As for your next bit, well i'm not quite sure what you're trying to imply, but I did say the two separately. For example, though he refuses to admit it, by TIK's definition all of history and modern society is socialist. However, things he has literally said would include statements like corporations, hierarchy, and society are naturally socialist structures. None of that is me misrepresenting him, hell the second bit is me quoting him. I have to ask, if the reality of the arguments that you're defending are so absurd that you have to deny the arguments were even made in the first place... maybe don't defend them? I portrayed TIK as he portrayed himself, and if you can't really defend what he actually said, you might not want to try. Yes, he literally did say those things I said he literally said. And I agree, for both sides of the debate. If you feel that someone or something is being misrepresented, say so, point out where it is happening, and correct the mistake. You shouldn't just set it down and spam emojis. Similarly, when I feel you are deflecting or avoiding the topic of conversation, trust me, i'll let you know. Because i'm not going to let that slide. But if you want to cope with your inability to respond by spamming emojis, go ahead, it's no big deal to me.
    3
  209. I agree, it's absolutely insane how he made that assertion, and then was instantly proven wrong by the far right being proud antisemites (like they've always been) while socialists continue to support jewish individuals. I hope you realize it is the right that's fighting jewish people in the street, right? And that trying to conflate jewish people with israel is antisemetic? I'm sorry, but as usual, reality had no place in TIK's claims.
    3
  210.  @oaples8790  I'm just going to assume you're acting in good faith and can actually be swayed on these issues, that makes this a bit easier. Regarding containment, the USSR and the Us were not equals in the field, nor did the system you describe fully happen. For one, the USSR was in second place for a reason. Yes, it was far closer than some other countries, but it was still behind the US. While the US was wasting money on smaller federal projects and quality of life decisions, the USSR was literally building up basic modern infrastructure, brick by brick. The soviets were behind, and by a lot. As well as that, this wasn't a situation where US always opposes socialism, so USSR must always support it, no. The USSR, and later China, were also enemies of socialism, that is, socialism that didn't fall within their rules, or wanted to ally with them. If you were a socialist, communist, anarchist, leftist, ect who didn't want to ally with the soviets? Then you might as well be capitalists. That's another element of socialism's failure, it didn't have the chance of ideological diversity in implementation that capitalism and democracy had when being implemented. And again, I point to the crumbling infrastructure and country that was being built up. Again, we're comparing the top-of-the-world superpower which was America to the war-torn countries of the USSR, who had just lost tens of millions in a years long war. It was their homes, their factories, which were getting burned down by germans. It's impossible to say if the quality of life would have been better had the soviets continued on, but again, when applying nuance you find that they weren't just leaving due to the oppressive government, though that was certainly the case. They were leaving because the remnants of their country were shambles, and it would take a lot of time to build them back up. Funnily enough, a recent poll shows that around 63% of russians miss the soviet union, and we can also see that the GDP has gone down since it was dissolved. I'm no fan of the soviets, but take that as you will for a possible future that never came. The problem now is that we cannot distribute the food efficiently. The thing is, farms are owned by companies, or hopefully farmers. And they need to profit. That means that even though we make more than enough food to feed the world, actually 1.15x more than enough, we can't just give it out for free. It still must be sold. And this point, supply and demand has lost control. There is much more supply than demand, and there will always be. So what's the point in selling it? Just give it to people who need it. The problem is, that cannot happen in capitalism. No matter how much food we have, how many empty homes we have, or how low the cost of manufacturing medicine is, it'll never reach a perfect zero. And why is that a good thing? We can feed the world, why do we have to make them pay for it anymore. And finally, no. The end goal is not the same. The end goal of socialism has never been state control, in fact. That's just a process to get to the end goal. The end goal is that it's community control. Imagine this, you live in a true socialist country. And one day, they nationalize Frank's factory. That act, in and of itself, is not socialist. It's the motivation behind the nationalization, and what they do with the property afterwards, that makes it socialist. If they keep the property, and give it to a dictator or a party or a hereditary monarch, they aren't socialist, they're just totalitarians. But if they give it back to the community, and say that you, frank, and all your other neighbors who worked there can now manage that factory democratically, that is socialism. The best part is you don't even need the government to nationalize it first, you can just skip that step in some systems and own it directly. That's socialism. Think of it like a shooting. Saying "nationalization is socialism" is like saying all shootings are the same. But what's the motivation? Was it self defense? Was it cold-blooded murder? Was it a theft, or an assassination? The further you look into you see that all shootings are not the same. And, similarly, all nationalization or state ownership is not the same. hell, the first socialists were against monarchism, against states where the state owned literally everything. And I hope that helps, and wasn't too much to dump on you at once.
    3
  211. You know what the best part about TIK's sources is? They disagree with his conclusions! Try reading them directly.
    3
  212. I'm pretty sure most of those people aren't socialists, but people who, you know, actually care about history.
    3
  213.  @Wargulpartal  Yeah, except here's the thing - that's complete nonsense. Yes, I know you're a child who cares more about "owning" your political opponents than the truth, but in no way is third way economics socialism. That's kind of the point, it's neither capitalism, nor socialism. So that of course is completely unfounded. Then you try to enforce a binary that just doesn't exist, which is to be expected, and make some amazing generalizations that tell us nothing. Brilliant. You know that when talking about 200 year old ideologies, concise isn't the word you're looking for, right? You want "detailed.""accurate." Not fast. So please, try again.
    3
  214.  @Wargulpartal  One problem, mate. The author of this long, "well researched" video is hilariously incorrect, and it shows. I have to question what you consider lucid, because any video that takes an hour and a half to even get to the actual arguments isn't a good one. In any case, his argument is not lucid, nor is it based in facts. Did you know he defines all of society as socialist? All of hierarchy itself? Any system with a state? Any organization of more than two people? Yes, he even used private companies as an example of socialism, saying even that youtube was somehow marxist. That's the person you are praising. And no, I am not exaggerating this, strawmanning him, or making a word of this up. This is all coming from him. You know, according to him, you're a socialist as well. That's how broad his definition is, and why it doesn't work. All this video proves is that the nazis were totalitarian, but the problem is, it assumes that all totalitarianism is socialism. It also defines totalitarianism as private companies and any county with a federal state. So this video doesn't prove anything. I know you won't repeat yourself, because you don't have the ideological convictions to make the argument you don't understand, and because there is no possible way to call the nazis socialists. When you are praising the man that calls youtube marxist and the very act of hierarchy socialist, then I hate to break it to you, but you are the denialist fanatic, or at least support them.
    3
  215.  @Wargulpartal  Did you read a single damn thing I just responded to you with, or are you just forging ahead with your own deflections and denialist history?
    3
  216.  @Wargulpartal  Yes, and considering you have not yet participated in anything even close to good faith, I saw no reason to answer your odd, deflationary question. And this is exactly why. And no, Marxists do not define Communism as State Capitalism. They define communism as it was meant to be defined, a stateless, classless, moneyless society. They define state capitalism as it is meant to be defined, a system where business and strong government are intertwined with each helping the other. Two things about this. For one, thats still privatization mate. It isn't true, and wasn't for the majority of cases, but it would still be considered considered selling it back to the private market. For two, you don't see how this could be reversed on you? The business tycoons, CEOs and bosses of the biggest companies in the country were all also in charge of the government, which means the market had a huge say in the government. Not your best point. Considering the fact that they both targeted the stock market in entirely different ways and for entirely different reasons, not your best comparison. Hell, the nazis were inviting over american capitalists and industrialists by the handful to help them make things, while those same people were trying to invade the soviet union to implant a little seed of capitalism there. So the trend, the "pattern" doesn't really exist. The video is long because it takes nearly two hours to get to the point, the beginning is just him waffling about how much he loves capitalism, and how everything bad is socialism. His "scientific sources" are in some cases taken from literal fascists, in other cases taken from the streams of alt-right youtubers, and in very, very few cases are they actually taken from the ideology he is supposed to be connecting the nazis to and explaining, socialism. I'm sorry to say I paid too much attention. And I would not consider that statement much of a stretch at all. After all, in his own words he described socialism as any entity or process consisting of more than one individual, which is the only thing he considers "private," and thus, capitalism. This isn't a performative definition like yours is, it's one based on the very nature of what it means to be private. Now, I hate to fill you in, but keynesians are indeed capitalists. No, they are not your preferred type of capitalist, but they are capitalist. And I would doubt that statement, but I assume nothing I could say would change your mind. Most economists I have seen, especially the ones held up by the right, have a deep hatred of state run and state regulated economies. In any case, this is another example of this point-reversal thing. If what you're saying is true, maybe theres a reason most experts on economics agree on some simple things? Yes, we have taxation, and yes, we have regulation, but neither of those things is anti-capitalist by default. Adam Smith himself advocated for a graduated tax and public property to be kept by the state, which would get him booed out of any meeting of the libertarian party today. And I also hate to say this, but monopoly and molopsony are kind of the end results of a free market system of competitions. That's what you can see from today's free market companies, which yes, are capitalist and are private businesses. Corporations of any size can bribe politicians, we just have a legal framework for letting it happen. The whole point of communism is to get ride of the state, mate, that's kind of why they aren't huge fans of monopolies. The reason the state and the private market align together is literally because both find a way to benefit at the detriment of the people. I would agree, we live in a system run by big business and the government holding it up, but that isn't socialism. That's just the end result of global capitalism getting its way. But in all of this, you don't substantiate your claim. Yes, TIK considers all of what you just mentioned, and even smaller businesses, to count as their own state, and thus socialism. Not that hard to see, and it doesn't make that much sense. And i'm aware you're serious. I could tell by all the little "serious" faces you put in there.
    3
  217. ​ @Wargulpartal  Oh, so you put those faces because you were intensely annoyed that I kept calling you out on your absolute nonsense deflection and baseless assertions. Not a communist by the way, but it's funny how you devolve to calling everyone who dares to contradict your historical revisionism a communist. By the way, the nazis did the same thing. So you calling me a communist, and then refusing to actually engage with my arguments, says a whole hell of a lot. Well no, me calling communism a "stateless, classless, moneyless" society has nothing to do with the moral perceptions the nazis had on their own actions, because my definition isn't something subjective, it's the literal definition. As in literally, the word communism since inception, has meant a stateless, classless, moneyless society. If you can disprove the first communist who put such a meaning onto that term, you're going to have to actually cite some facts, not just get annoyed i'm right. Hell, you didn't even pose a counter argument, you just tried to assert a false equivalency and say "no." It's telling how instead of coming up with actual counter points, you just leap into ad hominem attacks and repeat the same arguments I just objectively disproved from your last post. You can keep lying and rewriting words all you want, that doesn't matter. Quick question - in these examples of supposed "communism" have that you alleged have been tried, how many were stateless, classless, or moneyless? In fact, just for an easier question, how many actually even referenced the system they had as communist? Because the simple fact is, if it does to fit that definition, it was not communism. That's the whole point. If a thing doesn't fit a definition, then you either find another word to describe that thing, or make a new word. By trying to assert that communism is anything but the traditional definition, you're just making communists pick a new word to describe what they actually want. Frankly, I have no idea on what basis you're even denying the definition of communism, because you've provided nothing in the way of alternate definitions, or citations. This should be fun to hear. You cannot have a state run economy with no state. The nazis did not have a state run economy, they had an economy where the state and markets were intermingled, so that the leaders of nazi industry had positions of power in the government, meaning the market also in some ways ran the government. You cannot make an argument to authority, because the video above has been disproven. And again, you allege that you, or perhaps TIK, are doing these things. That is incorrect. For one, first hand sources and expert historians on the subject are widely available, there is no need to supplement that knowledge by constructing a biased patchwork of information taken out of context. If you want to prove a point, use the first hand sources provided. Neither you nor TIK does that, rather TIK decides to construct his understanding of things like socialism not on what socialists say, or not even from analyzing and contrasting both the anti-socialist and pro-socialist definitions, but simply by taking the most highly biased anti-socialist spiels and counting them as objective fact. According to TIK, the patterns he saw were so broad they applied to most of modern society. Hey, did you know the nazis had a state? Well according to TIK, that makes them socialist. Expert analysis. Yes, some of his sources are genuine, but the vast majority are either biased, unprofessional, or unrelated. For example, a huge part of the sourcing goes into the first 1.5 hours of the video, which have nothing to do with the history of the nazis, and is rather him trying to say that capitalism is better than socialism. Some of the sources, like I said, are highly unprofessional, like him trying to use the anecdotal evidence of a far-right youtuber's stream to declare that no socialist knows what socialism means, so he is justified in sweeping in and proposing a definition none of them actually believe in. Better yet, in his comments under videos trying to define fascism, he just straight up says he won't use sources like Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism," (an essay defining fascism written by a man that survived fascist italy) because they don't conform to his view of events. What is that view of events, well, he didn't like how Eco called fascism a racist ideology by default, and tried to argue that the fascist italians... weren't racist. You know, those same italians that burned jewish books, prohibited their civil rights, carried out a campaign of extermination against several slavic ethnicities directly, ect. Is that the type of sourcing and bias that you consider to be a good argument? Call me a communist all you want, if being a communist means pointing out that the genocidal ideology of the fascist italians was, in fact, racist, then count me in I suppose. And once again, I have to remind you... that's just the process of capitalism. When you get a whole bunch of people together under a system that asks them to do their best to make as much money as humanly possible, eventually they'll figure out that you don't actually need to make the best products, you don't actually need to be the most efficient, you don't actually always have to succeed in terms of "merit." You can cheat the system. Let me ask you this - who does more government control, and monopolies, benefit? Obviously not the people. Obviously not the small business owners. No, rather it benefits the monopolies themselves, the biggest and most destructive companies. And, through their lobbying and bribing, it benefits the government that puts said policies in place. As long as there is wealth and there is power, even potential for power, the two will find eachother. Even if you removed all restrictions on the market, companies would probably just lobby to put into place new ones, new monopolistic policies, that would put them back on top. You could outlaw lobbying, but they'd still be able to bribe, or make campaign contributions. You could try getting rid of the state while keeping capitalism, but then the top companies would just take the role of the state, and work together to ensure all of them have to work less to make more. Because, sadly, the worst enemy of a capitalist (as in one who owns capital) is free, fair capitalism. The system you're describing isn't socialism, in any form. Hell, socialists hate it more than you do. If I wanted to be generous, i'd call it corporatism, crony capitalism. But every time capitalism is tried, it always seems to end up here. I would agree, that the state and market are overbearing, and that thye wok together to take away civil liberties, slowly. But it's not slow anymore, is it? I mean, look around. The police is literally shooting random people point blank with gas canisters for daring to be near an active protest, even though they are unrelated. This is the start of totalitarianism, and I hate to say it, but it doesn't have much to do at all with socialism. But hey, that's life.
    3
  218.  @TheImperatorKnight  TIK, we've been over this. If you don't want to respond to a single thing I say and just want to insult me, just admit it. Everything else shows cowardice.
    3
  219.  @Wargulpartal  Yeah, a "brick wall" that tried debating with TIK for a week straight before I realized he just had no clue what he was taking about, didn't act logically consistently, and didn't seem to care about that.
    3
  220.  @Wargulpartal  Your entire response here makes literally no logical sense. For one, I literally responded to you line by line, proving that you were the one redefining words, and asked you to provide citation for your definition of them. You didn't, you just said "but you're wrong," ignored literally every point I spent time making against you, and then just decided to make up your own logic, rather than cite actual thinkers. Let me get this out of the way. Even if you think a system doesn't work, even if you think it's a pie-in-the-sky idea that can never happen, even if it's a complete fantasy - it still has a concrete definition. And you don't get to change that definition because you decided that communism means what you want it to mean arbitrarily. Take the word "utopia." Obviously, such a system is impossible, that's the whole point. But I don't go around saying "utopia has been achieved before, because what it actually requires is too hard to implement, so I just changed the meaning of the word." Even for things we think are impossible, we can define them, and usually in detail. If you think communism at it is correctly defined is impossible, just say so, don't redefine the world. It's a typical anti-socialist fallacy to simply declare something is communist without proof, and then get angry when it's pointed out that "no, that isn't what communism means." We get it, you already decided these places were communist long before you even bothered to try to define the terms, and now want to twist the terms to match your perception. Not only is that a bad faith tactic, it doesn't even make sense. Your only point here is to say "I don't think a society without money is possible" so you just discount that part of the definition. In other words, you don't think communism is possible. Your next point literally starts with a contradiction, "...there will be no stateless communism," and that is a contradiction because again, if it is not stateless, it is not communism. Your following logic is flawed to the extreme. You pull the same nonsense ("I don't think the definition is possible so i'll redefine it") but that doesn't even work. Furthermore, you assert that no one ever has just decided to relinquish power. And yeah, that's just not true. The entire founding of America is based on a group of people taking power in a revolution and having a chance to take much more power than they did. Hell, Washington could have been in office for life, the founding fathers could have made this a hereditary monarchy. But they took that power, and gave it up. The next point is hogwash, of course you can have an organized society without a state, that's literally the base nature of human development. It's not hard for a community to regulate itself, rather than some far off federal government trying it. And yes, I understand you don't know how to define socialism either, but at least try to stay on topic here. Anyway, there's literally no need for such a primitive society. Did you think that if the government vanished all our technology and infrastructure would vanish with them? You then assert (without proof or explanation) that a stateless society must be primitive, and a primitive society must be hierarchical. Which just... what? I mean, you actually have to prove that stuff, not just say it. In other words, you don't think communism is possible. Let me remind you, even if you think it's a pipe dream, then just say so. Say "I don't think communism is possible." Don't say "communism is impossible, so let's just revise the meaning of the term to suit my agenda." Another example - I know what posadism is. Is it stupid, immature, and an absolutely nonsensical political ideology that could never happen? Yes. Can I still define it relatively consistently, even taking into account the fact that it just wouldn't work? Also yes. You can define fake things all the time, why do you feel the need to change this one? You can't assert that they "end up with more state," because the entire point is to have no state. If they don't have that, it isn't communism. Just say you think communism is impossible. So in conclusion, not only are you wrong, but you didn't even make an argument for you being right. You're wrong in that you tried to redefine communism based on your own lack of enthusiasm for it/faith it could ever happen. The problem of course, is that you never actually define it. You just say "It isn't x." As I said last time, if you can find me one of the first communism philosophers who agrees with you, that communism is none of those things, give me names, quote them. Or even take a shot at it yourself, define the ideology, and at least try to back it up somewhat. The problem here is that you literally just said "you're wrong, so I must be right ;)" without proving either of those things. If a system was not stateless, classless, and moneyless, it wasn't communist to begin with. If the workers as a whole did not own the means of production, it was not socialist. If you have counters beyond saying "but I don't think that's possible," make them known already. In order to say that those systems were tried, and did happen, and yet still failed, you actually have to define said systems.Your logic is entirely nonsensical, "It has been tried because it failed, and it failed because it's impossible, but somehow it was tried anyway." I would think that if it were so true to "reasonable people," you'd be able to actually provide a definition, not just say "no" and then try to redefine a term to be the antithesis of what it's always meant. If it's so obvious, why can you not address a single point? Why do you keep deflecting? And why do you need to end your response with "i'm right and everyone knows it" instead of actually, you know, a piece of evidence to prove that assertion? Look, if you think communism is impossible, just say so. If you think it isn't a stateless, classless, moneyless society, cite someone who actually had a huge impact on the ideology, don't just say "this is what i think it means." When your logic doesn't work, you can't cite relevant figures, and you refuse to even engage with my arguments, it's obvious to any onlookers that you either can't, or you refuse to, either because you are arguing in bad faith or even you know that your assertions are impossible to actually prove. But hell, prove me wrong. Do something better than say "definition bad because I don't like it," prove what you're saying. Does every stateless society need to be primitive? Have leaders never given up power? What is the definition of communism? Ect, just actually answer the questions you make me ask, or better yet, write a response that isn't just an unsourced bundle of assertions that I then have to point out individually and say "that makes no sense." It takes 30 seconds to say something stupid, and 5 minutes to prove it wrong. And here I am actually trying to address what you write, which (no offense) seems to be a bit more than you're willing to do.
    3
  221.  @Wargulpartal  Salty about what? That I proved you objectivley wrong to the point you couldn't even respond to more than a single point of my last response? This is coming from the guy who just said "I don't like that definition" and left their argument at that. Yes, you are under the influence of the dunning-kruger effect, which is made clear by the fact that you refuse to name any figures, works, or even cite any relevant information when you are trying to make a point. Just realize that when you're literally saying random nonsense, with no citation or argumentation behind it, that you in fact might be the person who has to do more research on the subject?
    3
  222.  @Wargulpartal  You don't think a socialist could do just that? I mean, are you really trying to imply an ideology that has no state doesn't regard the individual is important? And if you really think that, well hell, why? Also, the founding fathers, and those who inspired them, weren't your perfect anti-socialists. For one, Thomas Paine, one of the pioneers of the american revolutionary spirit, was extremely influential t socialists. Similarly, America literally started it's existence by seizing and redistributing the private property of loyalists who had fled in the war. Considering the rest of the world was practically all monarchist at the time, this made them technically the most socialist country of their own era. Also, i'd like to see proof on the assertion that somehow socialists can't give up power, as this is the second time you are saying that, without evidence. How is it an argument against socialism? More importantly (since this is the actual argument we're having) how is it against communism? You just said "well they did it for the individual, socialists would never do that." Ignoring that a) communism can be individualistic, and b) there have been socialists that have given up power in movements or created societies/movements with no centralized hierarchical power system. So again, not really. Yes, I wrote it. I have no assurance that you read it, however. I mean, you literally just strawmanned my point and did exactly what I called you out for earlier, which is to say you made an unsourced assumption and then just treated it as divine truth, without once even trying to ague in it's favor. I gave my own arguments, and unlike you, I actually gave historical examples and names to prove them. You just said "no you're wrong" and acted like that was a rebuttal. And is this supposed to mean you actually are an 8 year old, or what? I've been explaining several hundred concepts to you for hours now, and yet i'm seeing literally nothing in return. No rebuttals, no citation, nothing. If you can't provide those things, and can only respond to one point while deflecting from the others, you either don't understand the subject, or are just lying.
    3
  223.  @Wargulpartal  Is it at all possible for you to ever actually address my points in one of your responses without just... making thing up? Are you actually just going to use the most random, egregious strawman possible rather than even try to make a single response that goes over the points i'm making and things i'm explaining to you? This is just sad. I know what you're trying to do, and sorry, i'm not going to get sucked down into another one of your deflections. If you can't address the actual points I made, and have to ask random questions after to make sure you don't respond to a single thing, then it's blatantly obvious that you really either don't know what you're talking about, or that you're willing to lie/act in bad faith to make your "argument."
    3
  224.  @Wargulpartal  Ok? Good for you.
    3
  225.  @Wargulpartal  Good thing I... didn't do that? Are you joking? You know people can actually read what I wrote and fact-check your nonsense, right, or do you just want to make stuff up now? But please, keep acting like your strawmen and deflection are somehow justified. Again, already answered this question. But no, please, keep spamming emojis and ignoring the vast majority of all the points I make. Because if you just pretend I never made them, or twist them into your own version, they go away right? (hint: they don't.)
    3
  226.  @Wargulpartal  I doubt that, considering how willing you are to lie, even about what I said.
    3
  227.  @Wargulpartal  You, right now. But nice attempt at a "No u," I guess?
    3
  228.  @Wargulpartal  Is that how you see it? Pretty telling. So me actually trying to put in enough effort to answer all of your points that you fail to actually substantiate is somehow spam. Are you just now realizing, again, that it takes 30 seconds to smear shit on the walls, but a few hours to clean it all out? Yes, I write long responses, but not without reason. When every other sentence of yours is just a baseless assertion that you treat as fact, of course I have to attack that nonsense at length. And it's rich that how you're talking about how it's somehow me warping definitions and missing points, when your entire argument up to this point has been picking and choosing which definitions to use, and literally ignoring entire responses. Ironic, really.
    3
  229.  @Wargulpartal  You realize the reason I didn't answer those questions was because they were blatant deflections, right? I gave a long response, giving reasoning and evidence for my claims, and in response you gave me a single sentence that was a blatant deflection from the information I already gave you. If you can't respond to my points, you don't deserve to ask bad-faith questions. Yes, I ignored them, again, because I spent half an hour writing a massive response with the purpose of actually going into depth in debunking your false claims, and you just gave me random questions. That is the definition of bad faith. I couldn't care less about the questions themselves, you could have asked me if the sky was blue and i'd have had the same reaction, it just isn't pertinent at all. And i've long since learned to stop correcting you when you call me a socialist, because we all know insults are the only thing you have left/.
    3
  230.  @Wargulpartal  Well, two things. One, how can a question prove someone wrong? It's like you think that doubling down on bad faith arguments justifies them. Asking random questions while ignoring all other argumentation is bad faith. End of story. If you wanted to ask the questions, respond to everything first, cite your claims, and then do it. No, but judging from you and TIK, i'd have to say that capitalism is. And again, I have to ask, do you think ad hominem attacks actually make a good argument or...? I'm still waiting for really any rebuttal.
    3
  231.  @Wargulpartal  Are you seriously doing this again? Just admit you don't have a point and move on? And under what years, even?
    3
  232.  @Wargulpartal  Why should I answer yours, if you refuse to answer any of mine? Nah, it's my turn. Have the ideologies of traditionalism, social darwinism, and conservatism traditionally resided on the right or left of the political spectrum?
    3
  233.  @Wargulpartal  Yes, I know. And you didn't answer my question =_=
    3
  234. you really haven't.
    3
  235.  Johnny Deep  I mean, not everyone who made criticisms of the videos was a literal communist.
    3
  236.  Wicker 2  I'm sorry that you yet again are so angered by facts that prove you wrong but that really doesn't matter to me. I first posted that response long before you got back to me. Pre-programmed lies is a funny way to refer to facts you have yet to refute in any capacity. As of yet you haven't even made arguments, just assertions and sad assumptions. Your use of a term that literal neo-nazis used is pretty funny though given your past assertions.
    3
  237.  Wicker 2  youtube keeps deleting my response but i think you've seen the basis of it. the right waves the flags of the nazis, the left doesn't. the left calls to defund/abolish the police, the right wants to empower them. The left welcomes immigrants, the right rejects and dehumanizes them. the left calls for support networks, the right calls for natural selection. the modern right says "america first," the historical right said "germany first."
    3
  238.  @RebelInTheF.D.G  Why yes, your argument is indeed ridiculous and ahistorical. I'm sorry that you feel that the video of a fanatic can overwrite all of recorded history, but it doesn't work like that. You absolutely can look at the modern american right and see fascism, they don't even hide it anymore, they use the same mottos and either fly the same flags or defend those that do. They're far from fringe groups, they all seem to push the same fascistic policy, a few are just more open about it. Of course these groups openly consider themselves right wing and anti-socialist, but conservatives generally attempt to deny, ignore, or erase this fact. The right can't even condemn them without trying to equate them to the left, deflect, or defend their views. Of course the nazis espoused right wing views, it was their entire ideology, and that is why we call them right wing, no matter how much the right seeks to deny its own past. So yes, your argument is ridiculous. The nazis in their own time were based off of the right, allied with it, and used its talking points to push their far right ideology. The modern right does much the same, with many openly flaunting their ties to that historical evil ideology. Conservatives do their best to deny this because they know that if they actually looked at nazi policies, they could not honestly condemn them without condemning the majority of their rhetorical strategy and party platform. You can't just lie and pretend a twix is a butterfinger because you don't want to admit you like twix.
    3
  239.  @RebelInTheF.D.G  So let me get this right. You think that opposing fascism... is fascism? How pathetic.
    3
  240.  @kattkatt6961  "hitler was a socialist" - refuses to elaborate. this is false.
    3
  241.  @TheImperatorKnight  No, it doesn't. Dude, stop. That cannot be your only excuse to every rebuttal, that you don't care if you're wrong because in your fucked up mind yoo're right anyway
    3
  242.  SlypherSpoons  there was no "socialist nature of german socialism" because there was no german socialism. He outright said, right here, that his version of "socialism" is anti-socialist. You are denying the conservative nature of conservative nazi germany
    3
  243.  Joseph Jones  So let me get this straight. Your argument is... you think i'm a socialist. You have no actual rebuttal to any of the correct facts i've pointed out, so instead you leap to childish arguments. You even point out that capitalism has failed a huge number of people, but rather than seeing any sort of systemic issue, you blame people for circumstances outside of their control. Really, it's sad to see how far you'll go to avoid acknowledging thaty ou were proven wrong.
    3
  244.  @josephkempinger  In most cases people's share decreases because their workload and responsibility decreases, as well as that, in Coops hires are the choice of the employees themselves so they all consent to this arrangement. And how are market forces not top down? Market forces generally aren't determined by individuals, nor groupings at the bottom of society. They are mostly determined in the modern day by those at the top. The price for necessities isn't in tune with demand, but with the amount those supplying it think they can wring from your hands. The people really can't do much, they need those things so they'll buy no matter the price, hence them trying to go to the government, not the bottom-down market, when those things fail to work out. Shareholder and owner behavior isn't really something that the people themselves can change, and when decisions are made at the top level, the ruling passes down to the masses. Sadly, the benefits tend not to. Even in cases where the thing isn't necessary, often markets will push to make it necessary, lobby the government, bombard you with advertising, anything to make you think a useless product is necessary. Think diamond rings. It seems to be far more top down than bottom up. I also don't think calling the government "effectively the people" makes much sense, since the government historically is absolutely terrible at actually listening to and representing the people, especially with policies that bailout companies, as those tend to be extremely unpopular. I think the problem is that the definition of socialism has come far from its historical meaning in the eyes of many and is being unjustly expanded to include things that just don't make sense under the umbrella of socialist ideology. The further problem then is that this video invites numerous association fallacies, allowing right wing people to choose to criticize moderate left wing or liberal figures with invocations of nazism, all while ignoring the actual growing threat of fascism on the right. I don't think there are any worthwhile parallels to make between the nazi view of race and the socialist view of the worker, as socialists view workers and their bosses as equally moral and both the subject of a system outside of their control that dictates their actions, beneficial or otherwise, while nazis see their own race as individually a herald of utopia and other races as purposefully and knowingly engaging in malicious conspiracy. The only real commonality between the two is that one group is seen as ideal and the other not, but again, that's something all populist movements do. Capitalists do it with the poor and the anti-capitalists, conservatives do it with the LGBT people and the migrants, monarchists did so with opposing religions and kingdoms, ect. Trying to say they were similar because "...they bind together based on something they can identify with (race, nation, class) and then try to pursue something that is supposed to be for the benefit of that group" makes no sense, because all ideologies do that. Capitalists bind together based on pro-capitalism, work ethic, and wealth, demonizing the others, and claim to create a system that benefits that group, that being capitalism. Conservatives do the same, taking America as a nation and claiming that immigrants must be excluded, to the benefit of the nation. This isn't a good comparison because it is practically politically omnipresent. Taking one group in favor and pushing a system that purposefully works at the expense of another group is something that can be said of any ideology in existence, minus pure apoliticism. I don't believe they should be mentioned in the same breath, or more accurately, called subsets of the same system, because first and foremost hitler's ideology and actions don't fit the definition of socialism, but more importantly because the only similarities that can be pointed out are so vague and omnipresent that the same comparisons could be much more easily made with other ideologies that are not the current topic of conversation.
    3
  245.  @josephkempinger  "Collectivism" is really a meaningless word, given that all ideologies fall under it, and libertarians absolutely do those things. While conservatives and libertarians often say that their ideology has some emphasis on the individual, this is rarely more than a political talking point, and applies no more to them than it does to socialists, perhaps less. Socialists also explicitly have individualist arguments, and yet as right wingers leap to steal the label, the basic association doesn't often go that way. Both of the groups do still hold collectives in and out of favor, conservatives dislike migrants, leftists, those they deem degenerate, and so on, and blame these groups for societal failings. Libertarians dislike the government, anti-capitalists, those they deem lazy, the poor, so on. The very ideologies themselves at their core have the same "us vs them" mentality you point out. Nationalism, nazism, socialism, they all have just as much of an "us vs them" mentality as the vast majority of all other ideologies. Capitalism does as a basic requirement need people to have an ingroup and an outgroup, the ingroup being the capitalists, the libertarians, those loyal to the market, the outgroup being anti-capitalists, the government, the lazy, which they blame for all of society's failings. It celebrates and blames groups just like any other ideology, and though it claims to care about the individual, the only individuals it actually seems to care about are the few on the top of society who got there by stepping on entire groups. Capitalism doesn't magically become "individualistic" because it carries a fantasy of one person coming and dominating over the rest, dictators have done that for years. No, one person becoming an individual by stepping over everyone else isn't as individualistic as it gets. If you're looking for that, then anti-capitalism seems to have a much better track record, of attempting for a world where we aren't cogs in a big machine to be discarded at will, where we can actually exercise individual autonomy and not just spend our days doing whatever the rich are willing to pay us to do. Capitalism doesn't necessitate or even hold in particularly high esteem individualism, not just in the actual examples but in the ideology itself. It values the idea that one individual can strip away the individuality from others. You can hold whatever opinions on socialism and capitalism that you like, but it's a simple fact that the organization of capitalism in terms of us vs them groupings is no less "collectivist" than that of nationalism. And I disagree with your final statement here, I think it's far more likely that socialism will always fail only when it is implemented in a context of a capitalist society or capitalist world, as capitalism sees socialism as an active threat. As long as this is the case, no ideology can actually grow and adapt when it is under constant siege by all of the other world powers.
    3
  246.  @goforbroke4428  I would say that is a "presumption" made with a very high degree of certainty, given that you have come in here and exclusively decided to "criticize" my arguments, without examples, reasoning, or arguments, and explicitly on the side of those I argue against.
    3
  247.  @goforbroke4428  If you believe that then why did you comment, why did you insert yourself in this conversation on an entirely different topic, one that you specifically reference being a long dead discussion. I disagree with your notion of human nature, the only nature of humanity is to do what benefits that individual's sense of humanity, but that's about it. Your notion of a cycle of failed ideologies reverting to authoritarianism is far from wrong, we can agree there.
    3
  248.  @goforbroke4428  The problem is far from the ideology's ability to "control" human nature, such a thing just isn't necessary. Again, human nature seems to be what it is natural for humans to do, to want, and that overwhelmingly seems to be whatever they think benefits humanity. I also don't know why you put anarchism in there, given there's no real power, force, or attempt to control human nature under that system. And like, again, I don't disagree in the notion that self governance is a good idea, free from public and private force altogether, free to be an individual, amazing. Not sure then why you decide to include anarchism in your list of ideologies that somehow don't call for this and instead call for some specific system of domination that seeks to mold humanity to itself rather than the other way around, but yeah fine, fair I guess, that's just how you wrote it. So yeah, have fun thinking for yourself, and i'd prefer to not bother thinking about this argument.
    3
  249.  @majorproblem8796  It isn't, though. That definition is not correct. "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."
    3
  250.  @HablaCarnage63  Incorrect. "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."
    3
  251.  @HablaCarnage63  I was on my phone for that response as well, and you can tap the comment to see the thread in more detail. And again, I have to ask, why? What is the purpose of this argument? Are you trying to point out flaws with socialism? If so, I really don't care, i'm not a socialist and have no interest in defending the ideology. Why ask for countries? One can easily hold a consistent economic or ideological platform without having countries as examples, and often ideologies don't manifest in countries but in movements and communities. And no, I would not say wartime economies, sanctioned autarkies or regulated capitalist economies represent socialist. And once again, why? Nazi Germany doesn't fit the definition of socialist, just like they don't fit the definition of say, anarchist. You don't need an anarchist society to see that they don't fit the definition. The definition of socialism clearly does not apply to nazi germany, and the existence of said definition put into practice... doesn't change that? So why even argue that? Like, say it was "a list with zero names on it." How does that disprove the fact that the nazis didn't fit the definition?
    3
  252.  @HablaCarnage63  Yes. National examples aren't a useful metric in determining definitions. And my "dog in this fight" is the correct telling of history, and it is a historical fact that the nazis weren't socialists. So yes, i'm "hopped up" when people try to claim otherwise, and in doing so attempt to rewrite history and the dictionary. This is a position held by those that are actually ideologically indifferent to the discussion. Scale is one method of discussing success but far from the only one, given that other factors are often far more important than trying to upscale a system or a policy. Hitler knew what he was doing, his system was opportunistic and made to fund his war. "Starting small" had nothing to do with it.
    3
  253.  @davidlindsey6111  Yeah, again, the problem being that you quite literally advocate for a system that by all definitions is more tyrannical, because you exclude more people from authority and further concentrate power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. In all cases, when you have a supposed tyranny of the majority, with the same amount of political authority as a tyranny of the minority, the majoritarian route is less tyrannical. You advocate for a system in which the means of production are in the hands of an increasing few, who hold not only a dictatorial grasp on those means of production, but also use their wealth and power to influence the policy of genera government to protect their riches. Socialists, on the other hand advocate for a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by those that work on them, no one person having the authority that modern industry leaders do, each individual checking and balancing eachother and ensuring that if political authority must be exerted, it will be exerted with the consent of farm more than the handful of individuals that exert it under capitalism. Which sounds more tyrannical to you?
    3
  254.  @travisadams6279  Ah, so you're backing down on your nonsensical claim. Well, given that Hitler was a far right anti-socialist, they didn't share nearly as many views in common as hitler did with his fellow right wingers.
    3
  255.  @roguedisciple5961  No problem. Happy to help then.
    3
  256.  Will Wall  I'm neither an elk nor a socialist. But again, you knowing that would require you to have basic reading skills, something you evidently do not have.
    3
  257.  Will Wall  are you still crying about being wrong? How sad.
    3
  258.  @HablaCarnage63  You can very easily not be a socialist and not have anything to do with capitalism either, it just so happens hitler's regime was very willing to work with certain capitalists in order to defend their entrenched power structures. The entire insistence that he was somehow a socialist exist only to distance their right wing anti-socialist ideology from hitler's right wing anti-socialist ideology, so they are free to continue to employ hitler's rhetoric without criticism.
    3
  259.  @bfranciscop  You mean the socialist parties that he purged, destroyed, disbanded and made illegal? Ohhh, wait, you mean hitler's far right anti-socialist party, which you are attempting to deny the past and crimes of. Sad. He appealed to businessmen and allowed private property to function essentially untouched, competing with eachother for the voluntary contracts that the party would offer. He outlawed unions and socialism in any form, and gave business owners the full right, with state backing, to completely own and control their business without the slightest hint of any sort of leftist resistance from their employees. It was no wonder these private business owners then supported the party. You don't seem to understand ths and intead assert that private individuals are somehow the arm of the state. Under fascism there can only be one party a party aligned with the entrenched power structures of capitalists and conservatives. The state didn't run the economy, and it had no desire to. The economy was run by private owners that supported the nazi party because the nazi party made it worth their while, and yet they still competed and profited. State ownership isn't the definition of socialism, child. It wasn't socialism, hitler was a proud anti-socialist like you. Attempts to assert that hitler, the inspiration for the modern far right, was somehow a socialist are just another form of "that wasn't real anti-socialism," an attempt made by conservatives and capitalists to deflect the majority of their actions (authoritarianism, economic failure, segregation, ect) onto anyone but themselves. Hitler didn't fit the definition of socialism in any capacity, nor did he have any desire to. The only ahistorical thing here is your continued refusal to deal with the facts of your modern heroes, the nazis. Hitler didn't have a socialist agenda to promote though, nor did he ask the state to take the business of the vast majority of companies inside germany. He worked with foreign businessmen, awarded them, integrated their work into his ideology, because they agreed with him. Yes, the businessmen in question were proud supporters of a man you call a socialist. that doesn't make much sense, hm? Hitler worked with those capitalists that were willing to align with his right wing anti-socialist ideology, and by asserting otherwise you're calling people like Ford and Koch Sr knowing socialists. Of course, logic isn't a big part of your worldview, so i'm not surprised. Stop denying the crimes of the far right.
    3
  260.  @idk-cj2qy  You assert that "genes matter" because, according to your past statements, it is your genes that determine if you will be a utilitarian, a nihilist, an absurdist, and so on. I've never said anything like that. In reality, i've pointed out your absurd assertions, and you seem to think this means I support the notion of... banana civilization. Do you understand how deranged you sound? Humans can't have bananas as parents. Bananas don't have civilizations. This is the first time either of us have brought up genetic disorders, and you don't seem to want to back up the assertion that I deny human evolution, something you previously have gone against. Are you willing to back up a single one of these assertions? And no, having a moral philosophy that does not value, or even hold particularly sacred human life is not a hereditary trait, nor is it one that is decided by your individual genes as a human. So, in line with your recent corrections on your past nonsense, what set of genes gives you a greater chance of being a utilitarian? It's amazing, you literally can't debunk a single thing I've actually said, so you just make things up and hope that they sound absurd enough to make you think you're right. I hate to break it to you but yes, the existence of everything, down to co2, is random chance. You still don't understand the concept of desire vs moral values, nor do you substantiate the claim that I said something about computers being older than humans. You don't substantiate or even rationalize a single one of your claims. I'm explaining basic reality to you and you're instantly jumping to absurd strawmen that don't even make sense as hyperbole. We already knew you really didn't want to try. But here's a dare for you - substantiate, cite, or even argue for a single one of your assertions here. Let's start with your assertion that I said "computers always existed as a concept before humans existed and that humans were just discovering computers." Can you prove this, or do you admit you're a liar?
    3
  261. ​ @TheImperatorKnight  Starting off with a bang, are we? This whole line of faulty argument is based on a single false assertion, that two people who have repeatedly told you otherwise were actually marxists. So I could just stop there, you're wrong, and should apologize. But i'll go on. And then, of course, you decide to pull an especially nice association fallacy, one you refuse to explain or quantify. You also must not how you walk back on two previous arguments you've made, one that Marx did not create or invent socialism and so that he cannot solely define it, and two that hitler was not marxist, or did not agree with marx. When taken together, this means either this argument or your previous ones fall apart. Didn't quote think of that when writing up this copy-pasta, did you? Furthermore, you're arguing that anyone associated with "socialism" is a socialist. And that all socialists are anti-semetic. Therefore, hate to break it to you mate, but as a man who's admitted to using "socialist" medical services, living in a "socialist" country, and operating on a (gasp) marxist website, you would be an anti-semite. Hell, you literally said society itself was socialist, so everyone is anti-semetic? That's the problems, your claims never match eachother. If we say all socialism is anti-semetic, and all corporations, groupings, and societies are socialist... well you see where that's going. Hell, you seem to be anti corporation and don't want them around as they are (as per you not liking socialism, and calling corporations socialist.) Does that make you a socialist anti-semite, for hating the elites in positions of power and the vessels they achieved it through? I don't know man, if we replace every time you say "socialist" with "jewish" it begins to make more sense... That was a bit of a jab at your reasoning, but it does make sense in a way. You seem to have an obsession with putting everyone who disagrees with you under one banner. Similarly, I notice that despite you calling the most powerful corporations and countries in the world socialist, you apparently don't even believe it, as those are never the examples you give when saying socialism doesn't work. Oh, and you've yet to realize that hitler was a socialist, because, you know, it isn't true. You also have admitted, in capitalized letters, that you have no idea what socialism is, which i'm personally thankful for. So let's recap. You start off with an easily disproven assertion: both of us are marxist. Well, we've both corrected you numerous times on that front, but to a post-modernist like yourself I know that our words and facts mean nothing to you. You follow that with a few strands of hypocrisy when relating to your past arguments, namely, you assume that Marx's impact on socialism was foundational, that he created it and that his views and his interpretations alone must be put into the open fully when understanding it, therefore that distinction you tried to make, that you relied upon, between marxism and socialism you have now cast away at the first sign it could help your point. You even use marxist and socialist interchangeably, something you explicitly argued against doing. You also assume this is hitler agreeing with marx, when you've already been vehemently stating that hitler was not a marxist. This is all done in service to a poorly constructed association fallacy, in which the quotes you list and the conclusion you come to do not line up. Are you really saying that to be against capitalism, or against the rich in positions of power, that you must be anti-jewish? I'm afraid that simply makes no sense, one can easily dislike the ruling power of corporations and billionaires. (you certainly seem to) But, if we were to apply the same standard to thinks you like, may we assume that you're a segregationist, due to Sowell being a segregationist? Or perhaps a racist, like many of the enlightenment philosophers who first set into motion the movements that would define capitalism. Or maybe, you're a racist because you cite Hayek, (and thus must totally agree with al of his views, right?) another capitalist? May I further argue that all industrialists are in fact anti-semetic, because Ford (an industrialist fundamental in the development of modern industry) was? Hell, now that i'm thinking about it, that brings up an interesting contradiction. You assert socialism is anti-semetic because marx in cases correlated jewish people with the capitalist upper classes. But... you also say the upper classes, and the corporations/society that enriches them is socialist. So, are the rich anti-semetic because they want to remove themselves, because they think they're jewish? What? Hey, and what about actual billionaires who happen to be jewish, are they anti-semetic socialists as well? Or Jewish socialists, even? Or, maybe, you just don't understand what you're actually saying and just wanted to insult people who disagreed with you. Your logic makes no sense when applied to your previous statements, which tells me that somewhere along the line, you've developed a habit of having things you actually believe (like that socialism is bad, citing Venezuela) and things that you pretend to yourself to believe, or have fooled yourself into believing (like the USA or major corporations are socialist) and that the two do not come into contact (like saying "socialism works because the USA and the richest corporations in the world are socialist.") But in any case, enough with the games. As I said, we've had our fun, throwing insults back and forth, participating in useless debate, me commenting under you only for you to give a non-response, I respond, we move on. But now, devoid of all of that performative insults that I used as flavor text, devoid of the snippy language we threw back and forth as I pissed you off, and devoid of the mocking way i've addressed you before, just stop. I came into this, seeing you as an authority on these matters. I'm not joking, not saying that for a response, I am serious. I actually respected the work you did. But then, you did this shit. You made up insults, you attributed labels you cannot quantify and you went too far. With the faultiest argument you've made yet, you accuse two random people of being anti-semites. And why did you do it? You literally have actual holocaust deniers that are running around, gaining actual support, in your comment section and we're the ones you chose to attribute that title, and time to? It's not even in a logical way, you do it through first a false assumption, then an assertion, built on top of a fallacy. It doesn't even work internally. Just, for a second, I hope that logical brain kicks in and you realize how far you've fallen. Calling random people anti-semites, because they won't shut up, because they keep bothering you and you just want the "trolls" to stop and let this topic die so you can surround yourself with an echo chamber of those who agreed before even watching the video. You leveled a serious accusation, not for any real reason, but because we were pissing you off. And you've done that in the past, but never to this degree. I have to answer if you're the very post modernist you accuse us of being, as you seem to use terms not according to facts or reasoning, but according to your emotions, and how much we piss you off, so you can be justified in taking them out. You know you can just... ignore us, right? Get back to your life? You have a career to destroy, after all. But in other words, yeah, any pretense of professionalism I had fooled myself into thinking you had, because of the youtube channel and previous work, is gone. You're just another emotional idiot on the internet, who throws out words like they don't mean anything so they can feel justified in their irrational hatred of anyone who calls into question their beliefs, you just happened to get more of a following before anyone figured it out.. I'm done for the night, but for a single bloody second, self reflect. And I think that's the holocaust deniers calling you, so I don't want to keep you much longer. So long, TIK. See you for the next performative insult-fest tomorrow.
    3
  262. ​ @TheImperatorKnight  First part, since you're already dealing with the hilarity of refusing to actually understand what was written, and doingexactly what I have proven you love to do. Well, as they say - "The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target." Ok, so your first point is that the two agreed on anti-semitism. Even taking that as is, without any nuance, that still does not at all explain why you tried to hard to conflate socialism with the works of marx, when you continued to try to make the point, over and over, that they were not the same. Hitler was not a marxist, yes, but you phrased your previous response in a way meant to conflate the two. The fact is, your arguments for either of us being anti-semites was based on a misconception, that either of us were marxists. The fact that you went on to substantiate this through hypocrisy proves as much. Again, massive leap in logic, and further hypocrisy. The "father of socialism?" Again, did you not realize that you spent hours trying to prove that Marx and Socialism were separable, and that as a result of that, hitler was a socialist? As I said, you're tearing apart your own argument. Furthermore, this is just another association fallacy. How are they to know that he associated capitalism with jewish people? Why should they care? If socialists are literally not anti-semetic enough to the point where they don't even know it, you aren't providing any education. You're providing stupidity, and ad-hominem attacks, disguised as an argument. And this argument again. We already now you have no idea what marxism is, or what socialism is, but i'll remind you how this nonsense just as easily applies to you. Like I said, if we replace every instance of you blaming something on socialism with blaming it on jewish people, gosh, that's really telling. It's almost like if yo literally replace the words in the sentence, the meaning changes. Hell, let's go back to 1940s america. What if someone said "I want to kill nazis" Well, if you replace "nazi" with "jew" it's anti semetic! Furthermore, none of this actually addresses the point, as i'm sure you noticed. You have been willingly participating in what you call anti semetism. And here we go again. Do you not realize that devaluing terms actually does not at all help with them? I mean, if you actually ever cared about jewish people, you would be calling literally everyone anti-semetic in order to devalue what those words actually mean. Here, for example, you call the state anti-semetic. Not because jewish people are systematically disadvantaged, or discriminated against, but because Karl Marx said something about judaism once. Remind me, was Marx the first to propose a state? Was the USA built under teachings of Marxism? And again - why are you, all of a sudden, treating marx like an absolute authority on all things socialist? And again, devaluing the term. If literally everyone in society, including yourself, is anti semetic than you've just admitted your insult was for shock factor along and entirely worthless. Ok, and so are socialists. According to you, that's because socialists hate ruling elites, and if you replace all terminology that relates to those elites with "jewish" then they appear anti-semetic. So, by your own admission, you hate the upper groups of society just as much as socialists, and for similar reasons. That, i'm sorry to say, makes you by your definition anti-semetic, because you clearly despise the elites in power, which you assume are all jewish people, right? And again, this makes no sense. If those in power truly were socialist anti-semites... why is private property still even a thing? Why are there a few jewish billionaires? But again, if we taking this stunning act of hateful rhetoric and flip around some terms, you sound like the very anti-semite you're trying to paint everyone else as. You can't even define capitalism, or the individual, because that would wreck your argument. So, you just pretend that everyone around you belongs to one shadowy group that controls everything, yet can be easily debunked in an internet debate. What was that quote? "Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy" You admitted that in your first response where you seek to devalue an actual important term, but oh well, who cares. And oh, buddy. I just have to guess that you haven't actually been reading these. I'm not a socialist, child. You are, though. Ah, and here we have a bit of reverse engineering. You see, I told you that what you were doing helped my argument, by showing no fundamental difference in socialism and marxism, thus making hitler not a socialist. Your comeback is "well if im right, doesn't that make hitler open to being a socialist?" Well, no. Because you've already been proven incorrect on that point specifically many times. So yes, that would open the door to many other types of socialism. But, as usual, you assume you're right by default. And another piece of cognitive dissonance. I have to ask, who do you think Marx was calling capitalists? Did you think that he was referencing your version of capitalism which he had no knowledge of? Or do you think he, like you, was complaining about the corporations and those in control at the time. There's a reason he wanted to seize the MoP from the capitalist class... because they already owned it. And I have to ask, if literally everything you don't like is socialist, why do you even continue to use the term? It's worthless now. And a strawman argument. I didn't correlate your views, or compare your views, with marx. I compared your views against your own previous statements. And we've already been over how by your logic you're an anti-semite, so no need to go back there, but this only proves that you physically cannot address counter claims. You made an assertion on Marx's views, and attempted to project those over the world as you see it. And it didn't work out. Oh, and this is particularly funny. I tend to avoid falling back on the use of accusations of fallacy, as i it gets no one anywhere, but this is a special case. You're a special case. I have to admit mate - this is textbook projection. Which "tons of evidence" might you be referencing, hm? Was it the time you said "REEEEE?" Or the second time you said "REEEEE?" Or perhaps that time that you said the fascist italians were not racist, to which I corrected you, to which you responded with "man youtube sucks." Or even now, how you make a false assertion that can be proven wrong in minutes. This is all more nonsense. I've consistently been the one giving out actual arguments, and you haven't even read them. And now, you're projecting onto me, because you truly do wish that I would shut up. Close, not quite. I matched you in terms of crude language, especially after I saw how you operated. I used my ability to free speech to utterly destroy your arguments. And I've pissed you off, not deliberately, but by holding you accountable for your nonsense "logic" and easily falsifiable claims. But please, keep telling me how you think "REEEE" is a justifiable argument. And I have to ask, if this is how you see a discussion... why have you not participated in one that way. You literally titled the video here something that was not meant to actually treat your opponents with any professionalism, but as an insult. You comment under everyone who disagrees with you that everyone that doesn't is an [insert buzzword]. You have yet to actually address any of my points, so I was hoping you would at least have the self awareness to understand the failures of your bad faith debating strategy. It's amazing how, even after saying that, you continue on with the lie that not only are we both socialists, but that socialism is anti-semetic. Again, not because you care, but because you want to shut us up. You have yet to prove that assertion, and according to you, you're more anti-semetic than the both of us, and open about it.
    3
  263.  @TheImperatorKnight  ​ Hey, TIK. You remember that time that, after a few responses to you, I typed out a massive paragraph in which I basically said "after reading into your work more, you seem willing to discuss this honestly and engage with your critics fairly, and so perhaps I was hasty and without reason to treat you as bad as I did?" You remember that? I do. And I found my reason why, just by continuing to scroll through and engage with your statements. I know you most likely saw the post, it was up for days and you seem to see every comment on your page. I didn't enter this conversation anything like how you described, sadly. I entered it far too conceding. And now, I can see that treating you like a good-faith debater by default was a mistake. So, i'm sorry, but this ad hom attack doesn't work out. You've never responded with anything genuine. Hell, I think the first real response I got from you was just saying "watch the video," and the next one I remember you stumbled upon me and Majorleague's conversation, to which you spammed "REEEEE" and treated that like acceptable dialogue. Now, i've just been forced to fall to your level to even talk to you. It's not at all surprising to me that you've been so tempted to do that. After all, you don't seem to have anything resembling a moral barometer or set of beliefs besides "socialism bad, and everything I don't like is socialist." Because of course, you're happy to use what you call marxism to silence another human being, because... well, you don't have much of a good reason. You see, the funny thing is, we've been participating in debate. Like my debate with Majorleague, which you did not yet actually read through? And yet, your response to that was what again? Oh, right. "REEEE." You're right, a debate is not an insult-fest, so why is it that you refer to your opponents only by insulting overgeneralized terms? Why is it that you've written by far the most (in word count that is, your response is just as vapid as the other ones in terms of logic) in response to me calling out your faulty logic, and better yet, your tendency to argue through insults? I've actually foudn agreement and compromise with many of the people i've started a debate with in the comment section of this, and other, videos, and I can name a few recent ones in which I thin we had both educated ourselves. But of course, for you to admit to that, would be for you to admit that you don't know how to debate. I would agree, most of you viewers probably are knowledgeable on history. That's why so few agree with your videos, and why so many of the new comments praising them are from people who have never watched your channel before. But please, keep threatening to censor us. Because that's what always ends up happening, right? You made multiple videos, yes, but I guess I missed the "in-depth argument" part. When you start counting Sargon as a quote, well I don't know what much to tell you. The thing is, as I keep saying, I did make the mistake of watching the video. But I didn't even need to. All I needed to do was to go down to the comments, read you calling corporations socialist entities, and rightfully laugh you off and leave. Because you've just admitted you were wrong. You can manufacture a public all you want, (despite me having watched it and still not agreeing with you) but the basic fact is, you've made it far too easy to refute your claims. All someone has to do is remind you that no, i'm sorry, not everything you don't like is socialist, and your whole argument falls apart. Even then, the points you actually try to make aside from that don'y hold up, and are only even included because you feel confident enough in your redefinition. So, hi, i'm not a socialist, and the video was absolutely "this shit." And we've been over how those claims make no sense, in a variety of ways. So let's do a quick run down of a few of those, but not all. You say i'm an anti-semite because I'm a marxist. Ok, well, false, i'm not. You then say all socialists are anti-semetic, so again, i'm not a socialist, however this makes even less sense. You basically assert that Marx was foundational in the creation of socialism, which is something you have sought to disprove in the past. Were pre-marx, or anti-marx socialists anti-semetic too? You don't account for that. Furthermore, you try to say that a state is anti semetic by default... by quoting marx. And again, what did he have to do with the formation of the very state? Pretty sure that was a bit before his time. And on and on and on. I can see why the word "fact" means nothing to you anymore, you just use it to describe whatever opinion you've most recently concocted. Defending anti-semetism... by pointing out that not everything you don't like is anti-semetic? I'd say if anything we're dealing with rescuing the concept from you, who seeks to normalize and trivialize the crime that is anti-semetism, by reducing it to nothing more than an insult that you can throw at those who disagree with you, in part or in full. But it's telling how you have the ego to say "I know you inside and out," and still not remember those times I explicitly named my ideology. Oh, and you have an issue with spelling my name right as well. Really? Prove it. Because from what i've seen, it's the socialists, marxists, and leftists in this comment section who have actually been arguing with those morons, had getting them to realize how fucked up their positions is. Meanwhile, you entertain their other delusions, all while refusing to even try to debunk their claims, emboldening them. The holocaust deniers are not marxist, no more than you are. And it's telling that, like everything else, you can't address the claims at face value, only ascribe them to something else you don't like. Imagine if a police officer did that. "Well of course there was a murder, and it was done by a socialist!" You have no proof of that, and instead of attacking the actual comments being made, you seek instead to blame a different group on them and attack that group. It's like blaming a party for a mass shooting, and seeking to disband that party all while the shooter is still on the rampage. You are emboldening them. You named it after an insult because people who actually cared about history pissed you off. The problem with this next section is twofold. You've already been eviscerated on this stance multiple times, but continue to repeat it. I wonder why. In any case, first off, most people don't call hitler capitalist. We just remind you that politics are not a binary, and he was not a socialist. Furthermore, we know that according to you, he was not a capitalist, as he led a group of more than two people. But this is circular logic, and again, seeks to deflect from the actual crimes of the holocaust and those who perpetrated it. Your only reasoning for this is that you like capitalism, and because you like capitalism, it couldn't have done something bad.Because the state is not socialism, and because actual capitalists (not your definition) have committed genocide. Genocide that, like I said earlier, you are literally denying in the comment sections. Did you pause for some self-reflection after that? By redefining these terms, and literally denying genocides, you are the one who is downplaying the actual crimes here, by projecting them onto something you don't like. You have the nerve to call me a holocaust denier, not because of anything that I said, but because you don't agree with a strawman that you made up. Why don't you focus on the people literally saying the holocaust never happened, not the ones like me who are pointing out that hitler was not a socialist?
    3
  264.  @TheImperatorKnight  You ripped into your version of socialism, yes, which includes every major ideology of nearly all of human development, including capitalism as it was defined by many of its founders. And again, this only seeks to embolden the actual ideological descendants of the nazis. Because your association fallacy means people will point at jewish politicians like Bernie Sanders, and proclaim that they are the real nazis, they must be stopped. Meanwhile, the Proud Boys and other far-right groups are literally comitting terror attacks while at rallies waving around swastikas and calling for race war. Of course, you'll call these people socialist as well, which means that when the time comes to actually address that anti-semetism, random US politicians will be targeted, and not the actual fringe group. Again, it's like blaming a political party for a mass shooter and trying to tae action against them while the shooter is on a rampage. Oh, and one final thing - I know your ego won't allow you to even contemplate this, but people can watch your video and still disagree with it. I have no desire to embolden holocaust deniers or entertain their ideology, so of course I disagree with your video. Again - despite us actually telling you, again and again, that we aren't socialists or maxists (words you now use interchangeably) you still continue to use that as a crutch to explain your falsehoods. You accused us of being socialists, marxist, postmodernists in the first place because we piss you off, because we won't shut up. You've yet to make a convincing argument for a single word in this paragraph. And of course you're still salty about that, aren't you? Explains the pinned comment. No, you seek to build an echo chamber. By giving a nice little heart or a pin to people who agree with you or pretend to be victimized by, well,not understanding history much like you.And again, you did say you want to ban us. Not the best case you're making for yourself. Again, I have to say that this is textbook projection. Let's take one example, I brought up the existence of jewish billionaires, and in fact, billionaires in general. According to you, these people are socialists, and according to marx, this means they are anti-semetic. Now, this doesn't work for a few reasons. For one, if these people were supposedly marxist socialists, then they'd be calling for their own removal, they'd be calling for their own wealth distribution. But they aren't. And if they're all anti-semetic, why aren't they leaving of their own volition? After all, your argument was that marx was anti-semetic because he correlated the upper capitalist classes with jewish people. But, according to you, those same people are both marxist and socialists, and yet are still somehow anti-semites, despite a clear lack of self-hatred? Now, what was your response to this. "Well i'm not marx, so I don't know what you're talking about." Brilliant. So when I actually take and interpret your previous old comments against the new, and apply your logic to areas you don't like, you only brush it off. Hell, like here, you're doubling down, both by pretending that you haven't done exaclt what you're accusing me of doing, and also by calling Marx the "father of socialism," some thing that just makes no sense given your previous argumentation, and you know, linear time. I have "Amditted" no such thing, I simply reminded you of your own behavior. Oh, and I actually substantiated my echo-chamber claim. You just said "no." And one last thing... do you realize that calling us post modernists is, in and of itself, an ad hominem attack? 1. Of course I can do the same. Yet, i'm not the one who's leveling unsubstantiated accusations and insults against you with little to no proof, so I don't feel a reason to. But if you're genuinely so pissed off that you accuse those of correcting your history of denying the holocaust, then yes, you should take a break. 2. Yes, you can. Because your job is not replying to us online, you gain no ad revenue from doing so. Your job, and the reason so many subscribed, is because you make videos on military history. Which is, again, why so many of your own fans are posting their disagreement on this video, because it's shamefully incorrect, and because it isn't what they subscribed for. Yes, how far you've fallen. That was actually a piece that might be based in factual information, analysis of events. And better off, it's a piece that doesn't embolden and attract holocaust deniers. I have to remind you here, that while people tend to like contrarian perspectives, and being told that "*you* know more that the mainstream historians on this subject now! you dispelled their myths!" it does not make it true. Yes, some augments about history are flawed as is out understanding of historical events, and must be re-examined from time to time with new evidence. But if that re-examining leads you to label all of society and most historians anti-semetic holocaust denying socialists, then your point is absolutely trash, and it's just as wishy-washy about facts as you claim the post modernists are. Another ad hominem attack, one you know is false. At this point, I have to wonder if you don't see the irony. Redefining terms lie post modernist, over and over, just to use it on other people. But please, keep making assumptions about my political beliefs. It's worked out so well for you in the past, right? And if "making a mockery of free speech" means "using free speech in the face of a person who wishes to silence you," then yes, I have to admit that i've been doing that. Saying "why should I care" is not an argument. I don't care if you heed my words or not, like I said, i only said them to remind you of how this onversation has gone. But it's part of what you did that led me here. You've acted like a troll, who has insulted me, mocked me, spread lies and vicious false accusations about me, and tries to run to other viewers of the same video to confirm your biases. That's what led me towards realizing I don't need to care about what you say. It's worthless anyway. Also, nice "no you" maneuver. Brilliant debating skills, as always. You always self-reflect, hm? Which is how you've come to the conclusion that all of society is anti-semetic by default, because marx said something about jewish people over a century ago. If that's the type of self reflection you do, then I truly worry about what you discount through that method. Even now, you assume my own political motives. Did you stop to think "is this the case" when setting up the premise of that question? And I know, bud. when you don't want to debate, just pretend a debate never happened. When you don't want to address points made against you, pretend they were never made. When you don't want to address the flaws in you own logic, just plug your ears and try to wish them away. I give you the truth, you give me lies, and we continue this dance forever. Fun stuff. There are plenty of pieces of evidence to refute your points with. Namely the "you're both marxist postmodernists" part. But I don't see you taking anything as proof there. But please, keep projecting onto me. After all, I only treat with respect those that actually earn it. And, as you said... you're describing yourself.
    3
  265.  @TheImperatorKnight  Your responses to wannabchomsky as well expose your point perfectly. First you use anti-semite, not as a term, but as an insult. And I have to ask, you know that's a real thing, right? That jewish people genuinely do face discrimination in parts of the world, and that anti-jewish sentiments do literally exist? Hell, there are youtubers on this very platform, like The Golden One, who regularly preach literal anti-semitism to their audience, and encourage that audience to rise up against "them." That? That's anti-semetism. Not correcting your history. As I said, you're devaluing the term. Much like in your video on orwell and fascism, where you seemed to agree with a fair amount of comments that stated that fascism was just used to describe something someone disagreed with, you're now turning anti-semetism into that, a punch to add to the end of every sentence. But again, please, keep trivializing genuine societal problems. Your issue is that, even though you present Marx with no nuance, you still ascribe his teachings to us. Us, who are not marxists. Me especially, who agrees with Willich far more than Marx on some issues. The problem is, you're attributing those quotes to an ideology that predates marx, and then alleging that everything and everyone follows that ideology, down to society itself. So yes, that is misinformation, misconception, redefinition, and not so much libertarian nonsense, as we're taking that word back. And of course, right after saying that you totally weren't doing any of those things, you're back to making up strawmen, association fallacies, insults, and political assumptions. Just to remind you by the way, another point you deflected from. By your own definition, you are an anti-semite, a socialist, and a holocaust denier. I personally wouldn't call you any of those things, I don't make the rules. You, however, did, so I see no problems in attaching your logic to yourself. And here we have another issue right off the bat. If even they don't know it, how can you say they're anti-semetic? One can discriminate through ignorance, however, the way you're describing it this anti-semitism comes from the knowing conflation of rich elites and jewish folk. How can someone do that... if even they don't know it? I feel like you're turning this into another term like socialism, where we all internally associate it with what it actually is, but then you use that association to make everything you don't like look terrible. Oh, what's that? Socialism is terrible because t controls every aspect of your life? Well that doesn't seem nice, that system is- oh, wait. You're just calling everything socialist now, using the association. So it's a value-less term. And I desperately hope you are not trying the same with anti-semetism. Because while targeting socialists does hurt people, you don't care about that. But targeting a random minority group, and downplaying/diluting the methods of their oppression? Yeah, that's a bit too far. And again, ill remind you, quoting marx means nothing if you can't actually draw a connection between us and marx, or better yet, between marx and the rest of the modern world, all of which you view and anti-semetic. Then, of course, you use the term as an insult again, because you have no desire to deal with eh real world ramifications of your words. Oh, and for a guy that supposedly knows e inside and out, you could at least get my name right. =
    3
  266.  wannabchomsky  Oh, well i'm no sadomasochist, but I did it anyway. It was quite easy, surprisingly, i've had to deal with far longer arguments, and ones that actually required doing more than just applying the person's logic where they didn't want it to be applied, pointing out the flaws in their reasoning, and recognizing their projection. But don't you worry, it's all addressed, and there ready for your perusal.
    3
  267. ​ @TheImperatorKnight  What a shocker. Let's just quote back something I just said, yes? Because i've already addressed this. "And I know, bud. when you don't want to debate, just pretend a debate never happened. When you don't want to address points made against you, pretend they were never made. When you don't want to address the flaws in you own logic, just plug your ears and try to wish them away. I give you the truth, you give me lies, and we continue this dance forever. Fun stuff. " Because you honestly despise the act of even trying to engage in debate with anyone who is actually willing to call you out on your nonsense, it defeats your argument hilariously easily. Of course, that's what you must do, right? Because when I prove you wrong on every front, but you still have the ego to deny it, you just have to plug your ears and run away. This entire thing is one being ad hominem fallacy, and a massive deflection on your end. But, of course since you're lazy but still want to be able to try to hit me with a comeback, you allege that you've found one, disconnected point, that undermines everything i've said. This should be fun. Let's hope it's not a self-defeating argument based on fallacy, assertions, cherry picking, misrepresentation, and lies, right? Right? The first part is an admission that i've watched the videos, in fact. Now, I know you hate to admit this, but just because someone suffers through your gish gallop and still at the end finds it lacking any depth or proper argumentation doesn't mean the fact that they watched it is somehow erased. Similarly, watching the whole thing and still not agreeing is pretty much a given. That's why so few of your commenters have actually watched the video, and so many of your critics have. And of course you essentially give up on this argument right away, but it's important to point out how you still strawman what I said, and as per the usual, decide to hyper fixate on a single comment, rather than the numerous ways you were proven wrong, and undeniably a lying hypocrite. Funnily enough, I have watched the video. Which is... how I know you used him. Seriously, what even is this argument? Are you seriously trying to argue that some random person would guess the extremely specific figure and circumstance of you using sargon for an argument? Hell, this just proves I did watch the video. But, again, this just proves I was right. You did use Sargon. You literally just admitted this entire fallacious response was worth nothing, as it took you roughly three minutes to know exactly what I meant, and explain it, as well as showing I was right. Again, seriously, what was the point of this response? You wanted a snappy comeback, right? Well, even the argument you attempt to use proves who full of nonsense the whole video is, and taking a page out of your book, let's look at them and watch your argument actually begin to unravel, yeah? First off, even assuming that each socialist in the video disagreed on literally everything, that's still anecdotal evidence. Three people will never represent an entire ideology, and it would be silly to assume they do. So your coming argument is already built on a fallacy, but even then it doesn't work. Because these people don't disagree on everything, they clearly agree on the basics, and a good deal more. It's what comes besides those basics, the implementation and interpretation they disagree on. That's just ideological differences, a hoppean capitalist and a minarchist capitalist will disagree on many things, but that doesn't make them not both capitalists. Now, if you were to bring a person representative of hitler's views in there, you'd find the socialists would disagree with them far more, and have less of those common ideological foundations and agreements. So not only is this anecdotal evidence, but the evidence itself disproves your point. But, finally, the most important point - you've jumped into a debate between three people, and proclaimed none knew what socialism is. But... you do? You're literally just another one of the debaters, and not even a socialist, so with less authority to talk about the definitions and terms that they are using. You've just assumed you know better then them. So, again, your entire argument is based off a fallacy, you misrepresenting their views, and then an egotistical assertion. Amazing, is this really your best argument? And gosh, all of this from making the mistake of watching the video. Shame. Always love it when they end with a snippy little insult. It's like you guys think that you're actually right, somehow, even after all of this. I've got to admit, I don't know how you've deluded yourself so much, but good job.
    3
  268.  @TheImperatorKnight  Yes we know bud, everyone you don't like is actually everyone else you don't like. Pardon the assumption, but it has some evidence behind it: I doubt you are fairly representing their viewpoints. Which is no surprise, really, but you continue to double down on it. I don't use reddit, mate. I, unlike you, don't stalk through various social media sites looking for reasons to get angry. You literally admitted you used him, you used his channel and his livestream as support for your arguments. That is using the man to substantiate your points. Again, you can't weasel away from this when you literally just admitted to being wrong on this point. But, keep being a pedant. It's real flattering. you said, in these exact words, that they "couldn't agree what Socialism was, and each had differing views on it" which to you, was "showing that Socialists have no idea what Socialism actually is." Yet,again, actually looking at their views you see that they do agree on the basics of socialism, they just don't agree on things like implementation, or things to do alongside the base socialist model. So no, i'm sorry, literally using your quotes does not count as "postmodernist rhetoric." However, redefining post-modernist does. And now this, this is what I call a strawman. Two things. One, if you have to dumb their beliefs down so much as to say "well they both think government good," then im' afraid to let you know (as has been pointed out to you in the past) the vast majority of human civilization has been socialist. Also, we can't forget that you are yet again finding a new way to define socialism, as state control of the economy, when previously you have alleged that companies were socialist, hierarchy is socialist, and of course society is socialist. And now the second pat: no, they would agree. Because socialists don't literally just want state control. They want worker control, which you define as state control, because you're a postmodernist. You'll notice how often socialists call for, say, funds to be moved away from the military and police into public infrastructure. That doesn't seem like just state control to me. Most socialists also like unions, which again are not the state, no matter how much you wish otherwise. This is of course ignoring libertarian socialists, or anarchists, which your good friend Rothbard described by saying that "...even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines." Nazis, on the other hand, have a much more complex economic and political ideology than just "state good," and may I recommend an interesting essay that examines the philosophical beliefs of fascists in much more depth? Ur-Fascism is a good start. https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf So yes, thanks for pretty much proving me right. Oh, and let's not forget in all of this you've yet to prove either of us are marxists. Forget about that bit already? I mean, it's what your entire argument relied upon. That, and you forgot that all of society apparently is anti-semetic, which does include yourself. Oh, and it of course fails to address the vast majority of my arguments, which is no surprise.
    3
  269.  @TheImperatorKnight  So your response to rightfully being called out for yourself using antisemetic figures is, guess what, blame aversion, deflection, and the same childish quotes, over and over again. It's like you think this person didn't even read them on the way down. It's ok, we know your strawman is ridiculously stupid, and how by your own logic you're an anti-semite, but maybe when in this very thread I tear apart this same logic over and over again, don't go repeating it back to the next person you meet, hm? Your association fallacy doesn't work. You dumbing it down doesn't work. Your hypocrisy in relating marx to all of socialism doesn't work, and best of all, you calling everyone you don't like an anti-semite for pointing out actually antisemetism in your arguments doesn't work. I have to admit, i've never seen you this flustered. And with good reason, most likely because you know how stupid your copy-paste "point" is, and how thoroughly it was destroyed.
    3
  270.  @phillip3495  The very fact that I can respond to every one of your claims and you have not a single rebuttal proves my point absolutely. To you, reality warrants dismissal, as your thoroughly disproven arguments cannot stand through rebuttal. See, the problem is, you don't actually have a rational argument, nor have you based your argument on data or findings from any source, at least any source you're willing to provide. I've proven you wrong, and you have not a single response to my objective and logic-based arguments, simply because you have no logic to speak of. You rely on authority to tell you what to think, and rather than go on to make your own arguments as I have, you are unable to actually make more arguments than simple dismissal and repetition of the same disproven point. Simply put, you've never gained the ability to properly integrate facts and form conclusions of your own. Frankly, on the issue of the nature of people and philosophy, like all other subjects you are evidently and obviously clueless. It just so happens that TIK, like you, is fine with ignoring reality when it suits him. At least TIK has gone further than you and actually attempts to cite arguments, though of course his sources almost always prove him wrong upon actually reading them. It just so happens both of you have come to the incorrect conclusion due to your own inability to conceptualize facts, and reliance on dismissal and authority to make claims you know you can't back up.
    3
  271.  @phillip3495  Simple. Your argument has been presented without logic, argumentation, or evidence. I respond to every one of your assertions, and you can't even respond.
    3
  272.  @phillip3495  So, much like you once asserted, the counter argument you seem to provide is based entirely on insults and deflections. I'm sorry that you can't untangle and clarify your definitions, perhaps this statement I received from a useful idiot will help? Definitions ¶ The rules of correct definition are derived from the process of concept-formation. The units of a concept were differentiated—by means of a distinguishing characteristic(s)—from other existents possessing a commensurable characteristic, a Conceptual Common Denominator. A definition follows the same principle: it specifies the distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units, and indicates the category of existents from which they were differentiated. The distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units becomes the differentia of the concept’s definition; the existents possessing a Conceptual Common Denominator become the genus. Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents. For instance, in the definition of table (“An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects”), the specified shape is the differentia, which distinguishes tables from the other entities belonging to the same genus: furniture. In the definition of man (“A rational animal”), “rational” is the differentia, “animal” is the genus A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are. A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept. It is often said that definitions state the meaning of words. This is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines—by specifying their referents. The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents. Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence. With certain significant exceptions, every concept can be defined and communicated in terms of other concepts. The exceptions are concepts referring to sensations, and metaphysical axioms.
    3
  273.  @phillip3495  And maybe you could deal with a little more? Now observe . . . the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept. Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others. Maybe one day you'll be able to actually construct an argument to justify your zealotry and obsession. I, personally, doubt it though, given how willing you are to project and act the hypocrite.
    3
  274.  @Aneko101  This has genuinely got to be one of the funniest attempts at historical revisionism i've ever seen. "Classical Liberal" is a term referring to capitalists, primarily though not always libertarian-leaning. Conservatism is a political concept as old as absolute monarchies, which describes a right wing ideology with the goal to conserve cultural and economic norms, usually with a religious justification, as you provide. However, to you, despite the fact that classical liberals are direct ideological offshoots of these conservatives, they are merely "power grabbing state socialists." Famous socialists like... Edmund Burke. Right. In order to define socialism as "central ownership of everything" (which it is, of course, not defined as, socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.) you have had to thrust the ideological forefathers of your own movements into the "socialist" camp. "Liberalism" as a concept describes capitalist economics, and is hardly a new concept. Of course, nothing about liberalism is remotely comparable to communism, and is certainly not synonymous with it. After all, liberals will always be more likely to respect a conservative than a communist. The problem is that right wingers, in the modern day, have attempted to conflate the terms "social progressivism" and "liberalism," and have gotten annoyed (at themselves) because liberalism no longer is used to describe economic capitalist views. "Classical Liberal" is a relatively new term, again describing capitalists and libertarians primarily, who have attempted to "Reclaim" the term liberal... from the abuse of other right wingers. It's funny, the original term "liberal" and "libertarian" were much closer to describing radical leftists, however, conservatives decided to claim them later. You seem to have an odd, authoritarian view of "natural law" and "god's law," but that's typical for right wing collectivists such as yourself. I hate to break it to you, conservatives doing bacd things are still conservative.
    3
  275.  @grimmwolf6695  I don't disagree
    3
  276.  @grimmwolf6695  Ok then.
    3
  277.  @Aneko101  Bud if you can't cope with being proven wrong, that's on you. I'm sorry you don't want to deal with the realities of your own movement, but hey, that's something you'll have to work through on your own time. Sure, bud, everyone's being called a nazi, whatever you have to say to ignore actual nazis proudly supporting your movement. "Supporting laws on speech?" Like laws regarding speech against the troops, burning the flag, or the person expression of really anyone? Hm.
    3
  278.  @Scornfull  The definition of socialism quite literally, and easily, goes against the goals and actions of hitler. you have, as expected, no counter to this.
    3
  279.  @Scornfull  the left is defined by a push towards equality, tolerance, and a reduction of hierarchy, as well as the rejection of traditionalism, conservatism, and the hierarchies that said ideologies promote. What part of hitler's extremist, traditionalist, bigoted regime fits that?
    3
  280. @Hellig Usvart Child, why is it that you assume that all people are as shut in and uneducated as you are? Why do you assume someone must be promoting socialism because they dare to correct revisionist history? Are you really so locked in your echo chamber that you think I wouldn't have been exposed to one of the most often cited books regarding this topic? Oh, child. Grow up.
    3
  281.  @mitscientifica1569  Though MIT, a personal fan of the nazis, seeks to deny their history, it seems that he's unable to do so. He is, of course, unable to discern propaganda from statements of truth, unable to discern definitions of foundational concepts, and unable to stop defending his favorite mass murderer, hitler. As we all know, hitler was a socialist that despised Karl Marx. Let's see what he Actually said: Hitler on Marxism: "Death to Marxism!" - Adolf Hitler “The Jewish doctrine of Marxism denies the noble goal of Nature and sets mass and dead weight of numbers in place of the eternal privilege of strength and power. It denies the value of personality in man, disputes the significance of nation and race, and deprives mankind of the essentials of its survival and civilization. As a foundation of the universe, Marxism would be the end of any order conceivable to man. The result of applying such a law could only be chaos. Destruction would be the only result for the inhabitants of this planet. If, through his Marxist faith, the Jew conquers the peoples of this world, his crown will be the death and destruction of all mankind. Earth would again move uninhabited through space as it did millions of years ago. Eternal Nature takes revenge for violation of her commandments.” - Adolf Hitler "The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ... proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism." - Adolf Hitler " Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler Why are you taking pre-election propaganda as more important than his own, ideological assertions? Hitler on his Definition of Socialism: "1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it." - Adolf Hitler “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” - Adolf Hitler " Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler Hitler on Capitalism: ‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’ ‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’ ‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’ ‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’ ‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’ - Adolf Hitler and Otto Strasser "Bollocks - What right do these people have to demand a share of property or even in administration?... The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead." Adolf Hitler to Max Amann, May 1930 “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” - Adolf Hitler "I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it would be by a State functionary—providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private initiative.“ - Adolf Hitler Hitler and the Nazis on Socialism and the Left: "And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." - Adolf Hitler "Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!" - Nazi Party Hitler hated socialism and marxism, much like you. Why do you feel the need to keep lying?
    3
  282.  @AverageAlien  Hitler was a fascist and a nazis, both of which are far right ideologies. His entire ideology was the epitome of the right, which is why the right loves him so much
    3
  283.  @TheImperatorKnight  I'm sorry to say TIK you have yourself confused for me. Remember when you claimed that Sweden was capitalist, before later claiming any statist system was socialist? I do. Try to keep your nose out of interactions you will only serve to corrupt.
    3
  284.  @Hopgoodd  And I didn't give you theories, I gave you not only a few works of history that substantiated my point, but the reasoning behind them. If you can't deal with that, well I don't know what to say. Make your complaint plain.
    3
  285.  @herbie_the_hillbillie_goat  Calling academics communists is literally a classic fascist talking point. Nice projection, damn.
    3
  286.  @AppliedMathematician  The problem here being that unequal chances and unequal outcome both lead to a society of inherent unfairness, you cannot base your society on supposed free competition when said competition can be surpassed by plain luck. And that's not what owning the means of production means. The mind is not a means of production, nobody needs to staff it, it cannot generate profit without other means, your body interacting with private property. Socialists don't want to use your brain, socialists want a system in which you don't have to sell your brain, and can actually use it how you want. Under a capitalist system, your very thoughts can be copyrighted, the works of design and code you make can be labelled the exclusive property of one or more people, a very equation or sequence of numbers can be a legally protected secret, and your mind, containing those thoughts, is under the rule of those keeping said secret. How is that the less oppressive option? The thing is, you are in a position of relative ease, and at least you acknowledge that, but you also have to realize that not everyone has the fallback, the security, that you do. When the rich ask something of most people, they leap to accept the offer, because it's all they have. And finally, yes wealth is a conduit to power, and power a conduit to wealth, so preserving a system that only maximizes both of those things isn't a very good option. And yeah, no, those ideologies are mutually exclusive. That's why the definition of socialism is ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, not just one community of many. Capitalists own private property, exclusively. Socialists call for ownership socially, ownership of the collective, of the community. And the "functional reason" workers can't own the majority of the shares of a company is because under capitalism, such a thing would profit the owners far less, so of course they'd be reluctant to do it. A socialistic revolution exists with the goal of giving workers that autonomy, those rights and abilities. A bandaid on the bullet wound, under capitalism, would not. And that isn't necessarily true in most cases, least of all in modern capitalist society and ownership. After all, while they have clear definitions, overlaps are not unheard of. While coops and collectively owned companies are not themselves private, they still exist under capitalism, and thus still have to work for capitalist wages and put out capitalist profit that the workers miss out on. Collective ownership is no better defined than private ownership, and owning shares does not equal the same thing as having control of the output of a company, or worker control. Nothing tribalistic about those facts.
    3
  287.  @AppliedMathematician  Why should workers own their own means of production? Well I don't know, why shouldn't they? After all, if the problem is people owning things that they have no need for, private property is without a doubt the worse system, as it is one in which a few people own not only what they don't need, but what others desperately need and cannot get without the consent of the first group in question. Yes, i'd see that as a bit of a problem in need of solving. Socialism is a system that most often suggests that rather than give some group with supposed moral authority ownership, that group being the monarchs, the noble family, the western nation's state, the capitalist, ect, the workers, those effected, should simply own their own means of production. No superiority, no utopia needed. If you see "parallels with hitler's socialism," then you have to be some form of blind, as not only is there no such thing as "hitler's socialism," but where the hell are these supposed parallels? Hitler wasn't a socialist, according to any objective political reading of his policies and history. Nor was he democratically elected, he was elected as a result of a conspiracy of conservative parties headed by Franz von Papen. No, that is far from the sole deciding force of what makes a society good or evil. But it is sure a solution to a lot of modern problems. Hitler didn't adopt socialist policies, he abused socialist rhetoric while calling for openly anti-ocialist things, categorizing his system as socialist would require rewriting either his history or the dictionary. Critiquing "hitler's socialism" is about as rational as critiquing a random snail's capitalism. It doesn't pan out well.
    3
  288. ​ @AppliedMathematician  Oh i'm well aware you're not immune to fallacies, hell, you seem to be more susceptible to them than the average person in this very comment section, which is certainly saying a lot given the drivel thrown around in here. The problem is you are basing your side of this conversation not on adherence to the facts, but on ideology. You act as though my arguments are meant to defend "my system," when in reality I have put forward no system. I have made abundantly clear that you are free, and in many cases in the right, to critique modern and historical leftism. I have also made it clear that to attempt to do this by conflating hitler's anti-socialism with socialism is ahistorical, and thus, not a good criticism. I'm not making an ideological argument. Unlike you. And why would I do either of those things? Why would I need to put them in gulags, why would I burn their books, and why do you attempt to bring these up as actions or possibilities? I am happy knowing that the ignorant statement, "hitler was a socialist," will never be one taken seriously in actual historical spheres, there's just too many facts pitted against it. What you, or any other terminally online random people say to the contrary doesn't matter, and thus I debate with you, and not "imprison you" or whatever other nonsense you've cooked up. I don't "think" I use an accurate label, I don't "think" my apples are apples. I've done work and research, decades of it, and have shifted my perceptions of said terms upon new information being attained. To the best of my knowledge, supported by every historical and contemporary source I have gotten my hands on, the terms i'm using are the most accurate, and I am far from alone in asserting this. You attempt to muddy that fact by equating those who are right and those who are wrong, saying they both "think" they're right. Yes, they do, and a child may "think" 2+2 is 5. And yet, that child is, objectively, wrong. As i've said, I don't give a crap about "immunizing socialism from criticism," as i've said time and time again you are free to criticize leftists and socialists and I would probably agree with you in most criticisms. I'm not sure where you got the notion otherwise, most likely your ideology zealotry, but I'm no socialist. The problem is, again, you are attempting to expose socialism to unjust criticism. Your actions are like taking a bank robber to court and accusing them of unrelated murder. Nobody is saying you can't criticize, or hell, even convict the person - but perhaps you should do it in ways that actually match the reality of the situation? Or, wait, is that person "trying to define failure away" by pointing out that they didn't actually murder anybody? We already know Hitler was an anti-socialist, and I hate to break it to you, it doesn't stop people from being anti-socialists. Hell, according to you, there are many different types of socialism and Hitler's was, supposedly, only one, so why would people care about his "Type" when they could join another and your criticisms wouldn't apply? Your own logic doesn't follow reality, and of course, it's false to begin with - hitler wasn't a socialist, and unlike asserting the opposite, maintaining the fact that he was a strong anti-socialist is a movement with no ideological basis. Jewish people are not "the bourgeoisie" in hitler's anti-socialism, he targeted mostly working class and poor jewish individuals. Hell, the two groups themselves aren't remotely similar - Jewish is an ethnic and religious category, one you are born into and cannot really leave or join without huge difficulty. Being rich, or a property owner, is a conscious choice one can reject at any time. The notion that the rich have political power is an empirical fact, the notion that the jewish people have political power is an unproven, baseless conspiracy. Comparing the two is absolutely nonsense, one has actual scientific backing, the other does not. The only way their views towards these two groups can be compared is that both saw them as a societal problem, though nazis blame jewish individuals for knowingly participating in a conspiracy, and socialists make abundantly clear the fact that the rich are just rational as the poor, just as moral - they simply live in an immoral system. The problem is, this basic comparison is not exclusively shared between these two groups - capitalists do the same thing, finding groups to blame, be they immigrants, homeless, or socialists - coincidentally, the same groups the nazis targeted. Hell, you yourself seem to blame some mass socialist conspiracy for your misinformation not being believed by the vast majority of citizenry and historians. How are you not also comparable to these groups? In any case, asserting that systems like the soviet union were comparable to the nazi system is objective nazi apologia. While the USSR was not without a huge amount of deadly flaw that resulted in millions of innocent deaths, the same is more true of capitalist nations, however neither are guilty of the mass, purposeful factory-efficient ethnic cleansing efforts of the nazis. The Soviet Union and the USA, for all their prisoners, never ran death camps. The Nazis did. The "pattern" you're talking about is nonexistent. Again! Feel free to criticize the gulags and prisons of authoritarian socialist regimes. Just don't ahistorically lump the nazi's anti-socialist death camps in there. Also, china is not a socialist "superstructure," but a blatantly market economy that is supposedly attempting to move towards socialism some time in the future. And for my first actual ideological argument, something you've been participating in this entire time, there are inherent problems with internationalism, particularly under a capitalist society. As nations are constrained by their own limits, which differ from place to place, they all have individualized economies and rules surrounding their economic conditions. However, the market is not constrained in the same way. Thus, it can export labor from developed, rich nations to less developed, poor nations, profiting further from less labor costs. It can use its economic power from those same rich places to exert more power on the nations themselves, and can effectively own huge political swathes of entire countries. That is one, of many, problems with an internationalist market approach - as long as nation's power is disproportionate, so are the powers of market entities. And again, let me make it abundantly clear at the end - i am not a socialist. My ideology is not what matters to this argument, and my ideology is not what I am pushing, unlike you. Stop pushing ideology, and start focusing on the history you clearly want to avoid.
    3
  289.  @mitscientifica1569  Exactly, nice try trying to rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis: "For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." George Orwell openly admitted that the nazis were no more than anti-socialist conservatives. Orwell contrasted you who want to distance the nazis from your own preferred form of anti-socialism The quote you're talking about This quote: “National Socialism is a form of socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner as surely as it crushes the worker.” [1] In reality, in that very same book, Orwell proclaimed that "National Socialism was simply capitalism with the lid pulled off, Hitler was a dummy with Thyssen pulling the strings." The quote you mention is referencing the propaganda put out by stalin during their brief non-aggression pact. Of course, even your own sources (copy pasted from another website) point out: "Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and — this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism — generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. " He points out only that the state has some authority within the nazi regime, but critically, is only quoting the work of another author when he is naming these assertions, attributing them to their name and not agreeing with them. One must wonder if a pro-nazi individual like you would ever actually bother reading the source you copy and paste, but of course we know you would never dare to think an original thought. Sources: [1] George Orwell, Collected Works, vol. XII, p. 159. [2] George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941), Part Two, Section 1. //:/
    3
  290.  @mitscientifica1569  Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. " His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it! Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view. Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx. Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
    3
  291.  @nicholashodges201  Declaring random people and ideologies to be socialist simply because you disagree with them and cannot actually name factual information about said people and ideologies isn't an argument, champ. In regards to TIK, he is the only one claiming his sources are not reliable or legitimate, seemingly doing everything possible to make a fool of himself. By "be much more skeptical," you don't mean to actually promote skepticism, as you would have to admit or even consider the fact that TIK is wrong to do that. No, rather, you ask people to be "skeptical" of opposing facts, and to be blindly obedient to your opinions. The only arguments brought forth by the TIK crowd seem to be "you're wrong," backed by nothing but their own word and constant insult, forever unable to reach the level of those who disprove them easily. Engaging in pointless conspiracy theories and insults only further proves my point ;)
    3
  292.  @nicholashodges201  Child, calling random people who prove you wrong "commies" and "pinkos" only serves my point. You can't actually respond to a single one of my arguments, simply put, because you know you have no response available. You either know i'm right, or you know you aren't able to prove otherwise.
    3
  293.  @christopherdukett4158  Nah, kid. They were quite literally capitalist nations, and remain the most stable capitalist experiments to this day. Capitalism is a system of private ownership and private means of production, but rarely impacts anyone positively besides the owner of the private company in question. UBI, Universal Healthcare, Gun control, Free College, Social Security, ect are programs that are not only compatible with capitalism, but seem entirely necessary for a stable and profitable capitalist nation. The programs you mention are meant to shore up the inherent failre of capitalism to address certain things, and meant to strengthen the market and the economy through their existence. Socialism isn't when capitalist policies that you don't like are put into place, child. And yes, your rhetoric is pretty much copied from the nazi party, down to loving one group of right wingers above all other political positions, claiming censorship and all that. The resemblance to the modern right is honestly uncanny. And yeah, child, this isn't true. Often, open lies, misinformation and bigotry are taken down or corrected, and that's about it. Democrats are capitalists, not leftists, and more often than not actual progressive news is censored, taken down, or sabotaged when compared to the right wingers that are allowed to run free. Despite people like Stephen Crowder being objectively proven wrong so many times, they are allowed to continue lying, to the detriment of all. The right and big tech have an inherent link I hate to break it to you but racial sensitivity training, ie "don't be racist," isn't "Critical Race Theory," nor does critical race theory have much to do with Marxism at all. Furthermore, CRT is quite literally a college level law course, do you really think these places are giving away that kind of education for free? No, you're pretty openly denying history, and when history proves you wrong you ignore it or run away. There is nothing objective about your analysis. f course you're denying science as well, as shown by your burning need to try to discredit those who actually believe in it through any means, any means than actually addressing the facts they bring to the table. And once again, you only subscribe to "news" that you ideologically agree with, and that has the sole goal of existing to push right wing talking points and ideology further and further to the right and away from reality. You despise primary sources or compiled historical accounts, simply because they so easily prove your zealotry wrong, and poke holes in your baseless ideological arguments. I'll call out nazi rhetoric when I see it, yes. I that not good with you? Yes, it's generally taught that the nazis were far right, because they quite literally are. What you mean to say is that as you cemented your own far right views, you began to trust right wing politicians, think tanks, and youtubers more than historians or professors, and thus started to ignore all of the arguments and facts that proved you wrong. You've been telling a lie, plain and simple. Good arguments have been presented to you, and you've very much had the means to find more, such as the primary sources mentioned in this video, which all prove Hitler's anti-socialism. You aren't open to being proved wrong, despite being objectively proved wrong. Child, you didn't used to be a "progressive leftist," you can't even define either of those terms nor do you seem to know the first thing about either's goals or modern political presence. I used to belong to the right, libertarian in fact, and as I grew up I woke up to reality and moved away from such an ahistorical position. You have yet to see reality. Change that.
    3
  294.  @christopherdukett4158  Mate, you quite literally ended your statement by implying that any progressives or leftists don't care about reality, who is talking down to who? I mean, ironically enough, you can't go a sentence after that without trying to talk down to me, in fact, that comprises the rest of your "response." You can insult me all you want, it is clear that you're just making up for the objective fact that you can't keep up with this conversation and that your baseless assertions are by this point utterly disproven. I'm sorry that your arguments can't stand up to scrutiny and i'm sorry that actual definitions, logic, and reality don't agree with your fanaticism. Of course, conservatives are amazing at rewriting definitions and history that don't fit their narrative, you're doing it right now. Of course I can claim to know more about socialism than you, I've actually done more research than right wing youtubers. I'm not even a socialist, jesus. Maybe one day you'll grow up and see your tyrannical, deadly ideology for the horror and failed monstrosity that it is. Maybe one day you'll learn the actual definitions of socialism and capitalism, and not just randomly apply them where your feelings dictate you do. Your conspiracies have very little basis in reality, but they do have a long history of use by the far, totalitarian right. I hope you learn to see reality for what it is one day, and grow into a world that can disagree with you.
    3
  295.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. Those were, after all, not highly socialist statements, nor did you recount them accurately. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    3
  296.  @randomnerd9088  The Nazis system was designed to ideologically reject socialism, and in fact, offer to those that socialism targeted a better deal than they felt socialism provides. They didn't want racial control of the economy, nor does one group controlling the economy make it socialism. Nazism was built to oppose socialism, all socialism, and rejection of other systems does not change that. Opposition to capitalism and democracy are far from exclusive to socialism, in fact, historically it is pretty common to oppose those things. Monarchists, for example, are an anti-socialist system that rejects, and actively fights, both capitalism and democracy. As for hierarchy, you aren't considering things like economic, social, ect. And first off, you're only considering government hierarchy, when hierarchies of capital are just as impactful, and far more prominent today. The reason groups like the soviets promoted those hierarchies then was with the eventual goal of their dismantling, whereas right wing systems seek to preserve that hierarchy as part of their ideology. I find picking Maoism or Stalinism to be a silly way to showcase your point, as they were both movements that justified some hierarchy, as long as it worked to remove further hierarchy, and worked towards an end goal of no hierarchy. Now, obviously they never reached this end goal, but the problem you're then talking about is not one of the core ideology, it is a problem of said ideology being subverted or denied by those that claim to hold it. I do think it it important, however, to make the distinction you do, that I agree with, that not every movement is ideologically pure. However, I also think that viewing systems, and not movements, through the lens of relation to "ideological purity" is silly. The USA is a capitalist system, not "mostly" or "partially" capitalist. Though many capitalists don't like it, that doesn't make it another system. Finally, no, the nazi goal was not equality in any form, even equality for the few that fit their idea of the ideal German. You claim that they wanted all Aryans to be equal, and yet they openly stated that they despised even Aryans who say, opposed their rule, who were born crippled, who were gay or trans, who were socialists, union leaders, the elderly and so on. Not to mention, of courses they were fine with the inequality of wealth, and the power of being within the party. In fact, let's quote a nazi on this very issue. "Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!" And the simple fact is, your definition of socialism encompasses Capitalism. Simply put, capitalism promotes a moral ingroup, the capitalists or owning class, and they are a group with concrete class interests and goals that they promote in a unified manner. They are a group with control over the means of production, how is this not socialism by your definition? "Anarcho" capitalism is, again, a contradiction of terms, but none of this changes the facts of Capitalism. Every business owner, for example, would benefit from certain policies and actions, they are a concrete group with its own desires and needs. One could just as easily, according to your definition, determine that most socialists are not socialists at all, because their goal is to put the means of production in the hands of local individuals who have direct connections to those means, and represent their own interests. Simply put, your definition is so vague that it excludes many socialist movements from socialism, and includes many anti-socialist movements in their place. I have looked into this further, have researched, and that's why I've been here for nearly a year now. All sources have led to the same conclusion, the Nazis weren't socialists. I've read through TIK's sources, spent months going back-and-forth with him and his greatest adherents in the comments. Discussion is good, but I have to say that often times, people want to feel they are right more than they want to be corrected.
    3
  297.  @TheImperatorKnight  You *tried to explain it, which is to say you went about revising the meaning of socialist and then projected that onto history.
    3
  298.  @mitscientifica1569  You missed right wing, a defining factor of fascism :)
    3
  299.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah, just ignoring that little part of our interactions, are you? Well trust me, i'm not letting it go. In any case, yes I do actually work, but it's from home primarily will all of these terrible socialist-fascist restrictions going on, so i've decided in my free time to hold you accountable to your job, which is apparently being an "internet historian" or something like that.
    3
  300.  @kevinolmedo675  In what area specifically? It's a pretty big video and I can't really make one giant response to everything in these same comments.
    3
  301.  @kevinolmedo675  Well I suppose that depends on how you define socialism, right? So, what definition are you using to make your judgement?
    3
  302.  @Whiteqin  Sorry, "marxist antisemetism?" Child, do you have any basis to those accusations? I'm pointing out the history of the nazi party that this individual, "a jewish" as you call them," is denying. I am choosing to align with the history pointed out by the overwhelming majority of jewish people in this world, and choosing to speak out against the right wing nazis that holocaust victims make note of so often. Why are you projecting your antisemetism?
    3
  303.  @dreisiglps2451  You mean I already refuted TIK a few times. There's a reason he refuses to reply to me anymore, and it's because he knows i call him out :)
    3
  304.  @dreisiglps2451  I mean given that liberal means capitalist and you can be conservative and capitalist at the same time easily, yes. Do you know what you're talking about?
    3
  305.  @dreisiglps2451  So you're accusing random people of being socialists, which is exactly what the nazis did. Liberalism is capitalism, even the progressive liberalism. You really have no idea what you're talking about at all, do you? This is sad. Not everyone you call a socialist is a socialist.
    3
  306.  @dreisiglps2451  And the Democratic Republic of North Korea has democratic republic in its name. That means that both the democrats and republicans are left wing, right?
    3
  307.  @dreisiglps2451  Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but right wing monarchies don't protect or serve their people, nor do they protect their citizens freedoms or separates the economy from themselves. Right wing monarchists regulate and oppress the economy, their citizens, and their entire country, and your view of the right is an utter fantasy with no basis in reality.
    3
  308.  @dreisiglps2451  Absolute monarchy is literally a right wing system that the left resisted and eventually abolished. You're welcome
    3
  309.  @dreisiglps2451  Conservatives are authoritarian children who want to preserve traditions instead of honoring individuals or preserving freedom or liberty. They are nearly always absurdly racist and wish to cement these views in their authoritarian government. They have, in many places in the past, segregated and put individuals in concentration camps. And, of course, given that the modern concentration camp was an invention of capitalist america and imperialist europe, concentration camps have nothing to do with socialism as you so sadly attempt to assert. Stop denying the crimes of the nazis.
    3
  310.  @dreisiglps2451  "TIKs research." That's hilarious, how you seem to think denialism and cherry picking constitutes "research." We've already been over this, stop deflecting. Collectivism is a nonsense term, nonsensically applied, 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," individualism is any system or philosophy that advocates for the well being of the individual as a top priority, capitalism is defined as a system where the means of production are in private hands. The right is defined by an adherence to strict or fluid hierarchy, the left a rejection of hierarchy. Fascism is a far right, ultranationalist authoritarian ideology, and nazism is hitler's german version of that. You done making me do your work for you?
    3
  311.  @dreisiglps2451  And why does that matter? I am a current resident of the UK for work, but I was born in the USA and still maintain a citizenship and family connections there.
    3
  312.  @dreisiglps2451  Ah yeah no, fair question honestly. Well, if we ever meet again I will wish you very much the same, but have a good day, a good life, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors, and perhaps one day we will not be so misaligned. Good day, and goodbye, fellow commenter.
    3
  313.  @damianbylightning6823  I'm sorry, all of this is provably and laughably false, and utterly so. Left and right are terms with concrete meanings, even if you don't like said meanings. Socialism is a left wing ideology, wholly and objectively. You are trying to redefine socialism to be more than a political ideology, but a state of being, some sinister enemy to whatever ideological system you personally espouse, and it's sad. Pure socialism has nothing to do with pure race. The fact is, once things went beyond simply liberal-conservative differences in your mind, they no longer made sense to you, and thus you tried to abandon them, to run away from the objective facts observable within said classifications. Socialism is it's own ideology, with influences from other systems yes, but it is not some patchwork of previous ideologies, but an entirely new ideology and historical movement. You don't seem to know what socialism is, nor do you have any sort of interest in attempting to define socialism as anything but a nebulous, impossible concept.
    3
  314. Ah, another person who claims to have been swayed by TIKs arguments, and yet doesn't even have a passing knowledge of any opposing positions or arguments. It's ok dude, you can just admit you agreed with him before you even saw the video. I know he wants to pretend he's "changing minds," but the ideological echo chamber of his comment section has long since swept that myth aside. Why exactly are you using the phrase "upset someone actually read the books" when, if you had watched the video, you would know that TIK spends most of the video arguing against the books you are attempting to rely on the authority of? "Watch the video" isn't an argument, and it's an admission of failure when used on those that clearly have. Someone needs to come up with a real argument. Someone needs to come up with a real argument. Someone needs to come up with a real argument. Someone needs to come up with a real argument. Someone needs to come up with a real argument. And it's you. Oh, and to the others: The problem is, the notion of "the un-owned" was likely purposefully left out of TIK's video, because it opens up numerous questions that I feel he isn't quite ready to answer. After all, socialism historically has a lot more to do with the "unowned" than public ownership. Something being unowned, in this sense, means it is not owned by one person, and is not controlled by one group to the exclusion of others, but is either owned, operated, or benefitted from by a large number of people, none of which hold exclusive power over it. The sun. The air. The land, some might argue. Something that is, say, collectively operated. Now, if we were to apply your definitions strictly, we'd have to contend with the fact that yes, most air is publicly owned, since it's "owned" and used by large groups with no private individual control over it. However, even you seem to be unwilling to go that far, which tells me that there's a bit of hope for you. In any case, the point here is that it's not as simple as "public vs private," and that socialism isn't just "when public ownership." Property that you described as "un-owned," as in excluding none and used by all, is a lot closer to what socialists actually want. also You can't even get your own statements consistent. You assert that, in fact, it's not actually the group or individual owning that matters, it's the dominant system in place that matters. According to you, a "private individual" being on top of a "public hierarchy" makes them then a... public individual. Something that is oxymoronic, according to your definition. Putting aside your ignorance of the fact that what the Royal Family does with their private property is actually deeply important to the "public sphere," your contradiction here is obvious. You're asserting that what matters isn't the owner, but the system under which they own. Therefore, a private business in a "public" supply chain must be "public." A private business that at all interacts with the government, in support or opposition, must be "public." And a dictator, if they had total, sole control over the country, with unceasing obedience from their subjects, is as "private" as it gets. Unless, of course, you want to make an artificial distinction that neither you nor TIK have previously admitted to, that being that it isn't as simple as "individual vs group." Not even to mention the fact that any "public" entity within a private economy would now, of course, be private due to them sitting atop, benefitting from, and acting in accordance to the desires of, the private market.
    3
  315.  @Sumoniggro  No, child, the difference is that i'm right, and i've provided it. In any case, it isn't, though. The community as a whole is not the state, if they were one and the same, these wouldn't be monstrous dictatorships at all, as they would have the full backing of the people. The public can, and already does, collectively own things without a state, and there's no need for a dictatorship to enforce a system like that, in fact, that most often directly counters the goals of the socialists in these cases. The nazis were opposed to socialists, communists, liberals, the left, and so on because they're complete ideological opposites, the nazis participate in and justify the ideology of the right. The fact that you have to misrepresent both the nazis and the socialists to try to equate them says a hell of a lot. In any case, you clearly haven't done any research given that the nazis despised total control of economics and actively argued against it, hence their horrendous failure of an economy. I'm sorry to say you don't know what socialism is, don't know who the far right nazis were, and don't know the first thing about human nature.
    3
  316. Few points of rebuttal, structures in a much more concise way because jesus that was a block of text to get through. 1. TIK does have the problem of defining all capitalism as liberal/libertarian, which is certainly not the full history of the ideology or term, though he goes a step further even - defining capitalism as incompatible with even basic human organization and society, and arguing not just for stateless capitalism, but for total isolationism of each individual and family as the only "true" form of capitalism. 2. The modern conservative parties are conservative, just not the same type as the old conservatives, the shifting goalpost of conservatism is a feature, not a glitch. 3. Socialism isn't necessarily opposed to individualism, nor is the right necessarily in favor of it. 4. Capitalism isn't the means of production, though many means of production are considered capital in the modern day. 5. TIK's "X doesn't understand Y" statements can be better translated as "I don't agree with X on Y" 6. Capitalism isn't the opposite of mercantilism, they are both just forms and stages of eachother, and capitalism created the need for slavery just as much as it eventually dispersed of it, though the movement of abolitionism was more often than not opposed by capitalists and prized by anti-capitalists. 7. Profits going to "the public" (not public ownership) is not state ownership, and communism is a stateless, classles, moneyless society. Furthermore, it is absolutely possible to be a socialist that advocates for social ownership of individual industry, which has nothing to do with the fascist idea of private corporations. 8. I'm no socialist but this next point you make is... odd. First off, socialists generally don't go as far as to assert that everyone will own an equal amount of everything under socialism, as in, literally everything. Socialists call for ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, not the ownership of every tool, game, pet, ect within. There will always be a need to trade and work for the smaller, voluntary things, and that's built into socialist ideology. Furthermore, if everyone did have what they needed, and had no desire and no need to trade... why is this a bad thing? I mean, we trade because people want and need things. If they no longer want or need anything, trade isn't necessary. We have systems of trade not because trade by itself is mutually beneficial, but because it is in the modern day. 9. Market socialism exists, and nations are just lines on a map. 10. Marx wasn't actually all that interested in "equality," nor does the labor theory of value only see value in every case as only the labor by an individual that goes into said product/commodity 11. Capitalism can't be "observed in nature," nor is it the natural state of man. If one goes back to a time before nation states an centralized force, they see nothing of the private property and capital of today. They see a sort of mutualism, social ownership of property in all but the most necessary cases, trade conducted on individual bases not a central currency or standard of trade. Humans weren't the only hominids that traded, and trading for mutual benefit is not exclusive to capitalism, in fact both Marx and Kropotkin wrote on this stage of humanity in detail, calling it either "mutualism" or "primitive communism," and felt that it was a better system as it lacked the bureaucracy and complexity of modern capitalism, and was far more in line with their views. 12. Socialism vs capitalism isn't "raid vs trade," given that socialists literally prize the system that you're describing as the "natural" form of capitalism, the "Trade" in this analogy. I mean socialists are literally appealing to the workers, what does that have to do with taking from others to give to those that don't produce? 13. God, no. Socialism doesn't have much at all in common with colonialism, and while there have been self-professed socialist nations that engage in imperialist practices, the process of colonialism is historically one that belongs to the right, and the first capitalists. European countries went to these other places often explicitly for the purpose of greater trade networks and profit, and while they often forced people into those arrangements, it was sure as hell not incompatible with capitalism, who had open adherents doing much the same later. I fail to see how setting up shop in another country for the sole purpose of exporting and importing goods along trade networks for private profit is socialist. Your problem here is labelling socialism as theft, and then somehow deciding everything else you call theft must be socialist. 14. And again - capitalism didn't put an end to colonialism, colonialism ended due to constant warfare, statist intervention and treaties to back off, and the simple fact that there was nowhere left to colonize. Colonialism enriched capitalism, and to this day most of the richest capitalist countries in the world remain that way as a legacy of their colonialist exploits. It was usually (though not always) capitalists arguing for colonialism and anti-capitalists (though not always) against it. Seriously, with what logic do you claim that capitalism ended colonialism, an extension of itself? It's like you see capitalism as a transcendental good and socialism as a transcendental evil, attributing all the things you agree with to the god of capitalism, and all things you don't with the devil of socialism. Furthermore, the notion that capitalism only ended "the bad things" because they were no longer profitable and would be fine with their continuation if that were to change is.... not a good one. My goal here is not a fight but a discussion, though to be honest some of your assertions do seem roundly baffling. I would as always be happy to discuss the specifics and provide my reasoning and argumentation for my response.
    3
  317.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. //:/
    3
  318. The problem there of course being that what you just described is, by definition, not socialist
    3
  319.  @TheImperatorKnight  ok so just straight agreeing with nazi apologists now. Amazing.
    3
  320.  @travisadams6279  No, the problem is that you're a denialist liar, simple :)
    3
  321.  @TfuckyoutubeC  "fascism is when college"
    3
  322.  @TfuckyoutubeC  Oh, child. Don't you know that brevity is the soul of wit? Come now. I would recommend actually reading my responses, you might get some good out of it. And of course, we both know that given your ignorance displayed during out conversation and after the fact, it seems that you're not the best at making assertions that line up with reality. Yes, i'm aware you don't know what fascism or socialism are, and yes, i'm aware that the entire extent of your "research" begins and ends on youtube. Please do attempt to stop projecting.
    3
  323. @Hugh Mongous wrong again child. he wasn't a socialist in every sense of the word. Simple, and better yet, true :)
    3
  324. @Hugh Mongous Ethnonationalism is literally a form of conservatism.
    3
  325. @Hugh Mongous No, child. Socialism cannot be "ethnonationalist based," and an ideology based on the redistribution of wealth and social priveledge over ethnic lines by definition would not be socialist. Socialism is socialism, ethnonationalism is a form of conservatism. The fact that you don't see the contradiction is legitimately disturbing.
    3
  326.  @travisadams6279  So you're not listening. Telling.
    3
  327.  @travisadams6279  No, "my guy." The nazis despised socialism.
    3
  328.  @hakapeszimaki8369  Close, not quite. They were a reaction to the rise of socialism and offered an alternative form of conservative traditionalism that could actually fight back against socialists.
    3
  329.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  I hate to break it to you but authoritarianism, and actions taken against political rivals, are not exclusive to socialists.
    3
  330.  @MadsterV  "You're telling me the leader of the nationalist socialist party" A name he did not approve of and later purged the creators of. "formerly worker's party nationalizer of banks and industry" Are you somehow under the impression that hitler's ideology was in the party before hitler? "who fostered the People's Car" Which no people ever got and which profited private owners. "who was regarded by George Orwell to be the True Socialist" Orwell literally never said anything like this, Orwell was open about calling fascism and nazism offshoots of capitalism, and said nazism was little more than repackaged conservatism. "who claimed socializing companies was not necessary when you could "socialize the people" (aka put party officials in control of the companies ala CCP)" Which a, is not socialism as socialism is defined as collective control of the MoP, b, is not what actually occurred under nazi germany given the nazis support of private business even internationally, and c, is a wholly contradictory string of economic terms that you don't understand. So yeah, not a socialist. Isn't it sad how many times you have to lie to assert otherwise?
    3
  331.  Wulf  Child, no fascists have ever been socialist, nor would they do something so silly as "admit" such. In fact, they most often admitted the exact opposite, to hating socialism and being proud members of the right, something you yourself can relate to. Of course, Third Position is by definition not a socialist movement in the slightest, rather, it is a movement outside of both socialism and capitalism, yet solidly within the bounds of right wing ideology. I mean, the first and second position are literally capitalism and socialism, are you asserting that one can be both an option and the alternative to that option? Of course, in actuality, the fact that fascist italy for example was known as right wing at the time is a simple one, and one long proven, by original sources from fascist times. 'Fascism can be best regarded as a compromise between pure individualistic Capitalism and Traditionalist conservatism, but is decidedly nearer to the latter than to the former. So, to answer your question, no fascists "admitted" they were socialist... because they weren't.
    3
  332. @Rick Vis No, as in he's a literal "The very existence of groupings of more than two people means we live in socialism" extremist. I would consider myself on the libertarian side as well, but he goes long beyond that.
    3
  333.  @SoloTravelerOffTheBeatenPath   that is hilariously incorrect. First off, watch the short film Erbkrank. What's it about? Well, it's a propaganda film that the Nazis made, that shows the drain on the government that welfare, especially for disabled people, costed. The Nazis cut back welfare for any non-aryan, and threw the weak, poor, and disabled into camps. Their entire ideology was literally built on domination and supremacy, you think they cared about the poor? Your examples aren't even true. He introduced some benefits, but to only Aryans. That was shrinking the welfare state. As for free healthcare, he didn't "introduce" it, he kept (and defunded) the system from the Weimar republic. In most of his speeches he says he hates Jewish Capitalism, but not Capitalism itself. You can see that's true because he allied with many Capitalists and corporations,, like Ford, Koch, IBM, GE, GM, ect. Meanwhile, he was putting Socialists in camps for daring to be socialists. Literally nothing about Hitler's regime was Socialist, and the amount you have to stretch history to say otherwise proves as much.
    3
  334. Let's do this a bit more accurately, to show you less of your ideological drivel Socialist Ideologies: equality above all anti-private industry at all costs pro-communalism workers own the means of production communal ownership of production socialist ideologies keep these core ideologies consistently throughout (ect) Nazi ideologies: anti-individualism (unless it was in the favor of the state) anti-communalism market based strategies A fusion of state and private (but no communal) ownership of the MoP Nazis kept these ideologies consistently until the end. racial purity Hierarchy is natural and good meritocracy superiority of culture/nation social darwinism traditionalism anti-leftism fear of the unknown sexual conservatism far right (ect) Conservatism: preserving things the way they are (perfectly compatible with nazism) Hierarchy is natural and good meritocracy superiority of culture /nation social darwinism traditionalism anti-leftism fear of the unknown sexual conservatism right to far right (ect) I could go on and on about the modern comparisons, really. But the fact is, the nazis hated the ideas that socialists stood for. Hell, you somehow think they liked "communal ownership" They disbanded the ability of workers to form unions. There was no communal ownership, only private and state. By your own showing, the nazis were not socialists. They were right wing, and made as much known. Do your own research.
    3
  335.  @TheImperatorKnight  And we know that words never graduate beyond their literal base etymological root terms, right? And that these descriptive terms were cobbled together with the exact ideas in mind of relating to contemporary political ideology that doesn't even qualify itself the way you do. Yes, I know the video, i'm in the comment section arguing with you about it. And yet, I still disagree.. I have made the mistake of watching them, which means sadly, you can't write me off that way. But sure mate, politics are just socialism now.
    2
  336.  @tjo4087  I can agree there, but pretending to be a socialist doesn't make you one.
    2
  337.  @tjo4087  that's fair, true. But I don't think he should be framed as an attack against anyone
    2
  338.  @tjo4087  There I can agree.
    2
  339. How is pointing out the ideological nature of nazism defending it? Why do you deny these facts? Oh, and to those of you like an unnamed SC here, that continue to push this old, disproven narrative. Mussolini rejected socialism. The existence of communist and socialist parties before Hitler's rule does not disprove the existence of conservative and right wing parties, which hitler relied upon for support, and was undoubtedly a right winger himself. We can see the policies both hitler and mussolini employed - and we find that your narrative on them is lacking in historical reality. When you put your biased revisionism before any notions of history, you are preferring to slander an ideology than see the actual grounds for their horrific crimes. Trying to use the holocaust to make a statement about socialism is nonsense, ahistorical, and sadly denies the actual origin of the holocaust and the reasoning behind it, all for the purpose of your partisan political attack, and your hatred of others.
    2
  340.  @KameradVonTurnip  But they aren't even close to comparable, and you suggesting otherwise is just further proof that you took hi clear deflections and warping of definition as fact, which it is not. Under no definition is fascism or national socialism actually socialism, and the only way to say otherwise is to change the definition... which TIK did.
    2
  341. Not... quite. The "right" has not always been in reference to capitalism, it has far more to do in the modern day with the prevalence, and acceptance, of hierarchy in society. But sure, everything is a communist conspiracy. Also, that political spectrum is complete nosense, but whatever.
    2
  342. Not only were the nazis not socialists, they were not democratic. Fixed it for you.
    2
  343. This is by the guy who said that youtube was marxist, and that hierarchy and society are naturally socialist. What one might define as capitalist, like private enterprise, he calls socialist. that's how he pulls this nonsense. But, by all means, don't let me stop you from watching the video, it's uh... something.
    2
  344. How can something be non-left wing socialism? It's been left wing since inception, if they were right wing (which they were) they couldn't be socialist.
    2
  345.  @chloeturner1414  Do you know what "left wing socialist" means? Apparently not. There was no "misunderstanding" here, you were simply wrong, and when corrected, didn't much care. You agree with TIK because his narrative benefits your ideology, and because you agree with his fanaticism, despite the readily available facts disproving your assertions. You can't "know" something that isn't true, and evidently, you don't know the basics of even the terms you're using. Of course, the nazis were not left wing, nor were they socialists, a fact easily shown by any research into their rhetoric, policies, goals, and so on. They made it loudly known, and yet here you are, pushing a narrative over facts. The nazis were right wing totalitarians, opposed not only to socialism but to the very ideological and moral assumptions that build a foundation for socialist thought, and thus, they were opposed to the left. The point of your comment was to further cement TIK's echo chamber, and further justify his fanatic dismissal of any facts he didn't like. TIK doesn't need to be "reassured," he needs to act like what he's claiming to be, and thus accept and work with criticism. You can clearly see his ideological fanaticism in the way that he promotes this shutting-down of debate, this self-righteous constant need to continue to assert that those who disagree don't matter, and must not be listened to. People corrected his beliefs with facts, and thus, people like you are urging him to not listen, to ignore them. It's not "hate," it's reality, and he doesn't need assurance, he needs correction. The very problem with your assertion is clear from the first line - one cannot claim to be a "left wing socialist" and yet purposefully and unapologetically set up a private economy while pushing notions on the supposed superiority of private property. Allowing private industry means he ain't a socialist. Your reasoning, similarly, makes no sense. How is appealing to private weapons companies and manufacturing industries at all trying to hide the goal of rearmament? How would his massive privatization program hide his obvious military-industrial buildup? Your statement is a non sequitur, your conclusion does not follow from the information. How would privatizing industry, and yet still using it to rearm and expand the german military, at all an effort to not alert the allies? Hitler was pretty transparent with his goals, even before he was elected, and part of the reason that the german army became so powerful in that time is specifically because the allies knew he was rearming and thought that by not intervening, they could appease him, and stop an eventual war. To put it simply, your statement makes no sense. It doesn't line up with anything, not the allies knowledge of hitler's goals, not those goals themselves, and certainly not the economic and political reality of privatization at the time Hitler didn't privatize because it somehow hid his actions (because that doesn't at all work, and they already knew his goals and were aware of the rearmament) but because he saw private property as simply and functionally superior, according to his ideology. This is why, when actually studying the nazi economy, we find that the vast majority of it was not under "strict regulation," but in fact were allowed to compete, produce, and profit much as they had before, now without any interference from the labor movement, which hitler had repressed, abolished, and purged. The way that the nazis actually ensured that these private companies were working within their interests was through guaranteed profit contracts, which the companies would then compete over. Hitler praised private property, and noted again and again that a state management of the economy would severely diminish the economic power of german industry. His greatest deviations from this happened near the end of the war, when german industry and military had been hit so hard that there was little other option, and yet was still treated as a temporary, necessary evil. In any case, i'm not actually sure if you know what the 1933 Cartel Act actually did, given that it didn't "regulate" or direct the economy, just allowed massive corporations to further centralize their own private power and form their own "cartels," monopolies. The problem is that you just don't understand the basics here, what you're saying is about as far from socialism as you can get. A pro-private state working with massive private corporations against the average person, the unionist, the worker? What is left wing, what is socialist? Even if what you described was wholly accurate, it still fits almost exactly to the modern right's strategy regarding companies, as in, are they pushing right wing social and political goals are not, and what is the punishment if they fail to push those goals. Hitler protected and gave privileges to private industry as a whole, and provided opportunities to profit, to ensure nazi goals were met. Those that declined were few, and even then they were rarely punished for these actions, and were instead either offered greater incentives, or ignored in favor of the many other companies willing to do the job. Your "probably" says a lot about your lack of knowledge in this field, but its worth noting that the vast majority of his "political opponents" were those that posed the greatest threat to private profit. Interesting, hm?
    2
  346.  @nathanweber4829  Are you an actual idiot? Well, what am I saying, you agree with TIK. Of course you're an idiot. I don't mean to insult you, but this is just so hilariously wrong, and I have so many better things to be doing, I have to get it out of my system before I start the response. You understand, right? For one, like most of the TIK cultists, you seem to not understand that just saying something isn't proof of it. Which is a damn shame, because that's all you do in this response. Assert, say it's true, but cite no proof. And it's hilariously wrong from the get-go. First, before I even get into your arguments, have you even read das kapital? It seems not, because you have yet to realize it's literally an examination of capitalism. It has nothing to do with marx putting forward socialism, or communism, it's literally him just laying out why capitalism works, and where it doesn't. That meals Das Kapital is wholly uncomparable to Mein Kampf, which is an actual book that sets out to promote an ideology. Anyway, on to your argument. I can't believe I have to say this, but when you literally replace words, of course meanings changes! Holy shit. If I said "I love my wife" and you replace "love" with "hate" of course the passage and the meaning change along with the change of those words. If you replace the above terms, for one it wouldn't make sense, and for two you'd be talking about entirely different things. By this logic, I could proclaim Adam Smith was secretly a communist, by replacing every time he says something like "free market" with "communist system." It makes no sense, on any level. And again, if we look at the policies of soviet russia and nazi germany we find literally nothing in common, besides both being totalitarian dictatorships. The USSR was isolationist, the Nazis expansionist. The Soviets promoted forced equality, the Nazis promoted forced hierarchy. The soviets were kropotkinites, the nazis were social darwinists. They were on opposite ends with so many things, it's hilariously wrong to say they were the same. If you look at the structure of government and legal system, they are both somewhat similar... because they're both dictatorships, no shit. But even there they had differences. However, in social planning services they were not at all similar by any metric. The soviets poured money into infrastructure and benefits, the nazis into warfare. The fact that they called themselves mother/fatherland is literally just a case of popular terms at the time, nothing to do with socialism. So in fact they did not act the same, they did not look the same, and they did not sound the same, because they were in no way the same. And here you go, taking hitler on his word. do you not see a problem with that? This is the same guy that claimed that the world was operated by jewish people, that you could measure intelligence by head size, and that he could win WW2. So, after all of those lies, he makes up one more and you just say "oh, looks fine to me, that must be true." Socialism, even before marx, had always been about class, not race. Replacing class with race is like replacing "women" with "men" in feminism and saying it's the same thing. Literally is not, on any level. He also differed from the socialists in other areas, like being expansionist, pro war, pro meritocracy, traditionalist, hierarchical, ect. His definition of socialism, as Defined by him, literally says he thinks private property is good. That is fundamentally anti-socialist. I've actually read the works in question, as well as many more, so I really have no need to watch yet another ahistorical biased youtuber by the name of "razorfist" misdefine socialism and take hitler on his word. You've proven yourself with this response to be only capable of repeating basic talking points, to the point that it seems you haven't even read, or even read a synopsis of, the very works you name drop in this response. It's shameful, it's lazy, and it's intellectually dishonest. But sure, if you want a response filled with facts that cannot be refuted, here you go, I just delivered. And here is a pro-tip - next time, when you're about to post some dumb shit, don't sound so cocky at the end. It makes your inevitable fall from grace all the more painful to watch, and I assume experience.
    2
  347. ​ @nathanweber4829  You literally didn't listen to me then, huh. Well, no surprises there. Again, like last time, your first sentence proves you wrong. I have to ask, did you actually read any of the sources you claim you read? Or, were they cited in one of these shortened ahistorical arguments you keep recommending to me, and you just took their word for it. Das Kapital is not condemnation of capitalism any more than it's a condemnation of socialism. It also never proposes what you say it does, a transitory path from socialism to communism. Marx was not a utopian, and most importantly, he never actually outlined how to get to communism. It was later thinkers like Lenin who tried to put the pieces together in that order, and who said that it went capitalism->socialism->communism. And the point of you substituting words, as I said previously, is wrong on the same two counts. One, the two works cited are not at all the same. One is Hitler's, which is trying to push an ideological narrative and come up with a framework that is meant to implement his desired system. Marx's source, on the other hand, does not include him pushing any ideology, but is merely an overviews (again) of why capitalism works, and where it doesn't. That's the entire point. If there really were similarities to be found when replacing terms, that would speak more of capitalism than socialism. In any case, there really aren't many similarities to be found, and as well as that, when you change the words used in a sentence, the meaning literally changes. Feminism is not feminism if you replace women with men. Hitler never says that "all private property is state property," you can actually hear in quite a number of his speeches with some of his supporting officers that he reviles the idea of taking private property under the management of the state. He thinks that the private market has seen considerable success, and should be allowed to remain. He literally says the opposite of what you think he did, he thinks the state is terrible at running businesses, and in all cases possible the businesses should be under private ownership. That's why he's so notorious for his privatization policies. Here is one such interview. 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 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": https://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php Gregor remained in the party but continued losing influence at a catastrophic rate, until he and the remaining part of the socialist wing were purged during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. When I mean cultists, I mean (no offense) people like you. People who ignore all of actual professional understanding of history just to forge forward with a narrative, putting opinion before facts. Ironically enough, it seems it's them who are usually the most willing to project that narrative onto other people, in most cases where it does not exist. TIK as a source is terrible. He says that corporations are socialist, society is socialist, hierarchy itself is socialist. I am not joking, I am not exaggerating. Those are his opinions, and can be found easily by watching his "public vs private" video, or looking for his comments on this very video. The reason I claim you and two "internet historians" are ahistorical is, well, because you are. Have you actually looked at say, TIK's citation? Half of them are opinion pieces of radical ancaps complaining about socialism, a huge part are from people like Mises (actual fascists) who tried to deflect fascism onto the left. Hell, he cites a Sargon stream as a source. Meanwhile, I can only assume this Razor fellow somehow convinced you of the meaning of Das Kapital was to promote socialism, so yes, he is being ahistorical as well. IF you would like my citation, i'd love to provide it over and over again, but all you've been doing so far is simply asserting that your side has good evidence, not showing any of it. You have not shown any proof so far, because to show actual proof instead of just name dropping books would mean opening up your narrative to reality, and thus shattering it. If I were to say nazism was a form of socialism, i'd be lying, and following a far-right historical denialist narrative, which I don't want to do. Nazism has nothing to do with socialism, and this was an established fact before the right tried to rewrite history otherwise. This isn't even a case of "my agenda," I am not a socialist, this is a case of history. You are not citing your own works, merely critiquing the works of others in an effort to appear knowledgeable and disinform others. But here's a few videos for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHAN-RPJTiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnyZvsR1kDk
    2
  348.  @nathanweber4829  And again, I have to remind you, you proved my point. Not once in this response did you actually, you know, respond to the facts I spent time putting forward. Rather, you lied, insulted, and asserted the same false narratives as you did in your previous response. If the first part of my response seems familiar, that's why. It's because you just repeated the same little nonsense. The fact that you cannot cite any historians, any books, or any definition of socialism tells me all that I need to know. As I said before, you are literally arguing that random people online know better than the actual historical researchers who spent years of their lives combing over the data and speeches of nazi germany to come to the conclusions they did. I have no interest in listening to another random person with no credentials bring up long debunked points, because it's a waste of my time. If you actually have any real sources, articles, books, speeches, ect, then give them already. I addressed literally everything you said here, and you're ignoring it all. The problem isn't that i'm somehow afraid of doing more research, it's that i've done too much research to put up with this nonsense. Again, why should I trust random people on the internet over actual historical professors and figures that have dedicated the greater part of their lives to defining these ideologies. Why should I trust TIK's definition of fascism over, say, Eco's definition of fascism, when he literally survived fascist italy and TIK can't even survive criticism. The fact that you put so much pride into videos and not like, actual sources, proves entirely too much to me. Because you, and them, have a narrative to push, one that just can't be pushed professionally. If you cited actual sources, like again, books, or non-biased articles, or even some firsthand words of the people you are claiming to understand, I would love to see them. But the problem is, you won't do that. You'll just keep calling me a socialist for no reason and citing far right random people on youtube rather than either make an argument yourself or cite a professional. And trust me, I am unfortunately well aware of Jordan Peterson. The lobster guy, Mr. "clean your room," the guy who admitted he hadn't read marx until the night before a debate with a marxist, ect. The same man who preached personal responsibility and self improvement before societal improvement, and then had to get trucked off to a russian hospital because he had a drug problem, all while he was telling people, on stage, to not worry about convincing others or changing society until they fix their own issues. Ironic. I'm aware of his many videos on youtube, like the ones where they claim he "DESTROYED" college level children in a professional debate (no shit or the ones where he preaches self help, which is ironic. And, sadly enough, I used to watch a great number of his lectures, including the one you mentioned. However, there are a few issues with it. For one, he focuses far too hard on conformity, and does not mention the fascist movements that actually started the regimes, just the regimes themselves. He also, conveniently, forgets to go after the actual beliefs of nazi germany and their rhetoric. Like how they claimed western civilization and tradition were under threat, and they must be protected. Like how the nazis claimed there existed a "cultural marxism/bolshevism," which they used to justify their genocide. Like how the nazis preached a heroistic ideology (again, Eco's definition) in which people have to work their way up the societal ladder to mean anything. He did not mention these, of course, because they have uncomfortable modern parallels on the right. My point being, for one with no offense met, actually take some time beyond public speakers and youtubers. There are books on the matter, and if you don't have the time to read them I understand, but they are much better sources than youtube videos. And finally, like above if you prefer to watch youtube as a source, i'll link a few "theatric" criticisms of Peterson here, which you may or may not have heard of. Have a good one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEMB1Ky2n1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas
    2
  349.  @padraicburns9278  "I doubt Mises considered the US completely Marxist as opposed to moving in a Marxist direction. Being opposed to government intervention in the economy (a criticism he also had with fascism and socialism) of course he'd be opposed to FDR's policies for extending the Great Depression. The fact that the Austrian School had a presence in the US is evidence of the US being more liberal than other countries. Economic systems are not black-and-white, it's possible for an economy to be "more liberal" or "less liberal" without being "completely liberal", "completely fascist" or "completely socialist". What are the far right authoritarian figures you're referring to?" In the very passage we've been talking about, his first line starts with "Only when the Marxist Social Democrats..." He saw the entire ideology as Marxist. I doubt he would have the nuance then to support the US as it was only "moving in a marxist direction." It is also worth mentioning that this is the Mises who called Friedman (another notable libertarian capitalist) a socialist, Mises' definitions were more than a bit off. However, again, I would recommend reading into the history of the Austrian School a bit more. The US was not more liberal because it simply existed there, in fact, the Austrian School had existed in the US for a while then, even as it was moving away from liberalism. And the idea that something can be "partially one ideology" is nonsense, and irksome. If you have something that incorporates policy from capitalists, socialists, and others, it is not "more capitalist, less socialist" or vice versa, it is just a new system. As for far right authoritarians, we have cases where students of the Austrian School, say, defended Mussolini, propped up Pinochet, allied with David Duke, ect. "He criticized the ideology of constant warfare and literally fled fascist genocide (and socialists have committed genocide too, you know). Do you need to be reminded that he said, "because it is far from practicing the senseless and unrestrained destructionism that has stamped the Communists as the archenemies of civilization"? Communists have committed far worse atrocities than fascists. If two monsters are fighting, I hope the lesser monster wins. Socialists explicitly want every person to be a slave owned by the government. Fascists also want to enslave everyone but pretend they don't. Socialists control the economy through outright ownership of the means of production, fascists control the economy by forcing the de jure owners/de facto managers to obey the fascist's commands making the government the de facto owner. The leftists who would "compromise his power" also want to kill people for owning property, people like that should not have power and defensive violence is justified to protect oneself from them." I know you've seen the line before, but let's say it again. Agreeing with his opinions does not diminish the meaning of them. He criticized fascism's "constant warfare" in terms of socialist suppression, and he fled fascist genocide only because it posed a direct threat to him, all while advocating for fascistic methods of violence. He views the communists as enemies of civilization, and thus celebrates when they are killed, and turns a blind eye to the crimes committed in the name of stamping out leftism. Communists, for all their flaws, have never attempted the utter, endless ethnic genocide of fascism. If you see the history of both movements, and decide that it is fascism who is the lesser evil, you are unshakingly wrong. Socialism, and socialists, don't want "every person to be a slave owned by the government," hell, plenty of socialists don't even want a government. Socialists push for collective ownership of the means of production, as in, a societal tool that has been explored under capitalism and found to be more effective than individually owned or managed businesses. Fascists uphold private ownership, in fact, they defend it, and violently. The fact that you think wanton murder and suppression is "justified as self defense" against an ideology you don't even understand is sickening. "Facts are facts, fascism is a tiny bit less bad than socialism. You say he built his career in a fascist country but his career had already been built before it became fascist, it took longer than one year to build his career. Your criticism hinges on the fact that he was an economic advisor to a fascist government for one year of his life when he had also been an economic advisor to the Austrian government before it became fascist. How did Mises' movement return to fascism? In what way is the Mises Institute fascist? Their slogan is, "Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market". Fascism is pro-state, pro-war and anti-market (favoring government intervention that moves it away from a market economy and closer towards a command economy)." Facts are facts, and fascism is without a single question the worst, deadliest, and most horrible ideology humanity has ever devised. Fascism did not start in austria when the fascist dictator took power. Your denial hinges on the fact that you can't handle that the man you are defending was a direct economic advisor under a fascist dictator, a position he had first been given under that same fascist dictator, and he managed a fascist economy. Mises' movement, to this day, defends fascism, and you are perfect proof of that. For being "Anti-State, Anti-War, [and] Pro-Market" Mises' ideology actually defended and justified the state and war quite a bit. Furthermore, fascists despised a command economy, preferring to hold up a system that interlinks the state and private sector. "You must be daft, he only said defensive violence was justified and criticized violence being its highest principle making war inevitable. Your view on "the economics of fascism" is absurd when the track record of fascist economic policy means government interventionism which Mises explicitly opposed." He defines "defensive violence" as any violence against those he disagrees with, which he calls socialists. He criticizes violence only when he feels it is not effective for pushing his ideology to the detriment of all others. His economic views lined up with the fascist economic views for most of history. This is basic. "He said it was a fatal error to consider fascism anything more than an "emergency makeshift", that means it's contingent on there being an emergency. Socialists have killed far more people than fascists, just based on body count alone they're worse. Socialists have also allied with fascists, like when the USSR and Nazi Germany agreed to split Poland between themselves." He called fascism an "emergency makeshift" in the context of it being a useful weapon against socialism, which he praised it for. Socialists have only "killed more than fascists" because they've been around and in power far longer, capitalists have killed far more than socialists have for this very reason. Fascists find their most common allies with the right, and smaller alliances with the left have always ended with conflict. Let's review: Mises believed that violence was justified, and only criticized fascism because he believed its violence was not effective. Mises believed that "defensive violence" was any violence directed at those who pushed ideas that he disagreed with, which he then considers a form of violence. Fascist economies are always defined by a rigid adherence to corporatist systems, which Mises promoted and put in place. Austria had Mises working directly under a fascist for years, pushing policies that fascists agreed with. He was only granted this position under said fascist government. Mises did not disagree with the economics he was promoting, that were being implemented through fascism. Calling him a "liberal economic advisor" is in conflict with your previous definition of fascist economies. The Mises institute doesn't reflect Mises' ideas, and Mises' ideas don't reflect that motto. This statement is not the fascist motto, but a single line said by Mussolini, who himself employed classical liberal economic advisors, who you claim his ideology opposed. Capitalists have killed by far the most, but Fascists have the most potential for death, and have only killed the amount they did because they were shut down and defeated quickly Capitalists and Fascists are both guilty of the social darwinism that lead to fascist eugenics. Fascists and Capitalists both want control of the economy in private hands, fascists simply also create a government that is meant to support and nudge these private entities, to both party's voluntary profit, while socialists support nothing of the sort. Your lack of understanding on the basic history of your ideology, and the basic definition of fascism, socialism, liberalism, ect, explains why you contradict your own definition of those terms, and explains how when given an example of a fascist economy, you simply deny it or call it "liberal," further asserting more ahistorical nonsense. Mises was a man who praised, participated in, and defended the ideology of fascism. I'm not a socialist, but an anarchist. You are an ahistorical revisionist that doesn't care about the mountain of corpses your ideology has caused, nor do you care about the possible death toll of fascism which was thankfully cut short. You push your ideology on others, even historians, because the idea that you could be objectively wrong on your nonsense ideologue narrative is impossible for you to understand. You call others socialists, much like fascists did, to shut them down. Your ideology is deadly, millions dead at the hands of it, and your denial perhaps more so. Your lack of shame makes you disgusting.
    2
  350.  @macicoinc9363  "Oh, and trust me, love the ad hominem arguments. It proves that you objectively don't know what you're talking about." Yep, still rings true! Thank you!
    2
  351.  @mitscientifica1569  Try again. 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?
    2
  352.  @mitscientifica1569  Yeah, sadly for you literally not one of those points is true. The Nazis Government did not control 87.6% of the economy, and you have no citation otherwise, as they did not in any way mean they controlled the means of production in all major industries including non-military and agriculture , and this is true in in 3 major ways you ignore: 1) They never placed Nazis Government Functionaries on all Corporate Governing Boards and in Senior Management Teams to insure their directives were carried out, instead preferring to give monetary incentives for companies to compete over 2) They didn't control pricing and wages of all German products, services and employees , and did not play major role in hiring and firing of employees, they left those up to the companies themselves 3) They did not set production targets for all industries and companies, allowing them to compete instead. In essence the Nazis Government was never the owner of the means of production for their entire economy, they allowed private business to do the majority of that. Furthermore, government ownership isn't socialism. Again. None of what you asserted accurately describes the nazi economy in any way.
    2
  353.  @TheImperatorKnight  dude. so, so many times, you've been pointed out the fact that hitler was not a socialist, based even on just your faulty definition. You've even admitted that calling hitler a socialist only works according to your definition... which no one uses. This is sad.
    2
  354.  @cheapbongs  You thought... what? You asked a number of questions, with no reference or refutation to a single thing I said. I answered them literally, and your response is... nothing, likely because you know I'm right. Just like I thought, lmao.
    2
  355.  @cheapbongs  Ahhh... so you're at the "denial" stage. Ideologues tend not to be able to handle when their narrative is disrupted with reality. I'm sorry, but you did nothing to defend this video against the refutations of its frankly absurd claims, as expected.
    2
  356.  @cheapbongs  Just saying "no" isn't a counter. You can't handle that this video, a bible of sorts for you, is long refuted. Rather than attempt to deal with this directly, you choose to spam questions and get offended when people answer them. I'm sorry, but you refusing to engage in good faith debate doesn't mean said debate hasn't happened, and isn't over. I'm sorry you can't get over this video being refuted.
    2
  357.  @cheapbongs  But it is pretty silly, that's like watching a single clip of this video and getting annoyed that he doesn't attempt to prove his claims, just because you didn't bother finding the rest of the video. You don't have to find the relevant threads, but if you're not willing to, maybe don't post blanket statements that rely on you having done so.
    2
  358. ​ @HannoBehrens  God that's a whole lot of nothing. 90% of it is you ranting like the religious fanatic you claim me to be. First off, yes I did watch it, but the thing is TIK pretty clearly neglects to actually address the reality of what happened, and rather tries to deflect from the actual historical occurrences. He tries to point to them killing socialists as some form of "ideological infighting" between marxist socialists and national socialists. The issue of course is that Hitler defined all socialism prior to him as "marxist" socialism, and utterly rejected every piece of it. Your statement then makes no sense, and here's a better example. Let's say a new sect of "Christians" rose up, except they didn't believe in Jesus or God, and thought in fact that the character's referenced in the bible are alien demons. They often killed Christians, and allied with modern pagan movements. Does that sound christian to you? That was the nazis and the socialists. The issue of course is that not only is the idea that the economy was under full state control not even close to true, but it wouldn't make them socialist. The monarchy did that, do you think that they were socialist? No, socialism has always called for worker ownership of the means of production, not state ownership. And here is something I feel I will have to keep telling you, but here it is - i'm not a socialist. But it's clear you know very little about socialism, history, or even humanity as concepts. There is a black market today, in America, not even counting the worldwide black market that exists on the internet. The issue is that the availability of a black market has nothing to do with the ability of a free market to exist. The EU isn't socialist at all, they're quite clearly capitalist, just as we are. You pretty clearly do not know what socialism is. It is obvious that Hitler was not a socialist, and ever fact, every definition, every connection and every piece of data you can find proves this. I am not a socialist, but even I can see how he doesn't fit at all. You clearly don't understand my position, and are arguing against the strawman version of it you have made up. In fact, it's far closer to your position. "but i'm right wing, totally not like hitler, and my far-right politics won't kill millions of people this time I swear! Just give me more power and i'll happily do it." And you lie, and say that hitler was a socialist, and history proves you wrong. If something screams like a goat, walks like a camel,and starves and kills like someone on the right, it sure as hell isn't a duck. You can yell all you want about how your murderous far-right political ideology is totally different from the other ones which was totally on the other side, but no one believes you. Mainly becase you act like a religious lunatic when you do it, all while accusing those you don't like of exactly that. Of course you call all of "us" the same, because only the "you" can be good, right? Which is nothing like what the nazis did... The modern american right is literally holding up swastikas. They are literally singing nazi songs and chanting nazi slogans. They are literally, not figuratively, literally, still heil-ing hitler. You have the same nationalistic policies, the same hatred of an outgroup you blame all of your problems on, the same restless xenophobia and hatred of the outside. You blame those you don't like for everything you are doing, which just perfectly encapsulates the nazis. You, like the people you claim to be talking about, will utterly ignore the death toll of your ideas, even as it increases daily, as every year millions more will die of preventable causes under capitalism. You then disrespect the lives of those who actually died under oppressive regimes by making up numbers like 150 million, drowning the very real tragedy in tens of millions of imaginary corpses, devaluing the cost of human life. Historians have already made their points clear - hitler was not a socialist, and the danger of the same far right which gave raise to him still exists today, no matter how much you try to cover it up. You chant "look the other way" as you continue to spread your evil. You of course have no idea what socialism even means, and you seek to call all you don't like or don't understand socialism. You can bet that if jesus was alive today, still saying the rich can't get into heaven, you would call him a dangerous murderous socialist. You don't know what socialism is, or even what atheism is now it seems. You seem to hate the idea of a system that you refuse to understand, which is the very same problem you attribute to the socialists, perhaps because you truly do lack the self awareness necessary to point out the failings of your ideas. Even now, you deflect from the problems of your own ideology. Millions starve every year, millions more die from medicine that they nor their country can afford, yet you seek to blame me for the failures of your system, the one that actually regularly brings out the worst of human kind? You can't even go a few lines without somehow brining islam into it, despite the fact of christianity's higher death toll. You call the socialists what hitler called the ews. Most historians actually don't agree with your conclusion, at all, which is why it has been common knowledge for literal decades that the nazis were not socialists. But you, like TIK, and like the nazis, blame the ideological discrepancies between your worldview and history on some form of "other." The nazis did it on the socialistic jews and it seems you are doing the same, just without the jewish part. The "better world" you claim I fight for, the one you claim is hidden under the hills of dead bodies and the bones of millions, that is the world we live in now, and the one you fight to drench even further with the blood of millions, and hide even further from history or empirical fact. You do it right now, by calling all you don't like a cult, by refusing to understand the world you actually live in. You deny science and history with every breath, and project it onto me, all while your death toll piles higher. And you do it again, calling all those you disagree with a cult, all while clinging to the superiority of a system you clearly want to cover up the bad parts of, and want to worship like the second coming. You want to hear about a "socialist" movement? The civil rights movement of america. Hell, you don't even seem to understand what internationality is. It's an idea predicated on the internationality of identity and class, but of course that is somehow demonic to you. By the way, cultural marxism was an idea that the nazis came up with. All that's been "replaced" in the world is your long outdated idiocy, and it's been replaced with actual research and learning. The future is dead if we don't change, not even figurately,but literally. People like you will deny the capitalism death toll, deny climate change, and will continue doing it until we are 10 feet underwater. Science is science, like it or not. You are literally now using newspeak, a system the nazis were famous for using and empowering. You use the same conspiracies that they did, just replace "jew" with socialist or marxist, and they line up perfectly. This is what I was talking about when I said that all connections point to hitler not being a socialist, because people like you in the modern day line up far more with his rhetoric and views.
    2
  359.  @HannoBehrens  The problem is, you don't know what the flag even is. You yourself wave it right now, but I can tell that when that next holocaust actually happens, you will somehow pin it on everyone else, just like you do now. You never even touched my arguments. What you say next is, I cannot stress this enough, something that the nazis quite literally might have said. They might have agreed with it, and many modern day neo nazis still might. But it's wrong. Nationality is not society. Society is not the state. There is no supernation, and it isn't controlled by the socialists. Hitler wasn't a socialist, he wanted no connections with the socialists, and peddled much of the same conspiracy theories as you do literally right now. And he was a fascist, but as usual you seem to apply your nuance in all the wrong places and seem not to understand that fascism isn't just about nation, but about ingroups and outgroups, and that can be based on race. The thing about socialism is that it is not a religion, nor is it one of hate. Your ideology on the other hand seems to embody that perfectly, with your mindless unwavering hate for a group you attribute to all you don't like, and one you so clearly don't understand. Of course, you refuse to see the Ursunde of capitalism, the idea of intrinsic merit, and also neglect to ignore the fluid nature of classes as defined by marx, which completely undermines your whole "point." But of course, everything is about religion, which is perhaps something you should reflect on. You seem to actually see socialism, an ideology that you don't understand and attribute to all you don't like, as evil. That is a religious kind of hate. Socialism could not care less about Christianity, no matter how much you try to draw some sort of religious connection between the two. There need not be a leader under socialism, but of course you would not know that. The connections, like most of your points, matter little and are of no use to the conversation. Perhaps before going on a rant worthy of a puritan preacher you should have asked if I actually followed this "evil cult of socialism," yes? Because half of this response has just been me saying to you, "No, I am not a socialist." You have this bizarre idea of reality, where all those you dislike seem to represent this oppressive, demonic entity, one you wholly seem to think truly is a force of only evil. Again, i'll remind you that it was partially the work of socialists that black folks were first freed from slavery, and then given equal rights, but i'm sure you'll ignore that. You cannot help but look at your fellow citizens as nothing but a "cog in the machine." The only people still using the "following orders" defense are those like ICE agents, who are a favorite of the right. You don't know me. You don't know who I am, what I am, or what I believe in. And you seem to have nothing to teach me. I have to remind you bud, you have no idea what I even believe in. You came into this whole thing with an assumption of socialism, an assumption of marxism, but every time you come out with a new unfounded accusation I have to remind you that not only are you wrong in your initial assumption of my supposed socialism and marxism, but you are wrong in your description and understanding of such ideologies. You call everyone, and I mean everyone, you don't like a marxist. I may very well say the same with you, it's impossible to convince you of the truth - you are a "believer," and you hold that one aspect of yourself above all others when it comes to discussion. You even use the same buzzwords, not only of the nazis, but of those who simply don't understand them. The word cognitive dissonance was first invented to describe those who were exposed to outward evidence that they were wrong, and instead of arguing against it or forming new ideas, they simply attacked those that proved them wrong. If any such label is to be used here, it should be applied to the "nazis are socialists" crowd. You are the one quite literally calling socialism the devil here, not me. Perhaps think on that for a bit. And here, you show said dissonance perfectly. You just went to complaining about a group who sees all that they are not as the same thing, as a system of absolute evil, and then start your next line with "for me there is no difference." Classic. You seem to really have a religious view of this whole thing, of somehow repenting or seeing a past that doesn't exist. I have to tell you, only you see the world in that lens. The rest of us? We just see it normally. The socialist history with the nazis is about as deep as the capitalist history. You clearly don't care about any of that history, it's just that to you socialism has become some sort of term to mean the literal devil, and nothing can change your mind. You try to point to them being some sort of cultish religious group, all while perfectly exhibiting the symptoms of said groups yourself. You call all that you do not like cultists, non-believers, those who have not repented. And you don't see the irony. You cannot expect to convince me that after that entire rant in which you specifically target opposing religions and praise Christianity, as well as turn everything into some sort of allegory, that your are not religious. If you truly are not, then I have to say you're very good at emulating a religious person. You can pretend to see your themes and similarities all you want, as I see them in you as well. But it's not people like you who will convince others that they are wrong. How can you expect otherwise? You literally are insulting me before even asking me on my position on the issue. I am here talking to you, not for my own sake, but for yours. And I ask you, as a fellow person, as a citizen, and as a skeptic... is this truly how you see the world? As black and white, good and evil? I'm afraid that just isn't how the world works. Add some nuance to your life. It's amazing.
    2
  360.  @slashdotbeckett6020  Sorry about that, I just wanted to address the essayist above first. In any case, sure, i'm fine with setting aside the whole postmodernist thing, I just thought it was something being pointed out. The reason the "worker" title was specified was because I just wanted to give a rather short version, but essentially the original ideas of socialism did largely revolve around those who worked within or for certain businesses and industries managing said industries collectively. While what counts as a worker, and how that statement is meant to be applied will change, though. For example, you rightly point out that the idea of a worker as we understand it in the modern world wasn't really around in the origin and pre-origin of socialism. However, the sentiment still largely stood, that the means of production was to be managed primarily by those that operated it. As for your examples, while those groups certainly did stand as inspirations for later movements, from socialism to anarchism, they existed in a time before "socialism" as a concept even really solidified. One could still call them a socialist, but I generally hesitate to call people by names that did not exist when they did. Just like one wouldn't really call any pre-smith proponents of market systems like Josiah Child "capitalists." In any case, your next question. I would consider a worker normally just one who works, and that can be on any variety of things, anywhere up and down the chains. There are some industries, or enterprises, that don't really fit the idea of worker ownership. And within socialism, there are plenty of different concepts for how that ownership would be managed. In terms of you question, I would consider all of those you mentioned to be workers under a socialist system, though the method of a collectively-owned farm and a collectively-owned hospital would undoubtedly be different in terms of how said entities would be run. As for this next question I certainly think it's an interesting one, and one I have not seen addressed that much, though I do believe I have seen it answered before. First off, I would hope in such a society that those people would not need to work to survive, and that they can benefit without it, but that doesn't quite answer your question. To that, I suppose it would matter the industry in question. If these people were seasoned experts on certain things I have no doubt that their input would be a kind of "work," and one which would obviously necessitate their ownership in the industry. But if it's a case of strong manual labor or something of the sort, they most likely would not carry ownership of that industry, that is if they're not impacting it in some other way, such as training or recording data. And while I would not object to socialism being defined as ownership by the collective, the issue then is that different but related ideologies get put in. Anarchism, for example, would largely be a form of socialism now, not just a tangentially related ideology. Same with communism. Again, I don't wholly object to your definition, but from what i've seen of socialism it tends to target the industry and production far more than the community as a whole. I hope that all satisfactorily answers what you asked.
    2
  361.  @HannoBehrens  Wow you really do type a lot. I already answered your bizarre ramblings earlier, and reminded you that your perception of me could not be further from the truth. As I have already responded to all of your religious statements earlier, I will only say this to you - if you truly see all that disagree with you as only cultists, as morally or intellectually compromised, as fundamentally evil and incorrect on every little thing when they are not just ignorant, it is not them who is in some sort of cult. It is you. I am not a socialist, but no socialist has ever accused me of being literally evil, nor have they treated me as some child who cannot comprehend reality for the sole reason I disagreed with them. The vast majority of your comment is just an insult, and an attempt to discredit me from all further discussions. And that is not something I can respect in a person.
    2
  362.  @HannoBehrens  I'm not sure if you're aware, but i've been here for more than the time you've seen me here. TIK himself alluded to it, but i've been on-and-off arguing in this comment section for a few weeks now. So yes, I have watched the video in question, as well as a few others of his, including his video on defining public vs private, his first and second video on NS, ect. And yes, while I haven't had time to individually read through the entirety of every one of the longer works he cited, I certainly did make sure his facts were included within them, and checked them for reliability. The issue of course is not entirely with the facts, and let me explain why - let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am someone who legitimately thinks that capitalism is the color black, and everything that is black, or everyone that wears that color, is capitalist. With this logic, I could easily point out the hundreds of pieces of evidence we have of the nazis wearing black, coloring things black, or even talking about the color, such as what it represents on their flag. If you were to bring up that the color black is not capitalist, I could do what TIK does, and then find some obscure centuries-old quote or definition that loosely correlates the color black with a facet of capitalism. And if that doesn't appease you, well i'll just call you a racist, a fascist, an anti-semite, a troll, a marxist, a postmodernist, ect as TIK has called me. Do you see the problem with that? Undoubtedly TIK has lots of sources, but they go towards proving the nazis wore black, if you catch my meaning. My job is not to argue with you on the facts, because the facts are plainly obvious, and hitler was not a socialist. You know the facts, the issue is, you're either letting your own bias get in the way of your understanding of said facts, or you're mistaken in key areas on issues that can easily be explained. As I told you, I am not a marxist, but it seems like the very parrot you seemingly insult you like to repeat that idea, over and over, until the end of time. There is, of course, no doubt that hitler was not a socialist. In the beginning he did not want to go by that name, but as his part adopted it and he was forced to, he found himself redefining socialism to mean nationalism, as was the very first argument I showed you. So we know that whenever he called himself a socialist, the rarity that it was, that's what he meant. He didn't act as a socialist, certainly, he seemed to despise the idea of equality, forced or natural. And, finally, you should know that socialism is not just (or even) state control of the economy. These are all things I have already pointed out to you, things that you should have known better than to bring up again. It is though, very telling that you try to excuse the ownership of private property and existence of markets under hitler. First off, though this really does not matter as plenty of non-socialist ideologies do not allow for property rights, just because your unimpeded right to something is revoked doesn't mean that you no longer have it. If, say, a parent were to say that a child could only play games if he did his homework, his "right" to the sole ownership of those games is taken away, yet he can still play them. There is a difference between removing people's guarantee to something, and actually removing that thing from them. Obviously, industrial leaders controlling it at all makes it not socialist. And I see how even now you try to slip in an insult, but really, it only detracts from your argument. I know your position. And again, not only does the existence of a market prove it really wasn't socialist, but the action of state ownership in that market cannot prove it was socialist. Did the workers own the means of production? No? Not socialist. Just so you know, by the way, it's usually a good rule of thumb when looking over history, but you generally don't want to take the Minister of Propaganda's word on anything, especially when those words are delivered in a speech to the public. You have actually stumbled on a part of their anti-socialist ideology though, many of the nationalizations and state controls were not done for ideological reasons, but for the purpose of total war, not just against the enemy nations, but against huge swathes of their own population. Like it or not, the markets still existed. People still owned private property. And the state's ability to take that all away doesn't make it socialist. Now of course there is one more thing to be brought up - TIK has not prepared you for the actual counter-arguments that you will face. Because, as me and a few of his other critics have pointed out, very few people earnestly argue that the nazis were capitalists, and for good reason. TIK, however wants to convince you that those are the opinions people like me hold. Doesn't that annoy you a little bit? Shake your faith in him? Because the nazis were not capitalists, just as much as they were not socialists. Politics is not binary, as I hope you know by now. Nazi germany was not capitalist. Nazi germany was not socialist. Those statements are equally true. The problem of course is that you've decided that the pebble I kicked up was actually a brick that fell on my foot, and are trying to argue that it really was. My foot is still there, and the pebble is a few feet away, but you're already calling an ambulance and trying to figure out where to get me a cane. So stop for a second, let that inner skepticism come out, and question if you even saw the brick falling in the first place, and if so, where did it fall from? From how high up? Why is my foot still there? Obviously this is unrelated, but my point is that you really ought to introduce more nuance to your life. Ah, and finally, an argument! This is good, it's progress. So, first off, socialism is not taking control of the means of production for a collective. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production as a collective. This can be done by the state, but that state has to accurately represent worker interests. Does that sounds like the nazi economy to you? I mean, disbanding the right to collective bargaining is the direct opposite of that. Second, the nazis didn't do that, they couldn't care less about the collective. Do you know why? Well, the collective included black people, jewish people, disabled people, gay people, people that disagreed with them, people who fought against them, bolsheviks, the list goes on. Now you might say "well they were talking about the aryan collective!" but they didn't even care about that. After all, not only were their anti-nazi aryans, gay aryans, disabled aryans, ect, but they never actually gave the means of production to the direct control of even just the aryans that fit their criteria. Rather, they gave it to the control of the state, and industrial leaders. When you're putting thousands of people in camps because they disagree with you, you couldn't care less about the collective. And finally, obviously, they didn't even take full control of the means of production. If there is private ownership of private property, and not collective ownership of said property by the workers, it cannot be socialism. To take your arguments and use them against you - the state owning something does not mean socialism if the workers have no control over the use of it, neither are the allocations of said profits decided by them. The system you are describing not only does not exist as you described it... but wouldn't be socialist even if it did. As I said earlier, the argument that they are socialist is disproven not only with the definition of socialism, but with the associations the nazis themselves harbored, with capitalists, conservatives, and industrialists, all against the socialists. And that's the key, that while in the best of occasions you do have aspects of the truth, you are trying to prove not that they were socialist, but that they were authoritarian. What you're attempting is to prove that the nazis wore black.
    2
  363. ​ @HannoBehrens  ​ Why do you have an obsession with making long posts that are just 90% moral judgments and fanatic insults? You could at lest pretend to address my arguments. Also, my name is spelled "Aidan." I do find it funny that right after complaining about me supposedly strawmanning your arguments (and not telling me how or correcting me) your feel the need to instantly strawman socialists, by saying that they make decisions solely based on ideology. I'll give you a hint - there's a reason it's called "Dialectical Materialism" and "Scientific Socialism," and while you may disagree with their conclusions, you cannot write off their observations so easily. You also further strawman by saying all socialism is authoritarian, which i'm sure that Proudhon would have disputed, or even really marx, who wrote papers against taxation and in favor of the right to bear arms. In fact, the only time I can remember him actively calling for government interference is the time he called on the american government to free the slaves. As for mass starvation, oh buddy, that isn't socialism. That's happening under capitalism, right now.The issue is that everyone "waving the flag" does know what they're calling for, they do know the associations - you just don't. You want to punish people for your imagined crimes, all the while blaming it on them. Of course (as I've said) you would call them evil, from a 100 year history you largely don't understand, but you refuse to take even a smidgen of accountability from the own historical,and genocidal failures of your ideology. I am not a socialist, but even I know they are not evil. The issue is, all while you're attempting to condemn hitler, you're empowering his ideological descendants. After all, as I said, if you blame the actions of Hitler on socialists, you're deflecting from the actual perpetrators of those actions, and blaming an unrelated group. You're also, to a letter, following his propaganda of the murderous, secretly-supported socialist in the media. And those narratives didn't turn out well to the millions of innocent people that the nazis labeled as "socialists," only to be thrown in camps that would end their lives. You also seem to be falling into the very real trap of defending hitler by association, because I can tell you this - there is not a person alive or dead that was more close to pure evil than Hitler. Stalin, Mao, Xi, they are all terrible people, no doubt, but they all received their comeuppance and largely their work has been abandoned and reversed. But Hitler? Hitler's influence still exists. The right still calls for genocide in his name. Those countries, those regimes, for as evil as they were they didn't push an ideology of racial superiority, of constant warfare with the races of those they deem inferior. To quote a historian: "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union. The more you compare Communism and Nazism, the more the differences are obvious. When Stalin's successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution. Courtois' comparison of 100 million victims of Communism to 25 million victims of Nazism leaves out out most of the 40-60,000,000 lives lost in the Second World War, for which arguably Hitler and not Stalin was principally responsible." Or, perhaps to put it into perspective - "Supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book to India, the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone." ("Russian Terror/ism and Revisionist Historiography", https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm) Your narrative of somehow the others being worse not only ignores the vast majority of hitler's deaths, and his ideology, as well as excusing your own ideology. You, right now, are helping the resurgence of those who want to finish what hitler started. There is a reason society does not despise the red flag as much they do the swastika, one you seem not to understand, and I don't think that is something that I can change in you. But I will tell you this - if you want to ban those flags, or celebrate both s equally evil, I will call for you to do the same with the flags of the American and British empire. Hitler is not a socialist. That's for sure. You, right now, are defending the very same conspiracies and notions that the modern fascists rely upon to spread their ideology and propaganda. It's intensely ironic that TIK has the gall to say that denying Hitler's supposed socialism is akin to denying the Holocaust, because TIK himself has a habit of denying genocide, and in fact in this very same comment section found himself praising and taking the side of a real Holocaust denialist against a jewish america. To call hitler a socialist not only denies the holocaust, but hastens the journey to a new one. You don't get to spend hours typing up responses about my supposed irrationality after calling all those that disagree with you evil, deluded, conspiratorial, and utterly devoid of morals. That is not something I can accept in good faith. I have built up my ideas, unlike you and TIK, from the acceptance of facts that contradict my worldview, and internalizing them. I used to be in your position, with your opinions. I grew out of it. You assume I am a socialist or marxist because it is your ideology that is incompatible with facts, with history, and with objective data, and your ideology that needs to justify itself with the accusations of conspiracy in others. I believe what I believe, and that system is unimportant to this conversation. Your near-religious fanaticism, however, is. The reason I continue to argue is because, put quite simply, I am not wrong. I am right. And your inability to prove otherwise makes me only feel more and more as if this is the case. Madness is to repeat something over and over again and expecting different results even if that never happens, never happened, like saying hitler was a socialist. Your ideology, your historical revisionism, is madness. It's an ideology revolving far more around the hatred of others than the pushing of any concrete ideas, which of course allows for that movement to be coopted by those who really do want to commit genocide again. National Socialism, as TIK and you have definatively proven, cannot be associated with socialism. Not only is there a different good guy, a different bad guy, but a different... everything else. And you know that, of course, you point it out. According to your logic, capitalism is a kind of socialism. Your entire responses have been nothing but insults, moral judgements, accusations of irrationality and evil. You see, the problem is, I responded to you with a factual argument. You know that, you must have read it. But how much time did you devote to disproving my points? A whole paragraph. And since then, you have yet to respond to a single one of my points. How can you claim to represent the path of sanity and rationality when you so clearly cannot do anything but pose as morally superior and rain down insults? Every time you do so, you only strengthen my convictions. As i've said, it's not people like you who can convince others. It's people who are, first of all right, but most importantly can actually address my arguments. Neither you, nor TIK, can do that. I am not a troll, as both you and TIK know. And why do you call me a troll? Well, simply because I am a heretic to you, an unbeliever. And it's easier for you to pretend I have engaged and written the equivalent of professional essays for the goal of bad faith tear-wrenching, and not because I care about the misconceptions this video pushes. I cannot in good faith reccomend this video to a single soul, not just because it utterly fails to prove its hypothesis, but because the person who created said video is utterly unable to contain his disgust for us "heretics," us who actually apply skepticism to our lives. I don't care about provocations, nor tears. I care about history.
    2
  364.  @paulroberts117  Just... no. There is no such thing as right wing socialism. It has nothing in common with socialism.
    2
  365.  @paulroberts117  You... realize that you just discredited your whole argument right? You complained about "leftoids" labeling things and then you called me a liberal. That's just about the most braindead thing you can call a leftist. Jeez, thanks for proving me right.
    2
  366.  @paulroberts117  Oh, child. You really are like, what, 10 right? You seem to have no vocabulary besides buzzwords you learned on reddit. So yes, you did play the virtue signalling card, because you and I both know that you're objectively incorrect. You also have no real evidence, because of course you don't, why would you bother with something as silly as empirical fact? I have done objective research, which is why it's easy to point out that Spengler was just an an angry capitalist who didn't like the idea that capitalism was fading away. You can cry about your mythical right wing socialism all you want, it won't make it true, and neither will your reddit links. But please, keep crying in my notifications about how you're totally the rational one, while using words like "leftiods" and calling leftists liberals.
    2
  367.  @paulroberts117  ah, and here it is! When asked for proof, what do you have? Pith comments and utter nonsense. Its to be expected really but I hoped for better
    2
  368.  @fallingfallingfallingfalli500  And you can also find holocaust survivors calling trump a pre-hitler figure.
    2
  369.  @benedictjajo  Wow. Amazing reply, dude. Truly, some stunning intellect. Is that really all you have, child like insults while saying you grew up?
    2
  370.  @Samson150397  yeah that makes no sense, the socialists of today aren't even close to any rational definition of fascism.
    2
  371.  @yohannbiimu  Gosh, incorrect on all counts. First of all, here's the thing bud - you can disagree with socialism, you can hate it, you can objectively think it's the worst idea ever made and objectively (think you) know it will fail over and over again. That will not, and can not, change the definition. In this entire response, you show about two seconds of argument, and then go off on a gian tangent about how much you hate socialism. but sure, i'll address that first. First off, you're talking specifically about statist socialism, which isn't the only type. Communism is the system in which the state dissolves, but there are forms of socialism that attempt to accomplish just that. So what would you define as a government? And I don't much care what you think, it's irrelevant to the conversation. Now, here's the thing - state ownership and public ownership are vastly different things. The state currently owns the military, yet the military is not a public creation, we have no power over, that power all goes to the state. Saying the people owning something is the same as the government owning something would be like saying the people voting is the same as a dictatorship, whee the government "votes" and only for itself. Now, about hitler. First off, his goals were not utopian, not in goals and certainly not in application. Hitler did not want a perfect world, or a perfect country even for all germans, he wanted a Strong country for all of His Germans. I mean, he literally put millions in camps. That is not looking out for your people. Nazism came into existence because left wing populism was on the rise, and the nationalists and upper classes wanted to dip their toes into the populist pool. He was not a socialist, which can be found in his writings. Socialism is defined as a state where the workers own the means of production, and hitler outright stated that he had no intention of achieving this kind of socialism, in any form. Rather he wanted a nationalist dictatorship which defied the will of the people, and in fact succumbed more to the rule of private interests. Again,he outright stated these things, and I would be happy to provide quotation if you'd like. He didn't have a socialist bone in his body, he used the name to gain voter appeal.
    2
  372.  @kitrichardson5573  Oh my gosh, you people are in a cult. "thak you for affirming my political views. I don't trust any actual experts, random people on the internet will affirm my point much more often so why should I bother. The fact that i don't understand how debate works is the left's fault. Every single piece of "evidence" you have has been addressed, and yet i'm sure you'll continue to go along with you lie, because it's easier that actually having to critically self examine your own ideas and not lashing out at the perceived enemy whenever you feel like it. You seem to have the issue that all of the right does, which is that you love to misdefine terms to create an association fallacy with those you refuse to engage with on other grounds, all while excusing your own genocidal ideas. I can point out that figures like Hellen Keller, MLK Jr, and Van Gogh were socialists who undoubtedly had a positive impact on the world. In fact, so was Nelson Mandela, and he committed no genocides. So again, what you're doing is shifting as much blame as possible. And then of course we have the classic rightie line where they exclaim they know better than schools which is just amazing to hear, always, and some good old fear mongering. I actually care about learning history, not misdefining and obfuscating it with a clear ideological goal as you all are doing. It's a shame the right wants to bury their history so much.
    2
  373.  @kitrichardson5573  No, it really doesn't. If there is a term, then the term is relating to some sort of system. You may not like the etymology of the term used, but that does not erase the actual meaning behind said term. And again, it's really telling that you guys have such a problem with addressing critics of your false revisionism, because you can't even acknowledge the arguments, much less pretend to care about addressing them. The ironic thing is that TIK has been arguing this way to me for a while now, saying the only way you would ever actually define socialism as according to the people who advocate for it are either brainwashed people spilling marxist propaganda, ignorant, or just plain dishonest. And mate, you said you think liberals are the same as leftists. You try to paint everyone on "the left" as holding a consistent set of beliefs, which is utterly not true. The sooner you actually dip your toe into understanding your opponents, the better of a person you'll be, and even better yet, the more effectively you will be able to debate your own point. Writing off everyone who disagrees with you as mentally deficient only really weakens your own argument.
    2
  374.  @captainremington5109  I can do you one better - I did watch the video, and it like you is hilariously wrong. There, that wasn't that hard!
    2
  375.  @captainremington5109  so you don't know what socialism is. The problem with those that call hitler a socialist is that they either have to lie about his actions, or expand the definition of socialism to include even themselves, usually both. Hitler was not a socialist, not just because his social views utterly discounted him from the left, but because he left the means of production in the hands of private citizens. Those private citizens often followed nazism or joined the nazi party, because it profited them. Is profit not private now? and no, he never gave the means of production to "the society." He despised social ownership, upheld private ownership, and only used state intervention when absolutely necessary.
    2
  376.  @captainremington5109  So you've literally proven my point. No, I haven't expanded the definition of socialism at all, nor do I deal with the type of manipulation you proudly engage in, i've simply used the dictionary definition that you yourself put forward, only serving to further clarify the terms. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and you can't stand this fact. In nazi germany, social ownership was impossible, outlawed even more than it is in a capitalist society. Private owners owned the vast majority of means of production, even more than under the capitalist Weimar Republic. You have tried to redefine social ownership as "ownership by individuals within a society." Again, you prove my earlier point. Right wingers have to expand the definition of socialism so much it includes themselves. By your definition, capitalism is socialism. In a capitalist society, if you were not a part of the society, you owned nothing. If your business did not benefit the society, it would shut down. If you were apart from society, you didn't have a means of production to have a right to. So to you, capitalism is socialism. In reality, social ownership is not ownership by people living in society, and to claim the society of nazi germany was the nazi party is blatant holocaust denial. You are asserting that the society was the party, and that the party owned everything. Both of these assertions are false. The society of germany was not one singular party, the society was all people in that country at the time, and they were ore often than not the victims of the nazis. The means of production were owned by private individuals, which were in many cases not nazi party members, and sometimes not even german citizens. On both points your attempted redefinition fails. Social ownership is not ownership within a society. Societies are not singular parties. The nazi party didn't own all means of production. According to your definition, the entire world is socialist, you among its strongest supporters. According to your definition, jewish people were voluntary actors in their own genocide. Disgusting. The labor camps weren't for show, yes, nor were they for economic reasons like your denialist narrative tells. They were meant to kill the jewish people, socialist people, unionist people, "degenerate/lazy" people of society, and so on. Social ownership includes those people, by definition. The nazis did not. Those people were a part of society, and those camps were meant to kill them, not to "control their means of production." You can't even keep your own redefinition of socialism straight. You are a holocaust apologist.
    2
  377. ​ @captainremington5109  Funny how you call me an idiot, despite not knowing that more often than not, l*bor camps and d**th camps were one and the same. If you were sent to a camp you would likely l*****bor until it was your turn to be shot or led to those horrible chambers, and if you were forced into a nazi labor camp, you were just handed a d*******th sentence. No, literally anyone that knows history knows that your literal H-CAUST DENIALIST arguments are long disproven, despite you literally using the arguments of modern nazis. No, most victims were not "worked to death." A few sadly did die as a result of the constant strain that was levied on them at the hands of the nazi labor demands, but more often than not it wasn't the labor but lack of supplies, disease, beatings, chemical weapons or mass shooting squads that ended their lives. The myth that the basis of H**tler's mass extermination was only out of economic or labor need is disgusting. No, they were put there out of a deep ideological hatred for their conditions, behaviors, beliefs, religious views or ethnic identities. The pushing of the former myth in spite of the latter facts is textbook denialism. The work they did ended up helping his regime, though it was not the reason for their imprisonment as you assert, nor did his regime rely upon it Deflecting your apologia and denialism on me is absolutely disgusting and has no place in any rational discussion. And you don't even understand your own definition of socialist. Here you assert that most of the world isn't socialist because there is private ownership over the means of production. You fail to mention, however, that your definition of socialism includes private ownership. According to you, social ownership is ownership by an individual within a society, or ownership with the purpose of benefitting society. Now of course this isn't the definition at all, but your definition includes private business owners. In capitalist societies, you are required by the society (consumers) to produce things for the society. (consumers) If you don't produce what the society/consumers want, your business gets no profit, and fails. So yes, according to you capitalism is socialism, the world is socialist, and you are too. In any case, your definitions are all wrong. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, meaning ownership by the collective/community/society as a whole. Not just one group that claims to speak for society, nor one political party, ownership by every individual, collectively. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, a system that fits the definition of socialism according to you. A system in which society requires buisiness to do something for it has nothing to do with socialism, that just describes modern society. It doesn't describe the nazis either, given that you assert their "society" was just the party (h******st denialism) and that this party worked for the people under it, which is again, false and apologia. What you assert doesn't happen "outside of socialist nations" happens in every nation on earth. You don't know what socialism or social ownership are, denialist.
    2
  378.  @richardbonnette490  He didn't have a response though. Never did, even when he was replying to me, which is why his supposed "Arguments" are so vapid and easily refuted. Why are you so keen to run to conspiracy theories? And if he tried to "tell" me that i'd laugh and refute him easily, as I already have - because none of that is true. Socialism is not "group control of the means of production" given that literally every economic system from feudalism to capitalism has a group in control of the means of production, even if said groups is just "the owners." Hitler didn't practice socialism, nor did he have any desire to, and while state control is obviously not the definition of socialism he didn't even practice that given his support of private property, profit, and competition. Do you think policing is "socialism" to? It's odd, you define socialism as "group control" yet only think people are socialist when it's the state supposedly in control, what about when private groups are in control? Would the Weimar Republic not be socialist according to you? This is why your arguments are so easily debunked, they make no sense from the get-go. But go ahead, try to "tell" me something I already easily proved wrong, that should go well for you. I'm sure you have some fantasy of your buddy here "epically owning" me, but clearly that has no actual basis in reality. Both of you seem unwilling to accept even the most basic facts of history, so i'm not sure what your fantasy victory would entail, besides me instantly checking your statements to find them false. Kid, his comments are weeks old at this point, I think it's more than fair to say he's done with this, so not sure why you're deciding to bring it up again after weeks. What a "break" huh.
    2
  379.  @OUTERPANGEA  my goal is to easily prove denialists wrong, and so far i've succeeded quite easily.
    2
  380.  @mitscientifica1569  Awww, you still think i'm a marxist? Cope, child.
    2
  381.  @prithvisukka9271  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure ur that i've watched the video, which is why i'm able to offer such specific and in-depth criticisms of it. Come on, not hard.
    2
  382.  @prithvisukka9271  Do you have any actual evidence for that assertion or no? I'm guessing the latter.
    2
  383.  @prithvisukka9271  Lmao "according to this video." According to this video, marxists want to "socialize the working class," whereas nazis want to "socialize the race." Of course, this is utter nonsense in boith economic and political terms, but that is how TIK describes it, no?
    2
  384.  @prithvisukka9271  Oh it is though, utter nonsense, which requires ignoring the whole of hitler's economic policy, the whole of the history of socialism, the definition of marxism, the economic usage of the term "socialize," and so much more, to even believe. TIK's definitions are utterly incorrect and laughably false, but hey, looks like I proved my point.
    2
  385.  @prithvisukka9271  Sorry, that's false. Hitler's policies were resoundingly the opposite, in favor of privatizing companies and appealing to said private owners with contracts and policies which would further cement their power. The state in many cases couldn't force these companies to do things, so instead, they were bribed. This, of course, is the opposite of nationalization. Furthermore, hitler made it clear that he never held the goal of total nationalization, stating numerous times that he believed that a planned economy would ruin germany's industry. In fact, he praised private property and competition, and the vast majority of his more statist economic policies were only put in place late into the war, and were meant to be temporary. If hitler won the war, those policies would have been taken back, and he would continue having no desire to "fully nationalize," or nationalize at all.
    2
  386.  @alexisleskinen6090  A method of historical analysis focusing on class differences and historical class struggle.
    2
  387.  @alexisleskinen6090  Nope, not my definition, it's literally just the definition of marxism that has been used since he first popularized it. Quoted from a book by Richard Wolff: "Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation."
    2
  388.  @prithvisukka9271  why am I not surprised that you don't have anything of value to add,
    2
  389.  @prithvisukka9271  try actual research next time - not propaganda
    2
  390.  @prithvisukka9271  You only insult me because you know you have nothing better to respond with. Sorry, maybe do some self-reflection?
    2
  391.  @prithvisukka9271  Sorry for exposing you to factual information after you replied asking for that very information?
    2
  392.  @Isildurwasbetrayed  About the usual quality of counter arguments I expect from this crowd.
    2
  393.  @TheImperatorKnight  Was that when you realized that your argument had been disproven, you worshiped racists and fascist sympathizers, and that you were far more ant-semetic and hypocritical than your opposition? Running away from the conversations that prove you wrong don't make them vanish. Every time you copy paste this same response, you prove further your lack of ideological consistency. It seems you are willing to take on any stance, as long as you "win" the argument.
    2
  394.  @jamiengo2343  By party name? Yes. If you were to line up the policies of him and the republicans to their modern counterparts? Not really.
    2
  395. @IL NGR We literally have proof lincoln read marx, he wrote back to marx's letter for gods sake. Marx also wrote for the first republican newspaper, rune by Horace Greeley, who was not only the man who invented the "GOP" acronym, but was a feminist, vegan, socialist. Oh, and he ran several branches of the republican party. The socialist movement was already booming in the 1800s.
    2
  396. @IL NGR Oh really? Well he did actually put into place a law to "prevent a man from getting rich" (the first income tax) but let's hear another quote. "Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Also, I never implied he was a communist, child.
    2
  397. @IL NGR Was he a democrat by name? No. Do I care about what party he would have belonged to? Not really. Was he undeniably part of the leftmost party, the one socialists were a part of, and endorsed? Yes.And I really don't care about your nonsense assertions, because it's clear you don't know anything about teaching. If whoever you were referencing actually had an entire class failing, a) the class wouldn'tbe failing, they'd curve the grades to make up for the average and b) that teacher would be fired instantly. I couldn't care less about your anecdotes, we're talking about history.
    2
  398. @IL NGR The idea that academia is left wing is one started by the literal nazis, and continued by the cold war american right. It isn't true.
    2
  399.  @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 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. //:/
    2
  400.  @lexlex44  Not only did the irish famine happen, but it was due to colonialism/imperialism, government intervention and the very nature of capitalism and some diseases. It had nothing to do with non-capitalist sources, actually, since the Irish had capitalist rights, the famine was not at all averted, and all the capitalist propaganda in the world can't change the fact that the deaths from that famine and the famine itself were directly caused by capitalism. Capitalism doesn't allow individuals to profit fully from their work, and fixing prices individually wouldn't change the capitalist famine.
    2
  401.  @lexlex44  Capitalism is literally the system that has in the modern day profited most from slavery It was done by capitalists for capitalist economic activity..?" Capitalism is for "owning means of production", slavery is a direct result of that ! You are manipulating facts and creating problems that are not there ! Slavery existed simply due to lack of humans rights caused by capitalists, , colonialism and imperialism, and of course capitalism,Your arguments are childish, flawed and senseless. Capitalists had by far the most slaves in any historical sense, and your assertions otherwise have literally no backing. "When horrible shit happens under capitalism, because of capitalism, people ignore it and pretend it's just happened by accident." Your brain is wither weak or you are just lying, I said that slavery was due to colonialism, lack or rights and imperialism, all products of capitalism, not by accident, you only see what you want to see to suit your capitalist narrative. " It's literally only because a capitalist has the money to import slaves, and the power to keep them in slavery, that the Atlantic slave trade happened." Yes, you are a child, that's literally true, communists can't also have money or slaves, unlike capitalists with both. ! Just because money can be used to buy drugs it doesn't mean that money is bad, but capitalism funding slavery makes capitalism bad. " I'm very well aware the other guy was too much of a dumbfuck to connect the dots between the Irish Famine and capitalism. But when all of your comebacks are "no, bullshit" for a week you get so boring to talk to that the discussion just gets cut off. There's no point in explaining that to him when he's just gonna throw it aside and continue on with his NPC dialogue tree about how I'm dumb and communism is bad." - I saw you comebacks and they were logical and historically nonsensical, you are a dumb person if you think that your arguments were anything but that ! We pointed that slavery literally happens because of capitalism, and because of the lack of rights, imperialism and colonialism + government intervention that capitalism brings with it ! This is how slavery starts and it's how the irish famine happened, but you are too much of a NPC brain to see that ! WHy don't you want to admit that slavery exists in EUROPE AND AMERICA right now ? And Japan ? And Russia ? Because people's rights aren't respected, since all these countries have capitalism and there is still slavery ! So all of his arguments about capitalism=slavery are not only absolutely true ! But you are showing your capacity when you say that the contrary arguments are NPC arguments ! All you basically said(and I read your comments) was just nonsensical crap.You had 0 arguments and proof ! You say the same wrong crap, over and over, you see problems that are not there, and accuse people and non-capitalism with things that have no relation.That guy was right, you live in your head, and that's a damn little world.
    2
  402.  @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
  403.  @mitscientifica1569  Propaganda does not an argument make, MIT.
    2
  404.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    2
  405.  @paulrevere2379  Wait, i'm sorry, were you under the impression that mass political imprisonment and murder aren't happening in modern day russia, or similar right wing countries like the united states? "a cruel precarious confined existence in a Gulag work camp very likely to end in death imposed for no reason other than being accused of having independent political thoughts." Congratulations, you've just described modern russia, except the work camp is the whole country, and it's a punishment not just levied at political dissidents but the entire population, though to be sure those that resist the right wing leadership get it worse. No, i'm sorry, it's a simple fact that life before the collapse of the USSR was better for the average russian citizen, and they are happy to tell you that. If you have a problem with cruel prison systems like the one described, why are you such a fan of the US and modern russia? Why are you comparing the worst experience then to the best now? Seems a bit of a poor comparison, eh? Sure, feel free to watch videos of russian citizens "freely travelling," (unless they're 'vanished' by the government or can't because they live in perpetual poverty) "freely speaking their minds," (unless they speak out against the leaders) "Sharing their opinions," (unless said opinions go against the views of the leadership) and "working at jobs of their own choosing. (the only ones available that they are all but forced to take in order to live and support those they love.) What about any of that is "Free?" It seems your hatred for a system you hate ideologically has blinded you to the reality of a system you defend, simply because it doesn't have the word socialist in the name. Good to know you know nothing of actually living there or being a citizen though, I could have guessed as much.
    2
  406.  @paulrevere2379  Do you not think your time or effort can be stolen? So you advocate for their theft. If someone is physically forced to do something against their will, it is more often than not encouraged in a capitalist economy, and thus never truly criminalized. So you admit capitalism is despotic. The very fact that you make expectations and justify use of violence and force proves my point exceptionally. "Free"-market capitalism is a thing that exists through the continuous force of government alone. The government, under capitalism, has the key and primary goal of violently defending a "right" to private property that causes constant harm to those who don't own said property. You, of course, defend this violent intrusion on the freedoms of others as "self defense," which is why no capitalist can be trusted to write laws, they simply outlaw and criminalize self defense against their violence. Violently enforcing private property does nothing to stop infringing upon others, it only enforces it. "Criminal trespassing," or as freedom-lovers know it as, "freedom of movement," is a violent action with no positive benefit to citizens. Freedom is not a crime against freedom. There is no imposition of rights involved in your authoritarian nonsense. Citizens are explicitly harmed by your "protection" of their tormentors. Negligence of this duty has never hurt anyone but those who hurt others, and are open now to self defense. The only place authoritarians like you believe that government imposes is when it puts in place policies that resist your authoritarianism. I should hope they reject your tyrannical ideas, however more often than not, they don't. Profit is as much theft as taxation, and a capitalist government using your taxes with the explicit goal of defending capitalism isn't socialistic at all. As we've been over, you don't know what socialism is. It is government agencies that enforce the "free" market and impose it upon people. That's not oxymoronic, it's near synonymous. And yes. Halting the freedom of movement, criminalizing the action of daring to seek refuge or work outside of arbitrarily drawn and state enforced borders is a case of capitalist government imposed harm. Why is that so hard for you to believe? Why do you have to make up some narrative about me mistyping something to deal with your economic illiteracy? No, travel isn't "naturally expensive," certainly not to the degree that modern capitalist states make it. We've already been over that you nothing about the history or philosophical associations of travel. In actual history, not just your made up theological metaphors, travel was free. The only cost it came with was opportunity cost, and the physical toll on your body. No borders to stop you, no border guards to demand payment, no government to stop you. And then, the capitalists came, and the very act of stepping an inch over a line only they can see became a criminal offense. If you don't wish for travel to be expensive, perhaps you should stop advocating for the strict criminalization of travel? No, it isn't government restrictions and taxes, but the capitalists that profit off of them. It's funny how it was the early US that inspired socialists, while your ideology comes directly from totalitarianism, but being the opposite of correct is not new to you.
    2
  407.  @paulrevere2379  Then your imagination, much like your critical thinking skills, are incredibly deficient. There's nothing free about the capitalist market. If you weren't forced to participate in it, why would you? Why would anyone subject themselves to hours and hours of labor a day that they had no connection to and no understanding of? No, they work because there exists a threat directed at them. If they do not work, they do not eat. Of course, the problem with your line of "logic" is that you have decided that your theft does not count, and that the defense of other's is theft. So you call upon the state to punish anti-capitalism. Yes, capitalism is based on envy, and yes, it is wrong. If you feel the need to force your system on the masses and call those that don't participate in your greed victims of "envy," you need to wake up. It's more than that, it's your modern views.
    2
  408.  @paulrevere2379  That isn't capitalism, though. Nothing about capitalism compels or rewards charity., what you're speaking about is the human tendency to look beyond themselves and their own desires and greed and help others. Capitalism hinders this behavior, makes it unreasonable and unrewarded. I find it funny how you call 70% private venezuela socialist, simply because you cannot deal with the failures of socialism. Want to look up who had the better diet between the USA and USSR? Once again I expose you to reality you are terrified to confront, which is why your only real response is to claim your authoritarian views are naturally self evident, and run away. People work, under capitalism, because they are forced to. They are forced to work not for themselves, but under private owners. So, yes, if one gets rid of the state that enforces capitalism, with it goes the force that capitalists impart, and they are no longer slaves to their private owners. Of course they still need to eat, but they eat on their own labor, own work, and own community organization. Where does the food come from? Rational individuals who work jobs they enjoy, beholden to nobody but themselves, doing so for the benefit of themselves and others in equal amount. You are free to pretend your slavery is necessary, but it simply, truly isn't. None of the insults you've yet devised can change that.
    2
  409.  @paulrevere2379  No, their scholarship wasn't admirable, if you had bothered to read my respond you would have known that. Your entire argument revolves around only listening to people who already agree with you. To you, socialism is anything you dislike, and anything you dislike must then be socialist, the literal devil in your eyes. Socialism is an ideology, but in order to call socialism what you do, you must deny even this basic fact, must wor to obfuscate the literal reality of the definitions of the ideologies you claim to hate. Capitalism is not like clean air. Capitalism is the pollutants, filling our societies and our people with a constant pain and detachment from their work. To separate capitalism from pollution is to separate something from itself. I don't much care for your mass purges. I care about reality, the reality you fervently deny.
    2
  410.  @paulrevere2379  I suppose I can tell you i'm not a socialist over and over again, and it wouldn't matter to you. You only hear what you want to. I've rebutted your points and made my own. You've ignored the issue. Yes, let's not worry about borders and travel for free. Yes, let's not force or coerce people into producing things for us. Apparently to you, these things are worthy of contempt and damnation. What does that say about you?
    2
  411.  @paulrevere2379  Child, you quite literally said that the crossing of state borders without state permission was a crime against the citizens within. Of course large tracts of private property cause huge problems with a freedom of travel, and of course capitalists use the government to do the same in the modern world. And how at all is it "common sense" to risk your lot with a potential thief or dictator than free and open travel? How is dealing with the total control of another over your ability to even more your body the "lesser harm." No, capitalists don't think that far. What they actually do, in reality, is threaten and coerce you out of your money, possessions, or even life, for daring to try to travel across a piece of dirt they claimed to own. How is threatening people with shotguns a freedom? Are you talking about the right or ability to bear arms, the thing Marx was more in favor of than Reagan? Oh boy, another fundamental concept you don't understand. What you call beauty the rest of the world calls suffering. There is nothing beautiful nor free about having your free passage forcefully stopped, and money, time, and property compelled from your hands. That is, after all, the way capitalists "work things out." And as we've been over, capitalism is impossible without government intervention. The government defines, enforces, and protects capitalism. Adding capitalism to this equation necessitates statism. No, this doesn't work out at all, hence the coercion and exploitations inherent to these exchanges. Given that capitalists have caused most of the serious problems where the "productive" land of civilization is concerned, you might want to think twice on that statement.
    2
  412.  @jameskrych7767  There is a certain amount of irony in spam posting a bunch of links named after a man who worked for and praised fascism, that attempt to deny that connection.
    2
  413.  @maddyg3208  The problem is many of the things you listed have nothing to do with socialism at all, just authoritarianism.
    2
  414.  @jameskrych7767  You uh... know who he was working for before he fled, right? And that the nazis were not the only fascists, in fact they seemed to have some competition with the austrian fascists. You'll find he didn't leave because of his political ideologies,no, if that were the case he would have left years later. He left because a bigger, badder group of fascists moved in that didn't particularly like his ethnicity.
    2
  415.  @jameskrych7767  What is this supposed to tell us? You'll notice, I never claimed he himself was a fascist. No,he just seemed all too willing to accept fascists, and indeed work with them, for the furthering of a select few political goals. Siding with them and praising on them, while not following their beliefs and criticizing them, still shows his connection.
    2
  416.  @jameskrych7767  What is there to learn? I've unfortunately dedicated hours to his nonsense, and found nothing of substance, beyond "everything is socialism besides what I like."
    2
  417.  @jameskrych7767  And what? Your ~30 or so? Please. It looks like you've run out of nonsense.
    2
  418.  @AverageAlien  Aww, still mad that it's so easy to disprove you?
    2
  419.  @AverageAlien  Your cope is absolutely hilarious. Oh, child. How many times must I explain that i'm not a socialist, and that all you've "exposed" is your own ignorance. Is what socialism "truly is" right wing conservatism to you? Why are you so mad?
    2
  420.  @AverageAlien  Child, you can keep trying to defend your cult of denialism, but the facts won't change. Insulting me and running away is all you've shown yourself to be capable of doing. Why are you so desperate?
    2
  421.  @AverageAlien  Child, where's the cope? Where's the denial? Oh, you were talking about your comments. My mistake. Yes, you are coping hard and denying reality, and yes, it does seem to be in service of your flat-earth denialist cult. Thank you for agreeing.
    2
  422.  @AverageAlien  I already did, child. In fact, i've debunked every single part, which is why you keep running away, and "Shutting your fucking mouth." Cry harder, denialist.
    2
  423.  @AverageAlien  You thought that I was correct, and that you weren't? Thank you.
    2
  424.  @AverageAlien  What, no response? Annoyed that your pro-nazi cope is so easy to debunk?
    2
  425.  @AverageAlien  Awww, can't even come up with a new response? I really must have debunked you even harder than you're used to. I already have, child. Cry harder.
    2
  426.  @AverageAlien  Awww, can't even come up with a new response? I really must have debunked you even harder than you're used to. I already have, child. Cry harder.
    2
  427.  @MCCrleone354  Well no, what you actually said was that you didn't dislike them, just they didn't work. Not "I don't believe." But again, if this was a problem of poor phrasing on your part, you are free to admit that. It's not a lie, a simple observation you have yet to do the simple effort of dispelling. And yes, people tend to rightfully assume that "I don't dislike" is pretty similar to "I like." No leaps in logic present, just a mere understanding of the english language you will do anything to jump over. What does the english language have to do with "hubris," child? I have presented your argument exactly how you have, and all it would take is your simple apology for misphrasing something to get on with our lives. You also call my statement "At least you admit that you oppose them because you dislike them" a lie. But that is quite literally what you said. You said " I oppose/ wouldn’t support them because I don’t think they work." As you have previously on multiple occasions denied the assertion that you like policies that don't work, this quote is openly saying that you oppose them because you dislike them, and you dislike them because you don't think they work. Pretty simple, so yes, you've told another lie. You seem to be unable to keep track of your own statements. And child, please. Where's the "meltdown?" I've been nothing but calm. You're the one that can't help repeating themselves, all-caps spamming, random sealioning and insults, and so on. Is that another one of your classic cases of projection?
    2
  428.  @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.
    2
  429.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  but... he doesn't. And neither do you, of course, as you are proud to admit :)
    2
  430.  @jonnybgoode7742  ah, the issue with that is that, of course, tik is the one cherry picking here. Tik is the one who does not have adequate sourcing for all the claims he makes. Tik is the one who is ignoring all of recorded history, for tje sole purpose of lying about it, and you are following along blindly. Most economists and historians actually disagree with tik, mainly because he does insane things like call Capitalist systems (like companies) socialist. As I said, tik can't back up his claims. Tik also has problems structuring arguments so he tends to call all those that disagree with him anti semetic Marxist post modernists, rather than address their points. Your own statement here proves your cheery picking. Because, objectively, Hitler was not a leader of a Socialist party. He did not enact socialist policy. And he barely ever called himself a Socialist, in fact on numerous occasions speaking out against the left and Socialism as a whole. Itd also hilariously ironic that your entire point here is, in and of itself, and argument from authority. Why do you assume that evidence doesn't matter more than your opinions? Snd why are you so willing to deny history in the pursuit of your incorrect revisionism?
    2
  431.  @jonnybgoode7742  stunning rebuttal as always, mate.
    2
  432.  @jonnybgoode7742  Well I know it's not a debate, that actually requires even the smallest amount of engagement from both sides here,not just one. But sure,if you want to leave, nobody is stopping you. This isn't really a case where you can agree to disagree, it's objective history, but if you mean we both agree to stop posting and both leave civilly I have no problem with that personally. And I keep saying this,over and over, but if you have a problem with how someone represents you or one of your points, just say it already, don't keep complaining about a problem you refuse to explain. But sure mate, if you want to end it here, I have no issues. Take care, have a good one, and for the love of god learn how to act in good faith, or make more of an effort towards it.
    2
  433.  @iain5615  Since most of this is an argument for capitalism and not against what I said, i'll keep this short. "the right" is not just capitalism, in fact, capitalism still resides on the left in ideologies like social democracy. The right (as a classification) was first created in reference to the Monarchy in revolutionary France. Obviously, we now call more than monarchy right wing, so how do we define it? Well, there are a few conflicting definitions, but the best i've seen is one based on hierarchy. The left tends to be more anti-hierarchy, and pro-equality. This can range from things like progressive taxation to the much more authoritarian enforced equality of outcome of a Marxist-Leninist society, or the communal equality of an Anarchist society. The right, on the other hand, tends to support hierarchy more, be it enforced hierarchy, or available hierarchy. This can range from the ability to "climb the ladder" so to say in capitalism, to the enforced hierarchy of monarchism... or fascism. And this is what makes fascism, because looking into the philosophy behind it, even ignoring all the connections to conservative thinkers, you find the entire thing is steeped in social darwinism, enforced hierarchy, ect. That's why I say fascism is right wing. Now this isn't to say that the right despises equality, or hierarchy cannot be found on the left, but it's a general rule that seems to fit most right/left wing ideologies.
    2
  434.  @iain5615  Yeah, i'm sorry, that isn't even close to true. For one, some of the most foundational anti-statists and individualists were in fact left wing. The right, on the other hand, was literally named after monarchies. The monarchist state is not a private entity, it owned all private entities. According to you, that should be socialism, yet here you are defending it. The monarchy had a monopoly on violence, a police force, taxation, ect. It was a system of statist control. Hell, the state interfered in the going-ons of their people pretty much daily. The parliament gave that state some accountability, it changed the rigid hierarchy to a more manageable one,so of course it was left wing. The hierarchy already existed, but now it was slightly lessened. That didn't end private ownership, that was the very thing that showed that said "private" monarchist states didn't exist. Your definition of socialism as well doesn't work. Socialism is when the workers as a whole have control over the means of production. That is lessening the hierarchy of a single boss with no worker accountability ruling it. The right is not individualism, nor has it ever been, and the left is not just communes or non-individualists. Again, look back at monarchy. That was in no way individualist or capitalist. No form of socialism allows for private ownership or private property, that's kind of a founding principle. Yes, some right wing libertarians do indeed act in favor of centralized defense and law, but they are far from the only right wingers. Again, I can point out to you a bunch of regimes that were both right wing and very anti-individual. Private ownership is not a requirement to be right wing. Market economics is not a requirement to be right wing. And most importantly, low state control is not right wing. Socialism, in the same vein, is not just market restrictions or government controls. The nazis absolutely were right wing. They said they distrusted capitalism, but frequently worked with capitalists and industrialists to achieve their goals. They did not fully control the markets, but even then they were right wing in that they took those at the top of their respective private hierarchies and solidified their positions within the state, ergo proving themselves to be more right wing. Societal management has always been a right wing policy. Those freedoms you're talking about have been opposed by the right in the past, and this is no different. Hell, social conformity has always been a tool of the right.
    2
  435.  @iain5615  Literally none of this is true, mate. The right didn't want to break up the state, they were the state, and the state being as it was benefited them. That was what was in their best interest, and thus is what they kept in place. They only "broke up" that monarchy when a faction of comparatively left wingers arose. Your understanding of human nature is also wholly unsubstantiated. Humans are not naturally selfish, nor are we naturally kind, though we do tend towards mutualism. It takes a certain amount of hatred for humanity to come up with that judgement. We are not born any particular way, society shapes us. And capitalism is a system designed for molding the selfless into selfish. Hell, your critique of socialism doesn't even make sense. You know how little a worker is actually compensated for their work? Today, their boss takes all their credit. In such a system, they take the credit for their work, like the person next to them. Not all who take power are corrupted by it. You're most likely American, you should know that pretty well from our own founding. If systems like that ever came to be, and some already do, they would most likely work in harmony, because under a system that incentivizes working together, people actually want to work together. Crazy. We've known this since the 1800s, that's pretty much the entire subject of the book "Mutual Aid" by Kropotkin. What you said isn't even inherent to capitalism. Your system has already stole the humanity from humans, and yet you seem to have no issues with that. You say capitalism has succeeded, but I see that every time unmitigated capitalism has been tried it has failed, and even then, it has millions of deaths to its name. The problem is, it doesn't harvest said avarice, it cultivates it, and then germinates it across the land, all while blaming the very land itself for seeding it. And yet it's pure capitalist countries where people are the most violent and poorest, and it is socialist movements that have created the US as we know it. The problem is, it doesn't work. The most successful aren't that way by hard work alone, but considerable luck. Capitalism is it's own undoing, because those who most benefit from it have the most to gain by abandoning it. Of course it has problems, and of course it can be reformed, but it must be reformed to the degree it can no longer realistically be called capitalism. But we already went over how your definition of human nature doesn't work, but even with your version of human nature, socialism can work. But I don't much care about that, because i'm not a socialist, and none of this is the point of debate, hm?
    2
  436.  @TheImperatorKnight  Mate, you literally just said any country with a state is socialist. What?
    2
  437.  @TheImperatorKnight  Your very definition is debunked and you refused to amend it or even address that argument. Your argument is completely false, and denying it by telling people to watch a 5 hour video in which you cite holocaust deniers and right wing youtubers you are deflecting from that fact.
    2
  438.  @rja1702  TIK's definition of socialism is all encompassing, that's the problem
    2
  439.  Karl Quetzacoatl  uh bro you just admitted even nazis don't think they're socialists. That's how shit this point is, that the nazis had to come in to correct you. Hitler was not a socialist.
    2
  440.  @TheImperatorKnight  Mate, you really have nothing anymore do you? Marx did have some issues with antisemitism (even though you massively misrepresent them) but that does not mean marxism in any form is anti-semetic. What you do have is literal nazis in your comments.
    2
  441.  @oaples8790  Oh, buddy. That's far from the only place you were proven wrong, but your lackluster response proves it. You were, without a shadow of a doubt, proven wrong. The nazis... were not socialists. Case closed.
    2
  442.  @oaples8790  You were already proven wrong by a guy above, and the fact that TIK hearted your comment seems to show that. And if you want to get into death counts cancelling ideologies, well then capitalism wouldn't really be a thing, then would it? But you guys don't like to go over that particular fact. I do it not out of convenience, but out of an actual appreciation for the terms being used and the history behind them, something you and TIK both seem not to understand. If you want to start something up with me now, by god, go ahead. But the fact is that someone about a hundred comments above brought a piece of evidence up, one that you did not properly refute. And i'd consider that a done deal.
    2
  443.  @oaples8790  And i'm neither a capitalist nor a socialist, so yes, they have their problems, but some nuance must be applied. When the biggest issue of a rising socialist country isn't their own ideology, but the biggest industrial and militaristic superpower on the planet trying to invade them or whittle them down for the sake of "containment," of course you'd have a bad track record. Hell, you see similar things in the turning point of the end of absolute monarchism, where far more revolutions were crushed than ones that ever succeed. Those clearly didn't happen because the ideas were failures, because we live by those ideas today. That's where we apply nuance. Capitalism has worked better so far, of that I won't deny. But as it goes into the future, like a tool, it seems to be dulling, and rusting. Capitalism worked because it was an efficient way to divide limited resources among those who deserved it the most. But the resources are no longer so limited. We could feed the world, if we wanted to. We already make more than enough food. That is an issue, one of many, that capitalism cannot solve. And you were proven wrong when it was pointed out to you that socialism is not simply nationalization for the sake of it, but rather can be done without nationalization entirely, and if things are nationalized, must be done in proper socialist principles that hitler obviously did not abide by.
    2
  444.  @oaples8790  Thanks, and I hope it helped. Anything else I can help clarify? By the way, thanks for being civil, and sorry for not quite following through with that myself.
    2
  445.  @oaples8790  Yep, that's what it's meant for a good long while. There are different variations, of course. In some, the government manages the factory, and you just vote on how the government does it. In some, like you said, the government gives the workers control of their own factory. In some, the workers control it without any government. Sometimes the local community owns it, sometimes the entire nation can have a say in it. Different types of socialism, but all with the same goal of putting the means of production in the hands of the greater community, not just the state. So yes, the way you described it is pretty much socialism. The workers as a whole decide how the factory should be run, not the bosses. And you can find this in pretty much all socialist writings, from Marx to Proudhon. There's plenty of work on the subject, and many more specific complexities, but yes the way you described it certainly works as the end goal of socialism.
    2
  446.  @oaples8790  yeah no problem
    2
  447.  @oaples8790  ah no worries mate, I was way worse, and you stayed civil throughout (which is a bit of a rarity) and I honestly respect that quite a bit :)
    2
  448.  @VeaFlea  And why is that? The entire point of having an good economic system is that people get what they need, and they obviously are not. So why don't they deserve the basic Natural Right to eat, if we can easily provide it?
    2
  449.  @VeaFlea  You called "these people" "more greedy than anybody." I don't see that as much other than an insult. And again, i'll ask - why? Why can't we help people when we have the capability to? You realize that, besides just helping people, doing so would give us a lot of important allies? If we were to do this, that's less people starving. Less people starving means more development, more development means more countries trying their hand at science and technology. Imagine how advanced we'd be if even half of the currently developing countries were able to allocate resources to, say, curing cancer. That's hundreds more scientists, engineers, ect. And that's just what helps us in the long run. But that really shouldn't matter, because if we can help people, we should. That's a given. And we can help americans with this too, it's not like they would be exempt from free food.
    2
  450.  @erictull2089  Uh, mate, "antifa" is not fascist by any metric. You want to even attempt to qualify that nonsense, or what?
    2
  451.  @erictull2089  Do you also think that Buffalo wings are made of buffalo? It's in the name, after all. But you seem to be heavily mixing up your definitions. For one, taking down a statue is not destroying history, unless you really are so incredibly shortsighted that you need to see a historical figure to know they exist. If anything, it promotes the understanding of history, as people now have to delve into and justify why they should or should not be taken down. You wouldn't know about half these statues, besides the fact that they are being take down. Also, anti fascists pretty clearly do not take away speech "by force from anyone they don't like." There are literally tens of thousands of anti fascist groups and followers, and yet in the past years, you can usually only name 15-30 examples. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of examples of the pro-life movement killing people, kidnapping people, committing terrorist attacks on Planned Parenthood buildings, ect. Meanwhile, antifascists have at best a few dozen crimes to their name, are made up of people who already disagree with eachother, and tend not to attack more moderate political figures. So thats both parts of your "argument" debunked, and it looks like the right has the left beat there, especially considering 76% of all terror attacks in the past decade have been right wing. As for redefining words, that's quite literally what you're trying to do now, to call anarchists fascists. Black uniforms have nothing to do with fascism, if you want to see what fascist activities look like I can point you here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/ Oh, and kropotkin started out s a prince. Doesn't change the fact that fascists have always defined their ideology as right wing, and that they have always appealed in policy to conservatives far before leftists. So it seems, ironically, that every mismatched and poorly thought out point you just tried to make has backfired. But it's ok, i'm sure you'll find a way to project the fascism of the modern right wing onto everyone who you would will to be a victim of that fascism. Ask yourself this - today, you justify armed men picking up innocent protesters. How long until they're knocking at your door? First they came for the socialists... Oh, I would also recommend reading a definition of fascism that's more than a sentence long, if you can handle it, from a man who survived fascist italy. https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
    2
  452.  @erictull2089  You know orwell, who wrote that book, gave it the title "English Socialism" for a reason, despite self identifying as a socialist? He did so because he wanted to draw parallels to the nazis, which he also did not consider socialists. By citing orwell, you are literally proving your own point wrong, by showing that even back then they knew that the Nazis were only calling themselves socialists because they thought it would make them look better.
    2
  453.  @erictull2089  And that, by definition, is not socialism. I notice how you refused to actually address a single one of my points. Is it because you know you are wrong? It must be, because you've not attempted to debate or refute me at all. Typing national socialists in full caps does nothing but prove that you care more about words than actual actions, or better yet, that you'll ignore the parts where the nazis acted, and admitted to acting, in a provable right wing fashion. So in other words, since you clearly have no responses besides posting a movie clip from an author that proves my point, perhaps it's you who has a lot to learn.
    2
  454.  @erictull2089  "sonny." Did you... think trying to sound old would give you credibility? I mean hell, you already sounded like an online illiterate from your previous postings, but this makes me lean more towards the notion that you're a child. And you'd think that if you had "been over this hundreds of times" you might actually be a bit better, at, you know, being correct. So, like the rest of your statements, i very much doubt that. But sure, if you want to avoid debate I can't stop you, buh bye.
    2
  455.  @erictull2089  Gosh, it's like you actually don't have any proof at all. You call trying to understand basic historical fact "prejudice." I mean, you know the SNP isn't actually socialist, right? They're capitalist, special democratic specifically, and nationalist. The rest reads like the unhinged theories of a child, as usual. But trust me, if you want to get into connections, we can. We can go into how figures like Ford, an american capitalist, was praised by the nazis and even given a medal by them. Of course, ford was also joined by many other american capitalists and corporations in working with/praising the nazis, such as Koch Sr, IBM, GE, GM, ect. Do you like those comparisons? Oh, what about people like Franz Von Papen, a highly conservative figure that was one of the people instrumental in getting hitler elected, and even helped to make up Hitler's first cabinet? Or conservatives like Carl Schmitt, who spent his entire life praising the nazi cause, even long after they fell? Or capitalist libertarians like Alberto De Stefani, who helped to structure Mussolin's economy? Or Julius Evola, a conservative figure who helped to create fascism as a philosophy? Or figures like Rothbard and Mises, who both supported the nazis as a weapon to be used against socialism? You really don't know much about history, do you?
    2
  456.  @erictull2089  And yet you keep responding, and wasting my time with your complete inability to actually address any of the historical facts I bring up. Adding the word junior doesn't give you any credit here, champ. If you want to piss off, you're allowed to do it mate, head on out. You clearly don't have many facts backing your assertions.
    2
  457.  @VeaFlea  Mate, that is so hilariously short sighted. The only countries "working to undermine the US" are places that have little to no power to actually do so. There is no broad anti-US conspiracy, mate, nobody really cares. We seem to be doing a good job destroying ourselves, really. And if they think something good would happen would happen because they attacked a country giving away free food, well then they would quickly be under attack/sanctions from all the countries benefiting from these programs. Also, it would obviously have to be an international effort, because we would actually have to get this food out. So that piece of "logic" is bunk. And that isn't what you said, is it? You said that the average socialist was more greedy, which is a bit funny because the whole ideology is built up around giving stuff away and equality. So yes, I would say that's just flinging meaningless insults. Furthermore, if we want to talk about systems that kill millions from starvation, or dictatorships that sit fat and happy while their country starves, well, welcome to capitalism. You have cases like the Bengal Famine, an artificial famine that killed millions, perhaps into the tens of millions, that was all the fault of the british refusing to send supplies, with the goals of eugenics in mind. We could go back to the Belgian Congo, and see millions of practically slaves get tortured, worked to death, and maimed, all while the camp owners and the home country profited. Hell, you can look at countries like Chile after Pinochet took over. The average level of nutrition for his people was lower than nazi concentration camp prisoners. Hell, capitalism broadly is a system that kills millions every year. Does all that sound like it's socialists who are being the murderous, greedy ones?
    2
  458.  @VeaFlea  First off, that eugenics thing doesn't at all cover the other examples I listed. At the same time, does something need to be done from a position of greed to be capitalist? They didn't want to give supplies away, i'd say that's pretty damn greedy. And yes, there are countries that certainly don't like us, but look at the places and examples you've given. Misinformation campaigns? Lying? Proxy war? For one, this is stuff the US has been doing to other countries, and even it's own citizens and territories, for years. For two, this is really all these countries can ever muster against us. They can't attack us, so the best they can hope for is trying to tiptoe around the issue and poke the bear, without waking it. I mean mate, we've done worse to ourselves. We literally spread drugs among our own population, is disproportionately black communities. As well as that, look at the countries. Russia is a second world dictatorship getting poorer by the day, North Korea is failing utterly, Cuba is under our thumb in terms of sanctions, ect. The only somewhat larger threat is china, but even then the populace is starving and unhappy. These countries are no substantial threat to us. So what's the issue with forming new alliances and helping people that need it? I mean, again, it would be hilariously easy to draw developing nations into our debt, and that's just doing it for selfish reasons. We can afford to do it just for the purpose of furthering humanity.
    2
  459.  @KarakNornClansman  Are you sure that you addressed this to the right person? You @-ed TIK, not someone who worked through stringent work and intellectual honestly. I love how you guys all do the same thing. You can't bear to think for a single second that you are wrong, or show even a hint of self-awareness, so you always have to try to convince even yourselves that you are right. After all, you yourself pointed out many of the conservative commonalities the nazis had, but of course, you deflect from that because you cannot bear to handle the idea that perhaps you're wrong. That's what right-wingers of various branches continue to do, advocate a false history meant to distance their opponents from themselves by holding a fig leaf over their obvious and explicit right wing commonalities. Of course, you get more than that wrong. The nazis did actually use "socialist" as an attack, mostly because they themselves are not socialists, and called themselves socialists with an entirely different definition in mind. They used that term, alongside marxists, to berate anyone who didn't agree with them, which happened to be mostly socialists. The bolsheviks called the nazis fascists, because well, they were, and because they were not socialists, so why would they bother with that title? With the stalinists and trotskyists, they just accused eachother of betraying their ideals, not never following them. Jeez, you need a history lesson. If it is a standalone video by TIK, i'm afraid like these ones it would only serve to spread much more intentional partisan propaganda-born confusion. But, then again, you would agree with it so it doesn't matter. But please, keep blaming all of recorded history on socialists, all while making a fool of yourself in a public forum. We get it, everyone you don't like is a socialist, and rather than give proof you'll give assertions and ask TIK to do the work for you. But you are right, the muddying of our language for the reasons of ideological struggle must be cleared up. Just practice before you preach. Maybe next time say those words to someone who deserves it, not just someone who agrees with you.
    2
  460. I have to warn you mate, it isn't the socialists and communists who are telling you that hitler wasn't a socialist. That would be historians. All the ad hominem attacks in the world cannot change that.
    2
  461.  @suddenlyfrogs9504  The democratic party is about as anti-left wing as the republicans are.
    2
  462.  @zeprowl  "the left learned a lot from hitler" * lists actions of the right *
    2
  463.  @jameskrych7767  As I said before, (when you quoted the same passage) he called it a tool. A tool that, while he was no great fan of using it, he thought got its job of repressing the spread of socialism done well enough. Anyone who is in favor enough of fascism to praise it on those terms is someone with a bias worth being pointed out. What I would like, perhaps, is for you to acknowledge what i've been saying. I also notice that you leave out his long career under/with Dolfuss in the pre-FSA. He didn't get that high in the Fatherland Front for no reason. If you would like to go into differing accounts, we can easily find the writings of Oswald Spengler, or Julius "Super Fascist" Evola, or Carl Schmitt, or the work of Franz von Papen, or the dealings with various american capitalists the nazis had. Hell, we can go into many other followers of Mises praising similar authoritarian regimes and policies. Hell, we could listen to the conservatives of Churchill's own party, which likened the two. The ties between the fascists and the right are far more prolific than the few ties they have to left leaning economics, or socialism. I say what I do, despite your refusal to acknowledge it, because it's a bias worth bringing up, and a history that puts it all into sweet perspective. For the nazis supposedly being such socialists, they had a lot of right wing support.
    2
  464.  @jameskrych7767  Mad? No.Because you and I both know that he was wrong.That the national socialists were fascists, that resided on the right, and that broke every goal of socialism while supposedly advocating for it.Even the socialists of the time knew. The one person here who doesn't is you.
    2
  465.  @jameskrych7767  I "refuse to learn?" No. More like you refuse to give facts. I gave you some of those associations, a tiny amount compared to the thousands I can point out. So, again, if they were socialists, why were they so friendly with the capitalist and conservative facts, both in their country and abroad?
    2
  466.  @jameskrych7767  Oh shut it with the buzzwords already, mate. Under what post-modernist cultural marxist worldview can the words "marxist" and "post-modernist" go together? Oh wait, they can't, they're diametrically opposed. Also, cultural marxism was a nazi conspiracy theory used to persecute jews. The connections just keep getting clearer. Also, I notice how you don't even have the guts to quote Mises here. Because, as we've already gone over, he was fine with fascism as long as it held back socialism. But sure, keep up with the strawmen. Do I call everyone fascist? No, that's TIK, he called youtube fascist for demonetizing his video. I call the people that fit the ideology fascist. If you can't make an argument without a strawman, you have no argument at all.
    2
  467. Mate, if you're just now cluing into this conversation then i'm afraid to say it's been happening since before the war ended. The problem is, people (most that i have seen) are arguing not that they were capitalists, but rather that they are not socialists. And come on, do you really define left wing as vegan or environmentalist? You also just outright make the assumption that he is socialist, which is kind of the whole point of this video, because it's under debate.
    2
  468.  @jeremiahduran7238  When the evidence overwhelmingly points to one conclusion, and said conclusion is written about and explained in depth within a source, it is not valid to take said source and utterly ignore or write off the conclusion based on the information presented in a source. Sure, come to your own conclusions - problem is, said conclusions aren't based in reality.
    2
  469.  @jeremiahduran7238  How could it not? Of the historical sources cited, the vast majority of them remained consistent in the conclusion that the nazis did not fit the definition of socialist. It's on you to disprove the actual historians in the field. "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).
    2
  470.  @joseornelas1718  Luckily there's no need for that, as we can quite clearly see you being openly and blatantly incorrect in your entire response. I told you to do better next time, you couldn't even manage that. The very thing you accuse hitler of falls far better on your shoulder, as accusing the 20th century's biggest anti-socialist of "believing in socialist economics" is hilariously ignorant. Hitler didn't think socialist economics would work, he hatred them and openly rejected them. He preferred right wing corporatism, to go along with his right wing "scientific" racism that made up the backbone of his ideology. When will you come to terms with the fact that your and hitler's anti-socialism aren't all that different?
    2
  471.  @colebehnke7767  Let's tackle this one by one. By "nationalize the trade unions," you mean "abolished the trade unions in favor of an organization weighted heavily towards private interests and which had, as a stated goal and political reality, heavy involvement by said private owners in regulating the workers." By "strict price controls" you mean "temporary wartime measures condemned both before and after implementation, used as a last resort common in other western countries." By "created bureaucracy to command the distribution of resources," you mean "ran a country in war, with a substantial amount of private contracting." By "suspended private property" you mean "privatized to such a degree that it funded huge parts of the war effort, forged new relationships with private owners, and bolstered the political and economic power of said private owners." To top it off, not only are none of the policies you stated accurate, none are inherent to socialism either, and had been proposed in varying quantities by conservatives in Germany (and Europe broadly) for years prior to that point. Further, your statement that "The only difference is that his ideology didn’t require killing off the rich, instead they picked another group to kill off," is not only false (this was far from the "only difference" between contradictory ideologies, socialism doesn't require the killing of the rich, killing isn't a necessity of socialism, ect) you also appear to think that just "picking another group to kill off" is how ideologies work. I hate to break it to you but if an ideology advocates for fundamentally opposed or different things, it is a different ideology. What you said is like attempting to call capitalists socialists because they want power to be in the hands of private owners, which is "just another group" instead of the workers. Yes, Marx and Darwin were acquainted, but Social Darwinism is an ideology not even directly connected to Darwinism, but is more a bastardization of his ideas of evolution transposed where they had no right being, by conservatives eager to justify their varying brands of nationalism and xenophobia. Socialism is inherently opposed to Social Darwinism, as the entire founding idea of Social Darwinism is that society, economics and nations are subject to the same rules of "survival of the fittest" as the animal kingdom, and thus some individuals were just more fit to lead, more fit to prosper, more fit to punish, and any opposition to this was fundamentally unnatural. Socialism, an ideology that aims at a fundamental level to showcase and embody the idea that society is best understood as a cooperative, collective effort, is entirely incompatible with Social Darwinism. So no, a group of socialists somehow rejecting all of their views just to take on a random right wing ideology doesn't make any sense at all, especially given how the right had already monopolized it for years prior. Why would you assume that a bunch of socialists would "continue developing" an idea incompatible with their own "until they arrived at nazism," when a clear historical record of the Nazi's inspirations in terms of nationalistic, social darwinistic rhetoric exists among the german right, especially within the Volkisch movement. It's like assuming a squirrel turned into a frog when you're looking at a pond of tadpoles. Worse, probably, because you're essentially implying that socialists reinvented modern conservatism, and this is still somehow socialism's fault.
    2
  472.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Sure, just like you're actually a socialist. After all, the actions you're describing were endorsed and copied by conservatives the world over, which wouldn't make much sense unless the conservative themselves were socialists. An actual definition of socialism might be "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." Even ignoring this though, how are you using the term "control" in this case? Are you attempting to assert that incentives or contracts provided by the government are socialist? Jesus, the mental gymnastics people have to go through to deny the nazi's proud far right nature.
    2
  473.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  So your assertion is that if private citizens own property, but said private citizens are aligned (either ideologically or materially) with the party or ideology in power... this magically becomes socialism? why do you not use this same logic with, say, Republican party members, who certainly own property and participate in government, yet who you seem to support voting for. Your assertion has now become "private property exists but it was discriminatory," which," i hate to break it to you, isn't socialism.
    2
  474.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  What you're saying isn't "hard to understand," the problem is just that it isn't true. Now that you're aware of that, you seem dead-set on just repeating it over and over again, as if this will somehow change reality itself. Your statements are contradictory when not outright false, and your desperation is evident.
    2
  475.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Evidently I watched it, which is why I provided a literal report to you when you first tagged me to lose again. Are you literally incapable of imagining that someone can consume your propaganda and still retain the critical thinking skills to not fall for it easily? If the video disproved me, you'd think you'd be able to take those arguments and use them against me, rather than just spamming "you're wrong."
    2
  476.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  That doesn't mean "and sometimes they're owned privately," though, it means that sometimes social ownership does not need the state as a vessel. China is considered socialist because they are at least nominally attempting to achieve socialism, but an actual examination of their economic policy finds record of views and action that socialist/communist have been condemning since Marx. There are different terms for this kind of economy, a common one being state dirigisme, but to put it plainly this is not socialism. It can be a part of a plan to eventually institute and support socialism, in China's case, but like the NEP this is a temporary measure, not the economy they want according to their stated ideals and goals.
    2
  477.  @trumpetscall8910  It really isn't, though. People "attack" TIK in the comments by simply reminding him of the definition of basic terms and the very concept of academic honesty. But I suppose all those people are socialists too, because TIK can't justify his dismissal of their points otherwise.
    2
  478. @Caporetto_1917 May I say, I find it eternally funny when people assume that rather than me watching the video and finding his statements unsatisfactory or directly rebutting them, you always end up assuming i've never watched the video. The reason I repeat said point is exactly because TIK addresses it in such an unsatisfactory response. He asserts that historians that study the economics of entire countries, must have no economic expertise, simply because most historians and economists disagree with his ahistorical definitions. He then asserts that they don't agree with him because they've been put through state-propaganda education. In other words, he never addresses the fact that the majority of historians readily prove him wrong, rather, he asserts that they're all uneducated victims of propaganda that never did basic research... because they don't agree with his contrived and artificial definitions. An absolute failure on his part. Stop assuming people haven't watched the video when they're just more than willing to rebut and dismiss it.
    2
  479. @Caporetto_1917 But it is. Just because you personally think that it's a justified assumption to make doesn't make it any less of an assumption. Sure, there are those that don't engage with this content, and I cannot blame them. The video is an ideological manifesto that spends hours on unrelated rants and assertions before finally coming to the actual point, and then just continuing said rants. Those who don't bother watching often come out with just as much as someone that has, that is that TIK is an ideologue that cares more about his political views than any historical accuracy of any sort. Not everyone wants to read the manifesto of a conspiracy theorist, and having unfortunately done so, I cannot blame them. The problem is that TIK's views are already long debunked, this is why he has to spend so much time shifting the lines of the battle itself. If, for example, he actually accepted criticism of his artificially constructed ahistorical definitions, his very argument would fall apart. He's already shown his insecurity in those points through his unwillingness to adhere to them in other arguments. The figures you mention have done good in making criticisms of his work, but his work itself fell long before they started to crush the remaining rubble to dust. Sure, TIK makes responses where he attempts, and fails, to counter criticisms, points that often slide right past the actual argument itself in favor of an unrelated point resting on yet more unproven assertions. There's a reason that people, even those that watch the videos and responses, and that reason is that TIK largely fails to make effective counters. As you yourself said, he certainly "addresses" arguments. The problem lies in the fact that he is unable to "rebut" them. I find that those who claim to have previously been socialists are either lying, or those that called themselves socialist for a month without ever researching it. But usually the former. After all, in the modern era, the far more likely thing to happen is a case like mine, growing out of the infantility of "libertarian" capitalist economics in favor of classical libertarianism. You can pretend to fit a niche you don't, but it doesn't change the facts. I can understand those who watch the video, specifically because it's one of the worst ways to escape "echo-chamber views." TIK is, after all, his own echo chamber, which is why the majority of the fans of these videos are people who have only ever found him through ideological means, while the fans of his older work were highly critical of his ideological videos, like this one. Sure, do as I have, read the theory of those like Hayek, but it appears you forgot to do so with an open mind. But it is telling that you only found these videos acceptable... when you agreed with them, ideologically.
    2
  480.  @junkaccount2535  Why exactly should I listen to yet another right wing fanatic peddle their religious devotion to their own views? Child, marxism isn't a religion. It does, however, take a key place in your religion, that is, as the devil figure. Anything you don't like, anything that goes wrong, anything you feel like opposing, becomes marxism. That's why right wingers can never be honest about what marxism actually is, then they lose their greatest rhetorical tool.
    2
  481.  @coyote4326  Child, what? Are you actually this terminally ignorant? That's genuinely really sad. Yes, this fanatic perspective is extremely unpopular. the fact that you think a politically targeted youtube video, made within a right wing echo chamber, can at all be compared to the general perception of this issue, is actually absurd, and pretty hilarious. The fact that so few people have even seen the video, much less interacted it, means a hell of a lot more than the "like dislike ratio," especially when, again, said video was made in an echo chamber specifically to appeal to a small group of denialists. Did you really think the likes on one video were indicative of the viewpoints actual popularity? Of course the nonsense denialism in question is unpopular. TIK's cult coming to praise their bible doesn't change that.
    2
  482.  @junkaccount2535  See? You're a literal religious cultist. You take the figureheads of your movement, far right ideologues, and hold them up as saints. It's legitimately odd how much you idolize those who merely tell you what you want to hear. Fundamentally, you are a religious zealot,. who bases their ideology off of resisting a devil that they do not understand. You see yourself as a hero, resisting some evil, when in reality you're merely fighting the shadows that your thought leaders are projecting on the wall. At least you admit you deny reality though. You don't even know what you're calling evil, and you've likely never even thought to ask beyond the propaganda you were hand-fed. you think just another economic system is evil, and yet you're unable to explain why. You're the only one denying human nature here, as well as denying any academic study of the world as it currently exists. You have no basis for your claims, and you know it. And the system you praise? You don't even have good reasons for that! American capitalism has resulted in the untold deaths of tens of millions of people. It is not the "only economic theory which resulted in millions being lifted out of poverty to this day," I hate to break it but the vast majority of economic systems can claim that. You're a religious cultist that wants to stamp all over history to promote your ideology.
    2
  483.  @coyote4326  You didn't provide statistics though, you provided a goalpost shift and refused to provide any argumentation.
    2
  484.  @coyote4326  why do you keep calling me proving you wrong an "ad hominem fallacy?" Is it because you can't handle being proven wrong?
    2
  485.  @coyote4326  how is it this hard for you to understand that the subject of this video isn't history, nor did the author have historical accuracy in mind while making it?
    2
  486.  @coyote4326  See, that's the problem. Unlike you, I haven't relied primarily on insults or demeaning words to make an argument. I'm happy to make my own arguments, and you find that if you take any of these insults out, they stand on their own. Ad hominem fallacies happen when a person bases their argument off of an insult, as in, "you are wrong because you are a child." I, on the other hand, prefer to prove you wrong while noting how childish your thought process is, as in "You child, here's why you're wrong." I'm sorry that you can't argue without bringing up fallacies, but you not being confident in your position has little to do with me. The problem is, you really didn't. You didn't provide statistics, not relevant ones. What you did would be like trying to argue that gun violence didn't exist, and only taking evidence from one small town with a population of 40 in alaska. This topic is nearly a century old, and has had hundreds of pieces of media created surrounding it, thousands of words written, hundreds of hours of videos, movies, documentaries, and so on. And you think one video, on a channel most people invested in the subject had never heard of, can somehow provide a consensus on all of that material? You see nothing that proves you wrong because you refuse to see it, that's nothing new. Even TIK admits that his argument goes against the mainstream, that it is a position held by virtually zero historians and economists, did you even watch the video? You call criticism of your goalpost shifting "redundant strawman arguments," but you're unable to even explain why. As of yet, your assertion remains unproven. Do you have any actual evidence? This isn't a historical discussion though, you should have been able to tell that from the hours that the author spends demonizing other ideologies and peddling their own, insulting historians and his critics alike. I mean seriously, have you even watched the video? A huge amount of the runtime is dedicated to "socialism evil, capitalism good, capitalism has never failed and all these failures are socialism's fault." The goal of this video is an explicitly ideological one. The "lens" the author wants to view history through is one that only allows the author to come to conclusions that benefit their ideology. Your problem is then saying that "by my logic," all other historical videos must be politically targeted too, and to that I say, what?? This is a video in which the creator explicitly argues for one ideology, and against several others, and pushes a narrative that benefits said ideology. Do you think that means that his detractors, either with their own videos or comments under his videos, are always doing the same thing? No, many of his detractors and critics are more than fine to point out his fanatic ideology and abstain from pushing their own, in favor of actual history. That's of course ignoring the historians themselves that disprove TIK's position, and yet contain no trace of ideology in their work. What is "said logic," child? You have yet to make an argument as to how any of this is actually by my logic, and not just your deflection? Oh, wait, because it has nothing to do with my logic, but is yet another strawman argument fallacy from you. Child, when you make accusations, actually try to prove them. You've guessed at my supposed ideological motivation, and failed. This tells me that you are motivated by an ideology, and are attempting to accuse others of the same, regardless of truth. No, child, my comments are obviously based off of a need for historical accuracy and historical discussion, unlike yours, that are based off of a need for political motivation and ideological promotion.
    2
  487.  @junkaccount2535  So you're literally proving my point. You're pushing an ahistorical fanatic ideology, that relies on baseless accusations directed at me, so I can fit your cult-enemy stereotype. Your ideology is deadly. Stop denying hundreds of millions of deaths. So no, of course i'm no troll, i'm just someone who is more than willing to throw a wrench into your horrific, cultish narrative, and you really just can't handle that. Despite me continually correcting you, you still call me a socialist, a communist, because you know if you admitted I wasn't, your narrative would fall apart. You just can't help but project your denial of hundreds of millions of deaths onto me, something you continue doing proudly to this minute. You genuinely think that critical thinking and adherence to logic is brainwashing, simply because it counters your denialist narrative. You literally think that critical theories, schools of thought and philosophy surrounding the pursuit of greater understanding of the world, is brainwashing. What you mean is that you want to convert me to your cult. Child, i'm literally not a commonest. Capitalism is, of course, a system that requires a specific state in place to function, and capitalism has never shied away from statist intervention in the market, and economies that go beyond "fully private." It, of course, holds a political leaning that by necessity moves towards the right, and similarly, not only by definition can result in death, in reality has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. The problem is that your view of capitalism is cultist and utopic, you physically cannot handle criticism of your ideology because any fault in said ideology disqualifies it from being your ideology, in your mind. This is the mindset of a religion. Hell, even socialists can admit to the faults in their ideology. You're worse than your own devil, your denialism is disgusting. I know you hate having the truth exposed to you, but that isn't going to stop me. You hate facts history, philosophy logic, and it shows. Just admit to your religion already.
    2
  488.  @coyote4326  you literally spelled it wrong. It's spelled "ad hominem." Please look these things up before making a fool of yourself.
    2
  489.  @coyote4326  The fact that you don't even know how to spell the fallacy you keep accusing people of, tells me all I need to know. You genuinely don't know what it is, even after i've explained it to you so many times. An Ad Hominem fallacy is when a person's entire argument is reliant upon, and is justified by, their assertions in the form of insults. It is not, however, when someone insults someone while making other arguments, or, when someone belittles the utter absurdity of your claims, claims even you aren't interested in backing up. So, i'm sorry, you'll find according to all objective metrics, I've not done anything of the sort. Again, when you make a claim, you need to provide evidence, argumentation, and your fear of doing so perfectly encapsulates the deep insecurity you hold in your position. You are not only unwilling, but unable to prove your claims... because no proof exists. Again, I have never fell back on logical fallacies for my arguments, as I have proven time and time again, despite your consistent attempts to assert (never prove, of course) otherwise. I haven't used logical fallacies child, unlike you. I've even explained this to you, and predictably, you have no response. Amazing.
    2
  490.  @coyote4326  But, again, you didn't. You provided a biased, useless metric. I "outright claimed" it was an unpopular opinion, a fact even TIK recognizes and admits to. You failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Do you notice your goalpost shift? I claimed a viewpoint was unpopular. You claimed this video was popular. This video, which is a tiny, imperceptibly small part of the overall debate on the subject. This video is popular... among one tiny right wing online community, that have attempted to drown out the historians that correct TIK's ideological narrative. So, again, you have yet to provide evidence for your assertions. This video finds its support from an echo chamber. So... no, those aren't statistics. Deal with it :)
    2
  491.  @Uthandol  ok then, not sure about that, but ok.
    2
  492.  @Uthandol  nevermind.
    2
  493.  @OUTERPANGEA  still isn't an argument mate
    2
  494.  @OUTERPANGEA  And bad advice too of course. There's no need to "help" an adherence to reality.
    2
  495.  @RebelInTheF.D.G  No, what i've done here is called out a seething fanatic that will do anything to cover their ears and run from the truth. You have of course listed no evidence for a single one of your claims, because no evidence can exist. I, on the other hand, can quite easily point to right wing groups that ally with the american republicans, push their talking points, praise/defend them and are praised/defended in turn, and openly declare themselves fascists. Groups like Vanguard America, for example. I've told you the easily seen truth, but you like every other denialist want pretend it's false simply because it calls you out in a way you don't like. What's nonsensical about that? I don't care if you think I "sound intelligent" or not, I care about the truth, something you despise. Child, you are quite literally brainwashed. You're willing to ignore hundreds of proud right wingers marching alongside the nazi flag, simply because it doesn't benefit you ideologically to acknowledge reality. Child, i've presented unbiased evidence of fascist groups in america that openly ally with the "moderate" right against leftism. You, on the other hand, have provided zero evidence for your claims, because again, no evidence exists. It's not at all hard to prove my point, I could think of one example of many literally off of the top of my head. You hate the fact that i'm willing to engage with unbiased history, it scares you. You call me a "leftist" and claim I do not study history, despite me easily proving you wrong historically previously. The very world supports my point, all aspects of the history of fascism lead right back to the right, but again, you can't admit that. This is the problem, you'll pretend that history doesn't support its own point, and insult those that spread it. Child, stop assuming that the world is as purposefully ignorant as you. Of course unlike you i've researched the topic, i've seen the connections and heard the victims of both ideologies point out the similarities between the two. Child, stop running. Why would I not list far right sources in talking about fascism on the far right of american politics, supported by the "moderate" right? The far right is not shunned by the right, they are defended, praised, and their rhetoric and policies are absorbed by the greater right. I know you're scared and don't want me to talk about this history, but you cannot artificially demand that I do not present evidence, simply because it hurts your feelings. No, child, the far left and right are not identical in modern politics, as the right literally calls anyone to the left of reagan a "far-leftist" as you yourself have done. Why do you "look forward" to a historical argument that you've demanded I present without evidence? Child, child, how have I supported fascism in any form? I am not far right, not nationalist, not authoritarian. You, of course, claim i'm a fascist and that i've lost the argument, because you're afraid to continue the argument. That's why you're doing all you can to run right now. You quite literally ideologically support one of the widest spreading chains of systematic oppression in history, and your only problem with oppression seems to be that it isn't always the type you support. I agree, your oppression is morally unjust, and you cannot, by default, win this argument in its defense. I'm sorry you don't want to deal with objective reality, but it is clear that you do this out of a pathological fear of being proven wrong, so I can't blame you too much, you're only a product of your delusions. I've proven you wrong of course, you only consider my statements ridiculous because they prove you wrong. I'm sorry that you think adherence to history is a "Fascist" trait. This, of course, being an especially ironic accusation given your own views :)
    2
  496.  @kattkatt6961  And there's where we disagree. Your comparison is one I find highly flawed, and for a number of reasons. The first being of course that "violence" doesn't equal authoritarianism. If you want to talk about movements started with threats and violence, rioting and destruction, why mention the Bolsheviks and Nazis? Why not, say, go back a century or two before to the founding of the US? In fact, you'll find that the majority of countries have violence, destruction, rioting and threats to gain power. The story of a truly peaceful transfer of power is one that largely defies the norm. In any case, even using the criteria you set forwards, how exactly is it the left and not the right that draws this comparison? After all, it is the right who have on record the largest amounts of threats to elected officials and political figures. It is the right that has a body count of hundreds due to terrorist attacks even within this one country. It is the right that defends police riots, and the destruction of life and livelihood they cause. So why use the left? Sure, i'm no fan of violence, and I do agree that many people with similar interests prefer to fight among eachother than addressing the core issues of their lives. But that doesn't have much to do with the argument. And I must admit, I don't really care. Is calling someone "child" childish? Probably yes. Do I care? Nah. I've made my points and I think i've earned the right to include a few small snipes in between them. One thing it'd do you well to know about me is that I, quite literally, respond line by line, point by point. I've included exactly as many citations as those i'm arguing with. What's the point in providing something that isn't even strictly needed to address their argument, if they are unwilling to engage in that way themselves? The few times I have taken the first step and dumped hours worth of argumentation and sources on people, they either fail to respond or ignore it. And i'm sorry, how is that "concerning?" The modern right is quite literally swinging around the flags of the nazis. Sure, it's one way of many to disprove the ridiculous denialist assertion that the nazis were somehow socialist, but it's a good one. This too I must disagree with. Sure, using left and right solely doesn't make much sense, but luckily there are far more descriptors that can be used along with left and right to further divide up the groups contained within those labels. There are of course leftists and rightists, doesn't mean they always get along or agree on everything, but they do comprise comprehensive political groups. Also, i'm sorry, what? When have I ever argued that hitler was a capitalist? His ideology was certainly on the right, like capitalism, his ideology shared similar foundations with capitalism, but it is genuinely distinct. Your inability to even accurately portray my argument is a huge problem. And here, we must refer back to what i've said previously. I will provide exactly what you do, nothing more. I'd be happy to link to other arguments that went over the exact same things. In any case, against my better judgement, i'll take a bit of a first step. Calling hitler a socialist is absurd, and no evidence exists to support this point. Any amount of research into the terms and history of the argument reveals, conclusively, that he did not act in accordance to or desire any form of socialism. In order to claim otherwise, you not only need to broadly rewrite the history of hitler, largely using assumptions or stretching definitions, but you also need to redefine socialism itself. If you believe the truth is "weak" I cannot help you, and I struggle to imagine what you think of as "poorly researched," tough you likely just mean "adhering to reality instead of a youtube video." And no, we both know you're incapable of changing your mind. Those that can do that would have actually looked for the answer, found the primary sources and found how absolutely fanatic TIK's version of "history." is. It's far from unclear, it's a simple fact, hitler was about as much of a socialist as you, me, or TIK. Hitler was not a socialist, and will never be. To even presume your argument is worthy of equal consideration to the well-established fact of his anti-socialism is laughable. This isn't an even, academic ground. This is all of history against a small group of ideologues that want to erase it.
    2
  497.  @kattkatt6961  But it's no misrepresentation - it's a simple truth. Hitler wasn't a socialist, not just because he hated "international socialism," but because he hated socialism generally, and all of its allies and voters. You're trying to pretend that nationalist socialists didn't exist. Problem is, they did, and they were still nothing like hitler.
    2
  498.  @kattkatt6961  I would disagree with that too, though on different grounds. For one, the reason these groups were violent, historically, isn't because they were "sore losers." For the bolsheviks, they did "lose," and they sure didn't like that, but their "loss" was based on the fact that the political system they existed under physically could not allow any sort of non-tsarist system to rise peacefully. They had a majority, at least of people that were fed up with the tsar, but there was no democracy to put that popular appeal to work. Hence, revolution. If not a perfect evolution of the people, a fair representation, at least in intention, of a sizeable portion of them. The nazis, on the other hand, were under a democratic system, but they were violent specifically because their ideology prizes violent conflict. How can they claim to be the "master race" if they can allow imperfections to exist unpunished, and so on. And don't even get me started on America. The point is that none of these describe "sore losers" so much as they describe vastly different ideological and material variables. This is my point, though. It's hard to deny, but it's a big red flag for the modern right, quite literally in some cases. You just don't see that on the left, you just don't see support of the nazis. But continually you see the "fringe" of the right supporting them, taking their symbols, their policies, their rhetoric. The truly worrying bit is that most of this rhetoric is just a slightly more extreme version of modern right wing rhetoric, the quiet part out loud, so to say. In any case, do you have some other explanation that nazi ideology keeps cropping up on one side of the ideological spectrum? Before I get to the actual explanation of my statement, I need to point out that you stated several falsehoods. For example, the nazis avoided the nationalization of industry wherever and whenever possible, and in the few cases that wartime essential industry was nationalized, it pretty quickly went right back into private hands, just like huge swathes of Weimar Era public property. The majority of the economy, however, never delt with this and was not concerned by it. You also assert that the nazis believed in "then total control of economy by the government," which is again false. Hitler openly stated that state control was inefficient when compared to private control, and that private control was to be protected by the nazi party. He also pretty openly said that the nationalization of germany's economy would ruin it. He neither desired nor put into practice either of these policies. In any case, what foundations indeed? Well, the very foundations that define the left and right. Here's a thought experiment for you - pick one left winger and one right winger, ask them the same question. "Is inequality/hierarchy natural?" You're going to get opposite answers from the two, the right believes inequality/hierarchy is natural, the left believes it isn't. Of course, the moderate left may agree with some hierarchy/inequality, and the moderate right might push for certain lessening of hierarchy and inequality, but such is the nature of moderation. The point being, the right as one (there are others) of its core values believes in the notion of natural inequality and hierarchy. Hitler, similarly, openly despised hierarchy. The core foundation that the two share all branch out from this, and other, positions. The nazis believed in competition that determined the superior, they just believed it to exist on a racial level, not an individual level. The nazis believed in social darwinism, a long-standing theory that marked the backbone of conservative capitalism. They believed that to compete, to dominate, to bring under control was as natural as it got. Their domination was justified. Of course, this is only one part of the foundation specifically that they share, there are other similarities further up, but it is what you asked. Also, this is a huge problem with this debate. You must understand that there is more than socialism and capitalism, they may be the ideologies that define modern history but they're far from the only economic systems. The nazi economy can only really be described as opportunist, they ideologically supported private property but ended up bribing it to follow state interests rather than naturally letting them coincide, they allowed private property to function but always made clear that they could take this away, though they never really did. Later in the war, they were fine with passing policy that they had previously spoken out against, though they made known how much they opposed this policy ideologically. In other words, it's a long recorded fact that hitler didn't really care about economics. And that's what makes fascism distinct from other ideologies, not its economic programs, which are often inconsistent and war-based, but social policy. What was he truly? A fascist. And I'm sorry, literally all of this is false. There's nothing wrong with placing him on the right, it's far from made up and can accurately explain the basis of his ideas, and his opposition to the left. The right after all is defined, as Andrew Heywood made known in his "Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations," as "characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism." Hardly "made up." In any case, no, it wasn't "exactly what it sounds like." I mean the very fact that hitler opposed that party name should tell you that.I'm sorry, this whole next section is incorrect. As we've been over, nationalistic socialism existed, see the black panthers for example, and looked nothing like nazism. "International Socialism" is not an ideology, and the majority of marxists historically have been nationalists. Marxism is a method of historical analysis, not an economic ideology or system. So no, nazism isn't "international socialism." We can see this even more if we actually look at the 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," and find that exactly zero of his economic positions fall under that title. As for his "pro-capitalist movements" as you call them, while he certainly made his government rich, the top private owners of nazi germany got rich with him. His privatization was a core part of his ideology, and nazi ideas themselves. And this is a bit more sensible, but still doesn't take into account the simple that that left and right is more than just economics, and Hitler's views on social issues fit solely into the category of the political right. And now I have to wonder if you've actually read the piece. This is a key citation of the very argument you're trying to oppose, detailing hitler's reluctance to nationalize and his privatization programs. I mean hell, TIK goes over it in this very video, insulting it and calling the author ignorant. I have to wonder what you actually find useful about this source as it manages to pretty conclusively prove your argument wrong. In any case, as promised, my counter citation to your claim, another work TIK cites from the writer Ian Kershaw. "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). I mean TIK has whole sections dedicated to the numerous historians that are against his nonsense so this really isn't true. In any case, he did have major industrial support in his early years, and this mainly fell off due to the fact that his policies allowed a few private business owners to largely consolidate the small business market for their own benefit. However, up until the movement of his death he was still supported by industrialists, including those he really couldn't intimidate or force to his side, such as America-based Ford. Support mostly wasn't out of fear, but monetary incentive. Sure I mean what I say, but I'm not sure you'll like what that source says. y.
    2
  499.  @kattkatt6961  "privatization is actually nationalization. why? idk"
    2
  500.  @coyote4326  You're on the wrong thread champ. Can you even read the comment i'm replying to?
    2
  501.  @coyote4326  So you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is! Great! In any case, I don't think you've yet realized that this isn't the thread in which you claimed an echo chamber supporting a fanatic viewpoint makes said viewpoint popular. But of course, i'd be happy to respond to you. Of course, you can't handle the fact that I directly addressed your sad little assertion, which has yet to be proven in the first place. Burden of proof, kid. In any case, of course, this opinion is unpopular, it's always been unpopular, and there's a good reason why, notably that believing in said opinion in the first place requires the denial of history. Again, a youtube video's likes doesn't change that. Do you have any actual evidence? No? thought so.
    2
  502.  @coyote4326  It's amazing how you physically cannot understand that a person might attempt to correct a video.,.. because the video is wrong. You have to make up some fiction regarding me being some rage infused ideologue because you can't handle that i've merely been trying to spread the truth, a truth you want to bury. Why did I correct multiple people? Is it because i'm "massively asshurt," or because said people were in need of correction? Hmmmmmm.
    2
  503.  @coyote4326  According to you, and you alone. Sure, I'm well within my right to correct things that are objectively correct, and I'm not only willing, but able, to prevent people like you from attempting to erase history with political motivation. What you're doing is denying history, not reexamining it, and you're certainly adding nothing to the conversation that hasn't already been here for decades. I'm sorry you feel that someone knowing the truth is a moral failing? "Handpick?" Child, you can find my replies in nearly all of the top threads under this video. I, again, am more than happy to call out when people make objectively incorrect assertions, and if they are unable to support said assertions, that really isn't my problem. You have been unable to label or call out said "political motivations" in any capacity, so i'm sorry, you're yet again just incorrect. Why do you think it' so impossible to attempt to correct false "history?" And oh yes. Hundreds of people in the comments, so much so that you needed to go through and handpick multiple threads to reply to... no, that's just because you're being the good Samaritan that you are rather than that you have a personal political motivation to do so. Sure, pal.
    2
  504.  @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.
    2
  505.  @chiled0g  So you literally don't know what "modern democrats" or "nazi tactics" are.
    2
  506. ​ @chiled0g  No, child. Antifa isn't trying to "shut own anyone who disagrees with the use of violence," in fact a large part of the movement is pacifist themselves. They're trying to shut down... fascism. Something the right is really resistant too, and something unfortunately that modern democrats have not allied themelves with openly "Cancel Culture" doesn't exist, it's called accountability, freedom of speech. I have a right to support, listen to, and disagree with who I choose. The right wants to remove this. Debating with the right, making sure they know the actual ramifications of their policy and ideology, something of course the right is opposed to. I'm not sure if you're aware, but "modern democrats" oppose obama's moves to greater militarize aspects of the government... moves that have been repeated by trump, and even expanded, doing more than obama ever did. Similarly, modern democrats oppose the '94 crime bill, which passed with huge conservative support, and which modern conservatives constantly defend and seek to recreate. The problem is, your "few examples" showcase your utter ignorance of the topic, and desire to make things up instead of making arguments. No, child. These aren't "nazi tactics," nor are many of these representative of the "modern democratic party." But let's see what you advocate in this very response. Shutting down anti-fascist protest, opposing free speech and right of association, opposing open debate, denying current militarization, denying systemic racism, and so on. Now, which sounds more like "nazi tactics," hm?
    2
  507.  @Sumoniggro  thank you for literally proving my point.
    2
  508.  @jonathanstevey1748  Sorry, you're going to have to provide evidence for a claim as silly as that. Oh, what's that? None exists? Why am I not surprised.
    2
  509.  @jonathanstevey1748  No, child. fascism is right wing, and proudly anti-socialist, much like yourself. Hence your inability to prove otherwise, as well as your constant desire to deny the crimes of fascists.
    2
  510.  @jonathanstevey1748  So wait, your argument for socialism being state control is that you can't read? Wow, that's one of the worst i've seen yet.
    2
  511.  @jonathanstevey1748  Economic illiteracy on the right is getting worse and worse. You don't seem to know the basics of your assumptions, and yet you state them proudly, and are apparently afraid to defend them. Why run away"
    2
  512. ​ @jonathanstevey1748  It's funny how even with a copy-paste screed of nonsense, you utterly fail to make your point. No, child. Fascism, by its very definition and history, is antithetical to the left. It's right wing, through and through. Fascism is not only antithetical to the left, but antithetical to socialism, even according to your citation and own quoted dictionary definition. There's a reason the right loves fascism so much, and that's because it takes as primary motivation a desire to end socialism. Fascists killed socialists by the millions, destroyed socialist's policies and allies, and worked with conservatives and capitalists through it all, but you claim this is just "socialists killing other socialists?" So a conservative shooting a liberal is just "liberals killing liberals?" Fascism is not a form of "national syndicalism," mussolini specified this in the Doctrine of Fascism. "National Syndicalism" as a movement arose as a result of left wing economic views being mixed with right wing social views, and the coming movement to synthesize the two produced many other movements, National Syndicalism being one. However, fascism itself has little in common with National Syndicalist movements. The space the two ideologies do share, is that the acceptance of right wing social views in National Syndicalism, eventually led its adherents to accept right wing economic views, which was one common path to fascism. I hate to break it to you, but Fascism isn't a "sorelian" ideology, nor was Sorel a "national syndicalist." Sorel was favored in his early life by open conservatives for being opposed to both Marx and the current liberal order, but soon rejected the right wing nationalists who went on to form national syndicalism, while advocating communism. He didn't believe in "traditional values," he believed marxism was ineffective and political violence was a necessary instrument, which is about all he had in common with fascists. Neither Sorel or Marx believed in Hegelianism, what? Marx took certain concepts that Hegel theorized on, like dialectics, and applied them to areas that Hegel had never intended them to be applied to. There's a difference between vague inspiration and open support of an ideology. And, I'm sorry, what have you "gotten out of the way" exactly? You made a bunch of vague, unsupported statements and then refused to argue for the actual assertions you made. You only continue doing that here. To say the only difference between fascists and communists/socialists is nationalism vs globalism is, frankly, hilarious. Fascists call for a dictatorship to enforce right wing social and economic views, and enrich the private market while they repress the people. Socialism calls for social ownership, under systems from democratic to stateless, and exists all across the national to international spectrum. We know what nationalist communists looked like, from the Black Panthers to parts of the USSR themselves, and unsurprisingly, they still had nothing in common with right wing fascists. Hitler didn't just go after "the commies," he went after all ideologies of the left and of liberalism that he could, he attacked not only socialists and their organization but murdered the supporters of socialism and those that socialists protect, he disbanded labor organizations, made them illegal, and purged his own party of socialists. Oh, and again, all while working with and politically elevating open conservatives and capitalists. As a nationalist, he didn't want socialists to report to him, he wanted them dead. Funny you mention the Doctrine of Fascism, and Mussolini, especially given how both disprove your point. It must be noted, however, that your quote already does nothing to back up your assertion. In this quote, we see Mussolini claiming that Fascism is an ideology of freedom and the individual, so long as the individual is in line with the interests of the nation. Now, what about this is any different from any modern conservative nationalist, that cries for freedom until someone starts burning flags? This quote doesn't even speak of economics. Are you just trying to assert that "totalitarianism = socialism?" We'll get to that, but for now, some quotes you've decided to leave out. "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). "'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist 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). Seems he was open about fascism's anti-socialism, and right wing nature. Now, how about his economy? "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 "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation... State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient" - Benito Mussolini And so on. Hm, really seems like fascism has nothing in common with socialism. On to your next quote.
    2
  513.  @jonathanstevey1748  And so on. You get the picture yet? Historians and Hitler alike, showing his open distaste of socialism and the left, and in his own words, praise of the right. We could even look at the parties that voted for the enabling act: -The German National People's Party was 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) Notice a pattern? All right-wingers and all conservatives. And now, for your utterly failed attempt at defining socialism, which includes citing the definition... and then ignoring it. Socialism, simply put, 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." Now, as we've been over, Hitler was rather open about his distaste towards community control, praising instead private individuals in control of the means of production. "Community control" is synonymous with "Social control," both being control by the community as a whole, and both of which hitler despised. I'm not sure you know what a command economy is. A command economy is one in which a government, any government right or left, orders the economy and industry to produce something. Top-down instructions. A socialist economy can be a command economy, but only if the ruler in place is totally representative of the will of the community as a whole. A socialist economy is defined as one in which the means of production are socially owned. Now, child, regulated/owned/controlled by the community doesn't mean government control. Do you understand how silly your assertion is? You literally say that a community can control through government, so therefore community control is always state control and the two are synonymous. This, of course, is not true. The community can own the means of production as a whole, in different groups, subservient to one leader, on an equal playing field, without a state at all, even. So, no, even by your own definition and logic, socialism is not government controlled economy. "Usually" is not "Always." Marx is funny to bring up here, given that he was open about his notion that socialism is best put into practice without a state at all. He didn't call for an economy under the state, but an economy without the state. Socialism is social control, not state control. You're asserting that socialism is as old as civilization. Of course, this is all moot given that the fascists didn't even desire state ownership, but rather, private ownership. Literally none of your citations support your point. So, no, fascism is not a form of socialism. Funny how the video you linked proves my point exactly, with comments full of people defending fascism. How ironic, hm? Didn't check for that did you. And again you seem to not know the basics of the history of Sorelianism. Sorel, again, didn't create National Syndicalism. He theorized on a number of things, namely the failure of marxism and the need for political violence, which fascists took inspiration from. However, National Syndicalism was formed when french conservatives attempted to synthesize their anti-democratic impulses and the anti-democratic impulses of other groups. When this was happening, Sorel rejected it, and advocated for communism and works along the lines of Proudhon. National Syndicalism isn't Sorelianism, nor are they commonly known as the same thing. Sorel didn't call for "classical tradition," in fact, most of his criticism was focused on the failure of traditionalism and liberalism alike in running an economy. Those that advocated for traditionalism were, again, the french conservatives that attempted to use syndicalism to gain power and support from the masses, while openly attempting to reject the actual ideology of syndicalism, that being socialism through unions. And again, Marx didn't call for a state controlled economy, he called for the abolition of the state.
    2
  514.  @jonathanstevey1748  I've literally cited every single one of my claims, and caught you in direct lies, like it or not. You got owned.
    2
  515.  @stephenbrand5661  He does, he also considers society to be socialist, as well as major corporations.
    2
  516.  @TheImperatorKnight  doesn't address the point bud...
    2
  517.  @TheImperatorKnight  Because it is not the correct historical term, and this entire series of fails on your end has been built out of a single unsubstantiated lie.
    2
  518.  @topd0wn  TIK's definition is entirely false. And your comparison is as well. The thing is, even the different warring denominations of socialism agree on the basics. The nazis did not. That is why they do not fit in.
    2
  519.  @alapikomamalolonui6424  with conservative regimes? yes.
    2
  520.  @captainoblivious_yt  it hand about two, and the rest was pure corporatism. also, talking points and policy are vastly different.
    2
  521.  wannabchomsky  oh, and don't forget that he says socialism doesn't work, despite being... everything, according to him.
    2
  522.  @Wargulpartal  Mate, venezuela literally has a 70% private economy. This is my point, you label random things as socialist or communist without once actually even trying to define the terms. Hell, you say capitalism is freedom, which is funny, because that's literally the opposite of the case. Did you know that statistically speaking luck matters more than hard work in how wealthy you will become, under capitalism? Do you even know what capitalism is, or is that just another system you refuse to define?
    2
  523.  @Wargulpartal  Yeah, few things because I don't have the energy to deal with you. 1. Freedom isn't capitalism 2. That isn't how taxation works 3. What does any of this have to do with universal healthcare?
    2
  524.  @josephkempinger  That's fair, but personally I enjoy going line by line and responding to a large amount of things at once rather than meandering all over with different topics while being unable to address old ones. But yeah I suppose to each their own and all, fair preference.
    2
  525.  @goforbroke4428  Why do modern politicians attempt to portray themselves as good actors, as attuned to the needs of the people, as non corrupt? Kid, you're literally asking me why politicians lie, and then acting like it's a good argument. They lie for political gain - something politicians have done for centuries. Your entire argument is just a bunch of meaningless drivel without anything that refuted what the man said about socialism.
    2
  526.  @HablaCarnage63  This is a reply to your recent comment, and if you can't handle conversations that regard definitions, you should probably stop trying to rewrite terms and definitions. In any case, the cited statement is the definition of socialism, and that's about as simple as it gets, no "revisions" necessary. And we w already been over the uselessness and redundancy of the "socialist countries" conversation and why that has nothing to do with the point at hand. I quite literally just gave you the definition of socialism,and I have been for a while,so of course I have provided that. Socialists want the means o production to be socially, aka collectively, owned, as opposed to privately or purely state owned. If you don't want that, you aren't a socialist. Again, rather simple. you haven't been waiting for these, they have been provided for quite a while now, and it seems you're trying to deflect from that fact for whatever reason.
    2
  527.  @HablaCarnage63  Not really, again, one can easily say that there were movements that embodied socialism and communities that did so as well without there being a concrete nation or state that embodied those values and policies. And this is where your argument fails. Defining something accurately is not "so narrowly it means nothing at all." If that term has country specifically to point to, that doesn't change the definition. This isn't my own definition, I literally copied it from a dictionary. Socialism, as a term, has always meant collective control of the means of production. There have been some efforts to put in place socialism at a national level, but they are often crushed by outside forces. The issue is, your definition of socialism is so all encompassing, the actual definition must seem exceedingly narrow to you. I have given you, quite literally, a core policy of socialism to hold up and compare to countries to see if they were socialist or not. Would it help if I gave this policy to some fictional country? I have told you what socialism is. Yes, the progress being finding out that your argument seems to have no purpose ...And yet, I hope to god that we can both agree that nazism does not in any way fit the definition of anarchism, even without a country to point to. No, I think that there are plentiful examples of anarchists and socialists to examine, and anarchist/socialist communities one can use as an example, but on a national level no, there aren't many examples. And again, i'd ask why this matters. Even if the definition describes only one specific ideology (as all ideological definitions do) how does that mark it as invalid?
    2
  528.  @HablaCarnage63  And i'm pointing out, as I have previously pointed out again and again, that calling for specific examples of nations isn't a very useful metric when discussing ideological definitions. And again, my goal here is not to argue over the supposed merits of ideology or if said ideology is worth implementing or even possible to implement. And I would say that operating at major scale isn't the end all be all of the potential of ideological systems but that's another conversation. And if that was the case, again, why does that matter?
    2
  529.  @HablaCarnage63  Ok then, at least we can find commonality in the fact that anarchism and chaos are very different things, and anarchistic systems are not devoid of organization or order. And yes, anarchistic societies are most often proposed along the lines of already existing groups with cohesive structure. Anarchism does not just mean stateless, but yes, societies outside of the reach of nation states are far more anarchistic than modern western societies it seems. And I don't see why not, collective ownership is far from incompatible with anarchy.
    2
  530.  @HablaCarnage63  It's a historical fact given all history, historiography, and general available knowledge and evidence we have at our disposal. Given that your definition of socialism does not come from any sort of historical basis, yes, it is very clearly a rewriting. National examples don't make sense for a metric of ideology given that rarely do ideologies actually take the authority of a full nation under their belt, doubly so in the modern day which is so ceaselessly dominated by a worldwide investment in capitalism. Your thoughts on definitions and the utility of them matter little given that the dictionaries and scholars of the matter so conclusively disprove you in every case. But of course, Hitler wasn't a socialist, according to the very definition of the term, and the history of his regime, both of which you deny to only the service of his modern followers. I would say that very much matters.
    2
  531.  @HablaCarnage63  I'm sure you would say that yes, you seem to say a lot of quite... interesting things, of which few have basis in reality.
    2
  532.  @HablaCarnage63  Well, given i'm the only one in this conversation to actually have cited a dictionary definition, you just said something else that was objectively false. It is, after all, clear that you don't understand that the definitions of ideologies... describe those ideologies alone. Ideologies do not need to operate at either level to be measured and understood though, which you seem not to understand, much like you don't understand socialism. Hitler was not a socialist, according to all objective history. The notion that he was only serves to help his modern followers by misdirecting attention.
    2
  533.  @davidlindsey6111  Sorry, that isn't true. The dictionary definition of socialism is, as I quote, "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 government, community. You don't seem to understand that democracy is not tyranny of the majority, nor do you seem to understand that you currently advocate for a tyranny of the minority. Dictatorships of the proletariat is a concept that says that one class, as a whole, has complete political authority in a nation. Socialism is, as we've already been over, social ownership of the means of production. "Big government" is a useless buzzword.
    2
  534.  @a.r.5695  Lenin never called his system socialist and I very much doubt you can name a single one of Marx's beliefs. Socialism was attempted in a few specific ways and was more often than not suppressed or strangled by capitalist powers that felt threatened by the emergence of new world powers with different views than theirs, which seemed to be happening at a faster and faster pace. Again, you are free to hold whatever nonsense beliefs you want, but equally so, I am free to point out how absurd and ahistorical they are.
    2
  535.  @davidlindsey6111  "Perceived as" being the key, and why it's a buzzword. Conservatives perceive any social spending as "big government" while advocating for increased spending, intervention, and control by the military, even domestically as just a single example. Big government is a meaningless buzzword, that has no place in serious political analysis.
    2
  536.  @travisadams6279  That's the dumbest shit i've ever heard, and I have to wonder where you got it from, given how hilariously false it is. MARX WAS DEAD BEFORE HITLER WAS EVEN BORN.
    2
  537.  @travisadams6279  "German National Socialism was described by Marx as "True Socialism" in The Communist Manifesto. If you argue against this then you are saying you are a bigger authority on "True socialism" than Marx himself. And you have no credibility." You're a fucking idiot, and this statement is false. "German National Socialism" didn't exist at that time, in any form, nor had it ever been socialist, a fact near unanimously agreed upon by the advocates and enemies of said ideology, except by right wing denialists. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1847. Marx died in 1883. Hitler was born in 1889. The Nazi party was formed in 1920. So, no, Marx did not describe nazi ideology as "true socialism" given it didn't even exist at that point, and would not until decades after his death. What you're referencing is a section where Marx criticizes german socialists of his time, calling them ivory-tower intellectuals who see themselves as the only true socialists, as opposed to the communism of the workers. You are saying that you are a bigger authority on socialism than Marx himself, and somehow think that Marx praised an ideology in a book that would not be formed for over 70 years after the writing of said book. You have literally no credibility.
    2
  538.  @travisadams6279  You're free to continue lying, I have no desire to silence you like you attempt to silence others, but I will point out how absurd and historically false every single one of your statements is. You seem to think that your version of "real life" is something steeped in authority, pain, and force, and that any attempt to reject the notions of constant violence are "utopian." You don't understand human nature, and thus want to force people to adhere to your unnatural ideology. Your definition of socialism makes no sense, and has no basis on the actual historical ideology. And yes a good system has no need for law to enforce it, unlike your system which has always required authoritarian force to keep it in place. Yes, no country was communist according to the actual definition of the word. Your random attempts at rewriting the basic historical definitions of terms do not matter, and it is pointless to waste any more time with someone like you, that thinks marx praised an ideology that was not founded until decades after his death.
    2
  539.  @roguedisciple5961  No, an anarchist, although I suppose some communists would align themselves with the title.
    2
  540.  @nicholashodges201  every brand of anti-socialism you mean.
    2
  541.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    2
  542.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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.
    2
  543.  @gabrielc560  I'm sorry, that's very far from true, but I doubt you've actually spent the time needed to read through my rebuttals so that's no surprise. Furthermore, why would I waste my time with "a paragraph or two" when a simple search of the dictionary definition will do? "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
  544.  Will Wall  congratulations! That is perhaps the silliest and lost incorrect answer to that question I've seen yet. Perhaps you'll figure out the hole in your logic when you answer what the "it" in your response is, but oh well. You'll get there eventually.
    2
  545.  Will Wall  I know you can't handle facts but this is a new low. Does it really piss you off that much to deal with people that actually know what they're talking about and aren't afraid to call you out on your nonsense? Feel free to cry harder, child. I'm not going anywhere.
    2
  546.  @engelsteinberg593  Child, it would be a lot simpler if you just... stopped making up random shit with no evidence? Just saying.
    2
  547.  @Whiteqin  Insults still remain to be non-arguments, sorry.
    2
  548.  @engelsteinberg593  Child, you have no understanding of the basic real world.
    2
  549.  @engelsteinberg593  I'm sorry, this is utterly false. Social ownership does not mean government ownership, nor are the terms interchangeable or synonymous. Social ownership is defined as ownership by the collective as a whole, be it through individual groupings controlling their individual output, or larger organizations. However, the collective as a whole is always represented. Government ownership is when one small group out of that whole collective claims ownership. They can do so with whatever reasoning they want, but unless the desires of the people are wholly represented, this is not social ownership.
    2
  550.  @engelsteinberg593  Child, "food" isn't private property. I get that you're an authoritarian ideologue but unsurprisingly people survived before capitalist statism and will survive long after.
    2
  551.  @voltageisthename  The very fact that you genuinely think that this is an ideological argument about socialism being good or not and not an argument about the historical application of terms shows how little you understand this, and the fact that you somehow define socialism as that only cements that fact.
    2
  552.  @voltageisthename  Your ignorant narcissism isn't an argument.
    2
  553.  @voltageisthename  But it isn't, at all, it's definitions you made up and then lied about the history of. You evidently don't understand the basics of history or economics or even politics and are just making things up. Your "only definitions" are historically false. You don't understand politics.
    2
  554.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  You brought up the gender thing because you knew you were wrong, and had no counters to the facts I have been presenting this whole time. So, you decided to run away, and make a fool of yourself elsewhere, once again proving me easily right, and proving you have nothing but regurgitated propaganda. In any case, of course, this simply marks another point in a long line of points that you've utterly made up, seem not to understand, and are unable to prove. Any proof of your more recent claim, now that you've deflected to gender? No? That's what I thought. I know you want to run away since I so easily proved you wrong, and since you're unable to provide evidence for a single one of your claims. What "old commie rhetoric?" Oh right, you're just coping with your loss. So go ahead, run away, with the knowledge that i've objectively proven that the nazis were right wing anti-socialists much like you, and that not everyone you dislike magically becomes a communist. I know you want nazism in place in america, you've made that abundantly clear. And child, these aren't dms?
    2
  555.  @mcpartridgeboy  Well my apologies then, I agree that was quite a silly statement and I backed you up on that, as you can see from my previous response, and yeah youtube isn't designed the best for this stuff.
    2
  556.  @peaknonsense2041  Mhm, i'm sure that's why you're arguing with strangers online, because that really tells people that you're at the peak of your life, and not still living off your parents, which you undoubtedly are. What's that "valuable skill," champ? Nothing you've shown so far.
    2
  557.  @jchinckley  so your entire argument is essentially a straw man you cooked up long before you've even seen my posts, if you've even read them at all. Why am I not surprised that you're incapable of rational, logical debate?
    2
  558.  @idk-cj2qy  No, I corrected your ahistorical notion of a moral baseline of ownership and theft, and pointed out that what defines both statements is not objective but socially controlled. I didn't claim anything of the sort - you did, and you continue to. You don't know what theft or ownership was. Evidently you don't understand a single concept we are discussing, likely because your denialism and apologia are clouding your judgement.
    2
  559.  @idk-cj2qy  It's amazing, you're actually attempting to speak to a bot in an attempt to justify your failed moral assertions, which are based wholly on your support of eugenicist nonsense. All to push a failed moral system And you don't seem to understand that sacrificing the free lives of a species for the species itself makes no sense. It's sad yes, but not unexpected give your past lack of understanding Give that you don't even know how to justify your failed moral system through anything but deflection, and can't divert from that, you shouldn't be the one talking.
    2
  560.  @idk-cj2qy  You know the hot won't respond right. You can just reply to me. And no, I "equate" the notion that morality is genetic and decided by preordained genetic traits with eugenics. Because it literally is. But according to you, this somehow has nothing to do with eugenics, or wasn't what I was referencing. This is why it's impossible to actually attempt to discuss anything with one like you. You can sealion for hours, but when actually pressed on and called out for your beliefs, not a peep from you.
    2
  561.  @idk-cj2qy  No, claiming the most moral system is one in which dictatorial authority is omnipresent over citizens in order to best lengthen and protect their lives and species is tyrannical. Claiming that morality is genetic is just another cherry on top of your eugenicist argument. Again, you don't seem to realize that your moral system quite literally lines up with the extreme eugenicism of Hitler. Only difference I've seen so far is that he claimed he wanted to "protect" his race only you want your tyranny to extend over the whole of humanity. Apparently you think the fact of no objective morality means that all positions are equal to all others, which is of course absurd. I'm hearing it from you first - you defend the very ideas Nazi Germany built itself upon.
    2
  562.  @idk-cj2qy  I'm sorry that you really will do anything to deflect from your statements supporting authoritarian rule and eugenics. They really are horrible, but at this point, own up to them. Your moral system would result in authoritarianism in the name of the preservation of the species. What action, in your mind, is too unjust to commit for the very preservation of the human race? Few, I would imagine. Spamming emojis won't change your stated views nor will it rebut my criticisms of them. Stop deflecting from your statements. Own up to the reality of your beliefs, be open and honest for once.
    2
  563.  @idk-cj2qy  Well no, it came from the statements "objective morality is determined by what most benefits the survival of the species" and "morality is objective and based on genetics." Both utterly nonsense statements. The tactic of replying to a bot to get out of giving me your notifications is certainly a sad one, however. Again, own up to the reality of your beliefs.
    2
  564.  @idk-cj2qy  It's just so amusing. The second someone points out that the logical conclusion of your system of morality is authoritarianism you dance around the subject and pretend to not even have heard the point, rather than even trying to refute them. Then, rather than address their point, you make up a version of them in your head that holds views you disagree with, despite the fact that they could easily line up with your "moral" system and views. It's like you really can't defend your ideology, so you'll do anything to deflect, to insult, to run away from it.
    2
  565.  @idk-cj2qy  Saying that the most moral system is one in which the state has total authority to "protect the longevity of the species" is authoritarianism, yes. Why do you keep deflecting from this? Yes, suggesting that it's a set of genes that determines morality is literally a eugenic argument. And suggesting an authoritarian system is authoritarian. Not too difficult, is it? You can't even tell that the guy you're responding to left that exact same response on tens of other comments. You're spamming at a bot to cope with your failure. Brain dead.
    2
  566.  @idk-cj2qy  You don't seem to want to admit that calling for the elimination of those who have "inferior genetic morals" is eugenics. You said that the best system of morality was one that valued, above all else, human survival. That leads to totalitarianism. Do you retract your previous statements? All while you have people that think its morally justified to eliminate those you dislike, calling them subhuman and calling their genes inferior, while referring to your system as some sort of genetic truth. Of course the way of thinking you mentioned has nothing to do with your inspiration adolf hitler, one of the largest contributors to the eugenicist and totalitarian myths you so proudly support. No need to "disassociate" those that already aren't associated. Perhaps you should stop trying to disassociate your way of thinking with its inspiration?
    2
  567. ...what?
    2
  568.  @MrReco12  Something to point out, Mises finishes the quote you gave him by saying he was not personally a fascist and prefered other systems, but the intent still shows itself, he is in favor of fascism when he feels it works, and he wants it used as a tool. That, alongside his history working as an economist for/around the fascist FSA/pre-FSA and Engelbert Dolfuss, as well as the willingness for some of his peers/ideological descendants to praise Mussolini and fascism, almost makes it seem like the connection is a bit more than surface level.
    2
  569.  @MrReco12  Oh, I agree. I just wanted to point that out because i've used that Mises quote before, and people will usually say "that's out of context!!!" because afterwards he says "fascism isn't perfect, I guess." And don't forget Hoppe/Hayeks policies of a strong government to remove anyone who doesn't play by capitalism, and the fact that they seemed to prefer monarchism to liberal democracy, because democracy is communism, or something.
    2
  570.  @TheImperatorKnight  "No Mises practiced Judaism. But even if he didn't, he was ethnically Jewish. " Just like Marx, then! Oh, wait, like I said, your logic only goes as far as one response, and then you abandon it. So your argument that you cannot be anti-semetic for supporting an ethically jewish person literally contradicts your last point. But then again, we all know you are an anti-semite by now, so that's nothing new. You participate in another ad hominem attack by claiming that the person you are replying to thinks capitalism is jewish. Do you have any proof of this? Any at all? Oh wait, no, you don't. You see, like I already pointed out, you hate the same people as marx, you just call them all socialists. And, as marx thought those people were capitalists and that's what makes them bad, that means that you are then anti-semetic, because you think what capitalism actually is is socialism, which is jewish to you "This is a fantastic example of selective quoting." I already pointed out how you guys try to use this excuse, bud. It's hilarious how predictable you all are. Still, let's see some evidence. He is very clearly referencing fascism not as how it sees itself, but as how he is describing it. In other words, it looks exactly like he is currently defending fascism. So the burden of proof now lies on you to provide the context you say is missing from that quotation, and to not just assert that Mises praising fascism is instead him not praising fascism, but the other way around. Because all I see right here is you saying "I don't like that quote" and deciding to make up a backstory for it that yu have yet to substantiate. "Also, what you fail to realize is that Mises was a victim of the Holocaust." This argument is perhaps your most projectionist, and your most fucked up. Do you not realize that you have been calling socialists, the first target of the nazis, fascists this entire time? Do you not realize that you have been comparing people who have lost family in the Holocaust, like Bernie Sanders, to the very far-right nazis who did those killings? The government Mises fled from, despite working for for years before the nazis showed up, was a fascist government. You have been asserting that jewish socialists are somehow more responsible for the atrocities of the nazis than literal workers in fascist politics. The fact that you try to take any sort of high ground here is disgusting, as the very thing you are accusing them of, you continue to do in this very response. :A Corporation is not an individual (private), and thus not capitalism" You've already been disproven on this, bud. It's telling that the only way you think you can prove this point is not by making a historical argument, or a political argument, or even a philosophical argument. No, instead you make it a semantics argument. You argue that the words, the shorthand terms we use to define things have similar bases as other terms, so they must be the same. After all, if you ignore what a corporation actually is, and see that it has roots in the word "group," as does public, they're the same thing. However, the problem is, only you use those definitions, and yet you project them onto the world. When someone is talking about the public, they are not talking about corporations.When someone is talking about a collective of workers, they are not talking about a state. When they want a state where the workers as a collective control the means of production, they are not talking about a capitalist state, in which private corporations own the means of production. You, however, when using those terms, do mean that. That's the thing, it really is like you're talking in a different language, and just really bad at translation. Because when you say a word, and when a socialist says the same word, they are said with radically different meanings in mind. Your comparisons don't work, you say that a collective is a state, and a corporation is a group. However, when marx or a socialist is calling for the workers to own the means of production, they are not talking about your version of states, or corporations. They are talking about their version. So even then, you still get the definition of socialism wrong, even with all of your semantic tricks and other nonsense. After all, you are just talking in your own language, and that doesn't translate into the political desires of others. No matter how many times you repeat it, a socialist does not want a company running the country.
    2
  571.  @TheImperatorKnight  So in other words you literally just repeated the same damn points over and over again. Because you can't actually address criticism. You, I hate to say, are a hypocritical person. YOu continue to push the myth of "fascist socialism" to deflect from Mises' actual beliefs and pin the blame of the holocaust on those that suffered the most from it. Mises supported fascists, in that he worked to implement fascist economics, worked under a fascist government, and had good thing to say about fascism. You yourself seem to contest the idea that nazism is fascism, and that fascism is inherently racist. Remember that? This is another example of one of your pieces of drive; that you've yet to actually internalize. Which was it, fascism and nazism were different? Or is it disrespectful to call a victim of the nazis a fascist? Hell, you seem to not even realize your contradiction. The problem is, you're putting the conclusion before the facts. To you Mises could never have supported fascism (although he undeniably did) because fascism is socialism. Your proof? Nonexistent, but still you insist, he could never have supported fascism, because fascism is socialism. You never stop to think that perhaps he did support it, because fascism wasn't socialism, which is what history tells us. I want you, for one second, to thin like a human and not a hypocrite. You denied that fascism is nazism, and yet deny a man was fascist based on the nazis, which makes no sense. (his entire country was fascist and hated the nazis.) You deny fascism is racist, yet use the racism of nazis to deny a man is fascist. You seem to think it is disrespectful to accuse people of being anti-semetic for no reason, and yet that's all you do, most likely as an act of projection as you have a bit of an obsession with hating the rich and factory owners, which you have previously connected with jewish people. You say that it's disrespectful to compare victims of the Holocaust with the ideology that perpetrated it, and then go on and call socialism fascism, which is literally you blaming some of the first victims of nazi purges and murder on the system that murdered them. You see, you're long beyond reason, you seem to hate factual information. You don't like that your own words disprove your point, so you ignore them. You don't like that you are more anti-semetic than anyone else in this conversation according to your own logic, so you project that onto all that correct you. You don't like that you have systematically proven yourself to not have a single consistent viewpoint, so you ignore everyone who points out your hypocrisy. You deny the beliefs that are openly stated to blame the holocaust on it's victim, you call everyone you don't like a socialist, and you have proven yourself to be an anti-semite. And TIK, I hate to remind you, but this is all by your own logic. The longer you speak the less credibility you have. So, as a parting tip before I remind you of the fact that everything in this response had already been addressed, i'll say something. A bit of advice: stop worshiping fascists. Stop calling people anti-semetic with little to no evidence, when your logic points to your blame more than theirs. Stop acting in a racist and anti-semetic manner, and then denying it all, and most of all, stop deflecting from the problems that are so obvious in right wing, non socialist fascism, capitalism, and totalitarianism and stop blaming all of your internal issues and bigotries on socialists. Because every time you say "fascist socialism," you are turning people's eyes away from the actual rising threat of fascism. Every time you say "fascist socialism," the next fascist regime is normalized a bit more. And every time you say "fascist socialism," you bring the horrors and racist genocides of those regimes a step closer into reality. Those that cannot understand history are doomed to repeat it. "No Mises practiced Judaism. But even if he didn't, he was ethnically Jewish. " Just like Marx, then! Oh, wait, like I said, your logic only goes as far as one response, and then you abandon it. This is especially funny considering both of your examples were atheists. So your argument that you cannot be anti-semetic for supporting an ethically jewish person literally contradicts your last point. But then again, we all know you are an anti-semite by now, so that's nothing new. You participate in another ad hominem attack by claiming that the person you are replying to thinks capitalism is jewish. Do you have any proof of this? Any at all? Oh wait, no, you don't. You see, like I already pointed out, you hate the same people as marx, you just call them all socialists. And, as marx thought those people were capitalists and that's what makes them bad, that means that you are then anti-semetic, because you think what capitalism actually is is socialism, which is jewish to you "This is a fantastic example of selective quoting." I already pointed out how you guys try to use this excuse, bud. It's hilarious how predictable you all are. Still, let's see some evidence. He is very clearly referencing fascism not as how it sees itself, but as how he is describing it. In other words, it looks exactly like he is currently defending fascism. So the burden of proof now lies on you to provide the context you say is missing from that quotation, and to not just assert that Mises praising fascism is instead him not praising fascism, but the other way around. Because all I see right here is you saying "I don't like that quote" and deciding to make up a backstory for it that yu have yet to substantiate. "Also, what you fail to realize is that Mises was a victim of the Holocaust." This argument is perhaps your most projectionist, and your most fucked up. Do you not realize that you have been calling socialists, the first target of the nazis, fascists this entire time? Do you not realize that you have been comparing people who have lost family in the Holocaust, like Bernie Sanders, to the very far-right nazis who did those killings? The government Mises fled from, despite working for for years before the nazis showed up, was a fascist government. You have been asserting that jewish socialists are somehow more responsible for the atrocities of the nazis than literal workers in fascist politics. The fact that you try to take any sort of high ground here is disgusting, as the very thing you are accusing them of, you continue to do in this very response. :A Corporation is not an individual (private), and thus not capitalism" You've already been disproven on this, bud. It's telling that the only way you think you can prove this point is not by making a historical argument, or a political argument, or even a philosophical argument. No, instead you make it a semantics argument. You argue that the words, the shorthand terms we use to define things have similar bases as other terms, so they must be the same. After all, if you ignore what a corporation actually is, and see that it has roots in the word "group," as does public, they're the same thing. However, the problem is, only you use those definitions, and yet you project them onto the world. When someone is talking about the public, they are not talking about corporations.When someone is talking about a collective of workers, they are not talking about a state. When they want a state where the workers as a collective control the means of production, they are not talking about a capitalist state, in which private corporations own the means of production. You, however, when using those terms, do mean that. That's the thing, it really is like you're talking in a different language, and just really bad at translation. Because when you say a word, and when a socialist says the same word, they are said with radically different meanings in mind. Your comparisons don't work, you say that a collective is a state, and a corporation is a group. However, when marx or a socialist is calling for the workers to own the means of production, they are not talking about your version of states, or corporations. They are talking about their version. So even then, you still get the definition of socialism wrong, even with all of your semantic tricks and other nonsense. After all, you are just talking in your own language, and that doesn't translate into the political desires of others. No matter how many times you repeat it, a socialist does not want a company running the country.
    2
  572.  @JT-rc4ng  wrong again, Fascism was right wing by Creation, right wing by admission, and right wing by practice
    2
  573.  @phillip3495  You can try to pretend to not see it, but that just makes your defeat sadder. You've made no argument besides the repetition of your original claim with no backing, and have made no attempts to respond to my rebuttals of it. You provided an assertion you call a "well known fact," yet you are unwilling to actually cite said "fact." You openly admit that you don't actually have a source, and instead refer to something that you call "near self evident," (by which you mean an assertion that you agree with so much you don't need a source) so you have yet to provide a source. Strike one. Your claim is that the nazis were socialists, not not-capitalists, you can't even get your own argument right. Strike two. Finally, again, your final claim is "that's a contradiction." No argumentation, no citation, no logic, just a plain assertion presented as if it cannot be disagreed with. You're 0 for 3 champ. Of course, as we both know by this point, hitler wasn't a socialist. His party was a far right anti-socialist policy that mirrors modern right wing movements. Socialism was on the rise, and there was need of an ideology to oppose it in the name of the right, and there it was. Of course, this proves my point wonderfully. I type out paragraphs upon paragraphs rebutting your claims, and what's your response? You ignore the arguments, and just say the same thing. It's like trying to teach a child the word for "tree." "You see kid, that brown and green thing is a tree!" "No it's a cloud" "No, you can see it's a tree, here's some evidence" "But it's a cloud." "Why do you think it's a cloud?" "Because it is, it's near self evident." "But that isn't true, and here's why." "Furthermore, that thing is a cloud..." and so on. I give you logic, facts, and argumentation, and you just repeat your long disproven assertion, "the anti-socialist right winger was a socialist." I take that as a win.
    2
  574.  @phillip3495  The simple fact is, you ignore the sources in question while openly admitting you have not even heard their arguments or witnessed the objective facts that led to such statements, simply because you know that you have no way to rebut them, and so you only read history you agree with. See, here's the thing. If you were actually confident in your arguments, you wouldn't just "dismiss" the rebuttals of others. It shows the world that you can't deal with what they say, so you make your excuses to run away. You only dismiss these historical sources because, in your eyes, they leave out the "essential data" of your feelings being somehow fact to you.
    2
  575.  @christopherdukett4158  And how is that? I hate to break it to you but in all things, historical, scientific, economic, ect, there are things that are right and things that are wrong, and there is nothing wrong with criticizing a work for using the former notions to push the latter. In-depth study and citation is always interesting, but it's pointless and not immune from criticism when, like TIK's video, it takes a position so blatantly opposed to reality and our current understanding of terms and history, without even the backing to justify it. Being open to new perspectives doesn't mean defending said perspectives long after they have been introduced, and flopped. The problem with citing a bunch of people who prove you wrong is you generally have to find an argument for using the sources beyond "I don't think this person is educated." There's nothing closed-minded about pointing out that using sources that contradict your core claim generally doesn't work, especially when your excuses for said sources apparently being wrong has so little basis. Comparing the modern day historical understanding of the nazis, one based on constant criticism, empirical fact and historical observation, with the actions and beliefs of religious zealots, is absurd. As far as reality can tell, TIK managed to be a good rhetorician but a horrible historian, and his case is long buried and dismissed by all that didn't go into it with an ideological predisposition.
    2
  576.  @phillip3495  The problem with Laissez-faire Capitalism is that people don't seem to realize it's one capitalist system of many, and in all honesty, not the most historically supported or successful one. Of course, capitalists will deny this, they'll define capitalism as broad as human nature when it suits them (often capturing ideologies like socialism within their understanding of capitalism) while attempting to shrink the definition to one set of policies within the long history of capitalism when criticized. Capitalists seem almost religious most times. The problem is, your ideology is fa more important to you than actual objective fact. That's why whenever you praise said ideology, you assert that your appraisals are objectively true, despite (of course as usual) not providing anything but your own assertions to back this. For example, "rational markets/individuals" isn't a "fact." In reality, it's a theory of human development, one more and more disproven by the very processes of capital as time goes on. The fact that you think there is no other explanation for a mass historical event that took place across times and cultures is a bit absurd. You think the system of slavery that describes the early united states is one of pure freedom as long as one doesn't kill another. You also touch on the actual fact that capitalism is an ideology which cannot exist without the violent efforts of the state to enforce capitalist ideology. Sure, capitalist governments "protect from theft and fraud," while also defining exactly what those are and what the punishments will be. It's funny, you claim the industrial revolution was directly a result of American capitalism, despite the industrial revolution starting in Britain before America was even a declared country, hell, even before the revolutionary war kicked off. The US didn't succeed because of "freedom," even Jefferson knew that. The US succeeded because of an economy based off of initially slavery, and later, imperialism. See, the issue again is that you're projecting your own views onto those of others. In reality, history shows that the most stable system is one that does not embrace Laissez-faire Capitalist ideology, but economic-interventionist ideology. Of course, the empirical data does not at all suggest what you say it does, but it's not like you actually provided any sort of source like usual, so nobody has any idea where you got your claim from. Capitalism is, sadly, not a system of freedom, but of compression, repression, and domination from a thousand angles, a self fulfilling membrane blocking our way to human progress and improvement. In reality, China is banning more things as of now, such as recently banning crypto-currencies, and yet you praise them because your ideology is entire incoherent. Your "correct set of policy" is the reason the US has been slowing down, and a rejection of that policy is the simple reason so many places in the world are ahead in so many ways.
    2
  577.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    2
  578.  @anonygent  "It" does i'm sure, which is why you're so afraid to provide, right.
    2
  579.  @polpol2739  Sadly for you, he didn't say that. he said that internationalism, defined by him as socialism and parts of capitalism, was a threat to the processes of capital in his nation, his beloved "productive capitalism" and "german private industry," that was orchestrated as part of some plot he used to factor into his antisemetic beliefs. He had no desire to destroy either of those things. Stop making strawmen based on statements that don't have a thing to do with my argument. Stop believing in rigbt wing ahistorical nonsense. And stop taking dictators on their word.
    2
  580.  @polpol2739  I mean, i'm literally, right now telling you exactly what he said. Evidently you're not going to believe him when he says how much he values private property and "productive capitalism," and when he said he only opposed international capitalism, not the processes of capital in his nation. Right now you're believing what random people on the internet over his actual words, words you're trying to deny and replace.
    2
  581.  @anonygent  Or, in other words, you would rather believe a source you are unable to provide in a piece specifically meant to reinforce your ideological perceptions than dare to question the information you're being spoon fed. Excuses, excuses.
    2
  582.  @anonygent  I mean, the supposed source of the location of the source is in the "goddamn quote." the actual source for the claim is nowhere to be found, unless I were to dig through heaps on nonsense in whatever book you cited. How amazing... Your "citation" is "According to some unnamed research cited exclusively in a book with the sole goal of pushing right wing talking points..." How solid.
    2
  583.  @polpol2739  But nothing about that is "socialistic action," nor does it accurately describe his policies. He wanted the state and private property to work with eachother, not one to rule the other. Socialism is social ownership, and nothing you've described fits that. You're describing anti-socialism and labelling it socialism. Your quote talks of "free market capitalism," or international capitalism, which is not all capitalism. "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." "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). "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).
    2
  584.  @kejiri3593  It appears i'm having to give you a history lesson, one you aren't even interested in listening to. No, eugenics was not a popular position within progressives of any era, you're thinking of conservatives, that founded the ideology and supported it all throughout its history, up to the modern day. What actually was a popular position within progressives of the 1800s was anti-eugenics, which made them unpopular with conservatives. Progressives never supported eugenics, so how could they stop after a conservative group showed the world how bad they were? Why would the actions of the nazis, following a conservative ideology, make progressives and socialists look bad? No, it was only after the nazis fell that conservatives were unable to support eugenics openly, though they still do, and are getting more bold in it. "obviously only difference between a socialist and a nazi is, socialist is pro globalism and nazis is racial nationalism." Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. No, child, there are more differences between nazis and socialists than can be counted, the ideologies are fundamentally opposed. There have been socialists that aren't "globalists" and they still look nothing like nazis. Socialists call for social ownership, progressive policy, workers rights, and so on. Nazis hate literally all of those things. No, child, the difference between nazis and socialists doesn't begin and end at nationalism vs globalism. The fact that you're genuinely ignorant or malicious enough to suggest that... well, it's disgusting. No, child, socialists aren't "pro globalism" and they are fundamentally opposed to nazism in every way, hence them being opposite ideologies with hundreds of differences and next to no common ground. "only difference?" Ignorant. And how many times do I have to remind you that the nazis did not desire authoritarian control over the economy, and that not all socialists are authoritarian, or even want a state. Ignorant.
    2
  585.  @kejiri3593  What are you even talking about? Just read a dictionary for once.
    2
  586.  @kejiri3593  Yes, child. I'm actually able to read a dictionary. Socialism is defined a social ownership of the means of production. So, no, not capitalism, since you seem to not know what capitalism is. And no, not state control. Are you daft?
    2
  587. No, people aren't calling him a capitalist, for the most part. People are just saying he wasn't a socialist, and TIK has this weird binary idea that there is only capitalism and socialism, so I guess he just either assumes that when people say he was right wing/wasn't a socialist they mean he was a capitalist, or he just wants to strawman other people's points.
    2
  588.  @deangoldenstar7997  not necessarily, monarchism has been around for much longer on the right wing, but in the modern day sure. The problem is that binary systems of political ideologies just don't... work.
    2
  589.  @deangoldenstar7997  Well there is a totalitarian/libertarian axis as well.
    2
  590.  @voltageisthename  Not quite. Yes, he did kill, repress, chase away, imprison (and so on) millions, that at least you can admit to. But his economy was based on privatization, and even those that weren't useful, were working internationally, or didn't do what he wanted were most often not targeted or taken from. Loyalty to the party, much less extreme, unfaltering loyalty, was not a requirement.The few who didn't have this happen had their property given to another private individual or organization, so not nationalized, and not state controlled. The nazi's "justification" for their crimes included their views on the supremacy of private property, and as I said, privatization, true privatization, defined their economy.
    2
  591.  @kipter  That's just blatantly false. The means of production largely remained in the same hands, and he got support not from "party friends," but from constant economic incentives to bribe the owning class into support of his ideology. The economy was under private control, not government control. Simple stuff.
    2
  592. Nobody calls him a capitalist. We just know he's not a socialist.
    2
  593.  @Aneko101  So what I'm hearing is, without any evidence, your only way to deal with history (that utterly refutes your nonsense) is by claiming that your allies and inspirations aren't those things at all, and that the right is just the left.
    2
  594.  @Aneko101  If you didn't care about my response, you wouldn't bother typing out a whole paragraph of cope to deal with the fact that you know you can't debate me. You claim i've been "destroyed countless times throughout this entire comment section," and yet you still seem afraid to even entertain the notion of debate. This is because, of course, it is my denialist and apologist opponents that have been "Destroyed," and I simply am willing to do the research you ideologues are not. Again, it's all well and good to claim arguments that hurt your feelings are "debunked," but neither you nor anyone else in this comment section seem willing to actually provide any evidence/argumentation of said debunking... likely because they don't exist. You need to claim that the facts I present are refuted by the video, as if they aren't direct refutations of the claims in the video, and that they've been refuted by your peers, despite your inability to point to cases of this. Child, can you point to a single instance where I have called someone a "nazi?" Can you even, perhaps, name this supposed "hivemind" I belong to? You can't? How unsurprising. I treat children like children, sue me. It's genuinely funny that you feel so confident in your brainwashing that you attempt to mock the simple fact that corporations are capitalist, something any self-given or professionally-given economic education could teach you near instantly. You are o afraid of open debate that you have to state basic facts, along with strawman arguments, in order to even feel confident enough to respond. And let's look at some of those made up claims. Child, I've never given a moral or "quality" description of capitalism, communism, or socialism. I don't call for a "commie utopia," nor do I say "Capitalism bad." I now you're attempting to project your own ideological foundations of this argument onto me, but you'll have to try harder. It's also worth pointing out that the claim in question, one long proven, is that the American political parties (as the de-sectionalized) switched their allegiances to "left and right," not that the concepts of left and right themselves switched. In any case, yes, corporations are capitalist, and fascism is right wing. You feel the need to call me a "Commie" to prematurely dismiss my arguments, and paint a portrait of me in your head that you can attack. Why address historical arguments when you can simply pretend someone is something, and attack them for that thing? You legitimately have no argument outside of your hivemind that consists of anything more than "commie!!" Hell, you aren't even educated enough yet to realize that "anarcho communism" is a redundancy, not an oxymoron. Jesus. Despite your crystal-clear cope, your insecurity with your own points and inability to debate proves one thing. No, child, I have not been "destroyed" in any capacity... that would be you. I repeat many of the same arguments because they are backed up by numerous cases of citation, which I readily provide, and you seem unable to disprove them. I'm sorry you seem to feel that historical and factual revisionism are bad things, perhaps you should stop participating in it and defending those that encourage it? all you have is screaming "COMMIE" at anyone who questions you. Sit down, kid. The Grown Ups are talking.
    2
  595.  @Aneko101  Aka, "I got owned and i'm going to cope about it to random strangers because my revisionism got stomped." What cope. Yeah, dude, the reason you gave up arguing was totally because you saw these points before, not just because you didn't have anything close to a refutation or even substantial response to present, so you just gave up and decided to blame others for the instability of your revisionism. The reasons the left right spectrum as it is literally defined doesn't "make sense" to you is because it correctly categorizes the left and right according to more things than just one political slogan, which is either hard for you to understand, or gets in the way of you trying to call all right wingers you don't like secret leftists. Why exactly should the left right spectrum be on the fantastical undefined buzzwords of "collectivism vs individualism," when the openly declared right wing conservatives have a far longer history of authoritarianism and collectivism than the left? Why exactly should we define left and right that way, given that it would put most modern conservatives on the left, and would split socialist organizations down the middle into left and "right wing" ideologies? Funny, those that actually advocate for a system in which individual autonomy and freedom is the chief concern and is ideally maximized are openly leftists, while those that advocate for, at best, a decentralized government that still owns your every action, are right wing. In short, if you can't make an argument, stop making it other people's problem.
    2
  596.  @zagorith14  No, bud. Fun fact, right wingers loved slavery, and love it to this day. Hence, conservatives support for slavery, jim crow, segregation, and so on. You don't like that fact? Prove it wrong. You lied about the left, can you back it up? OF COURSE YOU CANT. You can't handle the conservative history of slavery, can you?
    2
  597.  @Janinex98  God, the sad delusions that TIK viewers get themselves into. I hope he feels proud of the type of people who support him. The irony is entirely too obvious for him not to notice. Bud, the reason you reject the left-right divide and want to rely instead on a made up graph in which fascism is somehow a branch of its greatest enemy is because you don't like people accurately pointing out that, like it or not, nothing about your beliefs are centered. You may think they are, likely because you exist in an echo chamber in which they are the only beliefs that you are exposed to and are treated like truisms with no need for proof, but look at what you're actually saying, how you're framing issues. You're framing, for example, the anti-brexit people as "denialists" who want to stop the "democratic will of the people," despite the brexiteers being the only ones actively trying to stop a second vote from taking place. You frame hate speech laws as "draconian" because they punish open neo-nazis, which you perhaps have a problem with because you feel that neo nazi conspiracies like " rape gangs that are 99.9999% Muslim" are just basic, normal opinions to hold, which is especially sad given that no evidence exists for such assertions. The reason you get called racist for these views is because they're not true, so what other incentive do you have to share them? You're all for "free discussion," until people decide they want to freely disassociate with you and call out what I need to reiterate are literal nazi talking points, as in repeated by people who fly the flag and throw up the salute. When an actual factual argument comes up, such as the structural problems of power imbalance and the ability, and often function, of the police to enable racism and protect racists, you just assert without evidence that everything you don't like about the world is totally made up, whereas the conspiracy theories you see being spread by random youtubers who need to clip out half the article to make their outrage bait must always be correct and foundational sources of info. Again, you despise the left right axis because you want to think your views are moderate and rational, when in reality the tirade you just went on would have you openly labelled as far right by even conservative politicians. You want to lump fascism/socialism/communism together to get out of the fact that you're only ever aligning with one of them, and I think you know which one it is. Nobody but you would place you on the center. Here's the thing, bud. If you had just stuck to the original response, I could easily have respect for you. Sure, your story is one sided and most likely false in one or most aspects, and TIK's support of it clearly showcases the crossover between authoritarian rightism and his brand of revisionism, but then you had to go and elaborate in the comments, explain exactly which views people found disagreeable, and it gave me a good guess as to which people you started watching. But hey, go ahead, prove me wrong. Go up to any random person and tell me all these things. Let's see how centered these views are, hm?
    2
  598.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  All you've done here is prove me right, dude. It's telling how the contents of the articles you quoted, and your own comments on the matter, are so vastly different. If you call me a liar, you might want to back it up a bit better. So let's take a look. "That is something that Hitler surely could say, Robert Owen believed on the principle of a class struggle, but his methods were slightly aligned to co-operation, reformism and interclasism; as Hitler's methods tho. (Robert Owen is the father of british socialism)" Not at all. Hitler despised reform, as well as a class struggle. Owen's method of solving those problems was the one most available to him at the time, as he himself was a wealthy property owner, so he thought that those same boons afforded to him could then be used as a sort of tool to achieve his own form of utopian socialism. Hitler's methods, again, were such that he did not care about common ownership, he literally overthrew his government, as he acted as nothing but a crushing boot to the lower classes. "Henri de Saint-Simon is also one of the fathers of the french socialism or utopic socialism too, and, btw, his preech is pretty similar to Hitler's or Mussolini's one. " You just shared a passage about a man who wanted to reduce government interference, taxation, and state control of the economy, and said it was "pretty similar to Hitler's or Mussolini's." Did that slip by you or...? Was the man anti-semetic, yes he was, but i'm afraid back then that was hardly a nazi exclusive opinion. Since you didn't actually write anything on Fourier, i'll just mention that while he was an inspiration for later socialism, he was a proponent of Fourierism, a sort of pre-socialist system of common ownership, which as you can see had very many differences to socialism that would come later. "What can I say? Well, i'll say that if you have nothing but biased beliefs then don't come here trying to counter someone's argument, most of "utopics socialist" are concerned to the idea of what Hitler wrote, but also pretty attached to what he've done. Do a research and then show your ideas, cause if you don't do so then you're just going through a shit show. " Yeah, this is the issue. You included a bunch of links and quotes and names, and good for you, but your analysis of the figures does not actually match up with the actual actions and ideas of both these figures, and hitler. My ideas are biased towards history, and in a follow-up response to this, i'll show you the origins of hitler's ideology, not in any of these figures. Speaking of these figures, as I said, while class was not always their primary concern it absolutely a method of consideration, whereas it was utterly rejected by hitler. The people you bring up were entirely different from Hitler in nearly every policy, though yes, they did share some similar bigotries (though not at all with the same purpose.) You see, the thing is I have "done a research," and found that hitler was absolutely not a socialist, and was right wing. I am actually prepared for the supposed "shit-show" you tried to send me through. Anyway, i'll just post another response going over how hitler was inspired, and how he redefined the word "socialist."
    2
  599.  @Scornfull  You're free to cope but the simple fact is that you have no arguments, not a single one, just the same copy-pasted nonsense. Hitler's system was anti-socialism and hitler was, of course, right wing by definition. Cope.
    2
  600. @Hellig Usvart Ah, so we've got another textbook denialist take over here. While I cannot claim to be surprised given the amount of those who assert similar things, I will readily share my disappointment.
    2
  601.  @radioactiverat8751  i'm sorry people keep replying to me? Like, i'm not going to leave their assertions and accusations unanswered.
    2
  602.  @radioactiverat8751  What an amazing, profound point. Too bad I really don't care in the slightest about your view of this all. This whole video is just an online argument, and again, i'm only replying to those who reply to me, nothing more. Not my fault I keep getting dragged back into this.
    2
  603.  @AverageAlien  Apparently, according to you, opposing nazism is a "cope." Sorry you can't handle the fact that the nazis, like you, were proud anti-socialists :)
    2
  604.  @AverageAlien  I agree, you're a flat earther. Thank you for admitting that you, like hitler, hate socialism and leftism though!
    2
  605.  @AverageAlien  I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Hitler was a proud right winger, said so himself. As far left as possible you get anarchism, communism, not proudly conservative fascism/nazism. Of course, fascism is about as far from socialism as you can get, but you already new that. Hitler was a fascist, of course, but you don't like that fact. He was a proud anti-socialist. It's almost like you didn't read a single one of the primary sources.
    2
  606.  @AverageAlien  The right literally praises his name, flies his flag, and shouts his motto. They don't only share similarities with him, they love him. Hitler was as far from a leftist as you can get. I'm not even a socialist.
    2
  607.  @AverageAlien  Child, you've already been disproven on this. You are denying reality, and its rather sad. You hate that the nazis weren't socialists, and that you can't use them to push your horrific, pro-fascist narrative. Yes, child, your evil ideology has been exposed. I'm sorry that you can't handle the past of the right, but that will never change it :)
    2
  608.  @AverageAlien  It's conservative right wing ideology, keep coping.
    2
  609.  @AverageAlien  "zero right wing ideals" if you ignore all of his ideals, maybe
    2
  610.  @AverageAlien  To "average alien" here, "left wing as they come" means hating the left, hating all the left stands for, and doing all to oppose the left (violently) while supporting, siding with, promoting, protecting, and praising the right :)
    2
  611.  @AverageAlien  cry harder nazi fanboy. Sorry reality doesn't fit your narrative.
    2
  612.  @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.
    2
  613.  @trystdodge6177  yeah, not only is that not true, it shows just how much you need to twist the truth to make your point. "If you replace something with something completely different, it becomes something different!" It isn't even true, that's the funniest part.
    2
  614.  @trystdodge6177  Like, you have to realize how silly this is. When does marx state that "social man" is culturally and genetically superior, that they deserve to take over the entire world and wipe out or subjugate all others, that they must engage in private property, that social darwinism is inevitable, that the world is their birthright, and on and on and on. You're repeating a talking point you don't understand.
    2
  615.  @trystdodge6177  If you replace "social man" or "soviet man" in communist writings with Aryan, you don't get nazi ideology, you just get a confused jumble of language because races are not economic groupings. Manifest this ideology to reality and you still don't get the far right anti-socialist nazis. What you're saying is that replacing something with an opposing thing... somehow reflects on the original? By this logic, communism must be capitalist and vice versa, because you can replace "working class" with "industrialists/capital owners/individual private owners." You don't seem to understand theory or the realization of ideas, much less reality, which you seem to despise talking about and wholly separate yourself from.
    2
  616.  @trystdodge6177  Thanks for admitting it at least. Not sure why my name matters here? But alright I guess
    2
  617.  @trystdodge6177  Yes, it is, but spelled correctly.
    2
  618.  @trystdodge6177  Child, your ignorance is off the charts. Have you considered attempting to not lie, or not be a fascist?
    2
  619.  @trystdodge6177  So not only do you not know the definition of socialism, you appear to not know the definition of fascism.
    2
  620.  @trystdodge6177  "Fascist socialism" is by definition an oxymoron. Fascism isn't "also socialism," given that fascism is an idea you defend constantly.
    2
  621.  @trystdodge6177  I'm talking about you being wrong, and I proved it. Your lack of substantive response shows as much clearly. Who benefitted in nazi germany? The private owners and conservatives who proudly endorsed the nazi party. Who benefittted in the USSR? The party itself, as well as workers not being shot to death by a tsar every other day. Funny you mention the individuals involved in politics at the time, given that those individuals were largely private owners in nazi germany. Yes, the far right, anti-socialist party benefitted from their own rule. "It was fascist socialism which is to say fascism, which is also Socialism. Socialism is authoritarian and fascist." Not a single word of this is true. "Fascist socialism" is an oxymoron. "Fascist Socialism" is not fascism, as fascism is anti-socialist. Fascism is not "also socialism," as fascism is a far right anti-socialist party. Socialism need not be authoritarian, and cannot by definition be fascist. The definition of socialism is literally social ownership, so yes, worker control of the means of production. Your "in practice" statement is not only not true, but it does nothing to change the definition. IF it doesn't fit the social ownership definition, it isn't socialism. Of course, that point is moot, given that nazi germany openly rejected the notion of state control of the means of production. Insults won't change the facts kid.
    2
  622.  @craigstobbs9215  I have yet to see any sort of reliable source for a single one of Peterson's claims, however, works in history like the Third Reich Trilogy, Ur-Fascism, The Vampire Economy, and so on easily refute his claims. "Peterson's work and research?" What work and research? You mean his own assertion? His argument stand refuted, and yet they don't even need to go that far to be dismissed, given his lack of argumentation in their vavor.
    2
  623.  @craigstobbs9215  why is that you assume i'm supposed to do his work for him?
    2
  624.  @craigstobbs9215  And why exactly is that? People don't respond or listen anyway, why would I not call them what they are and make that openly known?
    2
  625.  @trystdodge6177  Thank you for, in your own words, proudly admitting that they were conservatives.
    2
  626.  @trystdodge6177  Child, you really need a basic education on this. Nazi ideology taught that the "true aryan nation" was a traditional concept, that had existed in the past and had been destroyed in the present by liberals and progressives, both of which the nazis saw as a degenerating force controlled by jewish people. They weren't "progressing towards" something, they were attempting to return to a tradition. The founder of traditionalism was a literal fascist, the phrase "return to tradition" is a well-known fascist motto, how are you this ignorant? I mean hell, progressivism isn't even defined as "progressing towards anything. They weren't "progressive and socialist and racist," they were conservative, right wing anti-socialist, and racist. And stop deflecting for once in your life.
    2
  627.  @Flegado  I really do not care how you think I sound, to be perfectly and completely honest. Good day and go bother someone else champ
    2
  628.  @mdjey2  lmao you got so triggered by the truth that you had to stalk my account? That's actually hilarious. Dude, how pathetic is that, you got owned before you even got a reply.
    2
  629.  @mdjey2  thank you for admitting to total and complete ignorance. No, child. You're thinking of your own words, the proud words of the right, which you support.
    2
  630.  @mdjey2  Child, equality, tolerance, and the reduction of hierarchy is how the left itself is defined. You're claiming that the left isn't capable of leftism. To prove this, you attempt to claim that "In communism there is a hierarchy of class," despite the fact that the first qualifying aspect of a communist society is the abolition of class. You're thinking of capitalism. Far right nazi ideology does in fact encourage hierarchy, yes, not too hard to figure out. And of course there's a huge amount of difference between the two, like it or not.
    2
  631. it's a damn shame this video is so long disproven.
    2
  632.  @Hopgoodd  With exactly what? The man above defines socialism as any system in which there is state control, and he defines a state as any collection of people. I could tell you exactly why hitler wasn't a socialist, but it's important to start with how he doesn't even define socialism correctly, which is kind of proof that actually using the definition, Hitler wasn't a socialist.
    2
  633.  @AppliedMathematician  You quite literally said "I am by birth bourgeoisie and have not chosen that." followed by "If they want something from me they have to pay me appropriately. Thinks I do not want do to, I will reject. I know very well I can do this due to a modest wealth of my family." In what was is this not a position of ease? Childhood abuse is more common among families in poverty, not those at the top of society. If you were at the bottom, you would see the problem with frivolously rejecting support and work for no clear gain. There are no ideological assumptions made, I simply literally replied to the post you made. Whatever your life story, that is the information you readily gave, and the information that informed the statement I made. If you have an issue with that, feel free to clarify further. And damn, looks like this system doesn't work the best.
    2
  634.  @AppliedMathematician  Mostly because you seem willing to use different definitions depending on the point of the conversation we're in. That's a bit of a communication problem, I'd say. And yet, that's what happened every time people try to create a "human" capitalism, the private part does its best to define the economy and political sphere and slowly strips away everything else the society has built. I don't care what excuse you use for spreading your ahistorical propaganda, it doesn't really work. The categories in question are clearly defined, you just ignore these objective definitions when it suits you. In any case, great job showing TIK's "logic," but that simply isn't true of what I've said before, hence you being unable to point out in what way I did say anything like that. I don't think you understand your own ideology. I agree, changing definitions gets you nowhere, and muddying the waters of ideology and history by attempting to change definitions to fit your agenda is an objectively bad thing. With this in mind, you should probably stop doing exactly that, and trying to fit hitler into the directly opposing category of socialist, perhaps, given that would require changing the definitions in question, which you allege to be against. But who am I kidding, that kind of self awareness seems a bit beyond you, if i'm being completely honest. Mental Chaos indeed.
    2
  635.  @zaydeshaddox7015  I'm sorry that you're so entrenched in propaganda.
    2
  636.  @mitscientifica1569  You need to be right wing to be a fascist though.
    2
  637.  @christopherdukett4158  Jesus christ, please step outside and drop the conspiracy theories. The democrats are capitalists, not leftists, and progressivism is totally counter to the nazis traditionalism. The right literally repeats the words of hitler and flies his flag, what the heck are you talking about? "Big Tech" and "Big Corporations" are capitalist elements of society that benefit from right wing capitalism. The conspiracy theories you spread sound an awful lot like a historical party's...All of the policies you mention are policies alive and well in capitalist nations, universal healthcare, free college, UBI, gun control even. I'm sorry you don't like types of capitalism that don't align with yours completely but it's a bit absurd how far you'll go to deny them in odd, contradictory ways that really make no sense. And jesus christ, did you really just compare the FBI to the german SS? If you want to speak on the hatch act, right wingers are right there, and you are free to deny the science just like you deny the history, just as I am free to call you out for doing both. It's amazing, you take the problems of a capitalist society, like inflation, and then somehow manage to blame them on socialism, and attribute them to some socialist conspiracy. You don't get news, you get propaganda and believe it wholeheartedly without a second thought.
    2
  638. ​ @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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. //:/
    2
  639.  @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.
    2
  640.  @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
  641.  @renanvinicius6036  And why exactly would we "try" that, given that the arguments themselves are proven in the very responses? Could it be, perhaps, that you didn't bother to read them? Anyway, your "questions," which I must assume are asked out of your own ignorance rather than any desire to honestly learn something. As for conservatives Hitler was influenced by, we could go into the various german conservative thinkers, like Carl Schmitt, who contributed massively to nazi ideology, or Evola, who founded fascist traditionalism as an ideology, or hell, the majority of the german conservative parties, who through the help of Franz Von Papen organized hitler into his political position. One could even look at the conservative german Völkisch movement, that formed the basis of nazi ideology. I could go on and on and on, but you don't care. Why do you presume that one must fit one definition of conservatism, and why do you presume that the invocation of such definition doesn't apply to the nazis? And last, why do you assume "the marxist view" matters in this conversation at all, and that the very definition of leftism itself is false? You fail to understand that personal bigotry and ideological hatred are very different things, and that attempting to conflate the two when it doesn't make sense just further discredits your argument.
    2
  642.  @renanvinicius6036  love how you just openly lie and then never back it up
    2
  643.  @renanvinicius6036  It's not "ambiguous" though, a capitalist system is one in which the means of production are primarily controlled or owned by private owners. There's no such thing as a "leftist capitalist," precisely because leftism by definition must be anti-capitalist from the left. You fail to understand that Hitler despised economies of central control, and thought that they would destroy german industry and his country all together. It is, however, ironic that you cite Churchill as your perfect conservative, given that he was pretty openly a fan of fascism as an ideology, just not a fan of countries attacking his. That is what Churchill "defended." I hate to break this to you, but even by your own admission, conservatism as an ideology holds its roots in totalitarianism and state control. As in, quite literally, supporting the centralization of the economy by the state and great corporation, that use eachother as instruments for their objectives, a trend we see continuing into the modern day.
    2
  644.  @renanvinicius6036  "everyone I don't like is a marxist"
    2
  645.  @renanvinicius6036  Hitler, you mean the far right anti-socialist?
    2
  646.  @renanvinicius6036  Ah, I see. As I predicted, you know you can't actually refute any of the information on the issue, so you just try to run away from it, ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist. Child, I did nothing but show you the meaning of your own words, and teach you history that you hate admitting to. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it true. Just because you don't know any modern conservatives that know about Carl Schmitt, the notoriously conservative ideological founder of nazism, doesn't mean that hitler wasn't a proud student of his, or that he wasn't a proud supporter of hitler. I'm not pushing any spectrums, merely showing you the truth you hate to admit to. Oh, i'm well aware that you don't want to admit to conservatism's history of totalitarianism and state control, but again, that doesn't mean said history doesn't exist. Conservatism is quite literally based in absolute monarchism, do you think that was a particularly "libertarian" ideology for the people forced to live under it? Corporatism is, quite literally, a form of capitalist conservatism. Conservatives of course support the centralization of power by the state, as well as regulation of the market where it benefits them, and they quite literally define their ideology by the increase of state, notably violent state (police and military) power, just like the fascists they support. And again, child, I asked you to not speak on subjects you clearly know little to nothing about. Where did Winston Churchill praise or defend fascist regimes? Where did he say good things about fascist regimes? According to you, nowhere. According to his own letters to mussolini, "What a man! I have lost my heart!... Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world.... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism." Churchill hated war against the fascists, since they agreed on so much. And one cannot forget that it was only due to the policy of appeasement, the policy that Churchill supported, that the nazis and italian fascists even gained power in the first place. He was their fans, their allies, and the reason they rose. How can a temporary alliance with the soviet union at all compare to that? And I quite literally gave you the definition of capitalism, the one definition that unites all of the types of capitalism. As long as said definition is met, the country or economy in question is capitalist, or like fascist regimes, draws heavily from capitalism and supports private property. Hitler believed in the natural inequality of humanity and the supremacy of private property, both of which were equally praised by thinkers like Hayek.
    2
  647.  @renanvinicius6036  But... they aren't. They're pointing out that you don't know what socialism is, and since you have no response given that the statement in question is true, you deflect to a strawman argument. You need to pretend that they only believe in "marxist socialism," despite not knowing what either of those terms mean, or if they actually believe in either at all. Hitler pretty openly hated welfare, much like modern conservatives, saying it rewarded the lazy and drained the state and the hardworking citizens of their money. In any case, no, what they said was nothing like hitler peddling his attempted redefinition, as hitler openly admitted that he was redefining the term, whereas the person here is merely telling you the definition that has always existed. You also don't seem to know that hitler supported private property and a competitive, profit-geared market, which of course most would call a free market. He abhorred economic planning, and thought in no uncertain terms that any deviation from private property would result in the destruction of german industry. He bribed companies into supporting this ideology, which is consistent with modern republican conservative views. I hate to break it to you, but the "shrinking market" hypothesis proves how important capitalism was to hilter's ideology. You really just can't handle that social democrats are capitalists and not leftists. They, like conservatives, don't believe in true individual freedom, but unlike conservatives, they tend not to use corporatists. Conservatives, on the other hand, love supporting massive corporations and huge businesses that end up harming the people who live in that country, and as a result, many of their policies make competition between smaller businesses and corporations completely impossible, which is of course the goal, and is reminiscent of nazi policy. And you don't seem to realize that the conservative notion that people and groups are unequal can, in times, be held by non-conservative individuals. However, it always has and always will belong to right wing conservatives, something you had to admit. I hate to break it to you, but neither of them said nothing of the sort. While some marxist regimes like Fidel's, in the beginning, persecuted gay people, they were also the first to specifically enshrine gay rights into their constitution, something that of course even america has not done yet. They started out just as homophobic as their american counterparts, and then made the first major steps in the world to undo that evil view. I hate to break it to you, but you need to actually provide citations for your claims. Again, you don't seem to understand that even left wing individuals can hold deeply conservative views, which is why many people like August Willich criticized marx while he was still alive, for being so conservative on many social issues. Again, countries like north korea pretty explicitly follow right wing doctrine, which is why they live in a hereditary monarchy, an unabashedly right wing system. But again, you can't tell the difference between propaganda and reality, so i'm not surprised you disagree. You also fail to realize that Marx's "On the Jewish Question" was literally written to combat the concept of "the Jewish Question," which had been raised by conservatives. He was antisemetic, but he wasn't to the level of the conservatives that inspired hitler, and that book isn't where that antisemetism shines. You can continue to show left wing individuals holding occasional right wing individual beliefs, and I could do much the same, or the opposite. But I don't think that's your goal, in fact, I don't think you actually know what your goal is at all, given the amount of deflections you participoate in. I mean, you're full to the brim with propaganda, no individual thoughts left, you actually think the 70% private venezuela is "marxist." You don't realize the definition of socialism, nor do you understand concepts relating to the NEP and similar policies designed to eventually reach socialism. You have somehow convinced yourself that socialism... is private.
    2
  648. child, you asked which conservative thinkers influenced hitler. I provided you with an objective answer. Can't you see how you're trying to deflect?
    2
  649.  @renanvinicius6036  you can't help but lie and deflect... because you know I proved you wrong, and you hate that :)
    2
  650.  @renanvinicius6036  isn't it funny how every single part of your response has already been refuted by me? It's almost like you never read them, because you're embarrassed at how easily I proved you wrong :)
    2
  651.  @renanvinicius6036  Why do you keep asking which of your conservative lackeys prize Carl Schmitt directly? Child, you're changing the subject. You asked me to provide evidence of the right wing foundation of nazi ideology, and I provided exactly that. The problem is, you just want to deflect from the simple fact that the nazis were directly inspired by conservative thinkers, and conservative movements. You keep trying to deflect to those that only name this one person as their sole inspiration because you can't handle the fact that his ideology was conservative. If you're asking about those who are directly inspired by his ideology and writings, or those who learned from those who praised him, then the whole of modern conservatism, yes, including your favorite thinkers, prize him, follow his ideology, and support his movement. Of course, none of this is anything remotely like opinion, it's all objective fact, fact you hate to admit to because you know its right. You still, for example, have not yet understood that there is a difference between left and liberal, and that being left of center does not make you a leftist. Social Democrats are, openly, capitalists, and thus they cannot be leftists, it's that simple. I'm not creating anything child, just telling you the truth, no matter how much you hate dealing with that fact. There's no strawman here child, i'm just proving the truth to you over and over again. I mean you quite literally called me a marxist for the sole reason that I easily proved you wrong, and now you don't even have the courage to stick with that assertion? Sad. Pathetic, even. You didn't say anything close to the opposite, you called random people communists or socialists with no reason. Again, that's no "point of view," child, that's objective reality. It's no "lie" at all that leftists are anti-capitalist by definition, that's literally the definition of the term, no matter how much you hate it. You're a liar. Of course i've read things from conservatives, how else would I be able to so easily name them, quote them, all to prove you wrong without a second thought? I quite easily found a core inspiration of nazi ideology, who was an open conservative, and you ignore it, because you can't handle it. And you're still coping with the fact that the right wing authoritarian racist churchill was ideologically allies with the far right authoritarian racist fascists? Now, child, tell me, which is more likely to be true, a private letter sent to trusted individuals, or a public book made after fascism had self-destructed? The former, of course. Churchill wanted to clear his name of the correct accusations of his sympathies towards fascism, and so he like you deflected away. After all, fascism and communism are about as opposed as two ideologies could get, and Churchill was no communist, yet he supported fascism. No historians say anything like your frankly silly assertion, because it just isn't true. Fascism/nazism and marxism are as far apart as ideas can get, you should know this, loving fascism like you do. They weren't "brothers" of any sort, Marxism is a method of historical analysis that focuses on class differences/inequality and their destructive force, nazism is a far right political, social, and economic ideology that is focused on the necessity of private property, inequality being natural, class differences not meaning anything, and conservatism being the superior ideology. Do you see how different these two are, how they are nearly exact opposites? How they oppose eachother from foundation to the very top? The historian's showcases of course show this, something you hate to admit. It's far from "only in germany" that the truth of left wing socialism's opposition to right wing nazism/fascism is known, it's a simple worldwide constant, one that historians are more than willing to discuss and point out. Why are you deflecting back to one conservative thinker that you never read? Is it because you know you have no actual response to the factual information I have proven to you? Is it because you can't bear to learn about the ideological underpinnings of conservatism that unite your favorite thinkers and hitler, the rejection of progress and love of tradition, hierarchy, competition, and so on? Or have you never read or researched either figure, instead just relying on making things up? And again, you appear not to have actually read my response. I hate to break it to you, but figures who hold mainly left wing views, can hold right wing views as well, and can be criticized for them, as we see with many of the figures you actually named. Also, you need to stop the antisemetic lies. No, Marx's book "*On* The Jewish Question" is nothing like hitler's. You appear to have not read anything beyond the title, and even that you get wrong. The preface "on" means it was a reply to another book, and in fact it was. It was Marx's response to conservative ethnonationalism, and he wholly disavows the genocidal conservative ideology of those who would become nazis within. He was antisemetic, sure, but far less than the right at the time, and he never called for open extermination or genocide, nor does said bigotry find any place in his ideology. It's funny how literally the only similarities you can find between them... is that they both, to different extents, held extremely popular beliefs at the time. Marx also never said the jewish people weren't 'ready for revolution.' Please stop maiking things up. And yes, even people like Che Guevara held deeply conservative views, views that conservatives openly and proudly hold to this very day, and views that find themselves centered in conservative ideology. This is why, removed from their speaker, the left condemns these views, while the right actively and proudly applauds them. Again, child, you asserted this before, leading me to believe that you haven't actually read my response, likely because you're afraid of how accurate it is, and how easily I can prove you wrong. Simply put, this never happened. You just make things up without citation, and refuse to quote, because you know you've been caught in a lie. And again, child, what is "left wing" about north korea, the openly monarchist, conservative society that appeals to conservative nations for its military strength and propaganda? I mean yes, imperialism is by its nature a right wing ideology and practice, normally due to the deep racism it carries. You, however, seem to think that all political invasions or attacks are imperialism, which is quite an odd assertion. All while, of course, continually ignoring the fact that the right as a movement built itself up around the spreading of these deeply conservative ideas, and the ultimate supremacy of their conservative vision. You still don't even seem willing to admit that these countries were the first to enshrine rights for gay people in the constitutions, after putting in place policies that conservatives supported. You literally lied, saying that until the soviet union fell, it was illegal to be gay... not realizing that the soviet union openly legally protected gay people, while the modern conservative-run russia does not. hm, what a coincidence, you're saying that two of the biggest hotbeds of nazi sympathizers and ex-nazis in the entire world hate marx? Wow, i'm so surprised. Now, child, I know that you're an apologist for the nazis, and you hate that piece of truth being spoken, but you need to stop deflecting. Of course a leftist holding conservative views doesn't make them a conservative, but it doesn't make those views any less conservative either, have you been paying attention? No, you haven't, you just want to keep telling easily proven lies. Well, I can prove you wrong all day, month, year, decade, or many more, over and over again. I've simply told you the truth, and you hate that. Your fanatic apologism holds no place in reality.
    2
  652.  @renanvinicius6036  fascism sprang from conservatism, as i've proven. Cope :)
    2
  653.  @renanvinicius6036  child, nobody but you refers to far right nazism and left wing marxism as at all the same.
    2
  654.  @renanvinicius6036  awww, are you still coping at being proven wrong? You already ran away, and now you can't even come up with any excuses! Yes, and you're wrong. I showed you an openly conservative nazi, who was influenced by the conservatism of his time and finds its roots in thinkers from Burke to Chesterton, and your response is to ask if random people still know this guy's name. you don't care about his inspiration from conservatism or conservative ideology, nor do you care about nazism, that he helped form. That is, without a doubt, a deflection, and an attempt to change the goalposts. I'm giving you what you asked for, and you don't like that one bit. Insults don't change facts. Again, no straw man champ, just straight reality. You claim nobody on the right actually believes these things, but you showcase the majority of them, just by yourself. As I have answered you before, of course I have, that's how i'm so easily able to destroy your arguments. But you don't care about the definition of conservatism, and its hatred of progress, equality, and the left, because that all goes against your narrative and proves you wrong. What modern conservative thinkers think about themselves is quite literally irrelevant to the conversation about conservatism and its historical impact. Of course i've answered your question, you just don't like the answer. I've given you your examples, and pointed out that you asking for them is a deflection, which means you continue to admit defeat. You, child, follow Schmitt's ideology. I'm no socialist, but it's hilarious that you previously said that you don't call random people communists, and yet here you are doing exactly that. I'm no marxist, no communist, no socialist, child. Again, hate to break it to you, but you still have yert to realize that not everyone "on the left" is a leftist, and that leftism isn't just "left of center," leftism is the word to describe left wing anti-capitalist ideologies. Yes, you are dumb, and social democrats objectively aren't leftists. I know you hate to admit i'm right, but your pidgeon example is hilarious, given that I easily proved you wrong in my very first response, and ever since then you've just been coping with defeat, dropping the pieces and shitting on the table. I easily refuted you in every one of your questions, you're just in terminal denial. I, unlike you, don't make things up, and I, unlike you, don't mindlessly repeat propaganda.
    2
  655.  @renanvinicius6036  you hate that you proved me right, and you hate that hitler was directly inspired by conservatives, like you :)
    2
  656.  @renanvinicius6036  why do you support such disgusting antisemetism?
    2
  657.  @renanvinicius6036  You haven't refuted anything though, you admitted i'm right and now you're running away since I easily proved you wrong.
    2
  658.  @renanvinicius6036  Your question has been answered for hours now, child. Why is it that you're so afraid to admit this? So afraid to admit I refuted every one of your sad assertions? So afraid of the fact that left wing people can still hold deeply conservative views? I've already answered you, it appears that you weren't paying attention. Why should I do your work for you, why should I work harder to prove what I have already proven, when you aren't even on a level capable of understanding it? I know that you'll come back and answer the same questions, and just like before, i'll answer you. Because eventually, you'll have to admit to the truth.
    2
  659.  @renanvinicius6036  I'm sorry that you've just now figured out your deep ideological connection to hilter and the nazi party. You have, after all, learned directly from them and their inspiration. What's pathetic about calling out bigotry?
    2
  660.  @renanvinicius6036  I'm dumb... because I prove you wrong? Huh? But you are wrong, and I proved it so many times. Your only response is to ignore this fact, and run away. There's no "mental gymnastics" to be found, you just don't like the truth that's staring you in the face. Leftists can, literally, hold conservative views, you see it constantly. These bigotries, these objective views, run entirely counter to their actual ideologies, which is why conservatives praise these bigotries, while modern fans of marx and guevara renounce them. None of this had to do at all with their future, or their hope for a better world, which was explicitly not utopian. They were bigots in spite of their revolutionary plan, not because of it, objectively. You literally think "readed" is a word child, and i've clearly read more marx than you've read words generally. I hate to break it to you but saying it over and over doesn't make it true, and again, you're not listening to me. Leftist does not mean "from the left," how many times do I need to remind you of this fact? No, social democrats according to every philosophical and political book, are capitalists and are thus incapable of being leftists. I hate to break it to you, but you can believe regulation and intermediation of the society from the state... and not be leftists. In fact, the majority of people who believed that specifically hated leftists, and were proud conservatives. The main belief of conservatism is quite literally collectivism, the belief in tradition, in nation, in religion, in hierarchy, and so on. Conservatism has never been in favor of "anti-collectivism." They despise individual freedom, which is why they love the military, police, and state so much. And yes, no matter how many times you try to deny it, Schmitt was openly influenced by Burke and Chesterton (as well as many more) since his philosophical basis is shared with those thinkers. After all, conservatives of the time hated individualism and individualistic movements, as they do to this very day. Of course, when you compare their writings, you find them near interchangeable, and Schmitt's theory was a direct extension of historical conservatism's. Of course, compared to what the nazis did and defended, their ideology looks scarily similar. The nazis projected their view of traditional legal structures and institutions,, while making radical structural changes to oppose progressivism, like modern anti-leftists do. You just can't handle how easy it is to prove you wrong, huh? Cry harder, child :)
    2
  661.  @renanvinicius6036  Oh, so you're just a proud liar. Sad. I "threw out" (provided) citations relating to the economy of fascist italy, and later, fascist projects in general and how they relate to the right. Nothing random about that, that was quite literally the topic of conversation. And again, these policies are the rights, because only the right says that the only way for people to benefit themselves is through individual labor and subordination, rather than any greater effort. The state putting this into strict law is just authoritarian conservatism, the very same conservatism that has existed for centuries. These aren't socialist policies, these are policies that even the modern right pushes for. In any case, the intention was not "protecting the working class," Mussolini didn't even believe there was such a thing as a unified working class to protect, which is why he favored private property. It absolutely matters if you are against capitalism or not, the world and the politics within it follow very strict rules and definitions that you just want to ignore. Again, you don't understand the difference between the left and leftists, but whatever. The promise of social democrats is to provide equality from the state and private market, with progressive reform. You don't need to be marxist to be against capitalism, nor does it have anything to do with a "marxist point of view" to point out that leftists oppose capitalism. But I've literally pointed out you engaging in the exact behavior and rhetoric that i've been calling out this whole time, what are you talking about? You've been defending the right and falling for conservative/fascist propaganda, I think the answer is pretty simple. It's a simple fact that ethnonationalism and extreme nationalism are solely tools from the right, and that "patriotism" in the modern world is simply nationalism in disguise, both of which you defend. Leftist nationalism is based on reformation and a reduction of hierarchy from outside sources, self determinism, and this is why leftists nationalists tend to overthrow conservative countries. Right wing nationalists like hitler, churchill, and mussolini believe in national supremacy that deserves to conquer the globe. This is the extreme nationalism i'm talking about. So yes, being a nationalist in a country like italy and germany meant you were right wing. No ignorance in sight. Hitler was right wing for far more reasons than the fact that he persecuted the left, but he absolutely did do that, he killed them, had them systematically cast out of power and labor and into his camps. However, nothing like that happened to conservatives. He didn't persecute the conservative movement of germany, it was only due to a coalition of conservative parties under Franz von Papen that he even got elected, and as a result, much of those parties were happily absorbed into the nazi party, and Papen himself became hitler's vice-chancellor. He agreed with them, worked with them, rewarded them. Stop lying.
    2
  662.  @renanvinicius6036  Child, I proved you wrong. Not that complicated
    2
  663.  @renanvinicius6036  thank you for admitting your ignorance.
    2
  664.  @renanvinicius6036  So even you have to admit that nazis are opposed to socialism, and are in line with conservative assertions and conservative opinions. You keep making up strawmen and trying to divert, but here you let the game go, you admitted that you have more in common with nazis than socialists ever will, and you didn't even realize it. Stop lying for a second and listen to your own words.
    2
  665.  @AverageAlien  how deluded do you have to be to actually think this, oh my gosh.
    2
  666.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  We're not talking about defining corporatism this way though, nor is this syndicalism. Corporatism was a word I picked to describe the man's advocated policies and positions, not your definition of the term, but the term as it is currently understood. I do love that you feel the need to pretend corporatism, a system of elites and hierarchy, is "collectivist" though. And nationalism, as well as basic supremacist beliefs, has always sat far better with the right
    2
  667.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Mosley supported private property when it aligned with the interests of the state, as well as a national european autarky of labor and necessary resources. He also often qualified that he was talking about corporations in terms of companies, such as him speaking out against the planned obsolescence of some products companies put out. He also utterly rejected the notion of total state ownership or distribution of the economy, as well as even rejecting the income tax. ("Mosley’s Men in Black," John Millican, "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered," Oswald Mosley) The Union Movement was one most often described as a post-fascist movement, and involved taking the fascist views of nation and race, while trying to appear more moderate by including democratic systems. Trade Unions are not corporations, they are Trade Unions. Hence why corporatism is the control of corporations "A corporation is a legal entity created by individuals, stockholders, or shareholders, with the purpose of operating for profit." whereas syndicalism calls for the specific control of trade unions. Nationalism is, according to Oxford Languages, "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." This is also the definition your link uses. This lines up far better with the actual historical record of nationalism, as most nationalists already live in independent nations with no fear of that changing. Nationalism is not, as you asserted previously, just advocating for the independence of a group.
    2
  668.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  No, he did support private property. I'm sorry to be the one that has to break basic economic education to you, but all private property is statist, and supporting private property if it aligns with your ideology (which most does) doesn't mean you don't support private property. Saying "So he didn't support private property" is, objectively, a lie. Self sufficiency is a core trait of nationalistic corporatist economies, and I already gave you a source on his statements relating to that claim. In any case, the issue relating to income tax is not what you think socialists should support, but what in reality, they actually support, and it is a fact that Mosely's rebuttal of the income tax goes explicitly against socialism... like all of his other policies, him being a far-right anti-socialist. The Union Movement also held more moderate economic beliefs, but fascism is not an ideology defined by economics, not only because every prominent fascist movement has advocated for slightly or majorly different economic systems, but because other ideologies can also advocate for economic systems fascists propose without themselves being fascists, as fascism is defined by social views, not economic. "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." Quote about the nazis, still applies here. And again, we're not talking about the fascist definition of corporatism, but a word that I used to describe them based on their policies. We're not speaking in the fascist tense, but the (according to you) "libertarian" tense. And there is a reason both definitions were on that site. Because while some nationalist movements do seek to rebuke colonialism or imperialism and promote an independent nation, the vast majority of nationalist movements historically have been from already independent nations, that push their people above all other people, to the detriment of other nations, as the definition shows.
    2
  669.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "I support private property, but only when it benefits the nation" is actually a pretty damn common right wing talking point given how even TIK is very willing to say that modern private businesses are "communist" or "marxist" and should cease to exist. Supporting private property still means supporting private property. And I love how you keep asserting I believe in the labor theory of value, but you were never able to explain exactly how whenever I asked. We already know that you push for a system in which people don't own themselves, they are owned by those that provide them with currency for life necessities, and they do not own the product of their labor, as the product of their labor must always be more than what they are paid in compensation. Quoting you isn't "lying by omission," it's a simple fact that saying the man didn't support private property is absolutely false. Again, never said that national self sufficiency was antithetical to socialism, but it is absolutely a part of corporatistic and nationalistic economies more often, and that is the economy we are talking about here. The lack of an income tax wasn't what "made" him believe in rigid hierarchies, such as his ideas of racial, ethnic, or national hierarchies. And the idea that there are by necessity superiors and inferiors in "the community as a whole" means that again, by necessity, those inferiors are not allowed or not provided with actual equal ownership. We already know fascism isn't socialistic though, given support of private property, and we absolutely know that comparing Mosley to socialism is fruitless, as he doesn't fit the definition, so i'm unsure why you keep trying to shoehorn in socialism. In any case, again, it is not economics that defines fascism, as the corporatist (libertarian sense) economics of fascism change from example to example and only share a few key positions in common. And yes, corporatism in the libertarian sense is absolutely a correct description of fascism. The nations of africa had already been having cultural infighting and problems with one nation promoting itself as supreme above others. The countries in europe who gained independence through nationalistic pushes, such as germany and italy... well we know how that nationalism turned out, don't we? Nationalism can be used as a tool to rebuke colonialism, but you forget that the colonialism and imperialism itself was nationalist.
    2
  670. @✠ Wrong Opinion ✠ And yet, here you are, doing your best to ignore the history and the faults of far right anti-socialism, the basis of nazism. Here we are. Yes, "normal socialists" are a whole hell of a lot better than your favorite far right anti-socialist enemies, and the fact that you'd equate MLK with hitler says a hell of a lot about you. Nazis aren't "cousins" of socialists, they're open right wingers. You don't seem to know the first thing about this topic. Username checks out, though.
    2
  671. I'm sorry, but they were not socialists.
    2
  672.  @zmeu_md3831  Yeah. This i what I was talking about. Fascism and nazism are proud, openly right wing ideologies, and nothing about denying that aspect of the past will not make it go away
    2
  673.  @TheImperatorKnight  the problem there being that what you just described isn't Capitalism
    2
  674. No, instead it has recommended a video that lies about it.
    2
  675.  @TheImperatorKnight  just... what? Spreading nonsense doesn't make it true, mate.
    2
  676. He wasn't a socialist.
    2
  677.  @anonygent  Except that it is, which was explained by the pure coping failure that is this video. Kid, i've seen your type of arguments over and over, and they always show a disconnect from reality and history that's just sad to see. The problem is with you idiots is that you genuinely have no idea what the right is, so you take the word of right wingers that go against your definition. The right is defined by "notions such as, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" (Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations (2d ed.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), p. 119.) You literally don't know what right wing means, but since you're right wing, you give it the most utopian, nonsense definition you can. Right wing does not mean freedom, does not mean only capitalism, small government, representative, non0dictatorial, ect. There's nothing free about monarchism, technocracy, fascism, ect, all aspects of the right. Capitalism is one ideology of the right, but far from the only one. Right wing dictators go back centuries, monarchs to absolute monarchs to emperors. Libertarian right wing ideology, the type that actually does call for limited government and capitalism, is one of the newer strands of rightism. The very fact that the left right distinction was first created and put monarchists on the right seems to escape you. Furthermore, the concepts of freedom and limited government have historically been to the left of the far right, and anarchism, about as free as you can get, is a direct offshoot of socialism, left wing. I mean, look at the modern right. What do they care for freedom, throwing millions in jail, killing people for medical procedures, doing all they can to ban the teaching of knowledge they disagree with, where's the "freedom" in that? So no, the right does not mean what your childish fantasies wish it did. You say the far right represents freedom because right wing people who want to deny their history told you that. Fascism, is of course, an ideology that perfectly represents the far right. Fascism, like other aspects of the far right, does represent repression. But of course, it doesn't at all represent socialism, as fascism is more anti-socialist than you are. It does, however, represent strong dictatorships that protect and allow for private property, things remarkably in line with modern conservatism. So yes, of course, the right wing has literally everything to do with fascism, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
    2
  678.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. Those were, after all, not highly socialist statements, nor did you recount them accurately. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    2
  679.  @kevinolmedo675  alright then, i'll still be here, just ask me then.
    2
  680.  @TheImperatorKnight  So it was capitalism.
    2
  681.  @TheImperatorKnight  holy fuck dude... is that all you have? you are objectively incorrect
    2
  682.  @freedomordeath89  Dude, that's another fallacy. The Marxists were the only other types of socialists you mentioned, the rest followed radically different ideas. There is no one perfect definition, but every definition has things in common, and social democracy, nazism, and fascism do not follow that criteria.
    2
  683.  @Xoruam  you realize that you are the odd one out here, right? you are the one using definitions that do not make sense. Hitler was not a socialist by every definition except the one you just made up.
    2
  684.  @freedomordeath89  You didn't, though. This entire video is built on the false premise that socialism is government intervnetionalism.
    2
  685.  @freedomordeath89  That is incorrect, he rejected all forms of socialism and eventually created a new one that had nothing to do with the others. Hitler's socialism was not left wing, nor did it agree with other socialists.
    2
  686.  @dirtyhlbly  nope.
    2
  687.  @dirtyhlbly  the nazis were not socialist, because your definition of socialism is false
    2
  688.  @dirtyhlbly  it has a modern definiton.
    2
  689.  @freedomordeath89  mate the CCCP was absolutely not socialists, they admitted this themselves. Nice self-own
    2
  690.  @freedomordeath89  because it isn't a multitude of ideas, you just keep trying to redefine it as such so your lies can fool someone else.
    2
  691.  @Cons00mer  1. The definition is not arbitrary. 2. Hitler literally said he hated everything that all forms of socialism stood for. Why the hell should socialists take responsibility for someone who betrayed literally all of their core ideas?
    2
  692.  @freedomordeath89  Here, since you seem not to get the drift here, let's try this? WHO IS THE TRUE CHRISTIAN? MUSLIM OR TROTSKY? WHO IS THE TRUE MUSLIM? A PROTESTANT OR MAO? WHO IS THE TRUE MARXIST? LENIN? CATHOLICS? SHIA? SUNNI? POL POT? CASTRO? BREZNEV? WHO? you see the problem there?
    2
  693.  @freedomordeath89  Ah, but you forget.... so do i, boyo. "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism " And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." " Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national." "“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." "Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1 https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/ https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
    2
  694.  @freedomordeath89  Incorrect, bitch. Saying it doesn't make it true. Hitler called himself a socialist based off of his own definition, which was the model of right wing conservative prussian socialism. You made up a definition of socialism to fit your argument instead of actually arguing what the real definition is. You even tried to pretend there was no such thing as a real definition, because that's how bad your point is.
    2
  695.  @freedomordeath89  You were the one who brought up social democrats and literally said they were a type of socialism, not me. If you have a problem with that statement, then you should figure out why the hell you made it. You were the very person you're insulting me for being now. Also, venezuela has a larnger amount of private economy than most "social democrat" states. Hitler explicitly purged socialist and communist parties as one of his first actions. The few that were left had to support his conservative policies and philosophy.
    2
  696.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  This video has only served to embolden nazis and their allies.
    2
  697.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  If the only reason you can find to oppose nazism is one you made up (as in, trying to portray the far right anti-socialist nazis as socialists) then you are not opposing them.
    2
  698.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "If you watch my propaganda, you'll understand why everyone but me is wrong!" Truly the words of a religious fanatic.
    2
  699.  @HiddenOcelot  1. Hitler does not need to be a capitalist to not be a socialist 2. This video is not accurate, as it manufactures definitions of words (like private/state ownership, socialism, capitalism, ect) 3. Asserting "there was no control other than state control" is false 4. The left-right spectrum is not correct in this video.
    2
  700.  @HiddenOcelot  Nope. Your statements are utterly, completely, and provably false. You should probably watch the video, learn what he's actually arguing, and then read some actual economists who easily disprove his ahistorical nonsense.
    2
  701.  @HiddenOcelot  False! I know facts are hard for you to deal with but asserting random nonsense does not make said nonsense true. Left and right are not "individualist or collectivist," as for one, those terms are so vague and often misidentified as to be rendered completely unusable, and for two, both sides have in equal amount individualism and collectivism. Are you claiming that fascism, a right wing ideology, is individualist? How about monarchism, theocratism, nationalism? Nope, all collectivist, all right wing. Are you claiming that anarchism, egoism, classical libertarianism, and mutualism are collectivist? Nope, all left wing, all individualist. the other primary axis of identification of ideology is not "self imposed or government mandated," it is libertarian vs authoritarian, and both sides are, again, matched in equal amount with both. You have completely constructed a definition of left and right that under no conceivable reality fits the actual definition. Hitler did not name his ideology "national socialism," rather he adopted a title and a party that already existed, while purging the party of its old members. Hitler did not call it "racial socialism," that would be TIK's ahistorical assumption. Hitler was a politician, and a noted liar, and he defined socialism as a system of individualism, religion, and private property. And yet you call him a man of truth. Why should I "trust hitler on his own ideas" when the vast majority of his ideas are racist lies that even he knew the falsehood of? And again, false. TIK's definitions actually aren't based on historical definitions at all, and certainly not modern ones. Instead, TIK gives the false perception of "historical definitions" by conflating etymology with definitions, and then conflating etymological history with definitional change, which is again, false. Furthermore, he also does not use words based on their historical context in this time, as we've been over, Hitler for example used a very different definition of socialism than socialists did, and TIK's definition of "marxist socialism" more closely matches all socialism than just one branch of it. And finally, I don't really care what you "think," it is clear that these businesses could only not be considered private by one who has a goal to discount their possibility of being as such. Most of these companies (like IBM) were run privately, and in fact, often run internationally, outside of hitler's power, if he even wanted to use it against the private sector in the first place. These businesses were not "collectivized," as in, put under collective control, in all cases. Hitler, in numerous cases, said both in propaganda and in confidential party meetings that his goal was never party or state control of the economy, as he thought it was inefficient, and would stifle Germany's industry. TIK's historical sources show the same thing, that the nazis were not socialists and had a private economy, though TIK denies this by redefining words. You might want to stop assuming people "haven't watched the video" just because they can debunk its points so easily. TIK's sources disagree with him, his definitions have no historical basis and are not based on history, and you're repeating them without a free thought in your skull. I say this because i've watched his videos, and addressed them directly.
    2
  702.  @HiddenOcelot  So in other words, your attempt to prove his definitions is... to simply take them as a given? No, I hate to break it to you, but no modern or historical economist uses the terms TIK finds himself using. For example, "private" has never meant that only a single individual owns and manages a property, since the delegation of tasks, and splitting of management has always been a key factor of private business. If said private business decides to begin to place stock for itself into the stock market, while the stocks are then "publicly traded," (as in, traded between private individuals) this in no way makes the business any less private. The business is still owned privately, even if millions hold stock in it, and this is for a few reasons. For one, just realistically, most stockholders have very little power, and no direct control over the company, making your "collective control" mantra nonsense. For two, private ownership is not decided by how a property is managed. Again, the delegation of tasks has always been an aspect of private ownership. You argue that trading stocks publicly makes a business not private, but how does that not by definition make any business with multiple levels of leadership also not private? If I own a bakery, and I let my employee take care of the closing, they now have power and ownership over that property after I leave, is that business "collectively" owned? Of course it isn't. Corporations are private. You assert that a private company, participating in a private market, then becomes public... because more people own stock in it. Even thought the managing of the business may not change, it is still not owned by a government or directly by any collective besides private, capitalist individuals, you argue it is public property. Economically, this is false. Every definition of private property you find includes ownership by private groups. The reason TIK pushes this nonsense is because he realizes that most of what he hates in the modern world is solely private, the results of capitalism, and he refuses to accept that.
    2
  703.  @HiddenOcelot  The fact that you think there are such things as "socialist business practices" proves your level of intellectual incompetence. In any case, no, it was actually extremely common for the nazi party to promote competition within the private businesses of germany, and to invite in international industrialists to set up shop in germany, usually with the promise of profit. The fact that you see this objectively private push as "state control," and label it as "socialism collectivist business practices," is absurd and painful to read. Socialism is an ideology that has always promoted the ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole, in other words, social ownership, or collective ownership. A state sponsoring a private entity in order for both to profit is about as far from socialism as one could reasonably get.
    2
  704.  @HiddenOcelot  So you admit that the only reason someone would think the definitions posed in this video are true is if they do only ten seconds or less of research. Knew it. Your "economist" here considers capitalism, social movements such as progressivism, and broad concepts such as statism to be the same as socialism. I don't think I need to explain to you that a man who thinks that the social push for tolerance, the ideological point of a state existing, and social democracy, are all socialist is not anything but a conservative talking point. Hell, the assertion posed by the article, that "socialists don't know what their ideology is" is nonsense, he makes that claim by taking a statement made by a socialist who states that many people don't know what socialism is, and asserts that this means that all those people must be socialists. Even funnier, the man has no background in historical economics, and is employed by a right wing think tank. And I know you won't read the rest of it, because you simply can't respond to it. You assert that the "original use" of words is important, and yet not only promote a youtube "historian" that revises the definitions of words, but you also use a language largely built on the buried bones of the original meanings of words. And calling me full of shit doesn't change that. And yes, Hitler's economic policy was largely built off of the idea that businesses, rather than being forceful coerced by the state into production, should rather be bribed and influenced to join nazi production plans, for their own benefit. However, the nazis did not "set wages" or "Set production," as well as they did not mandate any necessary quotas. It wasn't collectivized, by the definition of collectivism, and it was not controlled by the state. Insulting me, again, does not change that.
    2
  705.  @HiddenOcelot  So, you have no actual rebuttal to facts you don't know how to deal with. Classical Libertarianism, as in anarchism, is left wing. Monarchism was quite literally the first labeled right wing ideology, and has been labeled as conservative since, even modern conservatives are the only ones defending and pushing for monarchies. Simply put, you're making up a history that never happened, in an effort to deny that your ideological systems do not line up in the way you want them to. Furthermore, you assert that "nazism and socialism mesh" with an emphasis on economics, and yet you previously described a corporatist economy, which is as far from socialism as you can get. You also ignore that the right, conservative traditionalists and the like, mesh far better with the nazis than anyone on the left.
    2
  706.  @crazylegend7609  But it doesn't. It proves that the right wants to deny its past, it proves that the right is willing to rewrite and deny reality in order to achieve its goal, and it proves that there is no rational argument to call hitler a socialist. I'm sorry that you feel I haven't read your bible of a video here, but that isn't true, and it doesn't change the fact that you have been proven wrong, over and over again. Yes, keep crying.
    2
  707.  @dreisiglps2451  I mean yes considering a global and objective metric of right vs left, the democrats are right wing. Further to the left than right wing republicans, but still on the global right. Not too hard to understand.
    2
  708.  @dreisiglps2451  Again, repeating it again and again doesn't make that any less your logic, as it has nothing to do with my statement.
    2
  709.  @dreisiglps2451  I understand that you're trying to be ironic but it is hilarious how you repeat back unironic right wing statements and then act like its so silly because you're projecting them onto me in your ideological failure.
    2
  710.  @dreisiglps2451  Nope, collectivism is a proud part of right wing history?
    2
  711.  @dreisiglps2451  Really? Hm, the last two you quoted had zero actual refutations to them and were full of baseless assertions.
    2
  712.  @dreisiglps2451  Again, child, where is the "refutation?" He calls me a troll, accuses me of not refuting his arguments (despite doing so constantly) accuses me of calling people names (which he does constantly) and calling him a "bad man" which I never did. Of course, he's coping with the fact that he knows I have evidence to counter his opinions, and he knows that i've watched the video, which is why i've refuted it so easily, and so many times. He tries to convince people not to respond to me because he knows that when his arguments are questioned, they fall apart. So again, where's the refutation?
    2
  713.  @dreisiglps2451  But that isn't true. You're just saying "collectivism is left only and if it isn't everything else has to be wrong too" without any evidence. Monarchism, for example, is a right wing collectivist system. So is nationalism.
    2
  714.  @dreisiglps2451  Oh sure I hurled a view mild insults inside walls of text with factual information after he accused me of defamatory-lawsuit worthy statements, yes.
    2
  715.  @dreisiglps2451  You don't seem to know the history of far right fascism and absolute monarchy. Sad.
    2
  716.  @zaydeshaddox7015  Wow, a wall of text and nothing of substance within. I hate to break it to you, but the richest man in the world does not have leftists on his side, and you falling into the right wing antisemetic assertions of "engineering humanity" are literally proving my point. The simple fact is, conservatives and capitalists have a desire to form and reform humanity in their image, whether or not the humanity in question wants to be reformed. They want a perfect world of selfishness and pure competition and are willing to do anything to achieve it. Hitler was as anti-progressive as it gets, even more than you. Progressive, by definition, means the lessening of hierarchy by the promoting of acceptance of identities and cultures socially. Nothing to do with a "more evolved society." Nor, of course, did hitler want some new society, he was a traditionalist after all. He didn't dream of a better humanity, he dreamt of returning humanity to a past state, a past society, one that has long since vanished. Your assertion is utterly unfounded and without any sort of evidence. I hate to break it to you, but your definition of progressive and society is so far removed from reality it's almost scary. Of course, a society in which people can live in harmony with the planet and eachother, no matter their individuals and identities, is the goal of the progressive movement. The simple fact is, you wish progressives were some conspiratorial eugenicists that hate order or freedom or something, but in reality, they are promoting a basic human inclusion of our fellow man. Hitler's ideology was ambitious, as he felt that conservatism didn't go far enough in resisting the rise of progressive impulses. Look, instead of having some sad reaction and trying to cover up hitler's anti-progressive impulses, just own it. Your "similarities" are completely manufactured and nonsensical, with no basis in the ideologies of either the nazis or the progressives. Knowing that some dictators pushed the same anti-progressive mantra as you is uncomfortable, yes, but you need to learn to stop advocating for the same views that people like hitler pushed. You don't seem to understand socialism, and you feel the need to paint it in some sort of conspiratorial light instead of actually dealing with it as an ideology. I don't advocate socialism, and I suppose that is the one commonality I have with hitler, thought we do so for very reasons. I just wish you realized that your ideological assertions align with the hitler and dictatorial types of the world, and that projecting that outward does little to help your credibility. It's hilarious how you look at a capitalist world, the result of policies passed by right wingers, and somehow twist this into some sort of criticism of socialism. Why are you so worried about the hypothetical enforcing of socialism, when right now, in your backyard, capitalism is being enforced with policy, with military, with force and threat and violence. There is enforcement right now, and you have no criticism to apply to it besides somehow projecting it onto the convoluted mess that you've created of all people that disagree with you. Propaganda is what you put out, and i'm sorry that you felt the need to say in so many words what you could assert in just a few. Trying to get people to agree with your nonsense assertions has proved impossible, i'm guessing. And so you have turned to trying to guilt them into tolerating them instead. I hate to break it to you but believing in basic reform doesn't make you left wing, and pushing the narratives of the right while openly professing to be anti-progressive doesn't make you at all left wing. The system you advocate right now is one that infringes on liberty, infringes on your way of life and sanity, and yet you have nothing to say. Blaming the education of the country is, similarly, a right wing trait. Look, I know you have an ideological agenda that you want to maintain with your nonsense assertions, but you can let it go. Hitler wasn't a progressive, he was a traditionalist, an extreme conservative, and trying to assert the opposite is just so baffling because it has literally zero ideological basis, it is a statement utterly devoid of facts and reality. It's a statement that is born completely out of a desire to other those you disagree with into one political mesh.
    2
  717.  @dreisiglps2451  Sorry, right wing monarchies objectively oppress people, as they have historically for centuries.
    2
  718.  @dreisiglps2451  Yes, both far right nazi ideology and far right fascist ideology are anti-socialist, thank you
    2
  719.  @dreisiglps2451  Absolute monarchies had brutal dictators and were openly and proudly right wing, yes. In fact, the word right wing was first used to represent absolute monarchs. Of course you can't handle that fact, can you
    2
  720.  @dreisiglps2451  You are denying the crimes and history of the nazis, and calling their far right anti-socialist system "socialist" because you don't want to deal with historical reality. Your "true conservatism" is a revisionist, utopian myth.
    2
  721.  @dreisiglps2451  No, the very definition of the term. The term right wing was literally invented to describe authoritarian monarchs. Of course, feudalism is also a right wing ideology, and the fact that you try to pretend it's socialist when even the modern right defends it is hilarious.
    2
  722.  @dreisiglps2451  Ah, so you ignore any and all pieces of reality that contradict your ahistorical narrative... why am I not surprised.
    2
  723.  @dreisiglps2451  I write the truth, something you evidently don't have an easy time dealing with, and I will continue to do so no matter how dearly you want to ignore it.
    2
  724.  @dreisiglps2451  You very clearly are, and nah, no more deflections from you. You can't handle reality, as is explicitly seen, and i'm fine with parting with you well aware of that :)
    2
  725.  @dreisiglps2451  And i'm pointing out the deflection inherent in that statement and noting your inconsistencies.
    2
  726.  @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
  727.  @bryantaylor6180  The stunning amount of anti-intellectualism from the right never ceases to impress me with just how far they'll go to deny any institutions that deal in facts.
    2
  728.  @dreisiglps2451  Thanks? I think?
    2
  729.  @bryantaylor6180  Projection.
    2
  730.  @damianbylightning6823  Nah, i'm pointing out that left and right are concrete terms that have historical meaning, and that represent shared interest and histories of organizing around eachother and fighting for the same principles. Your argument is simply that the terms aren't accurate or useful... because you say they aren't accurate and useful. Every term is just something a lot of people say, a lot of people call that one red, tree-born fruit an apple, and so it is known as an apple in english. Thus, the movements of the left are known as such because they have a coherent and historically observable connection. The left and right do generally oppose eachother, though I wouldn't say all views within either are truly opposites. You're free to deny history on no basis but your own word, but i'm certainly going to call it out when I see it. And yes, if lots of people renamed craters or sunspots to "pink oak trees," that is what they would come to be known! As of now, we know for a fact that there are connecting ties between what we now know as the left and right, whatever they are called. Your statements utterly lack both argumentation and logic, and your assertion that trained and accredited historians are wrong simply because you don't agree with them is utterly absurd. Spraying out utter nonsense and then trying to recommend me to study logic is quite funny, at least you're aware of Wittgenstein though, so you know where to start your journey towards reality.
    2
  731.  @dreisiglps2451  I mean champ i've been using the same arguments, rarely do I have to amend them because people just repeat the same things, i just restructure or restate things. My points and stance are clear, though if you have found them more convincing now I won't complain.
    2
  732.  @markyg236  Justifying a lost argument with the old Pidgeon analogy is far from unique, but it's funny to see every time given the heap of projection it usually comes with. Trying to accuse someone of siding with totalitarian ideologies when the very people they are arguing with are already participating in your accusations is another great irony. Jut say you have nothing to say. And sure, if you've been arguing for right wing nonsense conspiracies, conspiratorially blaming random politicians and philanthropists for random things in order to consolidate power and foster strife and hate, well yes, we know what you would have been doing back then.
    2
  733.  @dreisiglps2451  alright then, yep
    2
  734.  @dreisiglps2451  Why would someone bother watching TIK's videos rather than just... reading the sources themselves? The definitions for those terms were already provided for you.
    2
  735.  @dreisiglps2451  Yeah but that isn't true. Fascism was never a form of socialism. Mussolini rejected socialism pretty openly and began courting the right after his expulsion from the party, he openly declared fascism as a right wing ideology, that rejected socialism. Allowing private business to survive with the bribes of the state is not at all socialist, you're expanding the definition of socialism to literally include forms of capitalism.
    2
  736.  @dreisiglps2451  Hitler wasn't "inspired by marx." And as we've been over, left vs right is not collectivist vs individualist. The collectivist right is historically and in the modern day a major force. Please stop with the same old nonsense.
    2
  737.  @dreisiglps2451  Kid, you have to understand how this looks. You're repeating the same arguments and points I already disproved over and over again, while ignoring rebuttals. It just makes it look like you don't care about the actual argument but just want to keep reasserting things that reinforce your ideology, which isn't at all a healthy mindset. No matter how many facts are brought to your attention, you just keep repeating the same things, and it just proves you are unwilling to actually have good faith, open minded conversations.
    2
  738.  @dreisiglps2451  Yep, and orwell was right. Despite an increased radicalization and different rhetoric, the goals of the nazis were pretty damn similar to the goals of the conservative party before them. The Google definition of Conservatism would be: 1. commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation 2. the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas Did hitler commit to traditional values and ideas? Yes. Did he favor private ownership, socially traditional ideas, and capitalist enterprise within his own country? Yes. Did he need to like "100% free enterprise-Laissez-Faire-Capitalism" to be a conservative? No, and most conservatives don't fit that definition. Did hitler like jewish citizens, migrants, and unionists? No. Do modern conservatives like jewish citizens, migrants, and unionists? No. Did historical conservatives like those things? God no. Was Hitler a totalitarian? Yes. Were the conservatives totalitarian? Yes. Are you engaging in an association fallacy? Yes. I have researched those terms, the definitions, synonyms and antonyms of all the words that you have posted, as well as the TIK videos you insist everyone watch. More than that I have actually examined his arguments and sources, and found his interpretation lacking. Is that enough for you, champ? TIK doesn't explain Fascism's definition well at all, he seems to think it's an economic theory, and he doesn't explain the difference between public and private and the historic uses of those words either. As for the source you're asking for, Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" contains statements referring to fascism as a "movement of the right," and "contrasting socialism."
    2
  739.  @dreisiglps2451  yeah, that's very fair, keeping my name out of it may be for the best of you're looking for genuine conversation and good with discussion. Well, I wish you the best in that effort. Perhaps you will succeed in getting through to him, though I fear even mention of these arguments is enough for him to write you off as a socialist or some sort. You get the position I'm in now, trying to reach out to his fans because he seems rather unavailable. Anyway, enough of that, I wish you the best of luck and even though my name might not be included, I'm happy that my statements helped to change some minds. Have a nice one.
    2
  740.  @vod96  because he did.
    2
  741.  @vod96  what?
    2
  742.  @AlanRichie  mixed economies are capitalist
    2
  743.  @teemuvesala9575  Wow, wrong on literally every front. Impressive.
    2
  744.  @teemuvesala9575  But it isn't, child. "Communists" didn't label hitler as far right, he did that himself, proudly and repeatedly. You, of course, don't really like this fact, so you try to play it all off as some sort of mystical "communist propaganda" that even hitler's words support?
    2
  745.  @laymanseller2253  wow, nice try, literally attempting to redefine word after word and failing at every single one.
    2
  746.  @teemuvesala9575  No, child. In fact, historically, the vast majority of right wing ideologies have been against "individual freedom," freedom of speech, small government, limited power, and so forth. I mean, look at how modern right wingers constantly empower the military. No, fascism and nazism are not "socialist fundamentally," nor are they any more "collectivist" than capitalism itself. They are far right, anti-socialist ideologies.
    2
  747.  @laymanseller2253  No, child, not indeed. "totalitarian" is not synonymous with collectivism, as a totalitarian government can absolutely reject any sort of collective right or care, as hitler and mussolini were famous for doing. Of course, collectivism isn't "another word for socialism" either, as socialism has a long history of advocacy for the individual and capitalists/conservatives have a long history of collectivism. Hitler wasn't a socialist, hence, his distain for socialism and collective rights. That's why he advocated for private, rather than communal/collective, ownership. Individual rights seem to be things that capitalists don't much care about, and of course, individualism is not "another word for capitalism," as history shows a huge movement of anticapitalist individualists. Private does not mean individual and personal, and communal does not mean public or government. In your whole response, you didn't get a single definition right.
    2
  748.  @teemuvesala9575  So, in other words, you feel insulted because I call out your ignorance, and in order to justify that flash of embarrassment you just got upon realizing how little you know in this field, you chose instead to construct a narrative of insults which would allow you to pretend I wasn't worth listening to. I do research myself, child, the problem is, actual research doesn't fit your propaganda, so you don't count it. I' not sure you know the first thing about the truth.
    2
  749.  @teemuvesala9575  oh, child. You really are lost, aren't you? So many false claims, and yet, none of them you're able to prove. Why does it annoy you so much that hitler, like you, hated leftism?
    2
  750.  @teemuvesala9575  Oh, child. But i've already won. I already proved you wrong, and now you're crying because you know that, just like you, hitler despised socialism and leftism.
    2
  751.  @teemuvesala9575  Child, hitler was never a social democrat. It's ironic though that you claim this, because social democracy is a type of capitalism, in fact, the very type of capitalism that defined the Weimar republic, which he of course overthrew. Now, actual debate rules would specify that you are the one that made the claim, and thus you must provide evidence for your own claim, however we are both painfully aware that no evidence exists for your frankly laughably assertions. Of course, if hitler was "always a socialist," he would not have constantly opposed the inclusion of the word "Socialist" into the party/ideology title, and later purged those that proposed it. I'm sorry you can't accept this simple reality, but your constant deflection from any request to actually cite your claims makes your inability to do so crystal clear. It's a simple proven fact that hitler was a proud right winger, a fact that only recently right wingers have started to deny, because they don't want them associated with their modern nazi-adjacent ideology. Not to worry, child, we're all painfully aware of how much you hate leftists, something you and hitler have in common. No, child, not all leftists. Why don't we hear from hitler himself? “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.”
    2
  752.  @teemuvesala9575  Oh, child. Your only "evidence" for your claims appears to be a collection of emojis. Yes, i'm proving how deeply ignorant you are on the historical statism and slavery that makes its mark on capitalist ideology, and your response is to run away. I'm not a socialist, child, but it's obvious that you, much like hitler, are an avid right wing anti-socialist. Do you think that capitalism being statist means all non-capitalism must be non-statist? Why would I care about the "Freedom" in nazi germany, your favorite country?
    2
  753.  @teemuvesala9575  Child, again, what you mean is that you're incapable of doing actual research, and when someone comes around and makes your ignorance clear, you attempt to discredit them without ever responding to a single one of their facts. You, of course, are unable to research, hence your inability to cite a single one of your claims. When actual research is presented to you, you respond much like hitler did, asserting the existence of some sort of marxist/socialist conspiracy, and using said conspiracy to justify the discarding/destruction of information.
    2
  754.  @teemuvesala9575  But I have. The simple problem lies in the fact that you have yet to give anything that merits responding to in the first place. You make silly assertions, fail to back them up, and then run away when evidence is presented that contradicts your narrative. All you've done is make assertions and silly insults, what can be responded to there? So, as usual, i've ended up doing the work, and actually presenting to you evidence and citation, logical and factual argument that utterly destroys your narrative, and you can only run in fear. Child, i've been able to run circles around you, and now you're projecting your ignorance onto me? Of course, i've already provided hitler himself asserting his support of the right, but why not now cite some strong critics of authoritarianism, and how they viewed hitler in his own time, before even his death? "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." That was Orwell, of course. It's funny, hitler is actually well known for opposing the inclusion and usage of socialism in his party, and later, attempting to redefine socialism, saying quite literally that socialism was merely another word for nationalism. There are no assumptions made here child, he was openly far right. We know what nationalists socialists look like, and we find that they have nothing in common with the far right nazis. The nazis despised socialism, not just historically or contemporarily, but the very moral and economic assumptions that socialism is built on top of. They hated socialism, even in terms of their nation or race. Of course, communism isn't "international socialism," it's an entire other system, but you'll learn that eventually. Nazi ideology is a form of far right anti-socialist ideology. You ran away from the argument because you know that you already lost. How sad, hm?
    2
  755.  @teemuvesala9575  But I have provided arguments. The simple problem is that you're more willing to project your own faults than respond to something that you are very aware disproves your narrative. Hence, continuing on with the fascistic "Marxists have infiltrated the schools!" Funny how for someone so invested in "Real history," you're unable to cite a single one of your claims.
    2
  756.  @teemuvesala9575  hitler despised socialism, just like you. you're now seething because i've proven this, and you have no counter.
    2
  757.  @teemuvesala9575  But I have proved them wrong. I, unlike you, have been more than happy to bring facts, citations, argumentation, logical analysis and clear points to your attention. Your response, of course, is to hurl out more insults, and pretend that responses we can all see, haven't actually been made. I've disproved you according to every possible metric, and the fact that you still refuse to even respond to rebuttals of your "points" proves as much. You're scared of engaging, because you know this is a fight you can't win. I'm not an absolute authority on the truth, absolutely, nobody is. But i'll trust the work of peer-reviewed historians and verifiable speeches/economic data over you, child. Hitler hated communism because communism was of the left, and provided a threat to his right wing ideology. If you think populism is socialist, you have some research to do.
    2
  758.  @teemuvesala9575  But I have provided evidence, argumentation, citation, logic, and factual information that disproves your narrative. Of course to you, this means "nothing." You're free to insult me all you want, just be aware that each further response in which you ignore the simple fact that you lost, digs you into a deeper hole.
    2
  759.  @teemuvesala9575  But he wasn't a socialist, as i've proven. Unless you wish to argue that pro-private, nationalist, right wingers can be socialist, his worldview and ideology is simply incoherent with socialism as a concept, a fact plain to see even before an examining of his economic ideology. Hitler wasn't a social democrat, and again, social democracies are capitalist systems, systems you can literally see calling themselves capitalists in the modern idea. Of course, in reality, hitler proudly chanted "Death To Marxism," while praising the work of european conservatives like Evola, Von Papen, Schmidt, and so on. Hitler despised socialism in all forms, "race centered" or otherwise. Tell me, does this sound like a socialist? 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."
    2
  760.  @teemuvesala9575  Hitler hated internationalism, and hated leftism, two things he saw in socialism and communism, given his rejection of that. You seem to want to ignore that, though, in favor of your nonsense.
    2
  761.  @teemuvesala9575  Child, i've done everything you've asked. I've provided quotation and citation, from different angles and people even you must admit knew what they were talking about, and yet your only response is to release a hail of insults, as if this absolves you of your responsibility to respond logically and coherently in this argument. The only way to justify this behavior, is in the acceptance that you've already lost. I've proven my point. You haven't. Simple :)
    2
  762.  @teemuvesala9575  The claim that hitler's far right ideology is somehow "Socialist" is, of course, absurd. Hence, the lack of any sort of basis in citation or factual reality in your argumentation.
    2
  763.  @teemuvesala9575  it's amazing how easy it is to utterly demolish your fanatic assertions. What's the matter, annoyed that hitler agreed with you on 99% of issues?
    2
  764.  @teemuvesala9575  Sorry, but these just aren't true. More importantly, they just aren't relevant. For example, hitler would often praise the work of german industrialists as an individual feat of greatness, one only possible in germany, while excluding huge parts of his population. That certainly isn't a "collective" mindset. The nazis were also willing to tolerate criticism/disobedience from private forces in their own country, so not quite no criticism. Hitler was well known for going to private entities, even before the war, to gain their support an would later help them in policy, despite their open contempt of the working class. "At the February meeting, the I.G. Farben executives gave the Nazis 400,000 marks, and a total of 4.5 million marks by the end of 1933, according to 'The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben'. This infusion of corporate cash saved the Nazi Party from financial disaster. The rest, as they say, is history — tragic, tragic history." Furthermore, these points aren't... relevant? Even assuming them to be true, each one of these is also true of the modern US conservative, and yet it's communists you focus on. In any case, have you actually read a single one of my responses? Hitler didn't start using "socialism" to describe his ideology until it was included in the party name, again, without his support. He would then begin an active campaign to distance this usage of the term from any historical usage, and made very clear that his "socialism" had nothing to do with socialists of his time, and even before it. If you were to actually watch or read his speeches, you see him constantly asserting that "Socialism" is private, is individual, is in favor of property and conservative social views. Evidently, he defined "socialism" in a way completely counter to any historical or modern definition. And no, child, this is false. See, we've known that nazi ideology wasn't socialist, since long before said ideology's party was destroyed in a war that cost millions of life. It's only recently that people exclusively right wing, have attempted to claim that nazi ideology was somehow socialist, despite their own side literally proudly proclaiming their support for him to this day. They do this, most often, by either lying about hitler, lying about the definition of socialism, or both. You, of course, do both. You assert that national road systems and public education were "characteristics of a socialist rule," despite a. being found in the regimes of conservatives for centuries, like Eisenhower for example, and b. the fact that these assertions weren't even true, the national road/train service project, as well as public, state-run education, were all started under the capitalist Weimar Republic, and massively scaled back under hitler's regime. In any case, we can see historically that capitalist countries are far more willing to maintain and even expand massive militaries, as opposed to socialist countries. I don't think you know the basics of economics. I say that because "GPD" isn't an accurate metric in this example. The USA was a well-developed and long standing economy with countless international alliances and trade agreements, so of course they have a more stable economy when compared to a country that only recently broke into the modern age, after years of political turmoil. Despite the USSR spending more in terms of "GDP," it was (and is) the american military that remained far larger, and a far bigger expense, even to this day. 41.7 billion... to over 766 billion. What you mean is, I keep effortlessly disproving your silly assertions, and you keep failing to even address them, getting obliterated in the process, and showing your ignorance. You call me a communist, because you know I won.
    2
  765.  @teemuvesala9575  Ah, so in other words, your only argument as to why you think hitler was a socialist... is because you think hitler was a socialist.
    2
  766.  @teemuvesala9575  But he did, he openly hated socialism, opposed socialists and those that called themselves the allies of socialism. It is hard to hate what you are, which is why he so clearly despised socialism and the left. He didn't hate "rival forms," that would imply that the proud right wing anti-socialist hero of yours, was somehow some left wing pacifist. Nazis fought with communists because they both hated eachother's ideologies.
    2
  767.  @teemuvesala9575  Awww, you're still trying to escape the simple fact that i've effortlessly debunked your pro-hilter nonsense?
    2
  768.  @teemuvesala9575  oh, child. but you lost the argument?
    2
  769.  @teemuvesala9575  But I have. No matter how much you cry, no matter how much you try to deflect, i've proven facts that you simply cannot comprehend. Hitler destroyed the german labor movement, in favor of private industrialists and conservative politicians, because he was against socialism, leftism, liberalism even. He was not a socialist himself, despite failing to provide evidence for your claims, you just keep making them. Socialism as a concept existed before marx, of course, and yet hitler despised even these socialists. He was an anti-socialist. What you're doing is like stating that nazis and jewish people are actually the same, because they both hated eachother and fought.
    2
  770.  @teemuvesala9575  so, you support fascist slavery. good to know. Sorry you lost?
    2
  771.  @teemuvesala9575  And again, all you seem to be able to do is spam insults. I think we all know the reason of course, it's because you are not at all confident in your ability to argue, so giving up on that front, you decide instead to attack my character with some oddly specific assertions. I wonder where you first got the idea to insult based on economic status, living conditions. Are you annoyed at your own, perhaps?
    2
  772.  @teemuvesala9575  Oh, but child, i'm not a communist, and i've had this argument won for the last few hours at the very least. I'm simply pointing out the fact that your unwavering adoration for the far right, and constant denial of hitler's ideology/crimes, is undoubtedly an ideological bias towards fascism. You call yourself a "hardcore libertarian," and yet when faced with quotation that shows how hitler thought much the same of unionists, socialists, and leftists as you, you simply ignore reality and move on. Of course, "anarcho-capitalist" is a contradiction of terms, but you already know that. You don't support the destruction of government, you support a private state, authoritarian in all but name. You despise those that think freely and express their thoughts, because that can contradict your narrative. You despise the simple fact that the history of capitalism is one of slavery and authoritarianism, so you project it onto communists. You advocate for a system in which private owners want to enslave the entire population, steal their life savings and life's work, take their liberties and replace it with a tyrannical private force controlling every aspect of their lives and using them as free slave labor. This is what you are. An ignorant, dangerous, child.
    2
  773.  @teemuvesala9575  And yet, you once again find yourself completely unable to actually cite said "FACT," despite constantly reasserting it, and in fact, not even seeming to know the definition of social democracy as an ideology. The fact that you are unable to provide any evidence, and openly ignore responses that you know prove you wrong, proves that you know you lost.
    2
  774.  @teemuvesala9575  So, wait, you're agreeing with nazis and this is somehow my fault?
    2
  775.  @teemuvesala9575  How did I make "nazism look better than communism?" I pointed out that the nazis were more than willing to work with their authoritarian capitalist allies, and thus, let slights against nazi ideology from that group slide. They were willing to do anything to attack the working class, and would happily replace it with private domination where ever possible. This isn't "better." The problem is, you see it as better. The nazis, according to history, worked with private markets to ensure their domination. Communists of course didn't "butcher anyone who criticized them," but the fact that you think that insulting the nazis is *defending them*? Well, it says a lot about you.
    2
  776.  @teemuvesala9575  Let me get this straight, one more time. I pointed out a deeply horrific part of far right nazi ideology. You then said that this was actually a good thing, and that by including it, I became a "nazi sympathizer." Child, I presented that to show you the moral and political depravity of the nazis and their allies. You took it as a good thing. You agreed with the nazis. You've really dropped the mask, haven't you?
    2
  777.  @teemuvesala9575  But you did. You lost an argument, lost it further when you ignored the citation you asked for, lost it even further when you openly admitted to ignoring information that proves you wrong, and you're losing even more by justifying this behavior.
    2
  778.  @teemuvesala9575  Aww, running away?
    2
  779.  @teemuvesala9575  Let me explain this to you. I "Literally" pointed out that the nazis were more than willing to "accept criticism" if it came from their allies, allies which were complicit in nazi ideology and who voluntarily supported nazi crimes. This isn't "better," this is a new depth of moral depravity, recruiting citizens to do the dirty work for you and then giving them some political wiggle room as a reward. I would prefer to live in a society where the government was at least honest about its repressive nature, than one in which private citizens are incentivized to harm eachother, to tear their society apart, to force control on every aspect of life, if just for a sliver of political power. The problem is, you see the later as better, so you see my pointing it out as a defense of the nazis. It's like a hardcore nationalist being told that the nazis were nationalists. To them, it is a compliment. To the presenter, an insult. You have aligned yourself with nazism, and are somehow blaming me. Run away, child.
    2
  780.  @teemuvesala9575  I "made them look better..." to you. Meaning that by accurately describing nazi policies, they look good to you. Wow.
    2
  781.  @teemuvesala9575  silence. how surprising. Insult me all you want, child, but your silence is deafening.
    2
  782.  @teemuvesala9575  Still not a communist, child
    2
  783.  @teemuvesala9575  I'm well aware why you actually didn't read them - because they contradict your narrative, and because in your circles, ignorance is sacred and must be preserved at all costs. "Cognitive Dissonance," they call it. Debate is never wasting time, but your constant deflection and stream of sad, insecure insults? Yes, that was a waste. You can deflect to whatever other system you want, but that will never change reality, and don't expect me to defend ideologies you've projected onto me. I'm simply here to stop nazi apologia, and i'll go through however much of this nonsense necessary for that.
    2
  784.  @teemuvesala9575  I'm not the one that continues making useless comments, though. That's you. You're the one who, despite refusing to read my comments, has decided to reply again and again, as if the only thing that matters to you is getting the last word. Of course i've provided evidence, time and time again, but you've ignored it, not surprising given how sacred ignorance is to you. My word isn't absolute truth, I merely convey basic facts to you, proven facts, that you despise. You lie over and over, saying i've never given any source, when actually reading my responses, (something you've admitted you don't do) and looking at your sudden cease in requests for citation, proves quite the opposite. Feel free to come back when you're actually willing to read things that might prove you wrong. Give it a few years, they all grow up eventually.
    2
  785.  @laymanseller2253  But you didn't, you made up sad assertions with no basis in reality, as you continue to do.
    2
  786.  @laymanseller2253  Hate to break it to you kid, the dictionary doesn't even come close to backing up your absurd assertions, and your cope is evident. You really did fail at every word. No, child, socialism isn't against individuals, and the capitalists like you that care nothing for said individuals don't magically become socialists. I don't know how you can magically claim that historical conservatives were socialists too, but apparently literally everyone is a socialist if you want them to be. No, child, capitalists and conservatives who opposed a change of economic systems are not "Socialists," and your knowledge of history is honestly pathetic. It wasn't "Communal Ownership" that caused periodical famines, given that the monarchists and capitalists who led the economic systems of said famines had to abolish communal ownership to even form their empire. The fact that you think monarchist economics are at all socialistic is baffling, how do you justify such ignorance, such hatred of basic reality? No, child, not everyone you claim to disagree with is a socialist.
    2
  787.  @laymanseller2253  Er, no, no you didn't. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Perhaps you've forgotten that i've already done that in this thread? Or more likely, you just don't care. For some reason you refuse to admit that, but oh well, that's really not my problem that you want to remain terminally ignorant. And, i'm sorry, were you aware that multiple things can happen under one system? Did you think we needed a total economic restructuring when any quality of life changes were needed?
    2
  788.  @laymanseller2253  ...the movement before the industrial revolution to ensure and enforced the existence of private ownership. Oh wow, you didn't even know that, did you? Damn, that's actually kind of sad.
    2
  789.  @laymanseller2253  Awww, are you crying because I actually read a dictionary and history book, where you have done neither? thank you for admitting that you're wrong.
    2
  790.  @laymanseller2253  Child, put quite simply, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've not redefined anything, i've simply pointed out definitions that you've either remained unaware of, or have purposefully chosen to ignore. You don't even seem to realize that a country can industrialize and yet still remain under one system, and that no major restructuring is needed, as is historically evident. The simple fact is that capitalism started long before the industrial revolution, and it was only at the advent of said industrial revolution did they decide to destroy all competition, no matter how detrimental it was. The Enclosure Movement didn't create private ownership, it was the last major movement against enemies of private ownership in the era. It had already existed as the primary economic priority for decades, centuries even. The Enclosure Movement didn't bring about private ownership. It destroyed the last bastions of communal ownership, that had resisted the periodical famines that dominated the right wing capitalist word before the industrial revolution. Communal Ownership didn't "cause" these famines, given that the area under communal ownership was tiny compared to the failing capitalist world. Private ownership caused the periodical famines before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution.
    2
  791.  @laymanseller2253  So you still can't get over the simple, proven fact that it was private ownership, not communal, that caused famines for centuries?
    2
  792.  @laymanseller2253  You mean, again, the thing I already did, the thing even you admitted I did ages ago, and the thing you can't deal with me proving you wrong on? Sorry, your definitions are false, and you are painfully ignorant of definitions and synonyms of words you seem hardly able to spell. And no, a small amount of communal ownership in one part of the world did not cause the massive private famines that wept the world at that point, in fact, they were doing far better than their private counterparts, which is why said private counterparts had to get rid of them. And, of course, there was limited to no communal property in the soviet union, but you seem to not even understand the basic definitions of social/communal ownership, so i'm not surprised you didn't know that. I'm also not surprised that you didn't know that the soviet union ended famines in that area, whereas the tsardom had continued them for decades. I just proved you wrong. Cope.
    2
  793.  @laymanseller2253  No, child, i'm simply opposing your reality denial and attempted redefinitions, which you hate since you know i'm right.
    2
  794.  @laymanseller2253  Amazing. Strawman on top of strawman, all showing just how ignorant and silly you really are. Just try to get one thing right, hm?
    2
  795.  @laymanseller2253  I literally already have, and easily proved you wrong in the process. What's wrong, are you afraid to deal with that simple fact?
    2
  796.  @laymanseller2253  If you don't see that, then you're not looking. Definitionally and synonymously, your attempted redefinitions are false, hence your unwillingness to cite your claims and inability to respond to citation that proves them wrong. So yes, i've already done it. Funnily enough, both "Dreisig" and "Teemu" also failed to provide citation for their claims, and also lost arguments dealing with their attempted redefinitions. So no, none of you have gotten the definitions right, so at least you're not alone in ignorance, something location does not change. I still don't see from you writing names of online dictionary and their definitions and synonyms contradicting my definition, so go on. Go on, do it
    2
  797.  @laymanseller2253  And yet, here you are, deathly afraid to cite even a single source. This is because you are well aware that not a single online nor physical dictionary supports your made up assertions. I have already given you the information you asked for, you're scared to engage because you know how wrong you are. You're never going to write anything, are you? And of course there's proof, what else do you think caused those private famines in majority private areas?
    2
  798.  @shenghan9385  Child, there's nothing genetic about ideology. It's a simple fact that the nazis weren't socialists, and a simple fact that the right is ashamed of their history and would do anything to erase it. Sadly for you, it isn't that easy, and no matter how much you deny it, the nazis remain in your very camp. The nazis were no more socialist than you.
    2
  799.  @laymanseller2253  Again, just saying "no!" when evidence contradicting your point is readily available, is a move of cowardice. As we've both been over, i've already posted numerous dictionary definitions, along with the names of said dictionaries and synonyms of the words, as well as explanations of their historical meaning. Unsurprisingly, you've failed to do any of these things, despite constantly asserting the supposed superiority of your assertions. I'm still waiting for a counter.... and you're still lacking. Oh, and of course, they had majority private areas, hence the famines then, and the famines in private parts of the world to this day
    2
  800.  @laymanseller2253  Then, as we've been over, you're purposefully blinding yourself. If you can't see something that's right in front of you, I on't know why you feel you're qualified to talk on this issue. I have, of course, named dictionaries, definitions, synonyms, and so on, though your obsession with the latter seems a bit odd. In any case, again, of course there is proof that private ownership, as inefficient and centralized as it is, caused these famines, as it continues to do today. You, evidently, didn't know the first thing about this time period, so am I supposed to take your word for it?
    2
  801.  @laymanseller2253  and no citation, why am I not surprised?
    2
  802.  @laymanseller2253  You have presented no citation. You realize that's important, right?
    2
  803.  @laymanseller2253  Child, those aren't "synonyms of collectivism." A synonm of a word is a word with the same meaning, and terms like communism, socialism, state ownership, collective ownership, fascism and so on are all words with different meanings.
    2
  804.  @laymanseller2253  Child, why do you assume i'm reporting you for spam? Perhaps youtube has simply gotten tired of your inability to defend your ahistorical assertions.
    2
  805.  @laymanseller2253  Child, how did I delete your supposed comment? Seems like an excuse to never cite anything.
    2
  806.  @laymanseller2253  You got your synonyms from... a string of random letters. Seems you're avoiding given citation.
    2
  807.  @laymanseller2253  Dude, all you had to do was name a website, something apparently impossible for you
    2
  808.  @laymanseller2253  I'm sure you did buddy. Oh, here's another definition you don't want to deal with. so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ Learn to pronounce noun 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. Oxford Languages
    2
  809.  @laymanseller2253  Let's try some actual reality here, I now it hurts but deal with it. Synonyms of fascism: "Nazism dictatorship right-wing dictatorship totalitarianism absolutism authoritarianism autocracy despotism jingoism one-party system party government racism"
    2
  810.  @laymanseller2253  Yeah, i'm sure id. You totally posted sources, they just all got magically deleted, which is why you can't post them again. Because that makes total sense. It's ok dude, you can admit you're wrong, it's pretty obvious to everyone.
    2
  811.  @laymanseller2253  I'm sure you did bud. And yet, when I provide citation, it doesn't actually go anywhere and you can easily see it, how odd is that? It's like you're... lying.
    2
  812.  @laymanseller2253  Why are you spamming me again?
    2
  813.  @laymanseller2253  I was being sarcastic. No, I have no doubt that you're attempting to cover up a lack of citation. Of course, historically, socialism has never meant government ownership, but social ownership, it's literally in the name. you claim to have contradicting proof, and yet you seem completely unable to present it. Odd.
    2
  814.  @laymanseller2253  You can... stop spamming? I mean, that's pretty simple, your spam accomplishes nothing at all.
    2
  815.  @laymanseller2253  Oh yes, well if you say that you aren't lying, I should totally trust you, despite you having been caught in lies previously. Right.
    2
  816.  @laymanseller2253  I'm sure it totally got deleted, champ, Tooootally. Have fun with that.
    2
  817.  @laymanseller2253  Then maybe stop spamming random things and just put it into one or two messages? Looked up the definitions, and i've actually cited things, things that prove you wrong, and you have no response.
    2
  818.  @laymanseller2253  And no, dude, i'm not downloading some social media nonsense just because you want an excuse to not post sources.
    2
  819.  @laymanseller2253  No, I can just see through an obvious sad ploy, with the singular goal of obscuring simple facts and denying reality, as we've been over.
    2
  820.  @laymanseller2253  Yes, and unsurprisingly, the results didn't support your fanatic assertion. I'm not asking for "hints," child, i'm asking for reality, proof, evidence, reasoning, and you have none of it. I went through he work of doing more than you ever will, and you just have excuses.
    2
  821.  @laymanseller2253  And yet here you are, presenting them yet again. Am I supposed to care? Blame other people all you want. Just take responsibility for once.
    2
  822.  @laymanseller2253  uh huh. You keep telling yourself that bud. Have fun with that I guess
    2
  823.  @laymanseller2253  Uh huh, i'm sure you did bud, have fun with that invisible citation then
    2
  824.  @laymanseller2253  Dude, why would I bother? I've already been more than willing to put up with your nonsense, but I cited my information just fine, something you're struggling a whole lot with. The fact that you didn't even take time to address this information and just went back to your spam about this one supposed source says a hell of a lot. Even after being proved wrong, you're still obsessed with this odd code of yours, and I want nothing to do with it. You're not making sense, at this point I have literally no idea what you're trying to get me to do, and i'm not going to go through an hour's work to crack your cypher when i've already presented information that clearly contradicts your narrative. Nor, of course, am I going to trust random people online telling me to click on random links. So, no, no thanks, you can keep your "totally real" citation, i'll stay in reality.
    2
  825.  @laymanseller2253  And you just took that? Wow. Lame excuses work easy on you I suppose. Anyway, i've made my point clear and given information that clearly contradicts your claims, even supposing your invisible citation is anything more than a last minute desperate fabrication. Sorry you think the CEO of youtube cares about random comments.
    2
  826. The fact of Hitler's right wing anti-socialism was only recently put into "Debate" by other right wing denialists, so this is entirely false.
    2
  827.  @eckz8659  Nope. This is objectively false. Anarchism is a left wing ideology. Monarchism is right wing. Your forced dichotomy is false.
    2
  828.  @1rtt1  Then what you were taught is without question incorrect. Socialism is not about Government Authoritarian Control over all aspects of business in a country or "State," not only because forms of socialism are explicitly anti-statist, but because socialism itself is defined by collective control, not authoritarian control or state control. Also, the left isn't just socialism. Similarly, the right isn't just capitalism, as it includes conservatism, monarchism, fascism, ect. Capitalism isn't about individuals controlling their business, it is about a few individuals controlling the actions of all others through their business, and authoritarian state control type right wing ideologies are as common as you can really get. There's no such thing as a right wing socialist, of course, but there is such a thing as an authoritarian right wing anti-socialist, and there you find hitler. Do you understand how your statements don't reflect reality? How they do not match with well known and well studied political history and our understanding of ideology? You continue to assert that socialism as a system is whatever you want it to be, and not what historically or economically socialism has been defined as. Simply put, you do not understand what socialism is, and define it as a sort of authoritarian state that has not been found in socialist ideology, and can be better compared to right wing anti-socialist movements. You think of right wing ideology as a pillar of freedom but in actuality it is the right who pushes the hardest against the individuality and progress of humanity, and the right who seeks to subjugate the most of humanity. Your view is exceptionally biased and has no basis in reality that you claim to care about. We haven't "broken up" left and right, we've simply explained them to you while you plug your ears and run away.
    2
  829.  @twrecks6279  Have you considered that you are extremely ideologically biased, and that what you consider "slander," the rest of the world knows as fact? Have you ever considered the possibility that the right is not defined only by capitalism, a newcomer to the title, and that it does not define the whole of the right or even the modern right? Do you understand that moralizing about how superior you think your system is does not actually rebut any rightful criticism of authoritarian right wing ideologies that you refuse to even acknowledge? Anecdotal "evidence" isn't evidence. If you've yet to meet an authoritarian right winger, you have yet to leave your echo chamber of constant ideological reinforcement and brainwashing.
    2
  830.  @Scornfull  Anarchism has always been a leftist ideology, the first anarchists called themselves socialists and anarchists alike and they have been doing so since, the right despises anarchism, and the right is not "inherently small or no government," the right loves government and has a track record of loving its most authoritarian forms.
    2
  831.  @austindecker7643  ...capitalism is anti-capitalist now?
    2
  832.  @austindecker7643  Capitalism dies when... the exact theorized, inevitable, and (to most capitalists) desired goal of capitalism occurs? Like, bud, I get that you're a utopian ideologue who only thinks a specific type of capitalism counts, but the vast majority of the ideology is and has always been defined by cooperation between economic and political power.
    2
  833.  @austindecker7643  "Hitler's socialism?" I'm sorry, you might want to work on your autocorrect, given that hitler (like you) was a proud right wing anti-socialist.
    2
  834.  @austindecker7643  Sadly, that myth falls apart when it's faced with any documentation of reality. Capitalism is a theory that pertains to economics, society, and politics, and by its very nature requires specific governmental policy. The goal of capitalism is not and never has been to be self reliant, given the massive web of capitalist economies, which not only rely on eachother but on the states that allow for them. Capitalism is not separate from the state. Oh, also, communism is by definition stateless, hard to be reliant on something you don't even have.
    2
  835.  @austindecker7643  Oh, I get it, you're one of those denialists. Well, let me offer you some education. Him being far right, holding the views of the modern right, and being praised by the modern right, unsurprisingly results in him not having more in common with the left. He also didn't advocate for centralized economics, and in fact openly rejected them, saying numerous times that they would ruin german private industry. He was neither left wing nor a socialist, he had no desire to implement, nor history of believing in, communism. He was according to all objective measures far right, and though you are attempting to redefine what that means by invoking a twisted form of the concept of an overton window, that is irrelevant to a discussion of objective political bounds.
    2
  836.  @austindecker7643  But it can't, like it or not. It just seems like you want to attribute everything you don't like about your own movement to the left.
    2
  837.  @austindecker7643  I'm sorry, that's false. Far right in America isn't "no government," you're again thinking of a tiny portion of the far right. In reality, the far right historically has included libertarians, just as it included monarchists and fascists. Left to right is a scale of hierarchy to equality, authoritarianism to libertarianism is a different axis entirely, which is why the vast majority of the history of authoritarianism has been right wing, and anarchism/stateless ideology, left wing. You're attempting to assert that the words mean fundamentally different things in American than in Europe, which is just false. A tiny portion of american radicals have attempted to redefine the definition of the right, but this is not accepted, nor does it have a historical basis. Hitler was far right, anti-leftist. You can be easily far right and authoritarian, in Europe and America, with hitler being one of the most famous, though far from the only, examples.
    2
  838.  @austindecker7643  Bud, you can get as annoyed as you want that I correctly called out your attempts at rewriting history, but that doesn't make my observations any less true. If you don't want to be called a denialist, maybe don't deny history?
    2
  839.  @austindecker7643  You apparently think every fact you don't like is "gaslighting."
    2
  840.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Why would I "grow out of" the objective and verifiable truth? TIK's narrative is undone by his own video, try actually getting to the history bit before you make such a silly assertion.
    2
  841.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Odd that you assert that everything I've said was proven incorrect in the first 45 minutes, when he hasn't even truly started to make his argument by that point, and the sections less build on eachother as they address different claims and subjects. Would you care to give any specific examples? Oh, you can't, can you? Because you didn't watch the video. The video in question utterly rejects common sense and historical evidence, because all of it points to one easy conclusion - to call hitler a socialist would be a lie, and to call the nazis socialists would be as well. You're aware of this, and yet you lie, purposefully. Why? For all your grandstanding, I'm here making arguments. You're here making excuses.
    2
  842.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Bud, you can fanatically repeat it to yourself all you want, it won't magically become true.
    2
  843.  @jonathanstevey1748  but they weren't socialists, child. Notice how you failed to respond to my rebuttal of your copy paste nonsense, and just reasserted it. rebuttal, p2 "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). Seems he was open about fascism's anti-socialism, and right wing nature. Now, how about his economy? "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 "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation... State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient" - Benito Mussolini And so on. Hm, really seems like fascism has nothing in common with socialism. On to your next quote. Once again, I'm not sure why you quote this passage, as it entirely contradicts your assertion. Hitler is openly questioned on the fact that his party platform directly contradicts all previous and ongoing socialist movements, which disproves your notion that his ideology could be defined as socialism in his own time period. Hitler's response to this is lumping all of those previous and ongoing movements, marxist or not, into the label "Marxism," and asserting that this is not socialism. True "socialism," according to hitler, is an ideology that supports private property, that supports right wing nationalism, that allows for individual wealth. Hitler even openly admits that he might have called the party the "Liberal Party," the liberal party of the Weimar republic being an openly right wing capitalist institution. Hitler, after all, openly opposed the inclusion of "Socialist" in the party name. You've quoted hitler denying your point, and you refuse to explain how this supports the idea that he was left wing or socialistic. But hey, let's add insult to injury and look at more quotes, both from him and about him. "...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 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). 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 At this point Hitler turned to his neighbour Amann and said: 'What right have these people to demand a share in property or even in the administration? Herr Amann, would you permit your typist to have any voice in your affairs? 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." "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" "‘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.’ - Strasser, Hitler and I
    2
  844.  @jonathanstevey1748  even the Nazis were open about being right wing, and their "socialism" was private. So, again, why did you not respond to my precious rebuttals? rebuttal, 3 ""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."" - Hitler And so on. You get the picture yet? Historians and Hitler alike, showing his open distaste of socialism and the left, and in his own words, praise of the right. We could even look at the parties that voted for the enabling act: -The German National People's Party was 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) Notice a pattern? All right-wingers and all conservatives. And now, for your utterly failed attempt at defining socialism, which includes citing the definition... and then ignoring it. Socialism, simply put, 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." Now, as we've been over, Hitler was rather open about his distaste towards community control, praising instead private individuals in control of the means of production. "Community control" is synonymous with "Social control," both being control by the community as a whole, and both of which hitler despised. I'm not sure you know what a command economy is. A command economy is one in which a government, any government right or left, orders the economy and industry to produce something. Top-down instructions. A socialist economy can be a command economy, but only if the ruler in place is totally representative of the will of the community as a whole. A socialist economy is defined as one in which the means of production are socially owned. Now, child, regulated/owned/controlled by the community doesn't mean government control. Do you understand how silly your assertion is? You literally say that a community can control through government, so therefore community control is always state control and the two are synonymous. This, of course, is not true. The community can own the means of production as a whole, in different groups, subservient to one leader, on an equal playing field, without a state at all, even. So, no, even by your own definition and logic, socialism is not government controlled economy. "Usually" is not "Always." Marx is funny to bring up here, given that he was open about his notion that socialism is best put into practice without a state at all. He didn't call for an economy under the state, but an economy without the state. Socialism is social control, not state control. You're asserting that socialism is as old as civilization. Of course, this is all moot given that the fascists didn't even desire state ownership, but rather, private ownership. Literally none of your citations support your point. So, no, fascism is not a form of socialism. Funny how the video you linked proves my point exactly, with comments full of people defending fascism. How ironic, hm? Didn't check for that did you. And again you seem to not know the basics of the history of Sorelianism. Sorel, again, didn't create National Syndicalism. He theorized on a number of things, namely the failure of marxism and the need for political violence, which fascists took inspiration from. However, National Syndicalism was formed when french conservatives attempted to synthesize their anti-democratic impulses and the anti-democratic impulses of other groups. When this was happening, Sorel rejected it, and advocated for communism and works along the lines of Proudhon. National Syndicalism isn't Sorelianism, nor are they commonly known as the same thing. Sorel didn't call for "classical tradition," in fact, most of his criticism was focused on the failure of traditionalism and liberalism alike in running an economy. Those that advocated for traditionalism were, again, the french conservatives that attempted to use syndicalism to gain power and support from the masses, while openly attempting to reject the actual ideology of syndicalism, that being socialism through unions. And again, Marx didn't call for a state controlled economy, he called for the abolition of the state.
    2
  845.  @jonathanstevey1748  And sadly for you, the truth isn't hiding Rebuttal, final. Your quotes here, as deflectionary as they are, also don't support your point. Sorel starts by praising Lenin, and shows his support for the very things that, as I've cited, Mussolini opposed. However, as we've been over, Mussolini's past is complicated. Shortly after he was expelled from the socialist party, as in, around the time or after many of the quotes praising his work had been stated, he began to move away from socialism, again, in his own words. Sorel, in his life, openly rejected fascism and nationalism as contrary to his ideology, after trying to stabilize the synthesis that had already formed. In any case, you can see in your own quote here that Mussolini praises Sorel not for his economic or social views, as in the things that define socialism, but rather for his views on the necessity of violent organization (revolutionary tactics) that Sorel was famous for having concretely theorized on, something that inspired conservatives as well as the emerging fascist groups. The key bit being that none of this proves that fascism has any connection with socialism, nor even that fascists held favorable views of socialists or vice versa. Sorel compliments Mussolini before Mussolini rejects the vast majority of his work, Mussolini compliments Sorel not on economics or ideology but on organization. After all, in Mussolini's own words he isn't a socialist, and in fact he praised Sorel for allowing for an anti-socialist revolution with his work. Sorry you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. So, what have we learned? Fascists despised the left, despised socialists, openly identified with the right and worked with/praised/were supported by right wingers, all while purging and repressing the left. They fit neither the definition of socialism nor left wing and they were very aware of this fact. You attempted to disprove this, but in the process only cited evidence of it. I, on the other hand, am more than happy to give proof when needed. "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." So no, child, fascism isn't a form of socialism, by any definition, in any true telling of history, and they knew it. Fascism is a form of far right anti-socialism.
    2
  846.  @jonathanstevey1748  So, I take it you'll apologize for your objectively false statement that the nazis were socialists? I'll be waiting.
    2
  847. Exactly, he isn't.
    2
  848. @Abrasax Palante you realize that by admitting that you only define a group by how much you hate them, you are admitting your point is moot? Your only argument thus far has not been any sort of nuanced view of history, but rather a "everything I don't like is Socialism" view of history. If you don't know what Socialism is, just admit it. Don't go around rationalizing your failure to look at history throu anything but your extremely biased lens.
    2
  849.  @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
  850.  @trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761  The german worker had nothing except a gun pointed at their head under hitler. He wasn't a socialist, mate, and that much is empirically obvious.
    2
  851.  @trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761  Yeah i'm sorry, who was in those factories? Oh right, the remnants of the population that he hadn't decided was subhuman and had sent to camps to be summarily murdered. He couldn't care less about workers, he wanted efficiency, and he got it. A few bathrooms in the factories filled with the subservient, oppressed population by no means makes up for the ways in which he utterly discarded the worker.
    2
  852.  @trollerjakthetrollinggod-e7761  I do, but sorry, i'm no fan of nazi apologism.
    2
  853.  Hale Hardy  And why did they do that? Hitler killed off his rivlas because they were socialists and leftists generally, not because they were socialists or leftists that disagreed with him on an issue or two.
    2
  854.  @soundaddiktion2006  The problem with his "sources" is that many are not from reputable places of history, and many more that are are from highly ideologically biased people, which have a motive not define words and to tell a "history" which makes their side seem better in the broad scope of things. Many of these sources, even then, were you to delve into them prove TIK wrong. That's what you don't seem to understand, you see a giant page of sources and assume that he actually represents them all fairly, and took sources from unbiased places. No "stone cold logic" can be found, especially when he argues in the comments, which just makes him look like a second grader. HE tried using ideological and biased sources to rewrite history, and it didn't work out, people corrected him. And now, after around 6 hours of video, he's just tried to ignore this massive messup on his end.
    2
  855.  @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
  856.  @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.
    2
  857.  @emilfrederiksen.1622  No, child. Hitler wasn't a socialist in any terms, he despised marxism, socialism, hell even leftism generally, and rejected the fundamental assumptions that justify socialism. Jeez, you're ignorant.
    2
  858.  @Nork490  I think it would help children like you if you admit to your ignorance.
    2
  859.  @Nork490  Child, people have watched the video, hence being able to easily rebut it. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and you're going to have to cope with that fact.
    2
  860.  @travisadams6279  I have yet to see an actual example of "ethnonationalist socialism," which is unsurprising given that while racist and nationalistic socialists can exist, a socialist that builds their economic and social ideology around those concepts by definition is no longer advocating for socialism.
    2
  861.  @travisadams6279  Yes, the facts are indeed clear, the fact that you've been proven wrong and can't handle it.
    2
  862.  @travisadams6279  I'm sorry, this is false. The nazis loved private property, and they gave wealth to private property owners. They despise socialism more than you, and set up a private market to counter it. You're running away, after making assertions you know you can't back up.
    2
  863.  @trystdodge6177  none of that's true, though, apologist.
    2
  864.  @travisadams6279  I'm not "claiming," child, unlike you I'm proving. I know you don't care about reality, and I know you feel the need to insult me to deflect from your inability to defend your nazi-apologist claims. The facts are clear in actual history, in the very citation this video uses, and the fact that the only source you can find is a youtube video from an ideologue says a lot. The facts are clear, and everything you've said so far has been incorrect. The nazis never outlawed private property, they openly encouraged it, made private owners richer, and praised private property as the superior economic system. They didn't "redistribute most or all of the wealth they could," nor is this the definition of socialism. They openly helped private owners concentrate wealth, hence the 1% of nazi germany getting richer under the nazis. Where was all that "redistribution?" They used the state to throw millions of "the aryan race" in prison or in front of firing squads, as well as cracking down on unions and allowing private companies to accrue more and more power. They killed millions of people you claim they wanted the state to be for, and openly pulled back the state from programs that had existed in the Weimar years with the goal of helping people. What you described not only isn't true, it's not an "ethnonationalist socialist state." I've asked for examples but you've been unwilling to provide any, and as you've now shown, unwilling to back up your assertion. "Ethnonationalist Socialism" is an oxymoron. You don't even appear to know the definition of socialism. Hitler was a proud right wing anti-socialist. Hence the market, hence the private property. Plenty of ethnonationalist states have had "free markets," and every single one that i've seen in history has been right wing. Markets that restrict themselves to one class of people still falls well within the bounds of capitalism. Nazi Germany, by definition, operated a private, anti-socialist economy that was headed by private owners. I know you have no desire to argue with me, because you can't back up your statements, because the facts are clearly aligned in opposition against them. Feel free to run away, but know that you always have the option of educating yourself, and manuvers like these only prove that you're unwilling to face facts you don't like.
    2
  865.  @trystdodge6177  Child, already addressed this, it's literally not true.
    2
  866.  @trystdodge6177  Hitler wasn't a socialist though, apologist.
    2
  867.  @trystdodge6177  This just showcases your ignorance. If you replace class with race in marxist literature, not only do you not get socialism, you don't get nazism. Did marx say that one class was always superior and that other classes would never join it? Did hitler call for the abolition of race? Replace class with race in marxist literature and you don't get hitler, you get nonsense. Marx's work was about the abolition of class and the harms that class differences caused, which called for socialism, social ownership. Hitler's ideology was about the importance of race, how race defined everything and that races could never intersect or become anything more than their racial identity, inferior or superior. Nothing about those concepts is remotely similar. Hitler wasn't a socialist, cope.
    2
  868.  @trystdodge6177  Child, why do you get so annoyed when people don't read your bible? You can easily watch the video, and come to the correct conclusion that TIK is unable to back up his ahistorical assertions, as I have. You don't have "2.5 hours proving state control of the economy," you have 2.5 hours of TIK attempting to lie about the actions of the nazis, disagree with his own citations, and rewrite the definition of "state control." The nazis hated state control. Cope.
    2
  869.  @trystdodge6177  yes, i've noticed you're good at leaping to incorrect conclusions. What's new?
    2
  870. why do I even bother.
    2
  871.  @hakapeszimaki8369  and so the conservatives turned towards other anti-socialist movements to do their dirty work and mobilized through them, notably fascism.
    2
  872.  @hakapeszimaki8369  The german worker's living conditions decreased dramatically in quality and availability under hitler, even ignoring the millions he personally ordered the deaths of. He privatized the welfare state, ensured everything left was powerless and discriminatory, and destroyed objective public schooling, free public healthcare, pensions and so on. they weren't socialists, and you're praising them for things they despised.
    2
  873.  @hakapeszimaki8369  Again, just saying it a third time doesn't make it any less false than the last two. The standard of living didn't increase, nor did the wages, in fact hitler created private organizations with the expressed purpose of keeping wages low, which meant the vast majority of the population was worse off than even they had been in the great depression in the weimar years. The far right anti-socialist nazi party offered holidays... for private owners and high ranking party fanatics. For everyone else, they offered only starvation wages and a potential trip to a death camp. Working conditions were worse, wages were worse, worker's rights were worse, and the only people who had it better were the rich few that benefitted from his anti-socialist policy. I'm not sure you understand this. social welfare was despised by fascist and it remains that way to this day. I really don't care about your criticisms of marxism given how utterly irrelevant they are to the conversation, but it's a simple fact that "non-marxist governments" seem to have just as much if not more of a track record of being horrible to their workers and failing economically, all while making people's lives worse. You seem to want to be purposefully ignorant of a history you can't hope to understand, so you deny it and replace reality with proud utterances of fascist propaganda. No, not having it. Fascists, objectively, made the world a worse place. Cope.
    2
  874.  @hakapeszimaki8369  watching some random video on a random propagandist will somehow overwrite all of history?
    2
  875.  @hakapeszimaki8369  your random childish insults and deflections aren't arguments, they're the symptoms of propaganda. There is no "neomarxist" movement, you're talking about liberals you don't like. Fascism and Nazism are right wing anti-socialist reactions to socialism. Like it or not, they didn't "try another way of socialism," they rejected socialism all together. "Cultural Marxism" is a Nazi myth, and the very fact that you believe the things you spew proves that the right has always been and will always be more insane, ineffective, and destructive than the left.
    2
  876.  @hakapeszimaki8369  Jesus, false again. They were right wing, they worked with right wingers, they came from right wing ideology, and so on. Fascists in italy were also extremely racist and antisemetic. Come on dude, it isn't that hard to not baselessly defend fascists.
    2
  877.  @hakapeszimaki8369  Here you are claiming all crap comes from the left, and yet in reality the plain truth is that the right has been responsible for far more failure, destruction, and insanity than the left could ever hope for. Stop lying
    2
  878.  @hakapeszimaki8369  that "alternative" being openly anti-socialist, and anti-working class. Fascism, nazi or otherwise, actively worsened the condition of the working class and only ever helped themselves and their rich supporters. You keep trying to claim otherwise but it isn't backed up with anything besides your constant mindless repetition, your point is simply false and like it or not you're going to have to deal with that fact. Also, I'm no fan of marxism, but it's a simple fact that anti-socialist movements, from absolute monarchs to the nazis, did far more damage proportional to the time they were around and resources they had than the left could ever hope to rival. Europe now, unsurprisingly, is broadly better than it was before labor movements and "lefties" started pushing for these little things called "human rights.".
    2
  879.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  "Socialism," apparently, is just a word to describe any system you don't like or claim to disagree with.
    2
  880.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Er, no. The "people" you're likely referring to were huge corporations, some of which with international presences, and they managed to operate just fine without being forced into their actions, likely because those actions helped their bottom line.
    2
  881.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Which represents not only privatization, but a tiny amount of the privatization found in the country at the time, the majority of which was directed towards private corporate bodies.
    2
  882.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  yeah, again, this is just your own ignorance and apologia.
    2
  883.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  God, your ignorance is just tiring. They didn't spread socialism anywhere. They had none of these named systems, nor are any of them socialistic. In fact, those systems are most commonly found under capitalism, and the nazis massively scaled them back from what they were under the capitalist Weimar republic. They didn't "nationalize the car industry," they subsidized a specific car project.
    2
  884.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Yeah, you keep saying that, but have yet to provide any real evidence. The nazis weren't socialists, nor would they ever want to be. The industrialists sided with the nazis because nazi ideology benefitted private owners, as hitler himself said proudly on numerous occasions. Hitler quite literally defined his "socialism" as a right wing, pro-private ideology, with no connections to others using the word. This is the kind of research you really should be doing before you attempt to speak on these issues.
    2
  885.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Er, no. He said in his own words that businesses were best in private hands. The ability of the state to buy a business is one universal within capitalist governments, as usual you don't seem to know what socialism is.
    2
  886.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  The democrats aren't socialists, nor do they desire to "use socialism." You're asserting that socialism can be used to describe any and all economic policy you claim to disagree with. Conservatism, historically, entrenches the power of the upper caste of society while forcing the lower classes into perpetual servitude. The nazis were proud conservatives, traditionalist even. They used capitalism, worked with capitalists, got rich off of their industry. I hate to break it to you but personal attacks aren't going to disprove the simple facts surrounding the reality of the nazis. Not every capitalist you dislike is a socialist.
    2
  887.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  So despite them despising socialism, you have a fantasy that they would have implemented the ideology they hated after the war?
    2
  888.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  You don't seem to know what socialism is and you don't seem interested in being proven wrong. Socialism isn't "giving away free shit." Sorry, historians have pointed out again and again that Hitler was not socialist, he did not desire socialism, simple as can be. But you don't like that fact, right?
    2
  889.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  I'm sorry, I literally just quoted hitler proudly saying that he had no "ideas for Socialism," that he was strongly opposed to socialism, and even that his definition of the term "Socialism" included private property. You want to dismiss these open admissions of his ideology because you can't handle that they destroy your narrative. Hitler wanted to take land for explicitly right wing and conservative reasons. That's why industrialists loved him. He saw socialism as being a conspiracy, while working with capitalists. He never wanted socialism.
    2
  890. He really just can't figure out that the evidence doesn't lie, and no matter how much he denies it, it isn't going away. The Nazis weren't socialists. They were proud right wingers. Asserting anything else requires bon stop apologia and denialism. Hence his proud participation in both those things.
    2
  891.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Then why did he support the proud, self admitted far right anti-socialist party?
    2
  892.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Er, no. Non-socialist countries can have black markets. TIK defines socialism as any statism, which means that your ideology is also socialist according to him. The nazis had no desire to go down the road of socialism - they just wanted to keep going down the path of anti-socialism, for as long as possible.
    2
  893.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  No, bud, socialists tend to oppose antisemetism. Even Lenin, in his day, spoke out strongly against it and put in place harsh laws to punish it. Antisemetism is literally a creation of the religious right, and some left wingers adopting it doesn't change the hundreds of years of it being a proud right wing ideology.
    2
  894.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Have you even considered the idea that not everyone defines terms the same as you, and that the nazis had a definition of socialism which was wholly counter to yours?
    2
  895.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  So in other words, you're well aware of the fact that the video cannot actually refute the facts brought against it, so you attempt to rely on the authority of the video mentioned by name to make your point, rather than any factual information.
    2
  896.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Ah - so you haven't watched the video. You see, if you did, you would have noted where TIK explicitly makes note of the fact that an independent review of his sources comes to a conclusion opposing his own, as did the sources themselves. Bud, I've actually done the work, not listened to ideologues and looked into the facts, the sources, the history. You need to rely on TIK's word because no other source agrees with you. The nazis, and hitler, were far right anti-socialists. The fact that I have been the one to give arguments and citation, while you have ran away, proves who the one "covering their eyes and ears" is. Why do you hate reality? Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad news (though I have no qualms with education such as this) but yeah, like it or not, autarky and insular, national market systems are long standing policies of the right. Not sure why you threw "state control of production and resources," given that the nazis openly hated that, but oh well. The best part of this all is, despite you claiming that I reject the evidence, you're currently defending a video (which you seem to have not watched) in which the creator openly admits to rejecting the evidence. I'm sorry your claim has been easily refuted, but no matter how hard you cry, the nazis are never going to stop marching with the right.
    2
  897.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Why would you say something so false?
    2
  898.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Well i'm sorry "sir," the nazis were proud anti-socialists, which you surely know.
    2
  899.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  which is why you're so afraid to actually respond to or examine said information without TIK doing it for you, right?
    2
  900.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Bud, this video calls the economy you advocate for... socialist. I'm sorry, but Autarky is literally a largely right wing concept perfectly in line with capitalist economies, Trump recently being a big fan of pushing for a more autarkic economy. Will you call him a socialist? Will you call every isolationist conservative over the past few centuries socialists? "Autarky is Socialism?" Not even TIK is economically ignorant enough to try that nonsense. You keep appealing to the authors of the video rather than making your own arguments, even when the video in question isn't relevant, and it's like you think it's some holy book that can be introduced to wipe away all accusations of being incorrect. You can't just shout "disproven!" rather than make an argument, especially when your statement is openly contradicted by the sources in question. The video isn't a holy boo, it's a video, and for someone who keeps accusing others of not watching it you seem to be entirely ignorant of it's contents. I'm sorry you haven't watched the video, nor have you examined the 107 sources which openly prove you wrong, but your delusions won't make the nazis any less far right. Hitler and the nazis were extremely and vocally proud anti-socialists, and hated the left, which they saw as a jewish conspiracy, as they openly stated.
    2
  901.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Why wouldn't i be, it was easy to prove this lot wrng.
    2
  902.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  You've done nothing of the sort. I proved you wrong, over and over again, with citations and facts whereas you've only repeated your denialist claims. You literally stopped responding, ran away, because I so easily proved you wrong. Its pathetic. the Nazis weren't socialists and you admitted it.
    2
  903.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  see, this is the problem. You know the nazis weren't socialists, so you redefine socialism to include everyone, yourself included
    2
  904.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  And yet, all evidence points to the exact opposite, which is a reality you just don't want to deal with. You've given nothing of the sort
    2
  905.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  bud, your insults don't work when they're transparently more applicable to you. You ran away, you shat on the board, you can't lose fair. Sorry you're wrong.
    2
  906.  @MadsterV  Child, I hate to break it to you, the existence of left and right necessitates a spectrum and something between them. It's hilarious how far you have to go to create a strawman you think you can actually address. I correctly labeled the theory that everything bad is relabeled as right wing a conspiracy theorist. You asserted I did it, though provided no proof, and I easily debunked your random, false assertion that monarchism has ever been seen as anything but right wing. Libertarians existing has nothing to do with your constant, denialist lies. Because you really can't get over the fact that not everything on the right is your type of right wing. TIK was a socialist? What? Do you mean hitler, the far right anti-socialist that the modern right proudly praises and mirrors? You truly are deluded. See, the problem is, right wingers will label anything they don't like as right wing. I proved your conspiracy theory was false, and your only response was to pretend I was engaging in it. Monarchists are, and have always been, right wing. Thus, your theory is proven false, and my observation of right wing denialism is proven. But please, put your money where your mouth is for once. How did I relabel everything bad as right wing? How is monarchism not a right wing ideology? How did you not know this? How were you so confident in tying to point out imagined hypocrisy that you couldn't do the smallest bit of research on the subject, and rather decided to pretend I was engaging in your conspiracy? Is capitalism not truly right wing now too?
    2
  907.  @MadsterV  Oh god, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Child, I hate to break it to you, there are still monarchists in the west. There are right wing libertarians, yes, but monarchists are right wing. You really don't seem to understand the basics of political history, and somehow try to claim left winger are monarchists? We call the right wing practice of monarchism... monarchism. You literally can't get the idea into your head that you might have no idea what you're talking about, and choose instead to just make things up. Monarchists are monarchists, as in right wing, they still exist in the west, and what the hell do you mean "the west was founded on escaping monarchism?" Kid, you do know "the west" isn't just America, right?? You don't know what a monarchy is, and trying to blame leftits for your problems never works. Have you realized that only one group still defends the tradition of monarchism, and the group in question is proudly right wing? I mean yeah, you can't help but misuse labels, engage in hypocrisy, and then double down when proven wrong. Cope.
    2
  908.  @MadsterV  I didn't move the goalposts though, you said something vague and without context and I attempted to discern it. You then somehow read this as a goalpost shift, and that I somehow knew whatever nonsense you were implying. More conspiratorial thinking. So, go ahead, ask the actual question, the one you were and are too afraid to ask before, and like all of your other "points" I would be happy to address it an effortlessly prove you wrong. Insults don't change the reality of your lost argument. Again, I don't think you understand the terms in question. First off, no, the constitution may have been written with the goal of a non-monarchist system, but many of the founders of america and those who created its founding principles just wanted a different monarchy, and we certainly didn't "cut off" the rest of the monarchist world. Monarchists historically were right wing, and the monarchists of today, mostly in Europe though there are a few in the states, are right wing as well. Again, ideologies on the right tend not to agree on everything. I'm sorry that you can't get past your reading comprehension problems. I can, however, tell from your lack of arguments and constant insults that you understand your... position in this argument. Cry harder.
    2
  909.  @MadsterV  Amazing. I ask you to restate, answer your question, and what is your response? Well, simply put - It's to get annoyed that you failed to structure a question before, and ignore my answer now. Amazing how you can't even deal with an answer when you're given it I'm sorry you seem to think reality and property argumentation/grammar are attacking you.
    2
  910.  @MadsterV  Why would I bother "musing" when I can read their own writings, and the thousands of works studying those writings and showing exactly what they said, thought, and did. "They" weren't a concrete group. The founders of america were a disparate bunch that fought among eachother constantly, to the degree it took them months and many compromises to even figure out the basic structure of the government. The idea for a non-monarchist government was never the initial promise, and only came into being later, many of the original fighters and intellectual leaders of the revolutionary war were under the impression that they would simply form a new monarchy. They didn't cut off Monarchies. So, no, you aren't talking about the west, since the west stretches from the ruins of rome in europe to the most remote regions of alaska and further. You're talking about one specific country and one small group among that country's founders. England is west. And the organizations in America like Liberty Hangout and their followers are unabashedly right wing monarchists. And of course! We can't forget your nonsense assertion that hitler was somehow "a socialist and very much a leftie," that just goes to show how deeply brainwashed you are. In reality, it is a simple, well studied and long proven fact that Hitler was an anti-socialist and was completely right wing. As you also fit those qualifications, I can see why you try so desperately to deny him, deflecting constantly. "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. At least I add facts to my insults, child. You, on the other hand, seem to base your entire arguments off of misreadings or insults, no mention of reality. Such a sad conspiratorial mind you have.
    2
  911.  @MadsterV  I'm sorry that the reality of hitler's far right anti-socialism drives you into so much of a denialist frenzy. Will you ever see reality? One can only hope...
    2
  912.  @MadsterV  I mean yeah, you just can't stop tripling down on your failure to actually address my arguments. Arguing with you is worse than arguing with a wall, at least a wall can be torn down, your delusions are too deep for that. - " I can't help you with your problems" - How is studying primary and secondary sources to prove my point a "problem?" - " Did anyone said it was? Why would that matter now? only if your caught in lefty purity spirals I guess." - What does this have to do with "lefty purity spirals?" You claimed america was founded with the goal of resisting monarchy. I pointed out that this wasn't the case. Your response is literally "why does that matter." Please keep up. - "ok cool, totally not imagining their thoughts again" - I'm glad you agree i'm not imagining their thoughts, but studying their actual writings, a statement I notice you cute out yet again. - "ok cool, you're gonna tell me what I'm thinking about now. This is sane and healthy, carry on." - Damn your cope is unreal. Mate, you don't need to be able to read minds to tell that you constantly conflate the west as a whole with America, as I pointed out. You didn't correct me, so I have to assume you agree. - " further than alaska? so like, Russia? England is RIGHT NEXT to the ruins of rome. you could hop and be in the east, by your own standard. I've clarified what I meant by west already and I don't really care what you decide I was actually thinking. I don't trade in your mental world." - I said "and further" in response to the whole statement, the modifying word was directed at the whole of the clause, please learn basic grammar. And oh god, you really don't know what the west is. The west is a cultural and philosophical movement, which heavily correlates with specific locations it was founded in (Called the west in the modern day) but that doesn't literally mean western thought is thought from the west of a map. You haven't clarified, and i'm sorry you can't deal with your own lack of arguments. - "again with this redefining reality so you can be right. I'm sure you're awesome all alone in your head, but no, that's not what I was talking about. I was pretty clear about that. Come back to reality, even though we don't miss you." - Again, you don't actually rebut my claim, just try to dismiss it as "redefining reality" without any argumentation or reasoning to support that claim. It's like you know you can't actually address my arguments, so you have to dance around them. You have nothing but insults. - "wow it took this long to wrestle something concrete out of you. Here's the part where you point out where they have expressed their wishes to submit to a king. Should be interesting, at least. I'll probably get an answer to something different that no one asked, but whatever." - You mean it took... the response after you asked for a concrete example for me to provide one? Is that too long for you? Should I provide proof you want... before you ask? You genuinely can't keep up with the conversation, have you? And as for your goalpost shift - "I WANT DONALD TRUMP TO DECLARE HIMSELF A KING. TODAY." "It is far more preferable to live under a monarchy than a democracy. Democracy is mob rule of the government estate..." They're literally self admitted theocratical authoritarians. Monarchists. - "This conveniently forgets before that, Orwell thought of Hiltler as "the true socialist" until things went belly up, and then he pulled the standard lefty "wasn't really socialism, true socialism has never been attempted". You might be surprised, but no one else is. Flippity floppity." - Well, of course, it's easy to "conveniently forget" something that you just made up. No, Orwell never thought of hitler as a true socialist at all, even openly said that Hitler and his movement was, in his own words, "against genuine Socialism." He was repeating this before the war even ended, how did things go "belly up?" The fact of far right nazism was well known, even then. You're projecting your own counterarguments against modern people against a person that doesn't fit your strawman, and you'd prefer to do this without actually citing your claim. - " it's gaslight either way with you isn't it? This is all real, but you can't handle it. Hitler was a socialist. He said it, his party said it, Orwell said it too and there's a whole video up there which you probably didn't watch before trying to argue against it." - Yes, it is all real, and yes, you are doubling down with a lie to deflect from a reality you can't handle, nor can you argue against it. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and of course, you know it. You can try to pretend that facts don't matter, that your ideology is more important than reality, but it will never stand. Hitler was a far right anti-socialist. He said it, his party says it, Orwell said it too and the only people who currently praise his name and fly his flag are, just like him, on the right. People like you claim I could not possibly have watched the work of this fanatic, simply because they cannot conceive that someone may have read their bible and not "seen the light." All of this because you can't handle how similar the modern right is with their inspiration, the far right anti-socialist "icon" known as hitler. Even just bringing facts to your attention shows how little you deal with reality, and launches you into an insult and assertion filled fanatic frenzy. I'm sorry that this was the best you could do, though i'm not surprised. Maybe one day you'll learn? I can hope. Until then, perhaps stop agreeing politically with literal nazis :)
    2
  913.  @MadsterV  Yes, you've been proven wrong exactly, and have been proudly flaunting that fact for a while now. I'm sorry you can't deal with reality, but perhaps the hipocrisy of your arguments will catch up with you one day. Feel free to flee to your bed, I'll be here in reality. I hope one day you can find us.
    2
  914.  @MadsterV  I agree, you just can't read. months later, and this still rings true
    2
  915.  @MadsterV  You still have yet to actually, you know... show where I brought up the new strawman you're claiming? Nah, I find your continued use of insults over reality to be quite telling. But sure, go ahead. Keep proving my point. Can you come up with any insults I don't teach you?
    2
  916.  @MadsterV  I'm sorry, you... do realize you're replying as well, right? I respond to your arguments, and you accuse me of being a "last word man." I easily prove any of the silly fanatics that go after me wrong, and yet you decide to project the ideological basis of your argument onto me. You don't even know what my ideology is, and yet you claim that as the basis of this argument. If all you've got left is insults you could at least try to make them coherent. You're doing everything you can to avid actually responding to an argument, actually engaging with the ideas that prove you wrong. Ah, and the old npc "argument!" It's amazing, I meet a hundred people like you who make the exact same points and are proven wrong in the exact same way every month, and yet, the npcs are the ones who go against that? You appear to not understand that this response, accusing me of being childish, claiming i'm protecting my ideology, all of it is a rip from my own remarks on you. Can you do one original thing?
    2
  917.  @lordjaraxxus5418  Funny, the only people I ever see calling Tim Pool "moderate" are those that are already fans of him. The rest of the world seems pretty unanimous in pointing out his constant right wing rhetoric and tactics. He isn't much for solid sources, and he only attacks the "popular narrative" if it makes the right look bad, or if it makes their enemies look good. At least you can admit his goal is to make the democratic party look bad, regardless of the truth within his attempts. You are a perfect example of the phenomenon I just mentioned.
    2
  918.  @MadsterV  Lmao literally all of this got disproven dude. Are you still coping with your loss?
    2
  919.  @MadsterV  "who was regarded by George Orwell to be the True Socialist" This is perhaps the most deranged of your lies. Like what? Where the fuck did you get this out of??? "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." "The British ruling class were not altogether wrong in thinking that Fascism was on their side. It is a fact that any rich man, unless he is a Jew, has less to fear from Fascism than from either Communism or democratic Socialism. One ought never to forget this, for nearly the whole of German and Italian propaganda is designed to cover it up. The natural instinct of men like Simon, Hoare, Chamberlain etc. was to come to an agreement with Hitler. " "But what then is Fascism? Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism... 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" "But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognise any obligations. " "The real danger is from above. One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor rnan, 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 moneyed 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 rightwing politicians." Do you understand yet how positively incorrect you are?
    2
  920.  @MadsterV  Yes, the man who led a party that despised socialists, unionists, leftists, communists, marxists, anarchists, feminists and liberals while allying with the conservative parties, the party that enforced the power of private business and appealed to the rich white men which supported hitler, the man who abolished worker unions and collective bargaining, that was rejected by the left (of course including Orwell) and openly welcomed by the right, who claimed openly that he had no desire to put the "great german industry" into the hands of the state or to meddle in its competition, was not a socialist. As has been proven to you before, and as you have ignored. You can try to build a strawman argument out of the recognition of his nationalism, but it doesn't quite work like that. Just think, for once. Who flies his flags? Who shouts his mottos? Who follows his policies and who carries his legacy? It is not the socialists, it is the proud right wingers. No need to jump from nationalism to the right, the right does that themselves by associating themselves with such a horrible ideology. I'm sorry you can't accept that basic truth. Oh he put far more than the "rabid socialist extremists" in jail, he put all those the left associates with and defends right there next to them. A bit odd for a supposed socialist, hm? Have you thought that far? I'm guessing not. After all, what matters to you is not historical reality of course, but attacking the nazis for everything they were not, so you don't have to come to terms with and condemn what they actually were.
    2
  921.  @Gromkiii  ...that you're wrong, and hilariously ignorant, which you have now admitted. You have no idea what capitalism or socialism are, and you are proud of this fact.
    2
  922.  @Gromkiii  Dude why do you keep saying "government (society)"? That's hilariously incorrect and long debunked. Do you not know the difference between a dictator and a neighbor?
    2
  923.  @Gromkiii  lmao kid you're calling yourself, as well as all historical capitalists, a socialist.
    2
  924.  @walterbailey2950  madster here has a problem of reusing arguments he lost old debates with.
    2
  925. He would be ridiculed instantly.
    2
  926.  @dergutehut3961  Keep up the good work.
    2
  927. Except it's actually socialism without, you know, socialism at all. As in it had nothing to do with socialism.
    2
  928.  @MWcrazyhorse  nah, I just find it fun to add in, for flavor. It doesn't matter anyway, as I am objectively correct, the Nazis weren't Socialists
    2
  929. he wasn't really a socialist really either
    2
  930.  @koryonos-geheim-einherii  there we can agree
    2
  931.  @mitscientifica1569  Funny, George Orwell actually 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." Your quote has no backing, fash. In fact, it comes from Orwell quoting stalin's pre-war propaganda...
    2
  932.  @mitscientifica1569  Funny, George Orwell actually 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." Your quote has no backing, fash. In fact, it comes from Orwell quoting stalin's pre-war propaganda...
    2
  933.  @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 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. //:/
    2
  934.  @mitscientifica1569  no, as they weren't right wing, a defining feature of fascism :)
    2
  935. A quick question before you go on - do you consider Sweden socialist?
    1
  936.  @12Prophet  That isn't a loaded question. It's a genuine one. And why would I consider a hereditary monarchy stateless, or a system where the workers control the economy?
    1
  937.  @12Prophet I'm fine for a civil discussion, but my point was that we can agree sweden isn't socialist, right? According to the video creator's definition, it would be. I think that's worth keeping in mind.
    1
  938.  @12Prophet  I'm aware. My point is that if you disagree with him there, you might not get much from the rest of the video. But that's down to you.
    1
  939.  @12Prophet  I'm sure. Also, just for clarification, Sweden was the "rape capital" because they reported rape in a different way. They counted prior rapes of people who came into the country as their own, as well as, unlike the US, counting each offense individually. In the US, if a person moves into the country from canada with a history of an abusive relationship in which they were raped 13 times, we don't consider that. If it happened in our country, we count it as 1 offense. In sweden it's counted as 13.
    1
  940. Mussolini literally denounced socialism and abolished his own prior socialist party, which tells me pretty clearly that his past had nothing to do with his creation of fascism. Socialism and communism don't want a strong nation, socialism is inherently anti-nationalistic, and communism is literally stateless. Fascism on the other hand does want a strong nation, but not only that, a strong nation of "their type." The nazis weren't any different in this regard, all fascist movements have had their ingroup, and their outgroup that they morally despise. The italian fascists in some areas were just as racist as the nazis, and just as exclusionary, though on the whole they focused less on race than nation, and were far less destructive. And your next point is just silly, no offense. Yes, they each have base etymological terms that kind of link them. But that's like saying all of society is socialist because society and socialism both have similar base terms. Same with communism, is every community communist? Fascism, as in the bundle of sticks, references an ideology not of society or community, but of a closely protected and fiercely held-up ingroup. To skip around a bit, again, nationalism does reference a nation, but there is nothing inherently communistic or socialistic about the existence of a state, or a nation. Now I don't mean to be rude here, because you seem open to new perspectives as long as they are backed by logic, so i'll just present a few arguments to address the ideas that fascism is more left wing than right wing, which I just disagree with. First off, what do left and right wing... mean? Well, it's pretty well known, but the term first came from France, during the french revolution. The right were the monarchists, and the left were the radicals, the republicans, the pre-anachists even, and so on. And no, not like american republicans, like people who wanted a republic. In any case, obviously we've shifted since then. Most people aren't monarchists, so the range of "left to right" has changed. So, what do they mean? Well, the best way i've personally heard it described (and you can contest this) is that right vs left is really about hierarchy vs equality. Well, what does that mean. It means the right tend to justify, strive for, or implement hierarchical structures in society. Capitalism, for example, is such a structure of hierarchy where you can rise to the top above all others. So is monarchy, in the way that there is a rigid hierarchy, at the very top. That is not to say that the right hates equality, or are even opposed to it (things like equality of opportunity are good parts of capitalism) but that the right sees it as less of an issue. The further right you go however, the less that equality really matters. Again, I say this not to insult, but to point out some definitions. The left, on the other hand, seems more pro-quality, and that's not always a good thing. They tend to strive for equality of outcome, through things like public services and welfare. On the far left, they want tend to want absolute equality, either through things like anarchism which guarantees that though mutual aid, community, and a lack of any formalized leaders, or through authoritarian ideologies that mandate everyone be "equal," for better, or much much worse. So by that definition of right v left, then fascism is wholly right wing. Now again, you can contest my separation of the two, but that's the definition i've seen that makes the most sense. In any case, even the creators of fascism, yes including mussolini, called their ideology (literally) right wing, multiple times. Even hitler has quotes alluding to him favoring the right over the left. Add to that the long list of conservative and right wing figures that praised them, agreed with them, and helped them rise to power, and it seems like too big of a coincidence. Alongside that, the fascists drew inspiration from right wing ideologies like traditionalism, social darwinism, and phrenological race theory. In any case, I would hate to dump more on you, but I would be happy to discuss this in more depth. I don't mean this as an attack against the right, I tend to agree with them on many issues, and of course not everyone on the right is a fascist, but I do think for the sake of historical accuracy that this argument should be made. Anyway, that's all for me now, and I hope to hear from you, or if not, to mae you think about some other issues and look into this further, and again, i'd be happy to go into more detail and provide some specifics and citation if you would like. Have a good one.
    1
  941. I have to say, just no. He wasn't a socialist, at all.
    1
  942.  @tjo4087  That's fair, and I would agree that constructive dialogue is always pretty important. That's why i'm here, or at least what i'm trying to do here. It's just that I think this video doesn't do it that well, especially given the comments that the creator has made in regards to his detractors. But of course, a debate is always important, and I hope that i'm not dissuading that.
    1
  943.  @JAK4L  TIK, the man who defends and absolves those who actually have so much in common with the nazis?
    1
  944.  @Mike-ul7of  He wasn't a communist, wasn't a socialist, and the democrats are capitalist.
    1
  945.  @WoodrowWilsonsSpecter  The person you replied to has no intellectual honesty, and is guided by emotions rather than any sort of political fact. You aren't open minded and neither are they, you reject the truth because the truth doesn't follow your narrative. You openly support political revision of history, for your biased, ahistorical narrative, and its disgusting.
    1
  946.  @159tony  Communism/Socialism and fascism are direct opposites. Nazi germany was not socialist at all. Calling them "synonymous" is objectively false
    1
  947.  @159tony  Actually, that sounds an awful lot like literally every political group in existence, including but not limited to the anti-nazi resistance, the anti-soviet monarchists, and the american founding fathers. The "definition" you're talking about is one relating to the colloquial usage of the term to describe suppression of dissent, not an actual description of the policies of fascism in question. Marx promoted a stateless system, so i'm not sure why you want to make up his supposed support for the far right anti-socialism of hitler. Go learn to argue without insulting people, and read a book while you're at it.
    1
  948.  @Mike-ul7of  Insults don't change facts.
    1
  949.  @159tony  So you can't counter the fact that your stated definition of fascism is far from exclusive to socialist systems and does not actually accurately describe socialist ideas. Why is it that your type always assumes I must be a communist because I point out your failings? Is it because you value your anti-leftism over your support for history? Oh wait, that's exactly it.
    1
  950.  @159tony  You know, I preferred you when you only left the ignorance of your statements implied, not openly spoken. First off, i'm not talking about the constitution. I'm talking about the groups led and supported by the founding fathers that abducted innocent tax collectors, engaged in public torture and painful if not deadly punishment, that incited riots and quite literally led a rebellion that suppressed the views of millions of pro-empire colonists, who were often the subject of constant harassment, violence, or even warfare. So, by definition, the founding fathers are in. I'm sorry but this is false, fascism comes historically from capitalist and corporatist states that gain a core of traditionalist conservatism. The fact that you don't understand Hegel is, again, not surprising, but one that I always find particularly amusing. Tell me, which part of Hegel's theories "completely devalues people as individuals?" Progressivism and Leftism aren't "built of marxist ideology," actually both of those in large ways can and most often do reject marx, but again, your assertions are presented without reasoning or evidence. All you have is an assertion that Hegelian teachings lead to a form of sole-collectivism, which can then be found in all leftism. The key word there being assertions - there is no supporting reasoning or evidence for these claims. And again, name-dropping Hegel doesn't mean you understand him, and its clear that you're just parroting the term "Hegelian Dialectics" from someone who knows more about it than you. I'll remind you once again though, that the suppression of ideas by force is not exclusive to the left, to hegelians, or to communists or socialists, and the right actually has more than their fair share of examples of those actions. Evidently I know more than you, given that you don't even understand the basics of American history, how can I expect you to understand Hegel? You are not apolitical. You attack the left while pushing excuses of the right. You push far right conspiracies fueled only by your ideological zealotry, and claim that if you pretend otherwise, it makes your zeal into fact, somehow. You are projecting this onto me, and it's sad. Well yes, any rational person would "think" those things, as they are objective facts. The denial of said facts is only done by far rightists, which is more evidence to that point. Your assertions are categorically false when looking at facts. Sorry? =
    1
  951.  @159tony  So you accuse me of ad hominem arguments... while devoting your entire first few lines to a random spree of insults. What you're stating isn't public record, and is only discussed on the fringe corners of far right sections of the internet. I'm sorry that your only ability to assert otherwise hinges on angry insults directed at internet strangers. I point out the far right talking points you explicitly push, and your only response is to declare that I must be far left because I call out your right wing talking points. You prefer to provide strawman arguments instead of actual facts or data to back up your absurd claims. In any case, sorry you had to be let down like this, Hitler was a staunch rightists, and like rightists today, he seems to desire the censorship of those he disagreed with. Your assertions are just that, assertions, not backed up by any sort of reference to reality. You assert that socialism is utterly hostile to the individual, of course ignoring the long standing history of socialism as a push for individualism, and the individualist arguments those going back to even marx have made against capitalism. In any case, at least you can admit many right wing systems, like fascism and nazism, utterly reject notions of individuality, but you still try to pin this wholly or uniquely on socialism and leftism. But that's enough of your baseless assertions, ad hominem "arguments," and endless deflections. Perhaps one day you'll listen to reason.
    1
  952.  @159tony  So you accuse me of ad hominem arguments... while devoting your entire first few lines to a random spree of insults. What you're stating isn't public record, and is only discussed on the fringe corners of far right sections of the internet. This is objectively true. The insults of alluding to me being some sort of uneducated child that can't handle economics when in reality i've calmly and easily pointed out your argumentative failings. You openly profess your love for the right, with spreading their conspiracies. You state I must be far left because I reject your far right fearmongering talking points, and yet provide nothing to support this assertion. Of course you then praise the far right, because of course, you align with them totally. Your "rational thought" is gained by a rejection of logic, evidence, and the real world ties. And you can try to insult me all you want, but your actual rhetoric choice in this case doesn't match up with your supposed rhetorical point. I do have to enjoy how you've utterly deflected to insults now, thought. The facts here support literally nothing you say. You go contrary to that reality, and push your narrative because they don't fit your political views.. that's not at all fine and good, you're entitled to your opinion but you should stop pretending it's factual information, or be prepared to be called out on your BS when someone knows better and has the miles traveled and experienced. Your assertions on collectivism, socialism, communism, Hegelian dialectics, individualism, collectivism, and so on are utterly false, and for you to say otherwise means you're both dogmatic and illiterate, and undeniably wrong.
    1
  953.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  I'm sorry, but this is simply historically false, and disgustingly so. Hitler was not a socialist, objectively. Pretending he was a socialist, and that was the reason for the holocaust, is denying the holocaust. You are choosing to promote your own partisan hatred of an ideology, socialism, over the actual history of the nazi party. You would prefer to slander a movement you hate than actually look into the ideological origin of the holocaust and attempt to address it directly. Please learn to speak before you say something so disgustingly false.
    1
  954.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Why, because I prove you wrong? Stop projecting your ideological zealotry onto others.
    1
  955.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  baseless insults and deflections will never be arguments. Try again
    1
  956.  @WoodrowWilsonsSpecter  ahh, another product/victim of the far right controlled echo chamber systems speaks, how stunning and new- The idea of socialists, leftists, communists and so on infiltrating academia and the government education system is far from new. Do you want to know some of the first and loudest supporters of this baseless conspiracy theory? Well, the fascists of course! Nazis especially justified the taking of power, the burning of books, the indoctrination of children and the murder of millions on the basis of a suspected infiltration by leftists, communists, socialist, and so on of academia, public education, and so on. Stunningly similar to what the modern anti-socialist right pushes... well, anti-socialism is consistent at least. The fascists anti-socialism is reflected even today in the right's anti-socialism. Of course, the right doesn't want to admit this, so they support a conspiracy theory that the openly anti-socialist fascists (that are not, despite your assertions, "another form of socialism) were in fact socialists themselves. Also, you clearly don't know the first thing about communism or fascist economic policies. The point is that the type of conspiracies you push have been the rhetorical tools of fascists and their allies since the beginning, and similarly, the push against socialism is not only what provided the fertile political soil that fascism sprung from, but emboldened figures from across the political right to defend the actions of fascists, either by seeing them as a "lesser evil" than their strawman version of socialism, or by openly embracing them as the future of the right. The real problem is the useless lives lost, I agree. However, in your political frenzy, you do everything possible to blame this on the socialists... socialists who stepped out of the first world war, an affair of capitalists and empires. Socialists who fought against the nazi threat in the second world war. Socialists you hate to address in an objective fashion. The notion that any and all opposition to a fascistic american nationalism and traditionalism is manufactured by leftists is again a common one within the authoritarian, fascist american and international right. These conspiracies seem to fulfill almost purposefully all of the ideological factors of fascism in their operation, often advocating for repressive states, massive purges and nationalistic outlooks. They declare that their enemy is both immensely strong, and has infiltrated the whole of their society, and yet weak as can be, and can be rebutted and purged with just a little more fascistic policy. In other words, "...The enemy is both weak and strong..." from Umberto Eco's definition of fascism. Trying to whataboutism your way out of legitimate criticisms of the deeply racist and genocidal history of movements you support doesn't work, especially when you don't even know the basic definitions or history at plat. Sadly, no matter how often the facts of the history of your rhetoric is brought to your attention, you'd much rather engage in conspiracy than learn the truth of your statements. But then again, you're just a random person on the internet who can't bring themselves to see the real world. You'll have to pardon my doubt for your claim of education here, not only given your blatant lies regarding the history of the world, but also your abundance of grammatical mistakes.
    1
  957.  @WoodrowWilsonsSpecter  "NOBODY..." except for you and those that similarly deny the origin and basis of nazi ideology, while deflecting the blame onto whatever political group you hate most at the moment. It is a simple fact, i'm sorry to say, that the nazis were not socialists, and fascism is according to all objective history not a form of socialism either, nor do either of them base their views or history upon Marxism.. Hell, socialism and communism aren't even products of Marxism, but thank you for admitting your ignorance. Your opinion of socialism doesn't matter here - your blatant denialism. And jesus, how disrespectful. You are attempting to bury the victims of the nazi genocides under a mountain of fake corpses, minimizing the crimes of the nazis by trying to manufacture ahistorical claims about those you ideologically oppose. This is, undeniably, nazi genocide denialism. Furthermore, you act disrespectful to the victims of the USSR and Mao, by again, burying them under millions of uncited, nonexistent "deaths." Hell, you're claiming that Mao killed ~1/6 of his population, how must the families of the actual victims feel to be discarded in favor of an inflated number of non-existent victims? Disgusting.
    1
  958.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  You mean "people proved me wrong so I just ignored them?" Nice try.
    1
  959.  @WoodrowWilsonsSpecter  Yes, you seem to have. Your constant conspiracy theories don't seem to disprove this, quite the opposite.
    1
  960.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  I'm sorry? Accusing random people and groups of being paid off by foreign governments to exist, or asserting that the government is overrun with communist conspirers, isn't a conspiracy theory? Child, I have to ask, have you even been reading this thread? Or do you just believe the conspiracy theories?
    1
  961.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Well of course it wouldn't make them any less socialist, it's hard to get less socialist than far right anti-socialism, like that of the nazis.
    1
  962.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Hitler was anti-socialism, objectively. The right wing is not at all described as varying levels of Laissez-faire. Less government involvement = further right" is not an accurate statement. The right, since the beginning of the term (monarchists) has been fine with authoritarianism, and continues to be today (modern fascists.) The ideology that calls for no government at all, anarchism, is leftist. The Laissez-faire is such a small part of the right that you want to project on the whole. No, they weren't capitalists. Just as they weren't leftists. They were far right. Far right anti-socialists. How hard is that to see?
    1
  963.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  "If I am a “Laissez-faire extremist” does that make me far-right?" What do you define "Laissez-faire" as? It's a statist system, and yes, you would be a form of far right. If you define it as not a form of capitalism, but libertarian tendencies as a whole, than one could be a "Laissez-faire extremist" and be far left "of course it does, then how is it possible for myself and the Nazis to share the same space when we are polar opposites?" Because you aren't polar opposites. You both believe in the domination of the strong over the weak, in the preservation of hierarchy, and so on. "There is no were else on the political spectrum that I can possibly fit into besides the far-right...." Anarchists are, and always have been since the beginning of the term, left wing. Sorry to burst your bubble. "Defining Nazis as far right is not politically correct, it’s spin!" Correctly pointing out the nazi's far right nature is not a spin, it's an objective fact.
    1
  964.  @mariogmajner6549  *aren't. The kkk are not socialists.
    1
  965.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974 " It is not possible for the right wing to be separated into two totally opposite strands." And yet the right itself does this, and constantly, because it recognizes its authoritarian elements. "This is as stupid as anarcho-communism" So you admit that anarchism is far left? Thank you.
    1
  966.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Might as well ask why christians use the cross and Catholics the crucifix. The right wing conservatives and Nazis are like Catholics and protestants fighting each other or Shiite and Sunni muslims.
    1
  967.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Nope, nazis are wholly right wing, and not at all marxist nor socialist.
    1
  968.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  The KKK is actually, and has always been, an extension of violent racist conservatism, since its founding, and the democratic party is quite literally a capitalist conservative party.
    1
  969.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Left = less hierarchy, more push for equality Right = more hierarchy, less inherent eqaulity. Your argument above is about the differences between Conservatism and Right wing ideology (Nazis)
    1
  970.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Hitler was against Marxism and all possible variants of Socialism. Sorry you call "laughable" what the rest of the world calls objective historical evidence.
    1
  971.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Fascism is, by definition, not "worker unions," hence all fascist countries abolishing or weakening unions immensely.
    1
  972.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  The workers syndicates aren't fascist, nor do you seem to understand what marxists want.
    1
  973.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  "yes and the Catholics who killed protestants and vice versa proves neither side was Christian... And when Stalin killed Trotsky and his followers that proves Stalin was anti Marxist anti socialist" Nice non argument.
    1
  974.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  You do understand there's a difference between ideological attacks on people versus political attacks on people?
    1
  975.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  If you can't stand up to criticism of your nonsense, why do you spread it in the first place? Why can't you help but deflecting to other arguments when you get called out on nonsense?
    1
  976.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  If you can't stand up to criticism of your nonsense, why do you spread it in the first place? Why can't you help but deflecting to other arguments when you get called out on nonsense?
    1
  977.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  And yet you popped into this thread to do exactly that.
    1
  978.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  You had no reason to reinsert yourself here bud. People have clearly outlined the differences between nazism and socialism, you just refuse to listen to them. It really isn't that hard to distinguish, but again, you refuse to listen to the logic people are pointing out to you. North Korea is a hereditary dictatorship, but they aren't monarchist or feudalist by any rigid definition, that's more a colloquial description. The problem is you all trying to change the definitions of terms because it helps you spread political talking points. The nazis didn't have a centrally organized or controlled economy though, and marxism is a method of analysis, not an economic system. Also, there's more to ideology than economics. ...I do hope you realize that some of hitler's first victims were socialists, that he blamed for a "jewish conspiracy," and that his greatest allies were antisemetic capitalists and conservatives.
    1
  979.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Well, you can start by telling me that you're sorry for saying such objectively false things. What separates one strand of authoritarian right from the others? The state under nazi germany didn't own everything, nor did they care about "benefitting the people." The people didn't own anything, private people who often supported an exclusive and genocidal state owned everything. How is that at all socialism?
    1
  980.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  What? Don't like hearing the truth?
    1
  981.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  Yes, I ask for you to apologize for saying things with no basis in rational reality. Calling the far-right anti-socialist nazi party "left wing socialist" is not only incorrect, but a blatant ideological rewriting of history. They were so clear cut anti-socialists that to argue otherwise shows your clear ideological goal. The nazis were not socialists, in every sense of the word.
    1
  982.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  So your apology is further denial. There is no such thing as a left wing Nazi. There is the very real danger of the right wing Nazis, which you refuse to condemn. Why am I not at all surprised?
    1
  983.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  That's you though, without a shadow of a doubt. Your vapid comments prove as much.
    1
  984.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  We both know you're only here because you have a cultish desire to protect your rightist anti socialism, and can't handle the fact that the Nazis agreed with that same notion. I did give you arguments, over and over again, and you openly refused to answer to them, instead preferring to ignore them and insult me while asserting the same disproven notions all over and over again. It's been shown, it's been cited, it's been argued, and most importantly, it's been proven: the Nazis weren't socialists, and you have no response to this fact. If you had an argument against the fact that the Nazis were right wing anti socialists like you, you would have presented it. And yet, you have nothing. Nothing except agreeing with those you claim to despise of course. I am truly sorry you're unable to provide a single argument to counter the objective fact of the Nazis anti-socialism, I'm sorry you can't move beyond your paranoid delusional conspiratorial views, and most of all, I'm sorry you cant see the difference between actual reality and delusional attempts to protect the image of your god anti-socialism. You can't even apologize to your denialism, you can't refute the fact of the Nazis anti socialism. I strongly apologize to the fact that the Nazis were anti-socialists like you. Hell, you've somehow fooled your delusional, conspiratorial mind into thinking I'm a socialist, which as we've been over, is false. What comfort do you deserve, you denier of history, you open apologist, you admitted liar? Come back when you have an argument against reality, one that will be again refuted, and we'll see.
    1
  985.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  That would be you though, and you would do well to stop projecting your failings onto me.
    1
  986.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  I couldn't care less about your vapid insults.
    1
  987.  @joeyjojoshabbado7974  It does, a feeling you must be familiar with.
    1
  988.  @KameradVonTurnip  Ah, except he is. What you just said is like "just swap social ownership of all private property with private ownership, it's practically the same thing, just switch out private and public. and that's the point, socialism as a system is defined by the community owning the means of production. Not a few people, not a race or a privileged class, all people. If you don't have that, you don't have socialism. And TIK utterly fails in that the community and the state are very, very different things. The problem is that he has to redefine every term, socialism, statism, capitalism, and by the end he's just talking about a completely different thing from anything else. He tried to define socialism to me as just "hierarchy." The problem is, official definitions don't agree with TIK, they say it's a system where the people as a whole own the means of production, and that it can be done without a totalitarian state, or even a state at all. Since this doesn't fit TIK's narrative, he has to redefine state to be any community with power, which is just hilariously incorrect. You don't become your own country when you set up a neighborhood watch after all. Under this definition, companies are states. Any sort of local organizations, or even international organizations are states. Every community of people is it's own state. And I think you can see that. When socialists say "community," they don't mean it as some secret term to say "the state" in a nice way, no, they literally mean the community, either the community at large of the community locally, one of many afforded the reigns of industry. like So in other words, official definitions don't back up his source, so he has to redefine the words those official definitions use to see even remotely correct. Hence, he's stretching and twisting the definition of socialism, and isn't even talking about the same system a socialist is when they use the same words.
    1
  989.  @KameradVonTurnip  Ah, the classic right wing tactic. If you don't like a piece of history, or a definition, just blame it on some international marxist cabal. It's totally intellectually honest. No, I couldn't imagine why a dictionary would want to... define socialism actually according to socialist thought. The horror! What a nice way to dispell all wrong-think, especially when the definitions fom Webster prove you wrong. So yeah, sorry, that isn't accurate either. Saying a community is the state is just absurd, and it really shows how much you guys have to twist definitions to seem at all correct. Is a neighborhood watch a state? Is a company a state? Is a club, o even an international organization a state? No, they are not. Because by your logic, if one was to abolish the state and give everything to private companies, then they would all be states. Hell, we can even apply this logic to pre-civilization nomadic tribes of humans, which didn't actually have a state, and wouldn't for centuries. The problem with that line is that it sadly isn't true, for a long time certain pieces of land were in private hands, but then they just went into state ones. Not state hands and then given to another group and you seem to imply. That would be like saying rich people both run the government and the companies, ergo amazon is actually a separate country. Gotta love how you just assume all socialism is statist from the country that lenin didn't even bother calling socialist. Yeah, hate to be a dick, but this is the reason that we actually have to define socialism correctly, and not according to how much you hate leftists. Facts over feelings and all. I hate to tell you, but allowing the existence of private industry with the addition of some state control, and in fact putting company leaders and rich people into the position of government is not socialist in the slightest. You actually have that part backwards, most rich people become party leaders, not the other way around. But again, it's very telling that you define socialism as "government control" or "anything besides perfect capitalism" because even the first socialists, and the most influential, would spend decades advocating against government control. Again, i'll remind you of figures like self-labeled socialist Proudhon, which leveled most of his efforts against monarchism, a system in which everything was owned by the state. Why? Because according to your definition monachism is the perfect socialist world, so why did they hate it? Because they wanted society as a whole in control of the means of production. Not just some parts of society, all of it. And this isn't a theory exclusive (or even conceptualized) by marx, this has been the cornerstone of socialist thought since inception. Yes it can be done through the state, but the key is that the state must then allow control over industry to go to the people, either by giving it to them directly to control democratically, or by having the state manage them representative to the people's wishes, so the state would have to be representative or democratic. It can also be done without a state, either by collective bargaining, giving the companies directly to the people, through mutual aid, ect. The problem with your definition of a state, and of socialism, is that you're making them up. If you were to talk to a socialist and begin using those terms as you describe them, you would be utterly lost, as they and you are talking about totally different concepts. That's why stretching definitions to warrant an attack on an ideology doesn't work, because you're no longer even attacking the ideology you're naming. Socialists will ignore your criticism because it doesn't even apply to their ideology, and if the public starts defining socialism and the state as you do, they'll just switch terms to a new one that actually explains the ideology. That's the problem with twisting the definition of words after all. Mate, your definition is so shaky that anarchists are now totalitarians. That's how far you've gotten from reality. If you have to spin stuff that much to be right, then you really weren't right in the first place, were you?
    1
  990.  @KameradVonTurnip  I... don't really care that you're a dem? That might be worse in fact, nobody likes dems. Like, no offense, but when a person begins talking about google bowing down to "leftist academia" I don't really care which of the two neoliberal capitalist parties they belong to, or how many times they voted for President Drone Strike. - Ah, and here we get to the part where instead of debating, you just name off fallacies that you briefly remember from the last reddit circle jerk you attended. Fun. You realize that arguing through fallacy is in and of itself a fallacy, right? Anyway, on to the "substance." of your argument. No, you both laid out in exact terms why a community and a state can be considered one and the same. Cherry picking examples that you only brought up later to substantiate that point is only moving the goal posts. According to you, the community can be the state, so therefore any examples of community, or organizations holding power, must be a form of the state. Comparing something to the USSR doesn't work there. Alongside that, companies like apple definitely do have representation in government, it's called lobbying. In fact, most major corporations pay hundreds of millions for lobbyists to get the laws they want passed. Are they the state now? Apple is a community of like-minded individuals holding power, therefore they are the state. So are you seeing why your logic doesn't really work? Again, i'll say not only are you miscategorizing the governmental structure of the soviet union (even when those elections happened in the few cases of Democratic workplaces, it doesn't matter because there was a literal dictator that discounted all of their desires) on does not have to be the soviet union to be a state. I would say America has a state, right? You're now essentially giving up on your previous definition to one with more nuance, which is great, but it still does not work. And again, apple can absolutely have government represent it's wishes, but for a more clear cut example let's go with disney. Disney has consistently lobbied for extensions to copyright laws, to the point that their first animation has only recently gone into public domain, nearly a century later. They spend around 4.6 million a year lobbying. Yet, the people who passed those laws are not in prison. Because while corruption is "illegal," lobbying is not, though both accomplish the same effect. You also forget again that in cases like the PRC, the control goes both ways. Heads of corporations take seats on the government, not the other way around. - "Definition of Socialism. Right out of Webster." You notice how two of the thee (3/4 really, but you neglected to post one) of the definitions go against your point, by showing that it does not always need to be state control, nor does just state control qualify it as being socialism? Like, it's really telling that you had to ignore 3/4 definitions, as well as the long explanation posted below which calls socialism "a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control," or even this entire paragraph of explanation. "In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal." All of that, socialism potentially being libertarian or even abolishing the state, does not at all fit in with your definition, and that's the issue. I notice you didn't address the majority of my argument, but again, you're calling anarchists totalitarian for believing in mutual aid. You say a community can be a state, but to prove it only show examples of an arm of the state being used by a community. Even you seem to realize that TIK's definition doesn't work, because you're no longer applying the reasoning that Community = state. Because, as I said earlier, when you make assumptions like that you may as well be saying "socialism and capitalism are nearly the same, all you do is switch social ownership to private ownership." And I think we both know that isn't accurate. - I'm looking forward to how you tackle the concepts of anarchism and libertarian socialism, because according to your definition (which is not used by actual socialists describing their ideas) those kinds of people could not possibly exist, and yet, they did. Were they secretly statists for wanting to abolish the state? And if your definition can't account for their existence... well then it isn't a very good definition now, is it? Can't wait to hear this.
    1
  991. ​ @KameradVonTurnip  Ah, so you're back on the "marx actually created this entire definition of socialism, despite not actually creating anything by himself." conspiracy theory, are you? Fun, fun. Always fun. It's great to point out that these ideas were being spread long before marx was even born, and were spread by socialists that vehemently disagreed with marxism and those that claimed to follow it, but sure bud, attach all of your definitions of socialism to one guy who died around a century and a half ago. It's funny how you correctly point out that marxism is much youner than socialism, but conveniently ignore that socialists before marx tended to ignore the need for a state at all. Again, Proudhon. Self labeled socialist, hated forms of the government where everything was state owned (monarchism) and began writing long before marx. You have more socialists who would go on to influence other types of thought, like Bakunin, (LibSoc) Kropotkin, (AnCom) Stirner, (Egoism) on and on and on, socialists who disagreed with marx, both before and after his work, and yet held up the very principles of socialism you claim were wholly invented by him. He didn't change the term mate, he used it as a stepping stone to develop his own ideology. You didn't post the textbook definition, that's what I pointed out. You took the single dictionary that has one definition of four that agrees with you, and ignored all the other parts, as well as the more in depth explanations. It's almost like you want to change the definitions, overwrite history, because you don't like what it says. As I said, the version of socialism you're attacking isn't socialism at all, and isn't what socialists call for. And oh no bud, it seems you have a few issues with comprehension. Let's read over that line again, right? "a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism..." Tell me, where does it imply that the "in marxist theory" description means that this is marxist theory, and is not a part of it? Capitalism is clearly a part of marxist theory as well, in fact it's the first stage of a society that will transition to communism. Does that mean that capitalism is a marxist ploy? You can't even lie effectively here, the definition is clearly pointing out that the transitional period is the part that marx theorized on, not the entire definition, which is backed up by the other, non-marxist definitions at the time. However, of course that goes against your narrative, you you have to downgrade to the reading comprehension of a five year old in order to make your point. The definition you point to describes socialism in marxist theory, as in how socialism is applied, which is to say the transitional phase between capitalism and communism. That definition does not attribute the meaning of socialism solely, which is to say "a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control." So again, you'd rather pin your misunderstanding of socialism on one man than even attempt to learn socialist theory or do even the most cursory glances at the history of socialist development. You're redefining the terms, rewriting history. You know, the nazis ironically did a very similar thing. Blamed (((leftist))) academia for all of the history that went against their narrative, and tried to pin all of socialist theory on marx, most likely because he was ethnically jewish, so they could ignore all of those principles. So it seems the act of ideologically redefining socialism so you can talk about unrelated ideologies with the same name is a time-honored tradition. That, or you've fallen for nazi propaganda instead of actually looking into these issues. So which is it, malice or ignorance?
    1
  992.  @KameradVonTurnip  Ah, but there's a catch. It's only collective ownership if the state is actually representative of that collective. Same with state ownership, again, they hated monarchism for subjugating people who had no control over the industries they worked, and hated capitalism for the same reason. Socialists don't want to give everything to a state, they want to give everything to the people at large, and doing that through the help of the state is one method. However, if the state does not give that power to the people, either by not giving them the industry directly or being something like a dictatorship which cannot be representative of the people, then it is not socialism. You notice how administration and distribution are important parts of the definitions, yeah? That's because if the state is not giving that administration to the people or is not distributing the means of production to them, it is not a socialist system. Period, easy, simple as that. This isn't a marxist theory either, because socialists, especially libertarian socialists, were talking about this definition of socialism (the correct one) before marx was around, and continued talking about it while vehemently disagreeing with everything marx, or marxists, said. The only person who historically attempted to redefine all of socialism, and thrust it onto the figure of one person... was hitler. Who seemed to think that all of socialism was marxist socialism. So, i'll ask again - are you agreeing with nazi propaganda out of ignorance or malic?
    1
  993.  @KameradVonTurnip  Are you really going to try to lie and say that while people were being thrown in camps, while being were being ignored and starving on the streets, that the average worker had any control over the means of production? The trad unions were for party members only. As in, not representative of the collective at all. It was never meant to be either, it was an arm of the state, not the state through technicality. This also completely ignores the multiple points you've failed on in defining libertarian socialism, state ownership, marxism, socialist history, ect. So wrong again.
    1
  994.  @KameradVonTurnip  Not the whole of it, no, and there were years and policies that brought it back to a mixed economy, especially near the beginning and end, but for the most part yes. Which is not socialist, because if the state is not representative of the people, either by being democratic/populist government structures, or by giving the workers at large democratic control over their respective industries/workplaces, it is not socialism. Thanks for admitting to that.
    1
  995.  @KameradVonTurnip  Uh...no? They don't? Halfway between communism and capitalism is social ownership of the means of production. They're halfway between monarchism and capitalism. They use the state as a tool of worship, and in fact got some substantial influence from Napoleon III, and they use the market to benefit that. Do you really need to utterly make up statements that "fascists" proclaim to make an argument? Really? That's the point we're at? Well, fine by me, then. I gave you a word, and a definition. If those words and definitions don't fit, then no, they don't fit. It's as simple as that. Actually, many socialists states have not gone down that path, either reintegrated capitalist measures or been overthrown by US-funded coups, but to the ones that you are referencing, no, they do not fit the choice wording. An argument could be made that they were marxist, which means to try to develop a capitalistic economy through the nurturing of the state before socialism takes hold, but of all the examples you listed, none seem to actually hold that intent in any form. Also, North Korea doesn't claim to be socialist, they follow Juche, a similar ideology somewhat inspired by marxism, as well as a few other factors. Germany and France as well are pretty clearly social democracies along the lines of the nordic countries, the myth that there is a "socialist" germany or france is just that, a myth. Venezuela has a 70% private economy as well, which means they don't even fit your definition of socialism. Also, i'm pretty sure TIK doesn't call fascism socialism, he explicitly separates the two. One could argue that the movements behind the states might be socialist, but it is objective that not one (of those you have listed) can be fit under the definition.
    1
  996.  @KameradVonTurnip  Hm. Well, I think there's a common phrase you have for those kinds of actions, one used in this very video in fact. What is it? Give me a second... oh! Ideological infighting. Eh? See, I can pull that card too. You don't seem to realize that monarchists... can dislike eachother. And that having ideological bases in monarchism doesn't mean you agree with the current monarch. In any case, I pretty clearly said a midway point between the two. You seemed to think it was a midpoint between socialism and capitalism, which wouldn't really work for your point either, both for the reason that they killed socialists, and they fought a war against the combined forces of socialists and capitalists. Doesn't really work out with your internal logic here, though. And you'd be right, hitler and mussolini did both hate the old "monarchs" of their regime, mainly for not using the markets as the fascists did and fusing the private sector and the state. Monarchists tend to just lump it all into the state and call it a day. But aside from that, they were very much similar. Both were totalitarian, silenced dissidents, made up a sort of psuedo-religion that put their leaders in a place of divine authority, or in fascism's case, a place of racial superiority. However, like I said - it was a fusion, a midway point. Of course you wouldn't expect them to support actual monarchists, for the same reason the FSA didn't support the Nazis, despite very similar ideological tendencies. For one, they were just different enough to hate eachother, they didn't support eachother's regimes so of course they would be opposed. And for another, similar to how social democrats don't (and didn't) support communism or socialist thought in the rise of both hitler and the USSR, being midway between two things usually means choosing neither. However, I do see that the fascists much more closely resemble monarchists than socialists, as i've pointed out both in the definition of socialism, and the application of their reigns of terror.
    1
  997.  @KameradVonTurnip  oh, so like the KPD, which created the first anti Fascist action group, or the USSR, which fought a massive war against the Fascists?
    1
  998.  @KameradVonTurnip  I am aware of them yes, but thank you for the clarification. Those propaganda armies do tend to have the funner names, right? Almost wish we had that in the US, and called them the Grand Force of the Constitution or something.
    1
  999.  @KameradVonTurnip  Oh gosh, the irony. "To be a Socialist is to support the socialists.. If you do not support the socialists you're not a socialist. Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan none of these regimes supported the socialists, in any form. If they did not support the Socialist they're not Socialist. " This line in particular is quite funny. "It would be like saying someone is a Communist when they absolutely hate communist or tolerate communist to exploit them only. " Hmmmm... Aside from that, the logic doesn't actually pan out. There have been plenty of monarchist movements that don't support the current monarchist. There were monarchists who fought in the American revolutionary war, there were monarchists that fought to replace the current monarch (if just for the purpose of putting in a new one) there are modern day monarchists, today, in America. Which monarch do they support, hm? An ideology is an ideology, not an allegiance. Alongside that, we also know they fought against anyone who would potentially upend their regime, including in the case of hitler, people within their own party. They were sometimes hostile to previous allies, or even current allies, as we know about the rocky relationship between the Italians and Germans in WW2, and the german's racial views towards italians. This wouldn't even be a case of infighting, this is just natural for fascists. Oh, and the most, important point - I didn't call them monarchists. I said they were half way between monarchist and capitalist. Did you call the nazis capitalists, because you said they were in between capitalism and communism? No, they simply used many of the same ideas and strategies. I pointed out to you how these halfway ideologies tend not to support the things they're actually in between. Perhaps half way isn't even a good way to phrase it, but it's undeniable that the fascists took many key aspects from monarchist and other similarly totalitarian regimes before their rise. Again, fascism was inspired n large part from figures like Napoleon III.
    1
  1000.  @KameradVonTurnip  Yeah, that was your excuse though. I turned it back on you to show you that it doesn't work, because you can just say it was infighting for whatever you say showed generous political views. And I''ve already disproved that "connection," and the ways you all like to make up the meanings of marxism and socialism. Maybe don't make claims i've already disproved.
    1
  1001.  @KameradVonTurnip  Gosh, bud, it's like you didn't read my response. Let's try again, hm? "Oh, and the most, important point - I didn't call them monarchists. I said they were half way between monarchist and capitalist. Did you call the nazis capitalists, because you said they were in between capitalism and communism? No, they simply used many of the same ideas and strategies. I pointed out to you how these halfway ideologies tend not to support the things they're actually in between. Perhaps half way isn't even a good way to phrase it, but it's undeniable that the fascists took many key aspects from monarchist and other similarly totalitarian regimes before their rise. Again, fascism was inspired n large part from figures like Napoleon III." We've already been over the "socialism" of both these regimes and north korea, but a few more things - one does not need to have children to be a monarchist. Again, it's an ideology not a checklist. Some monarchies over the course of history have been non-heredity, as well. In any case, i'll repeat it one more time, for those in the back - I did not say they were literal monarchists, just like you did not say they were capitalists. They are mid way between, and draw heavily from both, capitalism and monarchism. And i'll list the ways they were similar to monarchists as follows - they created a type of psuedo-religion that prominently featured their leaders and ideology, they called for state control of industry, they were highly nationalistic to the point of fanaticism, the leaders of the movement, much like Nobles, were often rich people and leaders of industry, they were directly inspired by such figures as Napoleon III, it's a system predicated on absolute adherence of the lower classes, and on and on. I'd say that the one thing they don't really have going for them is the Divine Right, and even then they kind of created their own version with the master race nonsense. As we've already been over, how they treated the modern proponents of certain ideologies can't really be proof of their ideological leanings by themselves, because fascists were notorious to hating and distrusting their allies even, and purging their parties. How they treated monarchs then becomes unimportant, because mate, they treated some fascists worse. As for your final statement, I would agree in some form, most dictators tend to be somewhat similar and then take a hell of a lot of inspiration from previous ones, or dictatorial ideology. However, as we already knew, Stalin and Mao had actual goals to work towards, an ideological foundation they never reached. Hitler reached his, and was fine ending before he stated step 1, as long as it gave him the power to expand his empire and rule over his own people with an iron fist.
    1
  1002.  @KameradVonTurnip  Yes, you claimed that "fascists" broadly said that, with no prior proof or quotation, so I had assumed it was rather something you had made up for your own benefit rather than what this mysterious "they" thought. And... ok? As I said, dictatorships tend to be inspired by eachother to a large degree, as are most totalitarian governments. And that's the reason I didn't bring up economics, mate. In most cases, absolute monarchy, or monarchy without things like a Constitution or supplementary political systems does have its own trademark economic touches. As you yourself said, many monarchies tend to be very similar to aristocracies, even when they have reformed drastically from previous monarchist regimes. However, looking back at many of the pre-modern monarchists, they very much did have similar economic systems in place, even while now, as I said, those are supplemented by other governmental and economic systems to reform the country. Are you really going to make me post this again? "Oh, and the most, important point - I didn't call them monarchists. I said they were half way between monarchist and capitalist. Did you call the nazis capitalists, because you said they were in between capitalism and communism? No, they simply used many of the same ideas and strategies. I pointed out to you how these halfway ideologies tend not to support the things they're actually in between. Perhaps half way isn't even a good way to phrase it, but it's undeniable that the fascists took many key aspects from monarchist and other similarly totalitarian regimes before their rise. Again, fascism was inspired n large part from figures like Napoleon III." However, in the case of germany, you are very much speaking about the old titled aristocrats, right? While Hitler was an absolute authority, there were many below him who could have fit into that role, rich leaders of industry or politicians that he appointed to power. But anyway, again, none of this matters because for three responses straight you've asked me to prove something I didn't say, I then elaborated what I did say, and provided evidence. And then you asked again. Fun.
    1
  1003.  @KameradVonTurnip  Ok, so all you have is anecdotal evidence then? Great. You actually did claim that, in those exact words in fact, through the mouthpiece of your made up fascist friend.s The funny thing is, in all my experience dealing with online fascists, i've found that they act in the exact opposite way. That they'd rather be dead than associate with those ideologies, even through the lens of separation from them, because associating with them is a natrual sin of fascism. Well, associating with communism is far more of a sin, so you get the point. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, people like you can just put words in peoples mouths and act like it's true. Yeah, not really. First off, governments and economies cannot ever remain truly separate, although the degree of inclusion within eachother varies. In america, for example, we claim that our economy (mixed, tending towards capitalism) is separate from our government. (constitutional republic, form of democracy) However, the two work together on many issues, the government outsources and provides contracts to the private market, the government often rules in favor of capitalism and attempts to make laws that benefit the market, it's easiest to run for public office in this country or influence laws through lobbying if you're a rich person, ect. In many issues, they are intertwined. The same can be said for most governmental systems, especially monarchism, that is if the monarch is not completely performative like in most modern day reformed monarchist countries. And yes, the leadership of Britain at times did find uncomfortable agreements with the nazis. So not agreeing with you is a fallacy? Yeah, you seem that type. The kind to screech out imagined fallacies rather than actually dealing with the argument. IF we're doing that now, then i'd like to point out how you've been strawmanning a single sentence of mine to deflect from the overall point, which at this point you've essentially surrender. But i'm sure that's just fine with you. After all, you've taken the last half a day to purposefully misrepresent a colloquial comparison presented as an alternative to your own unsubstantiated point, which of course you've made every effort now to deflect from. Because, as I just said, I can only assume you know you can't argue on the actual point, so you have to do whatever necessary to imagine that that broader argument does not exist. So if your only argumentative point is to strawman a single sentence that you were willing to speak on while ignoring that I proved you wrong at every angle, then you truly have nothing more to say, and are just trying to be a pedant and get the last word in like a child while ignoring every other point you've only managed to ignore. So yeah, either quit it with the bad faith, quit it generally, or we can go back to the massive paragraphs you gave a two-sentence response to, yeah?
    1
  1004.  @KameradVonTurnip  Ah, so you're just going to keep forging down the path of utterly ignoring the argument? Bravo, strong tactic. "How is this statement of your description of these Monarcho Capitalist (Fascist) any different than Stalinist Era Russia, or Modern Day North Korea? " Already explained this mate. Those other leaders have cults of personality, but the nazis literally modified religion, existing religion, to fill in the existence of them on the top of the hierarchy. You also ignored how it's the exact reverse in the soviet union, as I already explained, but sure keep ignoring what you don't want to hear. "Honestly that is irrelevant. As the primary difference is direct control vs indirect. " Yeah, you can't just write off every point you just like as "irrelevant," thought at least i'm happy this time that you actually acknowledged that you read it before you ignored it. Thanks for that at least. And yes, you said all of that earlier... and I addressed it earlier. It's amazing how the only way you feel you can continue to talk is by just ignoring every previous response and filling in either the same points, or asking the same questions I've already addressed. Apple does have representation in the government, it's called "lobbyists." And they do directly lobby to congressmen and senators, which you said they would be arrested for. Funnily, that doesn't really happen. We've already addressed the trade unions and how they are not actually prepresentative of the populace, as well as how leaders of industry are appointed to the CCP, not the other way around. You forget how often the nazi party let leaders of industry take high positions, not take over high positions in industry by giving them to party officials. So again, already addressed. You also seem to not understand socialism, despite me taking painstaking amounts of time to explain it to you in the past, which is just amazing. I can jsut as easily claim capitalism is ultimate control and socialism is no control, and be just as correct as you, but we know how you've ignored that conversation in the past. And you also lied about that being "the end of the politicians career," because... well you know we can see major donations, right? You could find millions of donations directly from corporations to elected officials, and yet they're still in office. Fun. Again - we've been over this. So, so many times. Are you just misunderstanding and ignoring points you conceded in the past on purpose, or are you really that bad at remembering how this conversation has gone in the past? I mean, you can just... scroll through it. State control is not socialism, unless it is actually given to the people. Admittedly, that would be a bit easier to achieve in the case of electricity and water, as those are distributed as a necessity of their existence, but if the industries themselves are not controlled by the workers that work there, then it is not socialism. I will agree with you there though, there has not been a "pure" capitalist society, nor has there been a "pure" socialist society, though we've already been over how TIK's idea of a pure capitalist society is not actually how one would work according to the core philosophy. And again, i'll repeat it once more, something I have made abundantly obvious i my last two posts, as well as this thread at large. I did not call the fascists monarchists. I did not call them capitalists. I said, in an admittedly colloquial way, that they were "mid way in between," as they drew inspiration from both methods of government, but subscribed to neither fully. And we've already discussed how those midway ideologies tend not to support the extreme. You said it yourself, they claimed to be hostile to capitalism but happily allowed parts of it to continue to exist within their society, and in fact encouraged certain parts by inviting in foreign leaders of industry to help them with the creation of infrastructure. They exploited capitalism, but were not capitalists, that I can agree with.
    1
  1005.  @KameradVonTurnip  Yes, that is a defense. Nearly every modern dictator has had a cult of personality dedicated to their leader, but only a very few have literally modified religion to centre around them. Lobbyists are not a defense for a company, correct, rather they are defense for a policy, paid for by that company, in the interest of that company. And yes, politicians are often told to not retain control of their own businesses, that would be a conflict of interest. However, there is no such law for giving those companies to their family, in a case like trump, or taking huge donations and lobbying from other companies, which is like... nearly every major politician. These people aren't giving corporations massive tax cuts out of the kindness of their own hearts. You keep saying it's a case of corruption, and that it can land a politician in jail, but please point me towards a law that says that politicians cannot represent the desires of their donors, or a case in which that law was put into effect. Obviously conflicts of interest are a problem, but lobbying is almost never viewed of that. And I would say even though that control is "indirect," the same actions are being taken and same desires are being met. Not much of a distinction in the end. And as for giant groups of people that are represented in government, I point you towards PACs and SuperPACs. Well the point for the CCP was that they don't appoint leaders to positions of industry as you had implied, but rather appoint leaders of industry to lucrative positions of favor within the party. The other thing was me more reminding you that while the USSR in some cases had state controlled MoP, they still were not socialist. You don't even need to go through the "Trade Unions Represent the Factories while having direct Representation in the Council = state control," gymnastics, the Trade Unions you were talking about were already directly controlled and sanctioned by the state. And we've been over why state control does not equal socialist control, and that you yourself agree they did not represent the collective.
    1
  1006.  @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
  1007.  ND6  Exactly - you, a far right anti-socialist, would be a part of the hitler youth. You can't even break away from your religious indoctrination into anti-socialist far right ideology. You accuse random people of a political slant when you have no knowledge of their actual politics. Frankly, it's really sad. And I think you know it, don't you?
    1
  1008.  ND6  Imagine the only argument being "you haven't watched the video!!" You're admitting you have no argument.
    1
  1009.  ND6  What facts, what history? Oh, you mean the history TIK denies?
    1
  1010.  ND6  Exactly, it is an objective fact that hitler was a far right anti-socialist, and you wish to deny this reality.
    1
  1011.  ND6  I notice all the anti-socialists, yourself included, through the whole thread never made one counter argument. Because they are incapable. You all cry about the length of the video. You have blatantly lost the argument.
    1
  1012.  @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
  1013.  @mitscientifica1569  But they weren't right wing, a key component of fascism.
    1
  1014.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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
  1015. ​ @mitscientifica1569  Cry harder, kid. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. That is, after all, why orwell didn't call the nazis socialists, and instead called them conservatives and capitalists. Your "quote" is, simply put, not reflective of reality. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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
  1016.  @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
  1017.  @mitscientifica1569  h, 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
  1018.  @JT-rc4ng  ah, quick problem with that. One, democratic Socialism is not just Socialism from democracy. Two, they were not democratically elected, they took power in emergency and then took over a role they didn't even run for. Finally, they weren't even socialists. Sorry, child. Bye bye.
    1
  1019.  @JohnnyAloha69  Quick problem here - none of that is true. Hitler was appointed chancellor not because they were the most popular party in germany (far from it) but because several conservative parties under Franz Von Papen conspired together to get him elected, even though he didn't win the vote. As well as that, that isn't the definition of socialism, nor is it what the nazis did. Here is 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." Not the state, so the nazis weren't socialists. On top of that, they didn't campaign on it, and their massive privatization platform means they didn't do it. Democratic Socialism: Three people own a cow, all of them work to milk it. Those three get to decide what to do with the milk, and keep the full value of their labor, not the amount that a boss steals off the top. "Free" enterprise: Two men are starving, and the third is the only one with milk to feed them. He forces them to work long hours milking the cow for a small amount of money, which they then have to use to buy back the milk they helped to produce. That's more accurate.
    1
  1020.  @JT-rc4ng  I literally responded to all of this last time, did you even read it? Democratic socialism is not democracy with socialism, it is achieving socialism through reformist policies. A dictator seizing control is absolutely not that. They were never the biggest party in the country, that was given to the Social Democrat party. They also did seize power illegally, because the conservative politician Franz Von Papen conspired to get hitler elected (even though he lost the election) so the social democrats wouldn't get into power. They didn't "take over the role they promised," he was elected to the chancellor position and then later took full power. Also, socialism is not just centralizing the economy, jesus. It's collective control of the means of production. They were not "racial socialists," not only because racial socialism isn't a thing, but because they didn't even want socialism for their race. There absolutely was massive privatization, you admit to it yourself, taking it away from the hands of the workers. Most companies were private, the vast majority, and yes a lot produced things for war... like companies did in every other country. That's what economies do in wartime. Also, there are examples of companies refusing to cooperate, and what happens? They get bribed. Most were never nationalized, and if they were, they were sold back to another company. That's the point, he didn't mind private property, as long as it was working for the state. However, he never wanted any form of collective control for any group. That means he's not a socialist.
    1
  1021.  @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
  1022.  @tychoides  the issue there is that you're discounting why they're revolting. The American founding fathers revolted, were they socialists? No, not really.
    1
  1023.  @tychoides  Sure, at the time, because they were up against a far-right monarchy. They also very much were an economic and social revolution, as they were going from the colony of a monarch to a full fledged independent state, built up on democracy and the new ideas of capitalism. They turned out somewhat well, although not without a fair bit of upheaval on every side of the issue. It very much was a revolution in all ways. Now a purely political revolution would be something like Jefferson's "revolution" that would come later in the history of America, but it's founding steps were very much ripping off the chains of an old system and building a new one from the ashes. Revolution itself is not inherently socialist, and can be anti-socialist in fact. It's just an action, a tool, one that can be wielded by many.
    1
  1024.  @RightTurnClyde  Nah, more like a great piece of evidence that the nazis had none to begin with. Please stop spreading useless denialism.
    1
  1025.  @chloeturner1414  The problem there being that the statement in question was absolutely true, like it or not.
    1
  1026.  @chloeturner1414  Cultist opinions need not apply.
    1
  1027.  @chloeturner1414  Please stop pushing objectively false nonsense propaganda.
    1
  1028.  @chloeturner1414  ' Funny how you're so silent all of a sudden. Is it because you know the nazis were as far from "left wing socialists" as you can get? That you know that they were right wing anti-socialists, and you don't want to admit it?
    1
  1029.  @nathanweber4829  Oh, well I hate to break it to you bud, but national socialism isn't socialist at all, as has been proven objectively, time and time again. So you admit you cannot refute the argument about national socialism not being socialist and must resort to denying the reality by sticking your head in the sand? Oh, and trust me, love the ad hominem arguments. It proves that you objectively don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  1030.  @padraicburns9278  Sure! I haven't been able to find a good book on this singular subject, but Mises said in some of his writings that "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization." Of course, he still denied allegiance with fascism after this, but he was also a chief economic advisor for the Fatherland Front party, of Fascist austria, under fascist leader Engelbert Dollfuss, even before that party had taken power, which says more than a bit about his allegiances.
    1
  1031. ​ @padraicburns9278  Yes, I am very aware of the full context of the quote, which is why I mentioned it before. His view, however, was not as you alleged. The passage was not "anti-fascist," not any more than disagreeing with someone's favorite color is anti-that color. His view on fascism was that, while it was an "Emergency makeshift," it was still a system with some value. Let me go line by line on this and show you. "Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism." In this paragraph, he explains that fascism can succeed today, because the world things that socialists and communists are far worse, something he clearly agrees with. However, he goes on then to say the core problem of fascism is not the political doctrine of fascism itself, but rather, that it doesn't oppose socialism effectively enough, which he felt could only be done by ideologically pushing liberalism. So he is not condemning the ideas of fascism, but the fact that it is not as effective at crushing socialism as he would like. "It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales." This is, again, not a condemnation of fascism. He makes a valid point, that is, that if you only attempt to repress politics by force, and do not seek to usurp the ideas that back them, you are doomed to fail. He argues that fascism has succeeded against socialism here, and has won (for now) the struggle over the "problem of property," but that eventually Fascism's brute force will only justify retaliatory force by Communists. So again, not against the dictators, the repression, the genocide of fascism. Just the execution of ideological repression... which he thinks doesn't go far enough. "So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one’s own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone." And this is a decent anti-fascist critique, that being that fascism is an ideology of war that will never find peace, but remember that he is saying this because he thinks that fascism's fight is ineffective, and he has better methods. It's like criticizing a war, not because you dislike the war, but because you think you could fight it better. He is arguing that fascism will fail because it does not repress socialists and leftists enough. "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. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error." (From Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, section I:10, 1927)" And the quote we started at. He thinks that the ideology of fascism is full of the best intentions, that the actual ideological goals of fascism and fascists movements are solid, and that fascist responses to a rise in leftism have "saved European civilization," by agreeing with him on the question of property. He then says that fascism is an "emergency makeshift," as in, in will not repress socialism as well as he wants, despite them trying. This isn't anti-fascist. So, I hope you can see, what he is arguing against is not the actual ideology of fascism, but the use of force alone in fascist attempts to silence socialists. Thus, he distances himself from fascism not out of core disagreements with its policy, but instead, its rhetorical appeal. That is not a condemnation. And even back when this book was written, atrocities had been committed in the name of fascism, and many worse had been hinted at. Also, Fatherland Front. First off, he evidently was not trying to steer it away from fascism, given that he was welcomed into a fascist party, under a fascist dictator, and remained there happy Within a fascist system, working as a fascist advisor to a fascist party. Not really trying to change it from inside the system. In fact, the only reason he left is because another fascist party, that is the Nazi branch within Austria, was starting to make moves to control the whole country. He could have left at any time before that, and chose not to. Given statements like these, it makes sense that he supported fascist movements like the Fatherland Front in their suppression of socialists in the moment, and only rejected fascism when it posed a personal threat to him, that being nazi purges.
    1
  1032. ​ @padraicburns9278  Yes, I did say that. The problem appears to be that you're unwilling to add the surrounding context of the response in with that statements. Saying "I have no problems with the policies of fascism, I only wish it was more effective at suppressing socialism" is not an anti-fascist statement. You're assuming that a person critiquing a modern movement is the same thing as them critiquing an ideology. And no, I did address that statement. Again, criticizing a modern movement for not being as effective as he likes is not a rebuttal of an ideology. Saying that an ideology will fail in the end because they didn't do what he wants is what people of every ideology do.Do you not see that? The book is "promoting" liberalism, which isn't fascism, yes. However, how does that change Mises' statements? He was not against the dictators, the repression, or the crimes of fascism, and that remains true. Your quoted passage does not prove what you want it to, after all, plenty of those who learned from Mises and called themselves classical liberals would be happy to promote force and repression. The issue is, this statement must be added to the context of him saying that this repression is bad only because it does not work. So again, this is not an ideological disagreement with fascism. Furthermore, the very fascist regimes established during this time were usually done with purges, and the eugenic genocide process of the nazis didn't start with the first camp. After all, in this very passage he mentions the violent actions of fascists. And this simply shows your ignorance. No, there is no such thing as a "peaceable war," even one of just ideas. Remember: Mises, again, wanted ideological repression of those he disagreed with. This is always violent. He simply thought that while direct, physical violence worked for the moment (praise) it was not a long term solution, and should be replaced with direct ideological subversion. So, again, not a statement disavowing fascism. Another problem here is that you're acting as thought his statements were said in a vacuum, and that this is all purely hypothetical. You question why a fascist, or fascist defender, would promote things like liberalism. Well, the question there is not "if" but "why," as again, Mises was a pretty open participant in fascism. Saying that I somehow propose that conversations and warfare is the same does not change that fact. The "best intentions" part strikes me as a reference to, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Most villains see themselves as heroes, even Hitler thought he was trying to save the world. The "ideological goals" you claim he finds solid is only opposition to socialism, he rejects the violent repression the ideology embraces. By saying, "Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error," he is rejecting fascism as a credible system. This was all written in a book titled, "Liberalism" that promotes liberalism as a better alternative. Again, whether his statement is "anti-fascist" or "non-fascist" he is nonetheless not a fascist, he's a liberal. And... ok, what 'strikes you' is not necessarily the case, you're obscuring his actual words. Also, hitler didn't care about "Saving the world," just 'his people.' You're putting the cart before the horse, again ignoring his actions, acting as if this is hypothetical, and then trying to act as thought said actions didn't happen. And again, this is false. Mises, in this passage, finds no fault with the policies of fascism, in fact, as I said, he saw it as on their side in the "question of property." The one thing he does find fault in is that fascism's repression of socialism is not permanent, and not effective. You claim that the only common ideological grounds he holds with fascists is "only opposition to socialism," but this is false, in fact, it is only methods of opposition to socialism that he mentions them differing on. Claiming that the phrase "Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error," means that he is "rejecting fascism" is again false, as you are removing the context of previous phrases. When he says "emergency makeshift," he is only referring, again, to the suppression of socialists that fascism had achieved. This is not a blanket ideological disagreement, but a critique relating to the specific points he was talking about earlier. You claim he is a liberal... because he wrote about liberalism. Alright, I guess that just erases his actions and words in support of fascism? "False, he condemned it as an ideology of war that makes prosperity impossible." Again, false. This is literally exactly what I said, he disagrees with fascism, not because of the policies itself, but because he feels that the violent suppression of socialists will only give the socialists the martyrdom to again find popularity, which would lead to an endless cycle of war and repression. Notice he is not talking about the actual fascist ideology, but the result of fascist suppression - what this whole passage is about. First off, some historical corrections. While the official dictatorship of Dollfuss over Austria was only cemented in 1933, he had already had a large amount of government power in 1932. Furthermore, he only became the Chief Economist under Dollfuss, though you claim he already occupied that position. Now, onto your actual statement. Let's first discuss the facts: We know that Mises worked for a fascist government, not as some low-level employee, but as the Chief Economist for the entire Austrian Chamber of Commerce, directly under Dollfuss. He also left Austria in 1934. Now, you claim that saying that he was working happy for a fascist system, as a fascist advisor, is a "bit of a stretch," because he already had a similar position (not the same, as discussed) and it was only for a year. Well, first off, you do understand how important his position was, yes? He was the Chief Economic Advisor, directly under Dollfuss. Not the type of position you could really "keep your head down" in. Furthermore, why did he leave? After all, if the problem was Dollfuss and his parties, he would have left years earlier when those parties had started to gain traction, or at any point in Dollfuss' reign. But he didn't, his explicit reason for leaving was the growing nazi political influence, that threatened to pull in Austria, forcefully. So, he had the option to leave, but didn't, which means he must that he must not have been repressed by Austrian fascism, and most likely was content in his position. Furthermore, none of his later writings suggested that the economic policy he proposed here, and his early writings that were influenced by Austrian government, were later rejected by him. The one difference he made is he later condemned fascism in stronger terms... only after it was no longer politically possible to do anything else. So, your point is based on speculation, but that speculation doesn't match all the facts. And again, here's where we reach this problem again. Your first mistake is assuming that Classical Liberals cannot tie themselves to fascism, push fascism, or be its allies. For example, one of Italy's first Head Economists was a classical liberal, Alberto de' Stefani, and it is undeniable the support fascist parties held with industrialists across the seas. So, the problem. Mises wrote a book promoting Liberalism, but also excusing fascism, and only "critiquing" it on the most shallow grounds, touching only its policy of repression. Mises also had a history serving under fascism. Now, you say Liberalism and Fascism are not the same thing, which is true, but you also claim they always oppose eachother... which is false. We've already talked about Classical Liberals and their places inside of fascism, but there is more. You claim that the statement "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" is the fascist slogan, and proves opposition to liberalism. Well, there's a few problems there. One, if that was the fascist slogan, that means it was a slogan Mises happily accepted while he was in control of a fascist economy. Did you forget about that? Two, that was a statement by Mussolini, and not all types of fascism are the same, or agree. The nazis and italian fascist notably had a high-strung alliance, with hate on either side, and we've already seen the fascist Austrian fears of nazi germany. Not all fascism may abide by that statement. And finally... corporatism is a market system 'inside the state, and for the state' that defines the Mises-guided economy of fascist Austria. When there comes a war, over the "Question of property," ideologically the Liberals tend to step to the right with the fascists. You still see that happening today. You say Liberals cannot be fascists, true. But Liberals can be allies of fascists, and fascists can claim to be Liberals, even believe in Liberal values, and yet still praise fascism for doing what widespread liberalism did not. I cannot claim I know the inside of Mises' brain. I can, however, claim that at the time we're discussing, he had promoted and participated in fascism. You can attempt to separate his policies from his history, and ask "well would a fascist approve of this?" but the problem is, one already had. Perhaps deep down he was a true Liberal... just one that defended fascism, participated in fascism, ect. One would have to question why his policies were so accepted by the fascists of his home country, though. In any case, I would say if you defend fascism, fascists support your policies, and you only ever lightly critique modern fascist movements (far less even than opposing fascist countries criticized eachother) that makes you a fascist, or at least, no different from one in impact.
    1
  1033.  @padraicburns9278  You claim i'm doing mental gymnastics, with no proof. "That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one’s own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone." I already addressed this, this is literally an example of him criticizing fascism for not suppressing socialism adequately, the "foreign policy" he is talking about is the warlike suppression of socialist ideas, which then leads to socialism rising through martyrdom, which leads to an endless cycle of war. This was a point made in my last response. The simple problem is, you're attempting to erase or obfuscate his history in support of fascism, and even when he furthers the cause of fascism, you boil this down to an "enemy of my enemy" situation, which has no historical basis. "Many people approve of the methods of Fascism, even though its economic program is altogether antiliberal and its policy completely interventionist, because it is far from practicing the senseless and unrestrained destructionism that has stamped the Communists as the archenemies of civilization. Still others, in full knowledge of the evil that Fascist economic policy brings with it, view Fascism, in comparison with Bolshevism and Sovietism, as at least the lesser evil. For the majority of its public and secret supporters and admirers, however, its appeal consists precisely in the violence of its methods." And again, a statement 1. ripped from the context of Mises' statements, and 2. ripped from the context of Mises' life. For one, the passage you are referencing is in reference to "liberal politics," and suppression of dissent. In this passage, for example, he says that "until then they had believed that even in a struggle against a hateful opponent one still had to respect certain liberal principles. They had had, even though reluctantly, to exclude murder and assassination from the list of measures to be resorted to in political struggles. They had had to resign themselves to many limitations in persecuting the opposition press and in suppressing the spoken word." Here, he clearly paints his view of "liberalism" as also being a term used to describe things like peaceful, non-violent ideological conflict. So his statement here is, again, on fascist rhetoric and repression. The fascist program is anti-liberal, in that it is violent and suppressive, but you seem to think he was only talking about economic liberalism. Furthermore, Mises states that "Now it cannot be denied that the only way one can offer effective resistance to violent assaults is by violence. Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. No liberal has ever called this into question. What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers." Thus, your claim that he "denounced the violence of its methods" is a lie, as he openly states that violence in "self defense" (remember, he sees implementation of socialism as violence) is where the liberals and fascists agree. Finally, you claim that he opposed fascist economics, but keep neglecting that he... worked as a fascist economist. If he was a liberal, and liberalism was so opposed to fascism, how do you figure that happened? So yes, where would the sum-total of those statements bring us? Well, we find a man that only seems to find fault in fascism in that it is not effective in suppression, which he would believe would lead to endless war. Again, not fascist policies, but fascist suppression would do that, in the mind of Mises. And what do you mean "go to another fascist country?" First off, as we've already been over, not all fascism is the same. Second off, you've got to be joking me. The man fled the nazis, why would he attempt to join up with them, or one of their allies? He was a jewish man, the non-austrian fascists would not have taken kindly to him, even though they were making deals with, and elevating, classical liberals at the time. That's why he didn't move on to another fascist country, because of his ethnicity, not his policies. the fact that you'd question why he didn't join the nazis is frankly astounding. So, why did he join the US? Well it isn't because it was a "liberal" country, because Mises didn't think it was. He called social democracy, the ideology of the US at the time, "marxist" and anti-liberal/anti-capitalist, in the very passage we've been talking about. Mises was no fan of FDR, or those preceding him or following him. He came to the US because the US would not harm him for his identity, and because the Austrian School of Economics, which he had been inspired by and later came to inspire, had a significant presence in the US... as well as ties to more far right authoritarian figures. Your reasoning, is, again, flawed. And here's my point. The reason you can't accept Mises' history is because you agree with his perceptions. I know it doesn't bother you that Mises would prefer to side with an ideology of constant warfare, eugenics, genocide and unending pain, over any sort of leftism that would compromise his power. Fascist apologia isn't alright just because you agree with it. He built his career in a fascist country, and came to the US to spread the same nonsense, all to found a movement that would later in many ways return to fascism, never letting go of those ties. He participated in a fascist country, and excused the violence of fascism, calling it justified, while finding next to no issue with the economics of fascism, economics that he pushed. The fact that you think liberals joining forces with fascism is only a "circumstantial" thing is nonsense, but what's even worse is you making the claim that it is at all justified to ally with fascists. No, socialists are not an "even worse adversary." Your fascist apologia is showing.
    1
  1034.  @padraicburns9278  "You have completely failed to address the point that Mises said peace must exist between countries and that peace is impossible when a nation pursues an ideology that says they can make a place for themselves by force alone." I already did address this line, though. I pointed out how he made note that the "constant war" of fascism is one that is kicked off by a suppression of socialists, which then leads to a resurgence of socialism, causing another conflict, and so on. And again, false. You assert that your quoted statement is separate from the suppression of socialism, but as we've already been over, the "domestic policy" of fascism that he is mentioning is the suppression of socialism, i've already gone over this even. Furthermore, as we have also been over, he does not condemn "the will to victory" with violent means, in fact he argues that it is justified, and that liberals and fascists agree on this point. So again, we have the problem of you divorcing a statement from the context of the piece it is found in, and choosing instead to substitute your own assumed context. "I have no problem with Mises saying fascism is anti-liberal in more than just economics, it strengthens my point that as a liberal he criticized fascism for being anti-liberal." Your "more than just" is the issue here. See, this statement of mine (which you have no rebuttal for) shows that the criticism in question was not economic. So, it shows that Mises thought fascism was only against liberal politics, that is, civil politics. "I have no problem with violence in self-defense. If fascists think violence is justified in self-defense then that's one thing they got right. Fascists also eat food and breath air, so I guess everyone has something in common with fascists. The disagreement Mises and myself have with fascists is in placing violence as their highest principle and using violence when it is not in self-defense. Socialists want to kill people for owning property, self-defense is warranted. I've said it once, i'll say it again. You agreeing with Mises does not make his statements take on a new meaning. Fascists assume that the very progress of civilization, and the ability for socialists to exist, is a threat, one that "self defense" is justified for. The issue is, you don't disagree here, and neither does Mises. Remember, Mises justified liberal violence, not denying it. He, like the fascists, saw the existence of socialism as a threat, to which violence was justified against. You don't understand socialism, so you take it out on the socialists. "What is "fascist economics"? It would be the economic practices common to fascist countries and advocated by fascists. The history of fascism shows that they're in favor of a very high degree of government intervention in the economy. For example in Nazi Germany they had the Reichswirtschaftsministerium (Reich Ministry of Economy) that made all the meaningful decisions in running a business:" So... "economic practices common to fascist countries and advocated by fascists." As in, the economics promoted by Mises? The economics promoted by De Stefani? If fascist economics are economics advocated for by fascists, and common in fascist countries, then Mises held fascist economic views. You then assert that "high degree[s] of government intervention" were common in fascist states, when in reality, often fascist states were defined by private ownership with the help of state forces. The ministry of economy in nazi germany for instance, did not make "all the meaningful decisions" by any means. "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 Your quote calls a system of private property... socialist. Sad. "How did Mises' economic advice conform to what can be generally understood as fascist economic policy? It's possible that Austria's economic policies were less fascistic and more liberal under Mises' influence. Mises made a career criticizing government control over the economy which is common to both fascism and socialism." Well, dude, he quite literally created fascist economic policy, in his own country. If you claim these are "less fascistic and more liberal," you are going against your earlier statement, that is, saying that economics that fascists advocate for... aren't fascist. Mises made a career criticizing government control, and funnily enough, many fascists and the economies of fascist italy, nazi germany, and fascist austria reflect a desire for an anti-command economy. "False, he said having violence as the highest principle would make violence inevitable when confronted by others who have the same will to victory, this is a separate argument from suppression causing martyrs. His other point was that reliance on violence exposes an inability to use the weapons of intellect. It is a criticism that fascists lack the weapons of intellect, which liberalism possesses." He actually said that having violence as the highest principle within suppression of socialists would lead to inevitable constant violence, which leads to martyrs, and so on. And while he does seem to think that liberals have a higher ideological intellect, which is more effective at suppressing his enemies, at least in his eyes, he never shies away from praising violence and the actions of the violent, when he feels they are justified in those actions. "Exactly, not all fascism is the same. Just as Austria was less anti-Jewish than other fascist states they could likewise be less interventionist (more liberal) in terms of economic policy which disputes your oversimplified use of the term "fascist economics". Fair point about him fleeing because he's Jewish, but that means he disagrees with fascists on yet another point. I was already aware he came to the US to escape the Nazis because he was Jewish, so I'll admit it was dumb to suggest him siding with Nazis (though Hitler was Jewish too)." So you're now suggesting that fascist economics are not just what fascists want, but can be labeled in relation to other economic theories, such as calling the fascist economic policy of Austria at the time "more liberal." It doesn't matter if they were "less interventionist," they still had fascist economic policy, which Mises not only advocated for, but put in place. Also, Mises being jewish doesn't mean he automatically disagrees with fascists, of course at the time given the antisemetism of most fascist movements he would flee, but his identity does not change his opinions.
    1
  1035.  @padraicburns9278  You mean I point out context that you don't want to hear, so you ignore it and replace it with context that doesn't exist, but that you wish does. The issue is, Mises held an ideology that pushed violence as the highest principle, and he defended a system of nearly endless violence, and you are right there with him. I don't care what you agree about Mises on, you both are fascist defending statists after all. The ideology of Mises was one that was based on the idea of using violence to achieve his aims, and he defended that in all applicable cases. His very ideology, liberal capitalism, requires a strong state to protect private property to even exist. Of course this creates conflict, so Mises justifies the suppression of dissent as "self defense." Funny how you say Mises asserted that liberals resorting to assassinations was "improper," but you also describe Mises as a liberal, and he openly defends the assassinations, violent purges, and mass murders of both capitalism and fascism, just as you do. The simple fact is, all capitalism is defined by state involvement. After all, private property would not exist without the force of the state backing it. It is the results of capitalism that have led to a system where the state upholds capitalist desires. However, since liberal capitalists don't like this reality, they attempt to section off the inevitable result of capitalism as another system entirely. And i've provided evidence that the nazi government did not have the near total control you asserted it did, evidence you did not respond or rebut in any form. And holocaust denial! Nice, amazing, why am I not surprised. That was sarcasm, by the way, holocaust denial is neither nice nor amazing, despite your participation in it. The nazi purges and genocides, collectively known as the holocaust, killed around 20 million people, including jewish people (the oft cited 6 million) as well as the disabled, political dissidents, gay people, trans people, romani people, ect. Not to mention, of course, the 75-80 million killed in the war that resulted from fascist expansion. You are not only diminishing the numbers of the holocaust, but inflating the numbers of the holodomor, which only resulted in roughly 4 million dead. The holocaust as well was a targeted ethnic genocide that only ended with the overthrowing of the nazi regime, the holodomor was the result of economy mismanagement and failed policy. The great famine, similarly, was a fault of economic failure, not targeted genocide, and your estimate is again, far over the mark. If the nazis had lasted longer, tens of millions more would have died as a direct targeted intended result of their policies. And the problem is, it is most often capitalists who don't understand any economic definition of capitalism. You define capitalism as "owning and trading property voluntarily," but no system we have seen so far does this, all hypotheical systems proposed by capitalists do not achieve this, and it is more likely to be done under a market socialism. No, capitalism is a system defined by the private ownership of the means of production. This system has led to the direct deaths of millions, but I guess since you support the system, that doesn't matter. Capitalism has killed people, governments protecting capitalism have killed people. Government is not anti-capitalist, in fact, capitalism has always been pro-government, and capitalism cannot exist without government. Capitalists have killed hundreds of millions, and yet, they still claim superiority. You're not an anarchist, dude. You believe in a statist system, capitalism. You defend fascism, and those that peddled it. To call you an anarchist is equivalent to calling mussolini a social democrat. See, the problem with your question is that you 1. Assume that anarchists want your personal property, 2, assume that most people actually have private property worth caring about, and 3, assume those same people wouldn't prefer this system. You don't need to "turn over your property," you need to stop exploiting your workers if you are an owner. Pretty simple. I dislike how you assume my politics, and make a strawman out of points you don't understand. The system you propose is a statist one, that we know. A system that seeks to dismantle hierarchy, including the state, capitalism, ect, is anarchism. The "black-and-golds" aren't black at all, they're open statists who push violent statism, as you do. They propose a system that has already shrunk the commons, and act innocent when faced with the very real fact that it would only do so again. "An"caps push for a system of coercive hierarchy, and reject voluntary reality. They want to push a system that forces everyone to join their statist, anti-anarchist capitalism. You calling a collective a state yet again shows your economic ignorance. .
    1
  1036.  @padraicburns9278  Of course I wouldn't use violence to take from people, I said so in my last response. I'm not a capitalists, after all. You, on the other hand, are both a capitalist, and a statist, as well as a hater of history, freedom, and individualism. You want forced violence. The capitalist market even has already shown that collective ownership is more efficient, but on top of that, it doesn't even need to be. Collective ownership is the natural conclusion of a society built around the maximization of personal autonomy, freedom, and individuality. Your private ownership, however, is a system of baseless and endless coercion, which you deny. The problem with the assumption of profit is that you assume it is necessary in a truly free society, whereas in reality, it is gone. You demand a system in which a person is forced to work just to survive, and the product of the labor of hundreds of thousands of people, your little birdhouse, is only given to one, who somehow claims ownership over the work of everyone else, also known as theft. You say that the denial of this is a system that only works to benefit one person, but in reality the opposite is true, as a system in which each individual actually has ownership over their work, and profit is not extracted as it has no value, is one that benefits all. Nothing need be provided for free, everything has its spot in the mutual web of human progress. Simply put, you are able to recognize that there is no cosmically ordained value to anything, but you are unable to take the logical next step and figure out that value then, as a system, must be dismantled. People will always need, and you will always treat this as a want. This is the base of capitalist exploitation, a system in which you must work to survive, in which the plentiful basics are held back as to drive up their price, and humanity similarly is held back within an archaic system that does not allow for its emancipation. You, yet again, assume capitalism is just a system of trade, when in reality and economic history we can see this is not the case. If I need money or I die, and you are providing me with that money for a price, that is exploitation. I am not free to reject. Your misunderstanding of socialism doesn't change this fact. Under a socialistic system, each individual owns their own work, their own contribution. If you starve, it is not because one person is holding back resources from you, creating a system in which you must work under them for those resources in the first place, but rather you might starve because said resources don't exist. Capitalists famines are common, and people are fat in capitalism because it is more profitable to sell the poor unhealthy foods. The direct hierarchy in relation to starvation is the fault of capitalism. I agree, you've been driven blind by your ideological zealotry, which is why you apparently ignore the fact that I already addressed this line of yours. You call the capitalist government that has been advocated for by capitalists, and existed under capitalism since the beginning, a "contradiction in terms," with no proof of course. Then, of course, you show your statism. You presume that an individual having the right to not have hierarchy forced on them somehow allows you... to force hierarchy on them. Murder is coercion, hierarchy, and theft, just as statism and capitalism are. You presume that there is such a thing as a "right to property," but no such thing is found in reality. In reality, the state enforces a "right" to property, and without it, whoever has the biggest guns can take whatever they want. Your right to live is not, and never has been, rooted in property rights. This is a myth, pushed by statists. In reality, it is property rights that go counter to a right to life, and take it by far the most. I am an individual, not because I "own myself," but because nobody else is exerting hierarchy over me. My life is my own. Under your system, my life is simply whatever i'm worth to the highest bidder. I am owned. It's funny how you say every system counter to yours is a system of slavery, and yet it was capitalists who historically pushed slavery, and socialists which wanted it abolished. The fact that you think human life is mere property shows this. Just because you don't understand basic economics doesn't mean they don't exist. A camera is not private property because you can sell a picture, as private property by definition needs to remain a whole system while generating a profit. However, even if this was the case, that doesn't "disprove" the reality of a distinction. Private property is not determined by the item in question, but rather, how the item is used, though some items will always be personal, some always private. Your system wants to force people to maintain the properties of others, through force and coercion, and you call this "peaceful and voluntary." Sickening. Yes, the video addressed this, and then i addressed the video with the facts that TIK despises. The nazi government largely left private business alone, in a few cases gifting private business to those who profited from the nazi party, who ruled said businesses privately. Privatization means a system or policy in which public property is turned into private property, which exactly fits the actions of the nazi party. Nowhere is a qualification made for how the property first became public. Holocaust denial is any denial of the true horror of the holocaust. Yes, that includes arguing that not as many people died, which is an argument actual neo-nazis make. Holocaust denial is not just denying the whole thing happened, it can be what you did, which is denying the true extent of the holocaust. And thank you for proving how little the crimes of those you defend mean to you. The numbers I provided were the objective truth. Calling the holodomor the "Farmer's Holocaust" is antisemetic, sickening nonsense. Even presuming it was 100% intention, it in no way compares to the ethnic hatred and near wiping out of a group found in the holocaust. However, of course, history shows us that the holodomor was the result of economic mismanagement, something common under capitalism. Of course, under capitalism this happens due to profit motives, however. You describe economic mismanagement, and then label it intentional. Sad. You're an apologist for the single greatest anti-human crime in history. You denied the holocaust, minimized it, and defended its perpetrators. "An"caps claim they don't support coercive hierarchy, and yet every system they defend has been coercive, and the hypothetical system they advocate for is no different. There is no such thing as "voluntary hierarchy," a contradiction in terms. In your society, by force, one must participate in capital to live. Your excuse of "hierarchy existing everywhere" is one that aspiring dictators use. Hierarchy is not preference, and hierarchy is not opinions. Hierarchy is a system of real world authority and force, not just preference. And there you go, admitting to your statism. You want to be ruled by an elite few, capitalists, business owners, ect. You want a system in which their rule is not questioned or fought against. People organizing around that figure voluntarily does not make said figure one of hierarchy. You want to coerce everyone into being ruled by the elite few by systematically destroying any economic means outside of their control, and forcing onto the starving masses a system of statist violence.
    1
  1037.  @padraicburns9278  Holocaust noun 1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire. 2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering. 3. Usually the Holocaust . the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. 4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life. Youtube refuses to let me post a source specifically addressing holocaust denial, as in the methods, reasons, and modern/historical forms, so I will simply guide you here, and point out that you don't at all know the history of the word in question. https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-holocaust-denial-and-distortion You notice how when talking about the capital-H H********, we are talking specifically about the crimes of the nazis, yes? Or did you not even read your own definitions? Wait, who am I kidding, not reading your own statements is a constant of yours. You claim to not have a problem with collective property, and yet call socialism a violent threat, communism an enemy of civilization, and you push for a system that denies the very ability for people to collectivize property in the first place. You claim I call a lack of handouts "Theft" because you don't want to deal with the theft that defines your own system. I don't own my labor in a capitalist society, which is why my boss will always make more off of my work than I do, and if they didn't, they would not have hired you. Do you think that the person who exchanges some meaningless "currency" suddenly gains the ability to claim the labor of the hundreds of people who helped in the process to create that shingling? My life is only worth what others will pay for it, as my life is my labor under capitalism, and without labor, I cannot live. An employer is buying my labor, and thus, "granting" me life. If a person chooses not to work under socialism, why is that my problem? Ideally, with automation, a very very few would have to work to start with. But if they choose not to work, then they are supported with the necessities of life, and given an opportunity to join in production. How is a person eating from an excess of food, that was grown for the good of people like them, exploitation? And as we've been over, capitalism is bad because it forces you to work for someone, under someone to survive. ...Ok, you really can't read. Yes, the state has the biggest guns, which is why it is the perfect counterpart to capitalism, as it benefits the capitalists to legalize their enterprise, and criminalize/punish those who thwart it. The simple fact is, the origin of the state is in groups working together for the profit of both, often profiting only the elite of both. In the end, the private sector and state share only superficial differences. None of what you says changes the fact that the state is a defender of capitalism. You argue that a state demanding taxation somehow rebuts this fact, but in actuality it reinforces it. The state, like any enetity of capitalist society, has entered you into a contract. If you break that contract, they are free to do as they want. It is their owned property, after all. At least, by your logic. Also, the state protecting private property through its entire legal system is not disproved by the unsourced assertion that... police can be bad at returning individual goods that were stolen from you. The state protects capital, because capital reinforces the state. Capital knows the state will never take more than they can handle, or else their alliance collapses. The fact that you have no proof of this, and thus call it "self evident" further cements the fact that no proof of your claims exist. And uh... yeah. The state does enforce a right to live. Which is why believing in rights in the first place is nonsense, as rights are historically only in existence because they are enforced by a higher power. The only "right" you have is the ability to be an individual, and the only freedom you have is total freedom from the coercion of others. These are not rights, but self-evident aspects of humanity. And as we've been over - you can attempt to defend "your" property without a state. It won't go well. And i'm sorry this fact bothers you so much. If healthy foods are so cheap and accessible, why does obesity correlate so heavily with poverty, and why is the US so unhealthy? Well, simply put, it is because as I showed, unhealthy food is cheaper. Sure, I could get broccoli, bananas, vegetables, and make myself a healthy meal, but unfortunately, it is infinitely easier to buy a whole fast food or prepackaged meal at the same or lower prices. And those aren't just a single type of food, but an actual meal. That, and it is far more convenient for those with full time jobs and little free time to go shopping, learn how to cook, or prepare a full organic meal. Hence, why it is a well known stereotype that those with little time and lots of debt, like college students, eat meals like sodium-heavy ramen constantly - because its the cheapest, best tasting, and most efficient option around. Add that to the constant advertisement for fast food, and we see why your nonsense is just that. People tend to be fat because, frankly, they don't have the time or money to work towards being anything else. I do love how you manage to blame the government for the faults of capitalism again, though. Oh, and also, thank you for cementing the fact that you are absolutely either a child or a rich guy that never had to deal with poverty. Your type are most often one of the two.
    1
  1038.  @padraicburns9278  Oh, well you have anecdotal evidence??? Well then, that totally disproves a well-studied and objective widespread correlation of poverty and obesity, well done! If you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm. Your "logic" is nonsensical. Child, you literally assert that the reason that there is a correlation between poverty and obesity is that... poor people make bad choices? Which is false to begin with, but you assume these "bad economic choices" also translate into diet? No, child, not everyone has the time, money, or skill to afford to cook a healthy meal, not when it is more convenient to not do so. You're blaming individuals for a widespread systemic issue you want to deny. I don't care about your moral judgements of "right or wrong," because they have nothing to do with my freedom as an individual, statist. Property is theft, as anarchists have long known, and theft is not just a measure of property. And you push for a system where anyone can take anything from any one, yes. Because for the vast, vast amount of people, it is. There's a reason most people are employees, and that very few engage with alternative forms of work, fewer still succeeding there. Because there is much more need for employees than employers. Your solution to exploitation is to become the exploiter. You admit that all animals want to achieve their goals with the least effort, and yet deny that your system makes some things, such as healthy living, a higher-effort task than other things, like unhealthy living. And yes, in a world where we make more food than people to feed, who cares if a few eat? And you seem to think that this system would result in everyone refusing to work, but then no food would be created in the first place, which is why that work would still be getting done. Your system is one in which the vast majority of people who do not or can not game the system are punished, and force to serve those that profit from their labor, with no other choice available or feasible. Simply put, your statism is violent, and a threat, but unlike you I do not propose fascistic violence against the opinions I disagree with. Capitalist countries literally ran the slave trade, and the US has more in prison now than the soviets ever did. You further defend slavery by trying to minimize it, and compare it to taxation, which may I remind you, you can simply not pay and leave the country. You push for a system that considers human beings as property, and removes their ability to organize, and yet claim you still let them leave. I don't "want" anything as a result of the definition of capitalism. In a capitalist society, under a capitalist government, I have fought hard for a life that I can bear living. I want a system in which people actually organize and own according to the basic functions of society, that is, collectively. You want one in which people can exclusively claim the work of others that had no choice but to work or die. You think I propose some sort of direct democratic collective that rules over others, but again, where have I advocated for anything of the sort? Do stop lying. A company, especially without the existence of a government, can easily seize your property and kill you, either with "legitimate" excuses (Debt, for example) or simply with a bigger gun. With a government, they simply push for the government to do this for them. Businesses take a loss because they expect profit in the future. Those that do not or cannot expect profit in the future fail, and are no longer businesses. Employees are only hired, and only paid, according to what the employer can pay them, that is what they business makes. No company that lasts long pays employees more than the employees make the company. The employer is certain to make profit, which is how they're even able to pay others in the first place. The employer claims the work of hundreds of others, and decides to exclusively take the profit of that work for themselves. They might even sell basic essentials or natural creations to customers who need them to survive, taking credit for the very work of nature. Customers can't really refuse to eat if they don't like the prices, and they can't build their own homes if all land is already owned by someone else. And that is now how the labor theory of value works, nor do I see why you brought that up now. Capitalism is, by definition, a system that incentivizes employers to get customers to pay the most for the least amount of work. Businesses often only profit because they claim exclusivity of a product, and if you want that product, you have to buy from them. They manufacture demand and destroy supply to drive up prices. This is the functioning of capitalism. And I couldn't care less about hypothetical systems, but how can you do worse than what we have right now? We have the technology to feed the world, and yet, we waste millions of pounds of food a year because they are not "in demand" in the areas where they generate the most profit. At one point capitalism may have been a useful tool for incentivizing innovation, but now that the innovation has been made, capitalism simply incentivizes people to exploit it.'
    1
  1039.  @padraicburns9278  No, actually, causation was found, in the exact ways I showed earlier, those being that unhealthy food is easier to access, prepare, and is more time effective with a high workload. People like you seek to offload all systemic problems onto individuals, so you don't have to deal with the flaws of your system. I understand that you don't know the definition of collectivism or individualism, but you could at least do better in pretending to keep up with the conversation, instead of just making up already-addressed nonsense. How many people eat only bananas, hm? Can you create a meal of only cheap produce that takes up space and goes bad easily? A banana is a snack, not a full meal. Conversely, I can get a packet of Ramen for around 30 cents, and a whole box of them, that'll last a few weeks, for only a few dollars. And again, time constraints. When I am working a full time job, I do not have the time to research intricate cooking with ingredients I most likely do not have. Plus, lots of people do not have stable internet or modern devices capable of accessing it. And your defensiveness when I call you a child tells another story. You are a statist who wants to implement a statist system, capitalism. A system which advocates that a single person can take the product of hundreds of individual's labor, and claim it for themselves. And yes, when a surplus exists, what reason is there to deny it of people? Communism is by definition stateless, but simply put, you do not know what communism is. You describe what is much closer to a capitalist society, a society where people are forced to preform the jobs that they are either able to do, or the jobs that exist in the region. You of course deny this as well, asserting that under capitalism a worker has a freedom to find a different type of employment, which is not only not true in most cases and not feasible in many more, it has nothing to do with the fact that all capitalist ownership and employment is the same. Sure, you can stop selling your soul to one exploiter, and sell it to another instead. However, what actually happens is that you are shunted into a career path based off of either natural skills or a desire to make it in the world, and so you travel down that pipeline for your whole life. You really don't know what communism is, do you? Property is theft, as in, owning the work of others without their fair compensation is stealing from them theft /THeft/ noun the action or crime of stealing. steal /stēl/ gerund or present participle: stealing 1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. "thieves stole her bicycle" And again, false. Property need not even be included for theft to occur. An idea can be "stolen," ideas are not property. Breath, life, happiness, youth, and so on. All abstract concepts which are frequently applied within the terms of theft or stealing, none of which are examples of property.
    1
  1040.  @padraicburns9278  Too bad that, as we've been over, both correlation and causation was established, a fact you have been unable address, much less actually rebut. And, again, why would I bother with buying individual "healthy" ingredients to make a healthy meal when I can more easily just buy a unhealthy meal, or even multiple, for the same price? People buy cheap, easy to prepare, and unhealthy foods because it is efficient. Furthermore, you unintentionally touch on a good point - you see, there are no Kwik Trips anywhere near me, literally within hours. Often times, cheaper items are area-specific, and if you're born in the wrong area, you're out of luck. Does that sound like a fair system to you? A system in which the amount one has to take away from paying back their debt, and put into keeping themselves alive, is determined by the area you live, which is for many, many people simply where you were born? You still have yet to address the logic of that statement - if there is a surplus, who does it hurt to let people eat it? It isn't theft at all, those people were working to feed society, and they're doing it. What would you do with the surplus, starve the homeless? In any case, no, it is clear as day that you promote a system of theft. And in a system of collective ownership, how do you determine how much is "enough for themselves?" They need to make sure they produce enough food to feed the people at every stage of development, many of those people would only be able to work if others survived as well, meaning that them trying to hoard food only for their immediate selves would starve everyone, themselves included. The employer may compensate the worker, but they do not do so fairly. They might honor the coercive deal of capitalism, but they often do not even do that. And yes, labor is far better combined, but it makes no sense to say that it is the employer who "combined" the labor, and that that would even make him the exclusive holder of the profit it generates. Payment doesn't make ownership, dude. The fact that you see a piece of flowery rhetoric and assume that i'm "more emotional than rational" while i've been the only one giving citations says a lot. I've said this once, i'll say it again, but let me phrase this differently so you understand. Previously, you referred to anarchists by saying such - "You want to coerce everyone into being ruled by the masses by not having any economic means outside of the masses' control." I have been showing you that you want to create a system that, by the necessity of capitalist expansion and exclusion, would remove all economic means outside of its control, and thus force people to participate in it. You want a system defined by force. This is statist. I use it as a word, a word that you appear to deny the meaning of when it comes to things you don't understand. I even pointed out how all of those fit the definition you cited, but oh well, guess that's too hard for you to respond to. And no, an idea being "stolen" doesn't necessitate intellectual property, though if you "an"caps were anarchists you would reject the ridiculous notion of an idea as property instantly. No, an idea can be "stolen" without the idea being owned by that person. My friend, for example, stole my idea to write a book on degradation of modern mental health. I did not own that idea, it already existed, and yet she got the idea from me, so I might jokingly call it "stealing." And I love how you correctly point out that calcimining ownership of an idea is stupid, but you might want to tell that to your "an"cap brethren. However, the act of taking direct inspiration from someone who wishes to do a similar thing, before they do it in most cases, is still referred to as "stealing an idea," so you saying what you think that should be called does not change a thing.
    1
  1041.  @padraicburns9278  "You never established causation, you merely said there are studies that show correlation which I have no problem agreeing with." And yet, this is false. Causation was established, as I pointed out several times, and as you ignore in even this response. Because you can only deny, not rebut. "People makes choices for many different reasons. Some people will prioritize convenience over health, some people will prioritize health over convenience. You really need to ask why you'd buy healthy ingredients in lieu of an unhealthy meal? People make that choice all the time because they prioritize health over convenience." Yep, and it is a simple fact that capitalism has created a system of unhealthy food being by far more time efficient, skill deficient, cheap, and convenient than healthy food. For the poor, it makes sense to prioritize convenience and efficiency over health, and every minute they spend cooking or learning to cook could be better spent with their work, sleeping, trying to find a better job, ect. "Other loaves of bread are like $3.50, which only takes a half hour of work at minimum wage. Asking if it's fair that prices vary by region is like asking if it's fair that certain crops only grow in certain regions, that natural resources are not distributed evenly among all areas. "Paying back their debt" brings up a whole host of issues. If you're referring to college debt then you should realize that up to the 1970's it was common for people to graduate debt free, just by working a job they got out of high school they could afford their tuition payments without any need for student loans. It was the creation of government subsidized student loans like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that lead to the current situation where students are hopelessly buried in debt. Of course the students were indoctrinated in government schools to think university was their only option for a decent life." And I am aware that other places sell loaves of bread, but again, why would I spend $3.50 on a loaf of bread with toppings that cost money separately when I could just buy a twelve-pack of ramen for around the same price? We don't need to worry about the regional distribution of growing crops, we have not only a national, but international trade system that can get me food from anywhere in the world. And of course, college debt is one of the biggest forces of debt in the modern world, and you can thank capitalism for that! After all, it was private colleges that pushed up their prices and did their best to increase their profits according to capitalism, and what better way is there to do that than appeal to the biggest guns around? I love how your type always blame the government for debt, never admitting that these policies only exist to benefit expensive private colleges who have appealed to the government for profit. And, of course, you refer to education as "indoctrination," because to you, ignorance is preferable. No, it is a simple fact that a college degree is far more necessary today than it ever has been before, and blue-collar jobs are quickly going out of demand as more people forego college. "I'm fine with giving out the surplus, that's what grocery stores were doing before fear of lawsuits made them stop. Those who receive free food shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. What a terrible job, to provide food for everyone else without compensation for their toil. That's far crueler than paying them for their labor." I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. In fact, all throughout the modern age, we find that food suppliers would much rather dispose of surplus in order to keep their prices up, than distribute it and risk people not bothering to buy their goods. Simple capitalist supply and demand. And I agree, what a terrible job to provide food for everyone else, without fair compensation. So, why do you instead of I advocate for that system, when you are levelling that statement at me? "There is no theft in voluntary trade. You say in capitalism if you don't work you starve so you're forced to work. Under socialism people must still work to produce food or there won't be food, therefore people still have to work or they starve. " Capitalism. Isn't. Voluntary. In capitalism, you are forced to work for others, under others, or you starve. This is the third time I am saying this, and the third time you utterly ignore the coercive element of capitalism, in favor of your never-ending apologia. "And in a system of collective ownership, how do you determine how much is "enough for themselves?" They need to make sure they produce enough food to feed the people at every stage of development, many of those people would only be able to work if others survived as well, meaning that them trying to hoard food only for their immediate selves would starve everyone, themselves included." I do not promote slavery, unlike you, a person who so openly says they see people as property. You can't deal with the fact that a system of collective ownership and production is one in which there is no incentive to hoard food to yourself, and it is in fact a far greater benefit to yourself to give food away to those that need it, rather than starving them. Those who produce food own their labor and reap the direct rewards of that labor, that is, the labor of those who need food in turn, and so help to produce it. Face it, you despise this system because it means you can't mooch off of others for simply existing as their "boss," while enslaving those under you, putting on them the burden of feeding you. "Fairly according to who? Fairness is subjective. You want people to provide for others without receiving compensation for their labor, your definition of "fairness" is warped. If an employer offers $10 an hour the reason why the employee doesn't receive $10 for each hour they work is because of the state threatening imprisonment if they don't get a cut of it." I hate to break this to you, but no, fairness is not subjective, and it is only pushed as such by those that do not want a fair system. You want people to provide for others without receiving the actual product of their labor, fair compensation, and you call this fair. The most common reason that an employee does not receive their full wages is actually because wage theft is absurdly common in private business, to the point of being the single highest grossing crime of our modern society. "The employer bought the labor from each employee and the employer specified the details of the labor they wanted. The employees didn't work for free, without being paid they wouldn't have done the work. The employer brings the factors of production together by trading for all of it. If I trade for materials and equipment, and also trade for your labor in building a birdhouse then it is my birdhouse... " An employer claimed the work of others by giving them a resource necessary for survival. The employees did not work for their full value as workers, if they did, their boss would not have made a profit. The employer does not bring these factors of production together, in reality they sit back while those actually skilled in the fields do the work. The only thing the employer does is become a useless middle-man of money, that has no concrete value in modern society. You think that coercing the work out of individuals, hundreds of individuals which have built every facet of your life, gives you the full right to their work, and the profit from their work. Simply put, this is false. The combination of hundreds of workers created that birdhouse, not your meaningless currency. In fact, the existence of that currency is all that stopped it from being built in the first place, because who would do free labor under capitalism? Despite the contribution from all these people, you claim that this is your birdhouse alone, and those who actually worked for it must be excluded from it. You decide that even though you did nothing to create, place, decorate, or design this birdhouse, you are the one who should be paid if it is sold. Simply put, you are an open thief that is happy to make a profit off of the work you've stolen. "Voluntary exchange makes ownership, dude. If I own something I can give it to whoever I want if they agree to take it from me. I can trade it to whoever I want if they agree to the terms of the trade. " No, simply put, it does not. You have no right to steal the work of thousands of people who did not consent to their labor being used to fill your pockets. Your coercion is not voluntary, and it excludes by nature. "What citations? That there's a correlation between poverty and obesity? I never disputed it. I've cited quotes by Mises throughout this discussion. Your responses have been completely inadequate. Mises said the world requires peace to prosper, pointed out that fascism leads to endless war, and you say he just wanted to suppress socialism (statist socialism, by the way. If you think statism is capitalism then wasn't he actually wanting to suppress "capitalism"?) It's a complete non-sequitur. At least give him props for wanting world peace." You openly deny the factual causation link between poverty and obesity, but you deny that as well. You quote Mises out of context, and when I correct you, you deflect. Because, fundamentally, you recognize that you are wrong, and wish to move to another subject. Mises justified the violent suppression of those he disagreed with, and you agreed with him. He said that fascist suppression of socialism leads to endless war, but praises said violent suppression in the moment. Capitalism is statist, of course, which is why he was more than happy to justify the state-sanctioned use of violence against the enemies of capitalism, which was the entire start of this discussion. The man didn't want world peace - he was openly a blind ideological zealot.
    1
  1042.  @padraicburns9278  "I was referring to socialists, not anarchists, I know you consider them one and the same but I dispute that. If I trade for your labor I don't have the power to tax, imprison or execute you. Trade is voluntary, government law enforcement is not. Bear in mind that I don't have a problem with enforcing laws against rape and murder though I think a voluntarist alternative might be possible for dealing with those issues. Why do you think that a socialist society would be incapable of keeping out "capitalist expansion and exclusion"? Capitalism would only expand by people choosing to trade with each other, including trading their labor. If people were more satisfied in the socialist economy then the capitalists wouldn't have anyone to trade with..." Capitalism is not trade, we've been over this. Capitalism is also incompatible with anarchism, no matter how much you want to revise that historical fact. Capitalism is by necessity the private ownership of the means of production, which means that the means of production are under one group with exclusive rights to how that property is owned, operated, and used. If you live on that property, you do so under the rules of the private owners, and they absolutely have the power to demand money from you in exchange for protection or housing, (taxation) imprison you for violating their property, or execute you for perceived theft. Trade is not capitalism, and capitalism is not voluntary, or at least, it is the same amount of voluntary as the state is. And here is exactly my point. A true anarchist solution to rape and murder is a withdrawal of association, without force being imposed on the criminals. Your solution is a statist one, of force, coercion, and punishment. Hell, you literally advocate for laws. And again, I don't advocate for a socialist society, but a socialists society would make trading for essential goods pointless, as they are already provided, and trading for personal property and nonessential goods is something socialists have supported since the days of Marx. Simply put, socialists would not need to consciously stop the expansion of capitalism, because nobody would participate in capitalism unless forced to do so. However, the problem here is that you support a system where capitalists would have the easy ability to force people to participate within their system, by claiming exclusion to resources and goods, creating a system of artificial currency that a socialist society would not use and cutting off said society from the prosperity possible under said system, effectively removing all other feasible options from the world. The point is, you don't want a truly voluntary society, or else you would not advocate for capitalism, a system that encourages its most powerful to break the voluntary consent of the people as long as they profit from it. You don't want a voluntary society unless it is a society in which capitalism is allowed to remove the voluntary aspect of society. I feel no need to force people to participate in anti-capitalism, which is why I am an anarchist. Why would people support or participate in a worse system, filled with needless middle-men and rulers, when they could simply... not. And capitalism is defined by the coercive force of labor yes, but of course the force with which they enforce the "moral law" of their" ill-begotten property. Property is not acquired through voluntary exchange, at least not under capitalism, but it does not surprise me that you justify violence against others for violating your made-up, coercive "rights." The simple fact is, a business that built itself up fairly, without lying or cheating anyone out of their labor, could not exist if it was privately owned. What you're looking for isn't capitalism. I don't think employers should get to take the value from their workers simply because they exist. The owner, after all, takes from them by claiming ownership of something they had nothing to do with, and thus, is a system of force. I recognize that we live in an interconnected system, and that the only logical result of a voluntary society is collective ownership. You promote a statist system in that you support a system where individuals are allowed to rule their property like a state, and subject all those living under them to the same baseless theft a state instills. Capitalism is coercion by force. What we are arguing about is the fact that you claim to support a voluntary society, but want to put in place a system that would dismantle any sort of voluntary society near-instantly. You think people will work for a system in which they produce wealth that they are either not compensated for, or unfairly compensated for, and in which it is fine to take the wealth produced by others without compensating them, such as, by taking a birdhouse without compensating the hundreds who worked to produce every part of it. I advocate for a society where people work together based on the mutual web of their labor, and see direct benefit for the labor that they do. "If you're referring to the word "theft" then you never really said how property is theft. What does the existence of property steal from you? It doesn't steal your property which was definition #1. Does property steal your soul? Clearly you reject the definition I cited from a dictionary because it makes reference to property which you say doesn't exist." Property is theft, and theft does not require property. The existence of property, as I have showed previously, means the denial of the work that went into that property of others. It steals the value of their labor, and excludes them from any sort of ownership of the product of their work. The definition you cited "the action or crime of stealing," says nothing about property. "An"caps often defend intellectual property laws because without them, a system of fair competition within capitalism is near-impossible, hence capitalism being statist. Again. " Jokingly considered stolen means that it's not really stealing if we're being serious. It's a colloquialism." I say joking because she is a dear friend and I do not care if she steals my ideas, even though that is what she did. "AnCaps are more likely to reject intellectual property than leftwing and rightwing statists. AnCaps are where I first heard the argument against intellectual property. Again, stealing an idea is just a colloquialism." "An"caps actually seem pretty in favor of intellectual property laws, and are much more so in favor of them than anarchists, that reject them out of hand. But this does prove that you reject certain types of property... And stealing an idea is not just colloquial, but a real use of the term. Can come
    1
  1043.  @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
  1044. ​ @padraicburns9278  "I'm too lazy to go back and check what your establishment of causation is, but it stands to reason that everyone can choose to eat fewer calories in a day." So off to a great start, you come back and your first response is "well I'm too lazy to check if my point is true or not but I think it is from my priveledged perspective" "Socialism is known for causing mass starvation..." Capitalism has caused far, far more to die of hunger though, and even more tragically, capitalism actually has the ability and means to feed them. Capitalism allows the "freedom" for massive corporations to sell unhealthy foods to the lower classes while by nature making healthier foods more inaccessible. Again, you ignore scientifically observed causation. Again, you ignore the hurtles of the "affordable healthy options." "That's a matter of your priorities, countless people priotize healthier food over saving money" Those people being middle class people, as in, not the poor people which actively have hurtles in place of healthy living. . "Prices do vary by region...." ...So again, we have a case where poverty directly impacts availability of healthy lifestyle options. However, again, this doesn't address my point, that being that we have such a large and interconnected system of resource extraction, processing, and distribution that receiving a product made from halfway around the world is more common than getting one made in your own country. The issue of far fresh produce isn't a big one, the issue of nutrition in the USA is one very openly divided up around lines of class. "It's not capitalism that created federally subsidized student loans. They appeal to the biggest guns around because the state centralizes power, it's an option they wouldn't have in a stateless society. AnCaps constantly complain about the partnerships of government and private organizations, to the point where AnCaps no longer consider said organizations to be truly private." Yeah, that's the funniest part of "An"caps. They look at the most solid, effective, and wealthy of capitalist institutions and declare them to not be true capitalism, simply because their problems are laid bare for the world to see. Capitalism is the system that created a predatory student loan system, and capitalism is the very system "appealing to the biggest guns," as you say. A gun is a tool. The market is the hand holding it. "My inclination is far too scholarly to prefer ignorance..." I'm sorry, but given your actual literal statements, that isn't true. How can you with a straight face say "my inclination is scholarly" while just a few paragraphs back you openly said you were too lazy to even check if your claim was true? Funnily enough, counter to your claim, public schools have been by far those most impacted by the will of private individuals, private companies that the government contracts. Yet again, an issue with capitalism that you will put on anything but capitalism. If the government "wanted control over what people are taught," they wouldn't outsource said control to random private businesses or individuals which decide, by themselves, what students must be taught, and create and administer the tests on this information. It's funny, you point out that the american public schools are designed to make you obedient, but you haven't yet made the connection that we are told to be obedient to capitalism. We're told from day one that we must aspire to work, and our entire school career is working towards an eventual job. Children pledge their allegiance to a flag, a flag that is quite literally touted as a symbol of free market capitalism. Eliminating state intervention would mean eliminating the private market as it exists today. Also, I hate to break it to you, the internet has made education harder, not easier. "Many grocery stores do donate, and store owners worry about being sued for people eating expired food. There are also logistical concerns because only a few items go bad each day, it just adds up to a lot over the course of a year. Your system has people labor for the benefit of others, in my system people labor for their own benefit. You don't even want to pay those who produce food, you said so yourself that you're fine with people taking food without compensating the workers who grew it. You complain about not getting "fair" compensation when you're fine with them getting no compensation." Grocery stores often don't donate though, and not just out of fear of being sued, but because (like even you asserted) they're afraid that people might get the product of their work without any work of their own, even though the product in question, food, is useless without someone to feed. Your system has people labor for the benefit of their bosses, my system has people labor for the benefit of themselves. You don't even want to pay people who produce food for their labor, you said that you're fine with people taking the labor of others without fully compensating them for said labor and getting profit. You complain about no compensation for a otherwise useless surplus but then push a system that actively takes away from your value. "Capitalism is no more coercive than nature itself..." Already addressed this. It is not "nature itself" to work under a boss that denies you the very labor you do. It is not "nature itself" to have to pay for food that is so readily plentiful it could feed the world. It is not nature itself to participate in the unnatural coercion of capitalist systems. "Slavery is one person owning another, self-ownership means people having the right to control themselves..." You see human beings as property. You see property as something that can be traded, bargained, bought and sold. I have no genuine concern that if asked, you would allow a person to sell themselves into slavery. Of course, in capitalist countries, there is always an incentive to hoard, due to the frequent scarce or inaccessible resources. The worker under socialism has a right to their labor, what profit they generate, how they do their work and for whom. Your system denies the ability for one to work for his own benefit, he must work for the benefit of the few and receive a tiny sliver of his produce. Existence as a boss is by necessity mooching off of the labor of the hundreds that have put work into the products you exclusively claim the profit of. Oh sure, you give your employees "wealth," but never as much as they make you. Similarly, you deliver the customer your product, but they must always deliver you more, or your business will fail. Capitalism is not voluntary, as we've been over. You have coerced the starving and the homeless, and those afraid of those fates, to work for you. Coerced labor is different from slavery in name only. You admitted that it was fine to take the food grown from others without fairly compensating them, you admitted that you are fine with the workers who grew it being exploited and not even getting a change to decide what happens with their product. You don't want the workers to get paid for their actual labor, just the labor their boss feels inclined to pay them for, which will never be the full amount. If there is more than enough land for everyone, you would have them burn the land, rather than give it to those who need it, for their own benefit in time. You assert that the same logic is extended to non necessities, with no backing, of course. You assert that some might live off the work of others, and take luxuries, despite me explaining in the past how this is physically impossible. "What is the product of one's labor?..." You've yet to tell me exactly why you think that person gets exclusive rights to those items, though. With the roof example, why does the person who "pays" others get exclusive right to that roof, when they did literally none of the work that went into it? You seem to believe that the transfer of currency justifies the seizure of the goods of many who were not compensated for their work. And we cannot of course forget, that by your definition, taxation is no more or less justified than a wage. After all, it is your choice to be taxed or not, you can leave at any point, do things under the table, move into the woods, ect. An agreement does not erase value.
    1
  1045.  @padraicburns9278  "The employer does bring the factors of production together, they literally trade for each of the factors and direct how they're used..." They didn't, though. They, for example, did not train these people, they did not manufacture their tools or extract the resources that went into the birdhouse pieces before it was even assembled. They traded for the direct last steps, which means nothing, as trade doesn't determine work. Money represents nothing but money. Actually, many employers simply started off with investments or inheritance that bought them their place of work, but you seem to not want to deal with that. Under private business, the workers must make you more than you give them, or you will never profit. And more often than not, the profit of a business is not based off of any sort of legitimate good they're doing for a community or society as a whole, but how best they can get the most money for the least work. That's the work ethic that works best under capitalism. Currency is not natural, we existed for thousands of years without it, and fiat currency is the natural result of capitalism. And no, not everyone is compensated, as there are people who did not directly trade with you who were a part of the process, and the scores are not settled just because you paid some pieces of paper to a few people. "They did consent to provide their labor when they agreed to the offer to trade their labor, that is precisely what they agreed to." The last sandwich you bought was only made possible because someone half a world over mined the iron that would be used to make a spatula that made your sandwich. Was the miner paid a part of what you paid for the sandwich, and did they consent to that transaction? "You assume the least charitable interpretation of his words and your claim isn't even rational..." I don't assume anything, I base my statements off of the very words he wrote, whereas you attempt to twist them and make them fit your narrative. He believed that violent suppression was justified, and held this as a valuable and righteous principle to hold. I showed that he supported violent suppression of those he disagreed with, and not just the murderers or thieves, but the thousands of innocents purged by the fascists he defended. And of course I don't think rape and murder should be "punished," I don't believe in a state or authority to do the punishing. Statism is the natural result of private property. "The etymology of "anarchy" is "without a ruler"..." First off, etymology does not equal definition, unless you think family means servant. On the other hand, yes, anarchism is a system without rulers. Employers, those that coerce you into labor over a threat of starvation, are rulers. Owners are not only a ruler of their own property, but all those that live under, within, or as a result of their ownership of said property. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist, and no variant of capitalist anarchism could ever arise, because that would become a negation of anarchism. Ideological variance is common, but what you're suggesting in "capitalist anarchism" is like saying "totalitarian libertarianism," ideological variance doesn't go that far. "Here is where you expose the fact that the state is a negation of private property..." And here you touch on something any actual anarchist would have realized a long time ago. The way you describe the state, an exclusive owner over a given property which provided protection and association for all those under it, is exactly how you might also describe a piece of private property. Just a funny coincidence, hm? In any case, yes, the state is a big piece of property that charges rent and protection money, just like a private landlord or mafia. However, your mistaken assumption is that private property not being guaranteed means it doesn't exist, which is false. The state can, in theory, take away your private property of course. Will it? No, because it is too busy protecting its very existence in the first place. An income tax here is no more of a negation of self ownership than rent being due is, after all, you're operating on the government's property, and you have stated people can do with their property whatever they want, hm? Private ownership is a statist myth, and the fact that they are ready to tear away that myth whenever they feel like it doesn't change that fact. The state, plainly, seems to be much more in line with a great private entity than one that represents the public or collective. "I began to suspect you might be a pacifist..." This isn't pacifism, child. It's anarchism. Saying that you would openly call for a system of law and order, crime and punishment, means you reject anarchism. I don't care if you claim to be intolerant of those you like, and see those that simply refuse association as "pacifists," it is a simple fact that your ideal system has statist laws, and statist punishment. Your solution to the murderers and rapists violating your "Self ownership" is to violate theirs in turn. The notion that those that reject the humanity of others forfeit humanity themselves is the logic of tyrants. Humans are humans, no matter how much you hate them. You support violence. You support laws. You support taking the rights away of all those you determine to be a threat, which you have openly said are those with anti-capitalist opinions. Do you see the problem? "If you don't advocate for socialism, and clearly don't advocate for capitalism..." Why must I advocate for an economy at all? Hell, I could just be here to tear you down, nothing persuades me to provide you with an alternative. Furthermore, who says we need an alternative to an "economic system" anyways? Economic systems were issues when we actually needed them, when we had a rarity of resources that necessitated in society a distribution of power and authority. Anarchists don't need to promote "a system." And as i've said so many times, the issue is that your "An"caps promote a system defined by neverending expansion, that would quickly collapse if forced to compete on equal ground with a system of collective ownership. Problem is, the capitalists wouldn't like that, so they'd go back to their psuedo-statism and resource exclusivity and force the rest of the world to participate. Given the track record of the unstable and deadly reign of capitalism, this is only an eventuality. The problem is, nobody would stick around with capitalism for long, and capitalists want to maintain their power. "The socialist system likewise forces people to participate in that system..." First off, the "tragedy of the commons" is always an ironic thing to bring up, given that the true tragedy of the historical Commons was not of their own making, but of the encroachment of government which brought with it inviduals, private land, which had once been owned in common. In any case, the problem is, land being owned in common has never necessitated said land being controlled by averages, or the product of that land being given out to those who need it. This system also forces none to participate in it, as their survival is not dependent on those above them on the hierarchy, and can leave at any time. And yeah, currency is artificial, based on nothing and meant for nothing but a single system. Fiat currency is the end result of the capitalist centralizing of power in the hands of a few individuals, intertwined between the public and private sectors. And Mises' ECP has yet to find relevance in a modern world of endless production, and sadly, endless exploitation. Value is not a necessity for society.
    1
  1046.  @padraicburns9278  "Profit is derived from supplying what is demanded by customers, by combining trades wherein the output is of greater value than the inputs..." In actuality, profit is derived from taking your income, and taking out your expenses. Those expenses, of course, including what you had to pay to create or buy your product that you sell, and who you hire to help in that process. Again, by necessity, one must pay out less than they receive. There is a huge violation of consent, as in this system, my very life is dependent upon my ability to work and receive payment, if not, I starve. You promote a system in which people demand the sole ownership and profit of items that others produced, without having to compensate those people for said items. You defend the right to fuck themselves over because you know it is the forced result of your system. Your system requires people to labor on behalf of others (their bosses) their labor to be exploited by others (their bosses) and you are always able to exploit the labor of others by simply compensating only those at the very end of the production line. My system, on the other hand, is one in which people are incentivized to share what they make, by the simply fact that the distribution of say, food, leads to more food being made from well fed workers, and so on. I consider it unfair that you put the labor on the backs of the workers with no direct ownership of said labor., who then have to fill the pockets of those directly above them. Under your system, capitalism, your labor is not owned, rather, it is always sold for less than it is worth. Notice you say "full value of the agreed upon price," because even you know that the agreed upon price is less than you're worth, and getting even that is a rarity. And of course, under capitalism, a state always emerges. Under a system of actual self ownership, a socialist economy, your labor is yours, and what others produce is also shared in accordance to your contributions to it. The incentive is to work for others, as they will work for you, and the more you work, the more they can potentially work as well, the less they work, the less you can do for them. This tends to be why your cited examples of "socialism"... simply aren't. You've got it a bit backwards, though. The goal of this system is the emancipation of the collective, but as the collective is made up of individuals, the individual is emancipated as well. "Ill-begotten by what standard? They made an offer, the offer was accepted, and goods and services were exchanged." Did they build the earth beneath them? Did the make the soil fertile, the air breathable, the resources plentiful? No? So why is it theirs? "You don't even think people have a right to live or to not be raped so I consider your own made-up beliefs on morality flawed." The only "right" someone has is not to be impeded, without coercion or force as an individual. Your "rights" promote a system counter to this, and you openly say that you are fine with denying those rights to those you deem criminals. "They aren't taking value from their workers, they are trading for it..." Again, trading for the labor of another does not remove the actual labor that person does, and it does not remove the fact that under a capitalist society, a worker must always make for you more than you give them. Aside from that, yeah, in most cases the employers have little to do with the actual construction, development, marketing, improvement, ect of their product. The labor could have occurred anyway, and likely would have if it was truly necessary, in a system not driven by profit, and in fact the barrier of funding has hindered far ore inventions than it has incentivized. Capitalism is not voluntary, and the very reason most people don't go and do the work themselves and instead do it for a boss is because they don't have the funding to do anything else. How "voluntary." Yeah, when they "trade their labor" and receive less than they are worth, this is basic theft. The employer is exploiting the work of the employee by benefitting from a system that makes land, tools, and resources exclusive, forcing you to "trade your labor" with a boss. The boss feels entitled to the work of the employees, and because of this, they have no incentive to develop or innovate in a way that doesn't directly benefit them.. The labor theory of value is far more complex than the simply observation that profit is determined by income minus expense. The worker owns their labor, and their labor is then stolen from them and exploited for that worker to even live. "Collective ownership doesn't result in a voluntary society ..." First off, that isn't true, on all counts. Collective ownership is the result of a voluntary society specifically because everyone owns the full value of their work and has no right to give it to anyone else. People disagreeing, individually, on how they want to use that labor doesn't disprove this fact, and they are free to do so, though of course poor choices lead to individual consequences. Markets don't solve this problem, all they do is create a corruptible middle-man that necessitates limited supply and growing demand. Hence, why it is more profitable to limit the available supply of a product to sell more at higher prices, rather than benefit the consumers by creating a surplus and devaluing the product so more people can buy it. Capitalism also allows some owners the final say of "their property," but gives no ownership to those that actually maintain, build up, and allow for that property in the first place. Your A and B example doesn't make much sense, and is based in a statist assumption of force. If A wants to say, share their food, and B wants to hoard it, B may remain unhappy when others decide to stop sending their resources as they receive nothing in turn, but there is no force, no statism, and no failure of collective ownership. They made an individual choice they were forced into by nobody, and face whatever consequences await them. You don't need unanimous consent, as every individual can participate in their own way. In terms of mass systems though, say of farming, why wouldn't they consent? They want shoes, after all, so why not send food to the cobbler, and so on? Your problem is that you point out problems of democracy, but rather than removing the authority of democracy, you simply remove the democracy from the authority, and propose a system in which each individual is the dictator of their property, and even if 99% oppose, they have no way to stop that person. In your system, the justly aggrieved can be, and often are, the vast majority.
    1
  1047.  @padraicburns9278  "I've already explained how the state negates private property in land and self-ownership. ..." You've already attempted to explain that, yes, and instead shown that the state and the private entities it protects are interwoven in all areas, and almost inseparable. Ruling property has always led to ruling people, and always starts that way as well. Your "hivemind socialism" theory is based on a misunderstanding of authority and consensus, a misunderstanding that you use to justify dictatorial force. Marx's class consciousness is a simple theory that those in similar economic means have similar desires and needs. "All employees are compensated for their labor or else they would not agree to labor..." Compensated, yes. Fairly compensated, justly compensated, fully compensated? No. They only agreed to their price, even according to you, because they could not find anything better. If they were paid more, or had to do less work, under capitalism they would obviously choose that. Of course, the extortion of rent, water, food, profit, and taxes don't do much to help that. The hundreds who worked have not been compensated either, not for their actual labor, but what they were coerced into. A hundred people made the very keyboard i'm typing on, and yet, only one company was paid, a company that makes millions more than what it pays out. In your capitalist economy, those people will never receive direct benefit for their labor. In my proposed system, they work directly because of said direct benefit. In your economy, one works for less than they make their boss, in my proposed economy the benefits of said labor are directly applicable to their every day workings. You said you have no problem taking from people's labor without fully compensating them for it, that is exploitation of labor without compensation. "You just confirmed now that you support the labor theory of value. ..." Again - supporting a basic observation, that profit is income minus expenses, does not equal supporting a labor theory of value. The value of their work is not what they arbitrarily agree upon, it is what they make their employer, who must pay them below their value. Your system of capitalist trade is not all trade, but at least you can admit the value of one is not the value the other is paid. Value is not necessary for a society, however, your society is one that uses value, as well as stealing it. "The definition of "theft" refers to stealing, I then cited the definition of "stealing" which refers to property, do try to keep up." Stealing means "to take something without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it." Something is not always property. "Monopolizing an idea prevents others from competing by making use of the same idea..." Ah, but to these "An"caps, it is not just an idea, but the exclusive property of an individual, who apparently did all the work in forming it. In this "An"cap world, what stops someone from just stealing your idea? Writing your book word by word and selling it, remaking your signature dish or secret technology to distribute how they see fit? Simply put, that sort of cutthroat theft doesn't work well with a capitalist system that supposedly pushes innovation, which is why most "An"caps support the idea that thoughts... can be property. At least we can agree on how absurd that is. "Anti-competitive," in this case though, means anti-theft. Any way, to wrap this up, because at this point I think all that can be said has been said, and there isn't much getting through to you. I think under an anarchist system, you have no right to arbitrarily reject the humanity or individuality of those you hate, even justifiably. I don't think people have a "right" to anything, rights don't exist, but principles do, and the principle of uncoerced individuality is strongly opposed to rape and murder. The best way to deal with rapists and murderers isn't to rape or murder them in turn, or open up the possibility to do that without moral quandary, but to withdraw association and support. You support a system in which people do not one their own labor, a system called capitalism, their labor is owned by their bosses and the individuals receive a miniscule fraction of what they contribute. Oh, and to clear this up, because you keep saying "You're fine with socialists taking what others produced without compensation, you're ok with exploiting workers." This is false. I'm fine with people taking a surplus of basic necessities if and when they exist, which is what I actually said, not your strawman. I also explained how people would be incentivized to work for eachother, and not to take from others when there is no surplus. Plainly put, the farmers are compensated, compensated by a healthier, less starving society which can help them in turn. In your system, that food is thrown away. So yeah, i'd take free food and no exploitation over your system of wasted food and exploitation. You misunderstand socialism, and claim that individualist collective ownership must be involuntary, because not everyone gets there way. Not only is this false, as everyone can use their self owned labor how they want, you only say this to justify your system where far more people don't get what they want. You don't understand the ECP, and somehow assume it applies to a stateless society that I have been describing, despite you openly admitting that said problem only supposedly exists in systems of state directed distribution, and even then it doesn't make sense, because you don't need to know the price of bread to know that your people are starving. The state is the natural endpoint of private property, as private property can only exist with a state, and the state itself is an extension of the "logic" of private property. The taxation of the state is only as justifiable as the life-taxation of the prices of food, water, and housing under capitalism. The state is the only one enforcing your "self ownership" statist myth. The american state was formed in direct support of private property, the right to private property is enshrined in its most sacred documents, and claiming to represent the will of the people while only representing the elite private class makes it far more aligned with your capitalism than actual, anti-capitalist individualism, or any sort of collectivism. Capitalism has been struck again and again and has neared collapse more and more in as the years have gone by, showing us just how unstable it has become. the poor hover on the edge of poverty, with no power or stake in the new economy. To say the poor have gotten wealthier in capitalism is only true because time has marched on and humanity has advanced in spite of capitalism, not because of it. The sad part is, we both seem to value and despise the same things. You just can't see that you're advocating for that you claim to despise, and rejecting that you claim to value.
    1
  1048.  @padraicburns9278  Those are methods of using the means of production, as in, deciding their distribution, who they are working for and how, and so on. In terms of deciding the purpose of a plot of land, the only necessary factor would be if someone wants it, and if someone has a legitimate reason why not. If you want to build a farm, and another person wants to raze the soil, who has a greater right to land? In terms of say, the output of the factory, it is the same - the people that actually participate in the construction and maintenance of the factory are those that decide how it is owned and operated, as in, what is produced, the details of the product, the quantity of production, ect. The problem is, you're assuming that every product is the result of a need of value, and that one needs to know the rarity or abundance of a resource in order to make, or buy, said resource. I do find how you continue to blame socialism for the problems of capitalism to be funny though ."Price signals" are not rational and are metrics that can be easily abused. People acquire land from buying it from another, because they need land to survive. In other words, you are forced to participate in the system, or you die. You claim under socialism you have no control over your life, and that you might not have enough when the product of your labor is distributed. This is false, as we've been under. Under a socialist system you own your labor, and under capitalism, you will always make your boss more than they give you. You might work every day on a farm and still be unable to reliably afford your own produce, the product of your work. And the existence of charities that operate off of anti-capitalist assumptions isn't a savior of capitalism. I don't think you know what the labor theory of value is. Saying that profit is income minus expenses, and thus, one must always pay their worker less money than the worker makes them, is not any particular theory, it's a basic economic observation that even a child could exist. I don't believe society needs a measure of value to function, because in our modern society, said value is so easily skewed and warped. Employees aren't paid for the full labor they do their boss, ever, and if the boss goes under, the employees are not paid. If the employer feels they are not making enough, they can fire an employee. You fail to realize that in reality, there is no security in being an employee. The employee takes all the risks of the employer and more, and yet, isn't even paid for their full labor contribution.
    1
  1049.  @padraicburns9278  "All the workers have already been paid for their part." Simply repeating an already-addressed claim does not make it true. No, not all the workers have been paid for their part. The employers or contractors did not do that. They, for example, did not train these people, they did not manufacture their tools or extract the resources that went into the birdhouse pieces before it was even assembled. They traded for the direct last steps, which means nothing, as trade doesn't determine work "The money for those investments and inheritance came from somewhere. If you worked for your money and chose to will it to someone when you die that is your gift to them, the wishes of the dead over their own property should be respected. Returns on investments comes from differences in time preference, those who value having money now are willing to pay back more in the future." So you admit you advocate for a system in which wealth is not actually tied to work or value, but arbitrary measurements and family histories. Why should a person never have to worry about poverty in life simply because their parents were rich? Why should we allow the further centralization of capitalist wealth in the hands of a few people who only grow said wealth with less and less work over generations. Do you see the problem with this system? "Commodity based currency is natural and arose out of barter. Those I did not trade with directly were already compensated by someone else I did trade with." Oh amazing, another unfounded assertion with zero citation or even reasoning given to it, and it's false as well! In any case, your second sentence is equally false, those people did not consent to your transaction, and were not paid for what their labor actually went too. "The miner was paid for their mining. They should not be paid for the spatula because it's not theirs. The part they contributed to the making of the spatula has already been paid, they should not be paid multiple times for the same service." So again, assertions with no backing logic. Why is the spatula not theirs? After all, their work was instrumental in its creation, and they never gave consent for said spatula to be created or used by others. The part they contributed directly was paid for not in the context of the spatula, and there's no reason they shouldn't be paid "multiple times" for their full value. "You never asked Mises on a case by case basis which ones are innocent. He specifically mentioned the socialists coming at them with guns should be met with guns, but you ignore what doesn't fit your narrative." His entire passage was based on the defending of fascists purging leftists and supposed leftists. If he had an issue, or a qualification with this defense, he would have provided it. No, simply put, he had nothing to say about the fact of the fascist's mass murder of innocents, besides his support of it. "You still won't answer if you'd defend yourself if you're attacked. You said I want to take rights away but you said rights don't exist, again you contradict yourself. Tyrants who murder people are hypocrites to complain if they themselves are murdered. It is fair to treat others as they treat you, turnabout is fair play." Ok, so you don't understand the act of using your own logic in a statement, and then assume that the argument presented is in my moral lens, not through yours. And in the minute of being attacked? Yes, I would defend myself, but only to repel said attacker. The "punishment" of the attacker after the fact is one based explicitly in statism. It is not "fair" to reject the humanity of another, no matter the siutation. "System: a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network. You said you believe in the interconnected web of labor, that's a system, you contradict yourself. An "economic system" is simply the way wealth is produced and distributed, if you don't want an economic system then that means you don't want wealth to be produced and therefore all will be impoverished." The interconnected web of labor is not a system i'm pushing though, it's just a basic fact of modern society. I don't propose a system, I simply propose that things go back to how they are naturally, and that we stop recognizing artificial middle-men and explorative practices simply because you feel like those are good things. Not pushing a system doesn't mean calling for poverty, that's best achieved by advocating for capitalism. I'm not pushing "a system of production, resource allocation and distribution of goods and services within a society or a given geographic area." I'm advocating a removal of the obstacles of the normal behaviors of humanity. "Capitalism does not require expansion, expansion is considered preferable only because it makes society wealthier, but it's not needed. The economy expands and contracts (largely due to ABCT) but nowhere is it required that private property rights require expansion to occur. Capitalism has created the richest societies on Earth, your system is known for causing mass starvation. At least the fat aren't starving. I already said you can have your communes, as a backup plan you should allow a private property economy to save you when the time comes" Capitalism does require expansion, though. The very notion that every man can be a business owner is based on the idea that more businesses will be made, more innovations will be discovered, more land will be bought, more resources will be produced, ect. The expansion of society as a base of capitalism when said expansion is not necessary or rational is a natural. The very notion that private property rights are accessible to all necessitates expansion of production. Feudalism created the most prosperous society before capitalism, being better than the past doesn't make it a worthy future. Your system is literally know for causing mass starvation. To "allow" a private property community is to force people to participate in said statist, expansionist community. Why would anyone even want to participate? The market is decentralized due to so many different actors in competition with each other. The idea that capitalism results in a coalescing of wealth is false, all monopolies have formed with the assistance of the state. The market rewards those that satisfy customer demand and the fortunes of businesses rise and fall when not propped up by the state. Believing there's endless production is absurd. Scarcity will always exist, which is why resources must be economized. You've contradicted yourself so much when it comes to the word "value" I don't even know what you mean by saying it's not necessary. "So many actors" isn't decentralization, when said actors have the same concrete desires and needs. Capitalism by necessity has always resulted in the centralization and coalescing of wealth, as monopolies are the result of private property, as is a strong state to protect private property "rights." The market rewards those that do the least work for the most profit, and who provide the least help for the most compensation. Which is why private businesses are more than happy to apply to their supportive state. Denying the capability for human innovation while pushing that capitalism is an innovative system is a hilarious contradiction. Scarcity will not always exist, in reality, it is already fading, a fact that you brag about even. You've contradicted yourself in so many statements, and it seems that even my clarification doesn't help you understand the points, the problem is with you.
    1
  1050.  @mitscientifica1569  no, as they weren't right wing, a defining characteristic of fascism :)
    1
  1051.  @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 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
  1052.  @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
  1053.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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
  1054.  @mitscientifica1569  h, 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
  1055. @Grey Donovun I literally already have, please read the thread.
    1
  1056.  @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
  1057. Also, gotta love how you label anyone who correctly calls out your nonsense as a denialist. Jesus Christ you really are that desperate.
    1
  1058.  @mitscientifica1569  No, because they weren't right wing, a necessary component of fascism.
    1
  1059.  @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 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
  1060.  @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
  1061.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  1062.  @Scornfull  still coping with your loss?
    1
  1063.  @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
  1064.  @metallicat61003  mate, a constitutional republic is a form of democracy.
    1
  1065.  @cheapbongs  ....because I haven't done that? Perhaps try to use higher brain function for once and consider that this is far from the only thread on the video. No, child, I'm pointing out the flaws of this video, with exactly as much evidence and reasoning as the original pot, yet you only take issue with mine. You're making blanket statements dismissing arguments and defending a video without argumentation or evidence, spamming random questions, getting annoyed when they're answered, and somehow concluding that this is my fault. If you were able to listen in the first place, you might see that. Why should anyone bother with you?
    1
  1066.  @cheapbongs  hence your blanket statements presented without argument or evidence being a bit silly.
    1
  1067.  @cheapbongs  No, I wouldn't suggest that, given how much trouble you have with reading comments in this very thread. I merely ask that, before you make blanket claims about arguments I have or have not made, you take more than a second of effort to see if those claims actually make sense. If you accuse someone of something... be sure of it.
    1
  1068.  @cheapbongs  lmao expecting the bare minimum really does have you pressed doesn't it. It's ok dude, no need for spam, you clearly care a bit too much.
    1
  1069.  @cheapbongs  Dude, if you make a claim about someone, you should actually see if its true first?? This is so hilariously easy, if you don't want to put in the work don't jump to conclusions, it's really that easy!
    1
  1070.  @cheapbongs  Dude sorry for daring not to type like an angry fifth grader who just got told to do his homework.
    1
  1071.  @cheapbongs  Pro tip! Things usually "make more sense" if you bother to read comments addressed to you! I'll say it again: if you weren't prepared to have your claims challenged with evidence you were too lazy to get, you shouldn't have made the claims in the first place.
    1
  1072.  @cheapbongs  yeah that's the funny bit. Most people tend not to claim things are true unless they know so. You just jumped to that conclusion and got pissed when I corrected you.
    1
  1073.  @cheapbongs  apparently, "weird rules for commenting" include "reading more than a single comment in order to come up with a blanket statement on a person's whole online presence." As I said, you can't prove the claim, don't make it.
    1
  1074.  @cheapbongs  uh huh sure pal. you have fun with that then
    1
  1075.  @cheapbongs  as empty of substance as can be expected.
    1
  1076. ​ @HannoBehrens  Religious groups, like yours, are easy to provoke. You simply drive a red-hot iron of facts into their maw of delusion, and watch as they begin to self destruct. In cases like this, they will call you a troll, a marxist, a racist. They will openly call for the destruction of what they feel you represent, even if you do actually represent it. Did you know that the nazis used accusations of Bolshevism to justify the deaths of children and unarmed mothers? How far away from that are you, truly? I am not a troll, friend, nor do I intend to be. I care about history over the childish desire to provoke emotions, and that's something you seem to utterly disregard. And if I do not make sense to you, you will be relieved that the feeling is mutual, and I cannot make sense of you. I cannot see the sense in one who claims to stand on the side of reason, and yet conducts their argumentation wholly through insult and anecdote. I have to wonder, from your praise of trolls, if you see yourself as one. That would make a lot of sense. And if I wee to troll, why here would be the perfect place. Because here we find a crowd of people that cannot add 2 and 2, and get obscenely angry when you give them the correct answer. You prove as much. My motivation, if there truly is any, is that of nothing more than a historian and concerned anti-fascist. I know, of course, that you would support me if only I were to lay down my morals, my understanding of history, and all the objective fact and logic that comes with my position to join you. But no, I will not do that. Because that is something that would only serve to detract from the conversation, to destroy the good faith inherent in those discussions. You cannot weaponized me. I am here precisely because you see yourself as the pocket calculator, yet are just as volatile as the most dangerous chemical reactions. You can pretend to be objective, unmoving, but this very response proves that I pushed your buttons in the right way, does it not? This paragraph explains you perhaps better than I ever could. It shows the true religious fanaticism in your position, your inability to look at anything that contradicts your worldview, your willingness to manufacture conspiracy, and most importantly your inability to argue. You recount a time when an expert on a subject came to propose a new theory, a theory relating to something as subjective and contrived as numerical categorization. Well I hate to break it to you, but π is a real number, and while this person did not invent it, the act of numerical categorization is constantly expanding. You may not know this, but all numbers are made up. So rather than listen with an open mind, consider his point, and perhaps the reason he was there in the first place... you tried to laugh him off. You speak of this as if it's a point of pride, and I have to tell you, if I was your administrator or professor, I would be appalled. Discourse is necessary, and no matter your hatred of an idea, it cannot be dismissed without reason. When you speak of this event, I can only imagine it like a puritan proud of having driven off a scientist with a pitchfork. He was not trying to troll you. He was trying to introduce you to new ideas. This man, I assume, was invited for a reason, like it or not. And rather than even bothering listening, well, you chased him off with pitchforks. I'm sorry, but in your mind, I cannot see a single figure that does not agree with you that you would treat with any sort of respect. After all, this entire response has been nothing but a campaign to discredit my arguments, without once addressing them. Of course you would call me a child, why not? Next, I may be called a escaped convict, perhaps? A serial rapist? What will you come out with to discredit me next? TIK has already gone the route of slander, he has tried to call me an anti-semite and a racist, but of course that only proves the torch-and-pitchfork desperation of his argument. And I have to say, I think the one thing that has actually irritated me about you more than just tired me is your continued incorrect spelling of my name, which is just a pet peeve I carry on from childhood. And if you are trying to imply that I am still curious and wholly open minded, you would be right. However, you may not know this, but you cannot disregard skepticism just because you no longer need it. TIK is far from an expert, and this started far from disrepsectfully. In fact, it truly started I think with my apology to him for harsh language and accusations, afterwards he promptly called me an anti-semite. If I was truly looking for someone to "put me in my place," TIK has sorely disappointed me, as all i'm leaving with is further conviction in my understanding of history, after taking his arguments into account. If anything (if i may be a bit self-inflating) your version of reality is quite the opposite. I came into here wanting my arguments to be challenged, and found instead that they all collided and broke off of my own so easily that I can only leave knowing more counters to your bizarre narrative. For someone who is so based upon the idea of thinking for yourself, you seem unable to do it. Just go along with the narrative, right? Call me a troll, call me a marxist, whatever you want. Don't you dare think for yourself, or you may begin to see me as a human, not a vessel of an ideology you call evil, one you refuse to understand. I am here with facts lining my belt, and I have been ready to use them, as you can see. But you... you are not the one to use them on. After all, how can any sort of rational argumentation be used against the subjective, human conditions of "evil" and "good?" TIK's low-blow argumentation tactics, of conspiracy and hatred, are anything but courageous. They are cowardly. As, to make mention, is your inability to make a single fact-based point against me. What he said is not only impossible to see from a perspective of rationality, but as he has proven, impossible to prove.Oh, he certainly did make an argument, but I notice both you and him do not have the courage to address mine. It's funny, you can actually tell how long he worked on this video, just by seeing the time in between his first hypothesis, and this desperate reach of a video to be released. I have no doubt that it did take him long, though. Because here's the thing about history - if you take the time, remove the nuance, and look at only the most obscure and disconnected pieces of it, you can "prove" anything. Conventional knowledge, base level definitions, actual experts in the field, TIK had to avoid all of them in his analysis. Of course, he (and you) justify that by calling them all marxists, or something, trying to destroy our concept of history. It's amazing, reading about the first years of a nazi rise, or the theories they came to power on, from right wingers like Schmitt, Spengler, Evola, you see so many things that remind me of the modern right. That same disdain for democracy I could easily point out to you a hundred examples of in my own country. There is no leftist civil war, friend. There is a war between the far left and far right, and it seems that the moderate right is perfectly fine with leaning into the rhetoric of the nazis to abstain from the responsibility of their history. I can tell that this is your only exposure to the subject, and really, your line here is very telling. "never did read about this before, I mean I guessed, it I could feel it, I suspected it with the clean view on things that a child has, " Imagine just so openly saying that this is your only exposure on the subject. No, if you want objective history, you go out and find it. YOu go out and find the alternative viewpoints, as I have done. TIK's work is far from the only on the subject, and is far from the most expansive or professional. The issue, of course, is that he doesn't prove his hypothesis. He appeals to people like you, people who "feel" they are right and will seek out any information, no matter the bias, to confirm this feeling of theirs. As I said, I started down my journey in your position, with views very similar to yours. And then... I thought for myself. I actually looked into it. And to see such a brazen admittance of guilt, of bias, of naivete, only confirsm for me the purpose of this video, and confirms for me the idea I have had to put so much work into - that hitler was not a socialist, and those who say he was have no care for history, only covering their own terrible records, putting feelings before facts. The idea that you feel the need to then posture as somehow a voice of reason, after this line... it's truly priceless. I think if that doesn't tell you my motivation, nothing will. My motivation is to bring history to your narratives, and to expose you to the fault that you need to be taking, because no progress will be made until you admit there is a problem. But, just a tip - you could have just asked first.
    1
  1077.  @HannoBehrens  Oh, I get it. So you've given up on the actual argument at this point, and are just going to go on some random circle-jerk about how much you hate people disagreeing with you. No, I think we can all see from your continual deflection that TIK didn't make any point at all, and to say he did, you have to actively ignore and deny his actual arguments, as you've done. He's admitted himself, most of the historians he quoted actually disagree heavily with both his definitions and certainly his conclusions. But i'm sure you've forgotten all about of that. The problem is, TIK doesn't make good arguments, his arguments have been refuted time and time again... but admitting that would put you in deep water, because then you'd actually have to make your own arguments. If you seriously think that asserting all companies are secretly marxist is some sort of "good point," well i'm afraid nothing will reach you. You've already lost the argument, as has TIK. That's why, so long ago, he threatened to censor me, and began to call me a bigot out of spite. Because he and you both know you lost. The people who come through here, silently reading it, don't respond because they know they can't counter reality, so rather than try, they just like all opposition to my comments and move on. The problem is, to people like you and TIK, socialism is synonymous with just things you don't like. What socialist support is there for propping up the rich, indulging in conservatism, and emboldening the private market? Well, perhaps there is some in your fantasy version, but certainly not in the real one. Of course, your logic falls apart instantly. For one, Hitler wasn't lying when he said that he thought his ideology was socialist. But, then again, as he defined socialism as a system anti-socialist in nature, you see the issue. It's actually historically supported, such as in the works of people like Strasser at the time, that the socialists were "Leaving the NSDAP." Well, that is, before they were purged. Of course Hitler hated stalin, he shared that with most of his fellow western rightists. And this is what i'm talking about. In this entire response, you devote what, a paragraph, to actually addressing the history of the Nazis. The rest of it, you spend just ranting about the USSR and Nazis, independent of ideology. You complain about my "walls of text," but at least I had the courtesy of addressing your statements. That's something i'm afraid you do not offer me. And buddy, I hate to fill you in, but the U.S. didn't actually do that much by joining the war. We had D-Day and the Nukes, that's about it. And we get it, you don't know what communism is, but again none of this does any more than show me a window into your mind. Where an argument is not substantiated by actually, you know addressing the argument, but by simply attacking the historical countries and ideologies, and using that to substantiate your point. In other words, "They did this one bad thing, so I must be right when I say they were also responsible for other random bad things." And i'm sorry, but again, bringing up Stalin to deflect, or Hitler's failed ideology, does nothing to substantiate your point. Yes, Hitler was an idiot, and his actions were motivated by his fanatic hatred of those "other," from other races, other ideologies, non-rightists, other nations, ect. Hitler was not a socialist, and you can tell this even from his speeches defining socialism, but you continue to not understand that. "national socialism," as in socialism but nationalistic, is certainly possible, but this was not Hitler's system. Hitler's system was National Socialism, a system that rejected socialism while using its rotting corpse as a shield. Hitler was right wing, far right culturally, and opportunistically right wing economically. I do find it funny, though, how you say we need to "strip away a century long lie of the left right dichotomy" ...after rejecting a century of experts proving they weren't socialists, and after you just accusing everyone you don't like of falling on the left side of that dichotomy. How hypocritical. And here we get to the meat of it, eh? Your hatred of a system you refuse to understand. Every ideology has done that, capitalism much more than most. Remind me how the American founding fathers rebelled? Oh, right, by "[defining] oppressed against oppressors and [justified] from that all kind of violence to rise up against them." Were they secret socialists? When Churchill decided to commit genocide against those he ruled over in Bengal, did he become a socialist? Do the nearly 20 million who die per year in capitalist countries from exposure, starvation, preventable disease, ect, not count? What about you, who tries to create this same dichotomy with the socialists you hate. Oh, wait. You're just trying to deflect from your ideology of reckless hate being called out. The problem is, that "castle of lies" is called reality. And, in trying to besiege it, you are building up your own fortifications against the truth. You can't handle the idea that your genocidal, destructive ideology can be criticized, so you lash out. At least socialists learn from their mistakes, numerous as they are. Capitalists seem utterly unwilling to do so. And so of course, the socialist is blamed for the actions of capitalism. I'm sorry, but all of the discrimination you're talking about? It runs rampant under capitalism. Hell, you even prove my point, by busting out that old anti-semetic conspiracy theory of "Cultural Marxism." You seem to not realize that those civil rights fighters usually had to fight against capitalism, or that the free thinkers, teachers, poets, musicians, writers, and artists are those most hurt by such a system. The only common ground I think I have with you is that we both want something for eachother. For you, I want a better world, where you actually have the freedom as an individual to thrive. For me, you want a firing squad. But please, keep up with the ad hominem attacks. After all, if you just call people a "spiteful lunatic," you're automatically correct, right? I agree though, your old lies are failing. You notice how now, more than ever, more people are being radicalize. We have more young socialists in this country than ever before. If this is socialism's death bed, well then capitalism is already six feet under.
    1
  1078.  @HannoBehrens  As opposed to... what? As opposed to your system, which is far more efficient at killing people than the most brutal dictators managed to be? Or are those dead bodies all just justifiable according to your ideology? I keep telling you, i'm not a socialist, but damn you're pretty terrible at arguing against socialism. You call me a "believer," a "fanatic," but have spent hours of your time writing moralistic arguments against my character and beliefs, most of which you don't even know. What do I believe *in*, champ? Do you even know? I don't need your attention to live, or to justify my existence. I've been arguing with a blind fanatic, in you, for hours now. If you want to project that on me while calling me a devotee to an ideology I don't believe in, feel free. But thanks for calling me mentally ill for daring to disagree with you.
    1
  1079.  @KameradVonTurnip  So, that's your method of argumentation? Saying "I don't care i'm right anyway?" Wow, stellar stuff. TO be honest, at least you're more open about it than TIK. And yes, you couldn't actually come up with a counter argument to that point, as we discussed. Those people you mention did have cults of personality, but Hitler did more than that by a lot he literally altered the most common religions in his country to fit the goals of his party. The only other group I can think of that did that are, surprise surprise, old absolute monarchists. Also, you could at least try with the grammar, mate. But it's ok, I get it, you wanted to rush this out so you could pretend you hadn't been disproven a thousand ways. I'm actually just looking through to see if TIK actually bothered to respond in any substantial way to anyone that didn't worship his incorrect definition of terms, and surprisingly, he really didn't. But I mean sure, if you want to pretend you're a special figure that i'm hunting after here, go ahead. And yes, a good number of you do just straight up ignore the truth, most likely because like with you, attempting to debate it always ends pretty embarrassing for you guys. And yes, yes, I know, socialism is whatever you want it to be. The best part is, like I said to you both - if you define socialism incorrectly, you admit you're wrong. Hell mate, by TIK's definition i'm further right than him, and i'm sure he didn't want to hear that. When you define socialism counter to what literally every socialist has defined it as, and that's the only way for you to call the nazis socialists, you've admitted that they aren't. Socialists don't want total state control, they want the workers to control the industry, through either representative government or direct control of the MoP as a whole, with no dividing classes. Every socialist, every variant of socialist, will give you this answer, slightly paraphrased. Only two groups will not. Far-right nazis, and historical denialists like TIK. Which means that, in the end as i've said... he's admitting defeat. He's admitting that the nazis had nothing in common with modern or past socialists, and that the only similarity is a name, and that some socialists want a large government (for an entirely different reason than the nazis, to do entirely different things.) The sad part is, you know this, clearly, but want to continue to use the false definition, which doesn't even address what socialists actually want. You're weakening your own argument, and admitting you are incorrect, and the fact that you lost the other debate and are running away from this one tells me that you know that.
    1
  1080.  @CorrectCrusader  Yes, and it's you. Thanks for admitting it at least.
    1
  1081.  @KameradVonTurnip  Yes, and I literally corrected every single one of these points before, the fact that you keep spreading them shows that you either didn't listen or don't care about the truth. The definitions you showed me support my answer, but you tried to redefine yet another term to make it seem like they supported your answer, again, admitting defeat. Because you couldn't use the terms as they were meant, you had to twist them. As for the marxist definition, I already corrected you on that as well, the dictionary clearly states that it is not a definition from marx, but the definition marx was already using. That is the true definition, and I suspect you know it, which is why you're trying to hide behind your strawman of marxist socialism, a system that when you have tried to define it, has predated marx by several years. So in other words, the way you describe marxist socialism is the way socialism has always been decried, even before marx even began writing, and this definition was shared and agreed with by those that despised the work marx had done. Again, these are all objectively true points that 've already brought up, and now you ignore yet again. TIK's definition is pretty clearly incorrect, as reading any pre-marx socialist literature can tell you, but both you and him don't want to deal with that internal contradiction so you redefine terms until they fit your preset narrative. And here you go making a strawman again, because you'd rather make stuff up than actually deal with the argument at hand. I very clearly pointed out that while all of these dictatorships, including the nazis, had cults of personality. However, of them all, only nazism literally tried to redefine religion to suit what they thought was best, whereas the others either just tolerated religion or did away with it all together. Again, this is similar to previous absolute monarchs. Of course the people had to be denazified, because they had something more than just a cult of personality. But of course, you can't deal with the actual argument I presented, so you strawman it. And yes, I proved myself objectively right in that comparison, which is why after all that time you were not able to deny the truth. And if it goes nowhere, why did you respond again?
    1
  1082.  @CorrectCrusader  nice, kid.
    1
  1083.  @KameradVonTurnip  I'm sorry to say bud, but saying it over and over and over to the point of stupidity doesn't make it true. Hell, both you and TIK have tried to redefine what it means to even be a state, or a community, because taking those words according to their actual definitions would prove you wrong instantly. If my arguments were poor, you'd be able to actually address them, but you continue to avoid to do that. So i'm sorry, you did lie. And saying that the soviets had a cult of personality doesn't actually address any of my points, you said that last time and I addressed it then actually.
    1
  1084. you don't get to redefine socialism fash
    1
  1085.  @StoneCoolds  they aren't even close to the same.
    1
  1086.  @lakiog1938  no
    1
  1087. Pretty sure he's only getting factual corrections to his false history and people are getting pissed off when he refuses to even address them, and most of these come from people like myself who are as far from authoritarian as you can get, but sure it's now "personal attacks and death threats" to point out history, and somehow that also equates to the nazis far-right non-socialistic fascism. Because of course, if you want to shut down every conversation and just write off all debate, call everyone who uses facts to correct you a nazi. Works every time.
    1
  1088.  @TiagoJRToledo  yeah, they're literally just correcting his history, calm down mate.
    1
  1089.  @lakiog1938  nope, get over it.
    1
  1090.  @lakiog1938  nah,
    1
  1091.  @lakiog1938  prove it right, bud. it's hilariously easy to gish gallop but i've seen nothing yet.
    1
  1092.  @lakiog1938  lol, accept he didn't. just you wait kid.
    1
  1093.  @TheImperatorKnight  ​ This is my problem, mate. You know that's not what is happening, and yet you repeat it anyway. I've said this, time and time again, and time and time again you seem to ignore it. Not everyone you hate is a marxist. Not everyone who corrects you wants you dead. And not every argument you don't like doesn't exist. One would only have to take a few seconds scrolling through the comments to see that. Frankly, this act is insulting.Your actions here scream of a desire to write off everything you don't want to listen to, and every hole in your logic you refuse to admit to. You can't even frame your critics honestly, you make the assumption that they're all butthurt marxists with no reasons to possibly criticize your work besides their own self interests, which just screams out as a fallacy to me. The fact that you think the title of this video is enough proof that you have accurately addressed their point, or that they have only provided points you have adequately addressed, is where the problem lies. You speak of others having trouble "engaging in the debate" but so far you've only "engaged" by either telling people to watch the video, writing off their sources as incorrect in just a few lines while utterly ignoring the contents of them, or completely ignoring the criticisms of your definitions and how they actually apply to the ideas you are discussing. If these criticisms were so unimpactful, you wouldn't need to spend hours going through the comment section telling people to just "watch the video" or dismissing their arguments outright with silly names or insults. Hell, in this very response you prefer to call your opponents marxist propagandists than even pretend to care about what they say. How can I trust you to even attempt a counter argument when you seem so utterly dead set on ignoring them and strawmanning their criticisms from the get-go? Then of course, you blame the left for refusing to engage in debate... all while writing off all of your opponents criticisms under sill names and fallacious insults. Yeah, it's totally the left's fault here. Right.
    1
  1094.  @lakiog1938  mate. do you not understand waiting?
    1
  1095.  @yohannbiimu  I really could not care less if you think a definition is "worthless." Every idea, every concept, every fantasy even, no matter how out there has a word related to it. It could be a philosophy revolving around nuking the world to acheive communism, and then bam! You have a term to describe it, posadism. If you dedide to redefine terms simply because those terms don't agree with you, or you don't think they work, then the very act of using the terms is useless. If you define socialism however you like then have a conversation with a socialist, he is not advocating for your definition, therefore the comparison itself is irrelevant.
    1
  1096.  @kitrichardson5573  They literally did happen in free capitalistic societies, which is the sad part about your denial.You seem to be more than willing to bring up every disjointed bit of nonsense you can, no matter how thoroughly it's been debunked. 1. Mussolini was a communist like kropotkin was a prince 2. You mean the one for a party that he outlawed?' 3. Pretty sure we had notions of genocide coming from all over, Churchill for example, but ok bud, ust ignore all of that eh? 4. Not only is this not true, but nationalization is not inherently socialist ...so you have nothing.
    1
  1097.  @kitrichardson5573  Oh my gosh this post is the epitome of ignorance. State capitalism is an actual term that can be used, like it o not. Of course, you would seek to obfuscate that like everything else the right is behind, and the millions of deaths that exists under your preferred systems. It's easier to paint "the enemy" as a bunch of conspiratorial liars than even attempt to engage with them, I know. You also seem to somehow think that conservatives are the only capitalists, or that funnily enough liberal and leftist are synoymous, and also make the mistake many ignorant folk do where you try to make your opponents out to be one giant hivemind. Nevermind the fact that people like marx spoke out about taxes, and was pro gun, or that libertarian figures tend to be fine with abortion, because to acknowledge the fact that right and left are more than just good and bad would utterly break your argument in half. But please, keep telling me about how much anarchists want to control society, that makes perfect sense. Just keep projecting everything you dislike onto everyone you dislike, and it's all good right? Because if you can't engage with debate, just lump them all together and try to psychoanalyze literally hundreds of political viewpoints. In fact, from this it tells me that you have the fear of the outside, fear of the other, and to deal with it, you feel the need to apply it to a single boogeyman. You then make the mistake again of thinking liberal means leftist, which is quite funny, and then of course pose the argument that the right will always come out on top, no matter how much they really aren't. You can't even take three seconds to reflect on what the right actually believe, you just take their word for it and assume everything that affirms your opinions of the world must be objective truth. It's people like you who are going to collapse this country under ideological stupidity, all while claiming all of your issues come from "the left."
    1
  1098.  @TheImperatorKnight  "As I've replied to you in the Public vs Private video, I'm addressing your criticisms of "my" definitions (the historical ones), but you're the one ignoring them. You're ignoring them because your Socialist-indoctrination blinds you" Oh no. Oh buddy. Is that what you've got? Really? Putting in parenthesis (i'm right) and then calling everyone who even bothers to define terms correctly as a victim of "socialist propaganda." You're the one out here linking Mises.org mate, I don't think i'm the propagandized one. You can pretend everyone who has good reason to disagree with you is a sheep all you want, it doesn't make it true, and quite frankly it's sad. "Bearing in mind that this was on the Public vs Private video, where I clearly explained why this is the case in the video, backed by multiple sources, as I did in this video." And yet the argument is so full of holes it can be explained away by simply pointing out how the terms you are using are not how literally anyone uses the terms, so the association is useless. "You then correctly explain what the historical definition of Socialism is, proving that you understand what I'm saying " Yeah, mate, hate to break it to you, but I was being sarcastic. Because all you have is "socialism is everything bad" and you absolutely loathe to deal with it on any other basis. "Hold on, which is it? Have I really destroyed the term? (Not likely because I explained the historical reasons for why the term is what it is, backed by sources.) " Yes, yes you have. You can pretend that by using a definition nobody does that is backed up by your own warped sense of history you are somehow exposing the truth, but in reality you're using these terms in ways that are utterly absurd to anyone who bothers to talk to the people who believe in them. You called a corporation socialist, mate. "Or is it because Socialists don't realize what they're actually calling for, which is why I made the Public vs Private video in the first place, because I realized that many Socialists had no idea what it was they were actually calling for? " Well this certainly isn't it, because all you've shown is that you have no idea what socialists are calling for, and want to thrust the burden of everything you personally don't enjoy onto their backs. Because rather than actually engage with what they literally say, it's easier to stay at a distance and project the failings of capitalism onto them. Because i'm pretty sure no socialist is calling for more corporate power. "Oh yes, that's it." Sadly, it isn't. At all. "The criticism you have of me isn't that the historical definitions I'm using aren't correct (because your argument in that regard doesn't have any weight to it and doesn't stand up to scrutiny). Your criticism is that, because most Socialists mistakenly think Socialism is something that it isn't, my definitions don't align with what people mistakenly think Socialism is." So your argument is that you can read the mind of every socialist out there, no matter the kind, and lump them all into one pile of "bad things" without once actually having to understand what they're saying, with the excuse being that you understand them better than even they do? Not only is that downright egotistical and borderline psychotic, it makes no sense and doesn't hold up in reality, You can put in parenthesis (i'm right) all you want, and that doesn't change the fact that you're utterly incorrect when it comes to this subject. Your argument is literally that you know people better than they know themselves, despite never meeting, and that since you don't have to listen to them you can make up whatever you want about their ideology. "This is exactly my point - Socialists don't fully grasp what they're calling for." Because they aren't calling for it. Capitalists are calling for more things you mentioned that socialists, but of course those aren't "real capitalists." "This is the purpose of history - to educate people and make them learn from the past so that they don't repeat the mistakes of history. It is mistaken to believe that Socialism is anything other than totalitarianism. A Socialist may BELIEVE Socialism is paradise and rainbows, but they are WRONG." You would be utterly incorrect there, and you know it.We all know that when you say socialism, you don't mean socialism - you mean totalitarianism. That's why you can't actually define it and refuse to even try to, because it's easier to just not and then pretend that everything you don't like is totalitarian. What you're doing is not teaching people to learn from past mistakes, you're teaching them to cover up history in favor of your ideological bias. "2+2=5 is wrong, not because of ideology, but because it is. Me telling you it is wrong and explaining why is not me "redefining" the terms, it is me correcting your mistaken beliefs." 2+2=5 is not correct, no matter how much you want it to be, because you put into parenthesis that is was supposed to be true. No matter how much you try to "correct" history, it isn't changing. It's going to stay true, whether you like it or not.
    1
  1099.  @yohannbiimu  Mate, you can rant in all caps all you want, it doesn't make it true. For someone who seems so caught up in trying to describe their demented distortion of history as the truth, you sure do seem to have contempt for experts. That's what i'll never understand, how in your brain do you rationalize saying all the experts are wrong, all the people who are paid to be educated in this stuff are wrong, but if it subscribes to your worldivew it must be right? It's asinine. You can pretend you're describing it "as it always was" and that anyone who actually understands history is indoctrinated, but that doesn't make it true. There is no conspiracy, dude. There is just history, and you are ignoring it. The fact that you automatically assume me to be a socialist also says a hell of a lot, because you like everyone else in this thread would rather paint everyone who disagrees with you with one big brush, and pretend that someone could only point out your false history if they were somehow indoctrinated with... historical facts? The fact that the best evidence you've got for hitler being a socialist is that he taxes people is pretty telling. Because that's pretty much how this argument has been structured, take what hitler did and define socialism to fit over it, not take socialism and see if hitler fit it. You cannot change the definitions of words just because you see all who use them as proponents of the same conspiracy that you've cooked up. When you begin to define terms as broadly as you are, they lose all meaning, as when you say socialist and when a socialist says socialist, you are both talking about different ideologies. To define socialism under this definition and then call hitler a socialist is laughable, because it just proves that under no actual definition of socialist does he even come close to applying.
    1
  1100.  @TheImperatorKnight  Oh my god, did you just find out about jordan peterson or something? Is that where this outburst is coming from? If you cannot even present your opponents under a fair light, it's no surprise that you can hardly do the same with your arguments. The thing is you've already decided you are correct, so anyone who says otherwise must be denying the inherent nature of the universe that apparently specifies how right you are. This is not how debate works. You cannot apply buzzwords and insults instead of counters.
    1
  1101.  @TheImperatorKnight  I would largely appreciate it if you even tried to define socialism in a way that actually adheres to socialist beliefs or theory instead of the things you assume socialists "really" mean, but the problem with that is that it would be an utter admission of defeat from you, so I'm not counting on it happening. Oh, and I mean actual socialists, not socialists you label that way because of your previous false definitions. I don't want to hear a mercantilist quoted to tell me about what you think socialism is.
    1
  1102.  @TheImperatorKnight  I used jordan peterson there as an example because he, much like you it seems, loves slapping the terms "marxist" and "postmodernist" on anything that does not completely conform to his worldview, and your usage of the term only seems to further prove that you two are not that dissimilar in this regard. Political ideas are actually political ideas, not labels to slap on whomever you feel like.
    1
  1103.  @TheImperatorKnight  And here's another problem - your willingness to generalize and strawman to an absurd degree, to the point it sounds like you've been invited onto Ben Shapiro's podcast to talk about "the left." You've been calling us marxists, denialists, postmodernists, brainwashed, propagandists, holocaust denier empowerers, everything else... yet we're the ones that have yet to engage in honest debate? Hell, you yourself linked the videos and resources of others on the left who have written articles or made videos on the various topics of this video to provide the opposing viewpoint. Did those just... vanish? Are those videos not using reason, logic, evidence, facts, or honest discussion? Or did you, once again, make a hasty generalization regarding an entire half of the political spectrum and still ask be to believe that you at all care about good faith. The problem of convincing you of anything really is that it's like debating a creationist. You seem to have your beliefs and labels so set in stone, your reaction towards someone trying to question them, or even someone confiding in you that they agree, is to attack the outsiders with labels and generalizations. Perhaps that's harsh of me, but that behavior is not in any way conducive to a good faith argument. At the end of the day, we're not even debating the merit of the same systems, because the way you use the word, and the way I use the word are vastly different. The meanings behinds our two words exist in synonyms, however, we might as well be speaking a different language because the only way for us to honestly debate the merits of these systems would be to do so without using the name of the system, and yeah, that really doesn't work out well.
    1
  1104.  @yohannbiimu  You realize that creating an argument off of not actually caring what actual experts think isn't the best look, right? I know that you think that all of the experts follow a marxist agenda, (hitler did as well, coincidentally) but how actually deluded to you have to think to trust the words of random people on the internet over people who actually, you know, make a career out of caring for this stuff? Is that kind of cultish dedication to your idea all that drives you to make your fault assessment? Point number 3. On the bulletin board, mate. If by "public sector services" you mean creating a massive military and sending people to death camps, then yes, I suppose he taxed heavily for "public services..." but not really though. The best thing I can think of that he dedicated that money to was creating infrastructure in the form of roads and industry, but even then those only helped the citizens out accidentally, they were mainly for the purpose of warfare, strenghtening the war economy and the armies of nazi germany. And I hate to say it, but uh... taxation is not "socialism." Nor is big government. If either of those things were socialist, as well as a tedious connection to marx and a party with a few socialists in it, well I hate to fill you in but Lincoln was a socialist. And yes yes, we get it, you hate progressives. Thanks for all but admitting you'd do anything to shit talk them. Yeah, the problem with saying hitler wanted to make a "self reliant germany" is that he kind of wanted the whole world to be germany, so... that doesn't really hold out. Isolationism and expansionism/imperialism are kind of exact opposites, and don't really work together. On top of that, if wanting a self reliant country for nationalistic reasons makes you a nazi, then by god Jefferson was a nazi. And yes, thanks for spelling out exactly why he was not a socialist. And I know, I know. Somehow i'm the one that is hard to discuss with and cannot be reasoned with beyond my opinions, all while you're literally out here calling all experts marxists and anything that does not conform to your ceaseless hatred of anything left-of-center must be made up by these radical post-modern leftist feminist soyboy beta low T midwit cucks, or whatever you call everyone who disagrees with you. And you know, maybe if you actually tried out some of that history stuff, you'd learn a thing or two.
    1
  1105.  @kitrichardson5573  Yes, you would thinketh that, wouldn't you? Because, to you all, everything can and must be blamed on one ideology, and anything but strict adherence to that blame must constitute some sort of marxist thought crime of the worst kind. And yes, congratulations, you just discovered what etymology means! You, howeve, ignore that etymology doesn't always follow your rules. People will change the words we use over time, but the meanings of those words will not vanish with their usage. An apple will continue to exist long after we stop calling it an apple, or start to call other things apples. And an apple will certainly still exist if you begin to call all fruits apples... but now the apple must go by a different name. And that's the issue you seem not to understand, or have no desire to even try to understand at any rate. That no matter how much you contest the terms, the meanings don't vanish. And in order to justify that seething hatred, you must actively lie about all your hate. Because if socialism isn't the secret cause of all of the world's issues, what must be? No, i'm sorry, socialism was not the first ideology to advocate for any sort of genocide or eugenics. People were already committing genocide long before language even existed, and have been continuously doing it since. The first modern ideology that advocated genocide was social darwinism, an amazing little idea that would factor heavily into the capitalist idea of a meritocracy. All while the socialists would deny that theory, and substitute it with one of mutual aid. It's amazing how you are willing to label everything you don't like as left leaning, especially Mussolini, considering he explicitly called his ideology right wing. But, of course even then, you'll ignore the deaths of right wing ideologies like capitalism, feudalism, nationalism, colonialism, monarchism, imperialism... on and on and on. Because those lives don't matter unless they can be used as a political tool against those you hate. And the funny thing is, as your buddy pointed out - it isn't just the socialists pointing these things out, though the idea that the left as a whole is trying to excuse the soviet union is quite funny, really. It's also historians, and experts in the field, people who dedicate their lives to researching these things that would disagree with you. So, in order to maintain that delusion, you must begin to assume all of the experts fall into that little out group of ideological children you've invented. Ah, the ease in thinking of the world in that way, so easy, so black and white. Of course, you don't really care about these issues - after all, Lenin called his economy (by name) state capitalist, but i'm sure that those little qualifications don't quite matter to you, right? You must strawman your opponents, because to do anything else would be to allow for defeat, and we all know that's not how you guys work. You like to keep the free market of ideas well regulated. And then, you make further mistakes, mistakes I was perfectly happy to point out to you, but you consider to insist on. Let me remind you - not everyone on the left is a liberal, not everyone on the right is a conservative. Liberals aren't even a term for left wing people in many areas, and even in america it refers to moderates. Moderates are not leftists. Moderates are not communists, or socialists, or anarchists. Your attempted psychological evaluation seems to fail utterly on first step, because you don't even know who you're talking to. And isn't that the key of your ideologies? Not knowing who you're talking to, or what you're talking about, but assuming the worst and coming out swinging with insults, rather than actual facts?
    1
  1106.  @kitrichardson5573  Imagine actually typing out a number of words to make a point. Couldn't be me, couldn't be me. And yes, I said that sarcastically because you appeared to make a huge revelation in typing the word out and defining it. And yes, state capitalism is a term, because it's been one that multiple regimes have used, one with consistent reasoning, and one that can be applied somewhat regularly. Mate, you still haven't actually substantiated that claim yet, saying it in all caps doesn't actually make it true. Most countries long before the english language even existed practiced genocide, and advocated for it as well. Nationalim has called untold genocides. In fact, now thinking about it, various religions of history have probably been some of the biggest advocates of genocide, such as some of the crusades. So sorry, that isn't true. And when I said native Americans, I was referencing them being mercilessly hunted down and transmitted diseases, going from a population of 112 million to 6 million in around a century and a half. Would the ideas of capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, hell maybe even puritanism not be at fault for those? Or do you just hate socialism so much you have to make up blatantly ahistorical remarks? Like I get it, you don't agree with the "break a few eggs" line of thinking, I don't as well, but that was also the philosophy of the american industrial revolution, so putting it just on the left is, again, another useless generalization. While a few are trying to pass nazi germany off as capitalist, the vast majority are just saying they were not socialist. A good way to do that is to point out the capitalistic elements they included in their doctrine, but that is not meant to imply they were literal capitalists. And mate, I have to ask... ever heard of Hayek? Look him up, capitalist like you. And let's here what he has to say about that? “At times, it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a classical liberal way, and it is also possible for a democracy to govern with total lack of classical liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to a democratic government lacking in liberalism.” A dictator can absolutely exist in a capitalist system, because capitalism is only economics. We like to think capitalism = freedom, but it very much does not have to. Look at Chile, for example. Thousands staved, tortured, murdered purposefully. Oh sure, the economy shot up, but the average level of nutrition was lower than a nazi death camp. That, was a capitalist country, one supported by people like Rothbard, who even helped to create it, and praised it. Yes, a dictator has power, no shit. But you fail to realize that political power and economic power can be seperated. And I do have an answer to that actually, namely, that it isn't true. Mussolini was part of a marxist group for a few years alongside also being in a group that heavily disagreed with marxists) but he was kicked out after he kept spreading ideas that were antithetical to communism and socialism. When he got into power, he appointed classical liberals to high position in government, was praised by mises as a stalwart against socialism in europe, and criminalized the party he had used to belong to. Saying he was a communist... is like saying kropotkin was a prince. You should probably care more about what he did when he was actually in power (actually self-describe his economy as state capitalist) than the club he got kicked out of and then promptly abolished. Just a thought. And again, you have a very selective view of the deaths of history. I would dispute the 100 million number, because it came from the Black Book of Communism, a source with basic math errors that was denounced by all but one of it's authors, who the rest said was obsessed with reading 100 million. Oh, and it counts nazi concentration camps, the deaths of nazi and russian soldiers in WW2, and people who "might have" been conceived, but actually were not. I would dispute that, but it doesn't matter, because the far bigger numbers still sit behind capitalism, colonialism, nationalism, imperialism, and on. And yes, we know you still don't know what liberal means. What a surprise. Few things - Marx was pro gun, as are the majority of modern socialists. We have the SRA for that very reason. You want to talk about taking away guns, talk to Reagan. Economic freedom does not always translate to personal freedom, as we've already talked about. As well as that, forms of socialism absolutely exist where the government "governs the least," just look at Proudhon. But most of all... tell me, how did Jefferson's presidency work out? Did he follow his own rules there? Oh no, he tried, but by the end he had practically become another federalist, because he found that governing the least was crashing the economy, opening them up to foreign attack, bankrupting the government. He had some good ideas, but the problem is that his entire presidency was dedicated to the failure of his previous comments. Capitalism needs government to function. But yes, there are no "pure" versions of either, but just so you know, "pure" capitalism is not statelessness. Adam Smith was perfectly ok with a state, he was even in favor of property regulation and an early proponent of job guarantees and somewhat graducated taxation.The idea that pure capitalism is stateless only began cropping up in the early 1900s. I mean, you could very much also argue that there is no such thing as a socialist country using capitalism, that would be like a well-lit dark room, which means you want to put it into one category or another, but that's a debate worth happening at some other time. No, no one would call china a capitalist country. They would, and should in fact, call it a state capitalist country, or if that term annoys you, state dirigisme. A system, not socialist or capitalist, where the private sector enriches the state and the state guides the private sector, the two are inseparable. You say that china controls the private market, and it kind of does, but China's government is either made up of or paid off by major corporate figures. The corruption and control goes both ways. And yeah, I don't think anyone is going to deny the things they're getting up to down there. And this is a massive government apparatus that only exists because it's being funded by the private sector, and working together with it. That's kind of an important part of the whole thing. If you see little difference, I cannot blame you, but there absolutely is some differences in the philosophy and economy of both countries, and others that have used the system. China, for example, used the system in the beginning to technologically revolutionize their country from every angle, creating infrastructure and ppublic projects. Now, they just use it to fill the pockets of government officials. Nazi germany, however, built up that connection with their industry for the expressed purpose of expansion, of warfare. Next to none of it went to things that would actually impact the public positively, most went to internal infrastructure for the purpose of supply lines and industry, or to making weapons and supplying armies. One used a similar (but not the same) economic for bettering their country... which ended up having a huge toll on life, and while it made them a huge economy, now that money goes to the government. The other used a similar system with the expressed purpose of nationalistic expansion, of warfare. And at the very least, that tells you they are very much not the same. But it really isn't. Liberals today, actual liberals not, the people you call liberal, but actual liberals don't want to destroy capitalism, they want to reform it. Even literal marxists, or more libertarian leftist ideologies that I ally myself with, don't literally want to take away your freedom, they want to give it to you another way. And no, i'm not talking about freedom in heaven or some nonsense retort. The problem is every ideology thinks they're doing those things, and yours is no different. And just like them, yours has flaws. I need you to ask yourself, seriously, what freedom means, because I don't see it. Is freedom really dedicating your entire life to a market? We spend our entire lives pouring our effort into this one thing that consumes every aspect of our time. On of the questions most asked to children is "what do you want to be when you grow up?" And if they say something that isn't' a"useful" job, if they say artist, or sports star, we sadly smile and tell them to try really hard, but that they might want to shoot for something a little more realistic. Our entire lives, from second one, are structured to revolve around how we'll benefit the market. Does that not raise any concerns with you? At all? Is that freedom for you, the freedom to live only to work? Doesn't seem like it to me, but what do I know, i've only been doing this shit for my entire life. Why is government oppression the only kind we should worry about?
    1
  1107.  @kitrichardson5573  (part 1/2, sorry)And I would agree, it seems a huge part of this debate is over simply the application of basic terms, which I have the issue with. I'll get more into this later, but the problem with defining terms is that you must try to stick to their historical application, their ideological foundation, and well as contemporary usage. If you don't you might get a definition that would have made sense 100 years ago, or an application that doesn't line up at all with the usage of it. And that last one is, in my opinion, the big problem. I've said this before, to TIK a few times and perhaps even to you, though i've forgotten - terms change. Definitions change. But the meanings being referenced do not. An apple will always be, well, an apple, no matter what you call it. Language could change utterly, we could use the word somewhat differently, and we could say that a "green apple" is now a term referencing a pear. But there will still always be green apples, and if you call both a green apple and a pear "green apple," eventually another term will be found to solidly distinguish the two. And I agree, my post was a bit all over the place, mainly because I try to response line by line rather than digesting the whole thing and writing an qually disjointed response trying to cover it all, or worse missing something to refute. And yes, I know the term epistemology. I've mentioned this a few other places, but i'm currently getting through a masters in history, I got my BA in Secondary Education a while back. I'm not a complete novice to this stuff. "And I think that’s fine so let’s look up the word socialism:" Let's. And I will take your definition here, but would just like to point out that dictionaries often have an issue of focusing on contemporary usage over historical definitions, but I think this one does a well enough job. Just in the cases of defining things like "anarchy," your first result will be a synonym of chaos and only later will you find some theories on the societies of anarchism. Anyway, not that important. And here's the core mix-up. Social, as a term, does not mean public, nor does it mean government owned. Let's see a definition of "social ownership." "A form of collective ownership in which the control and organization of an industry, company, etc., are shared, especially by its workers or by the community at large." https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/social_ownership Now, the thing is, there absolutely can be socialist countries or socialist societies that do have full government influence/control over all industries... however that isn't the only step. To put that into perspective, some of the first really influential self-proclaimed socialists, like Proudhon, fought monarchy before capitalism. Monarchy is a system where there is full state ownership of all industry, yet it's been universally hated by socialists, and is (at least in my experiences) almost an insult used by socialists, calling wealthy people monarchs or feudalists. So there's problem number one, it isn't just state ownership, because socialists pretty clearly dislike just that. Any state that only has the state in charge of the industry, and not in any capacity the people, is not socialist. Rather, it is social control of the means of production, as in the control from either society as a whole, localized communities, or in cases the industry is just democratically owned by those who operate it. It can be done through the lens of the state, through state nationalized industries either being given to the people, or having a representative/democratic state that makes those decisions. It can also be done without the state, either through unions/collective bargaining (which hitler and mussolini both outlawed unless they agreed fully with them, which kind of defeats the point) direct democratic ownership, or even without a state at all through mutual aid. Socialism can be libertarian, in fact the word libertarian originally referenced socialists and anarchists, before the american libertarian capitalist movement, where Rothbard even remarked on how the meaning of the term has changed. Socialism is not always authoritarian, or even statist - but it must put the means of production in social hands, the hands of the proletariat, the hands of the people as a whole. That's the key, after all, that socialists want the people as a whole, the proletariat, to take up the reigns of industry. That is one of the things that unites all socialist theory. That is, after all, why marx called for a "dictatorship of the proletariat." No, not a literal dictatorship of a single person, but rather the rule of the proletariat as a whole over the government. Something akin to a direct democracy. And you may say, "well that's just marxist socialism." but it really wasn't. The theory had been shared by libertarian socialists, statist socialists, democratic socialists, communalists, pretty much every type of socialist, communist, or anarchist... until the prussian socialists, an ideology that didn't even take it's name from socialism, but rather from the root "social," relating to "*our* society." It was a right wing, social darwinist nationalistic ideology, that proposed a division of corporation and state, to enrich and guide the private sector for the betterment of those who could rise to the top. So not really socialism in anything but name. And, undoubtedly, it was influential on adolf hitler. Similarly, kim jong un as you mention isn't really a socialist, nro does he claim to be, he claims to follow Juche, a loosely related ideology. Neither was Mussolini, as not only proven by my past explanation of the definition, but the fact that the fascist party found itself at constant odds with the assorted socialist parties, (before outlawing them) allied with and was praised by classical liberals like Mises (who was incidentally a head economist at another fascist country, and served under the dictator long before Dolfuss actually took power) and Alberto De Stefani, the head of the Ministry of Finance in fascist italy. That, and constant other conservative connections/appeals. I would recommend reading the short essay "Ur-Fascism," it's by a guy who survived fascist italy and recounts how it's ideology, alongside other ideologies at the time, were structured. https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf So, no, the means of production were not socially owned, rather state owned, and we've already talked about how the two are very much not the same. But yes, state capitalism is a term worth going over. State capitalism I think gets some drawback because of the term "capitalism," but it isn't some contemporary marxist ploy, it was actually a term used by figures like Mussolini and Lenin. However, i'll be calling it "state dirigisme," a synonym, from now on, mainly because people see the term and call it an oxymoron, attacking the etymology rather than the actual system.This, I think, is the strongest argument as for mussolini or hitler actually being socialists, and even then it falls apart. You see you may or may not be familiar with it, but marx said the "full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization." In other words, you need powerful capitalism before transitioning to socialism. Marx saw this to mean that people would likely revolt in capitalist countries, and that those pieces of infrastructure found in there would be key to the developing of a socialist society. Later thinkers however, like lenin, decided that instead of revolting in a country where that level of industrialization already existed, as it did not, they would rather make a "tactical retreat from socialism." and establish a state-capitalist system, known as the NEP. The NEP made it so that the government had to stay out of certain actions, like farming, and mandated that private property be owned and operated by those farmers. They also did this with many other types of worker, and if those workers had merit, they would take position in government, and would be called NEPmen. Hell mate, they opened up their stock market for foreign trading. IT was a system where "private property, private enterprise, and private profit largely restored in Lenin's Russia," (that's from Gregor's book onMarxism and Fascism.) Now, this wasn't free-market capitalism, but it certainly wasn't socialism, by lenin's own admission, and the anger of his socialist counterparts in the party. This system had that fusion of private and public power, wherein the government would supplement the private market, but would also push it towards certain goals. It was only at the end of this system, around 1929, that things like the 5-year plans began to take effect. I say this, because it's a somewhat compelling argument for hitler and mussolini, to be socialists, as they both had very similar methods of production. And if they really were socialists, wouldn't they be doing this as well? However, it doesn't work, for a few reasons. For one, Lenin made it absolutely clear, both to his people and his party, that this was a temporary step away from socialism, to be able to step closer to it in the future. Within the system, he favored small business owners and farmers, artists, and trade workers. He used the wealth to build up infrastructure, and educate, feed, and clothe his people. Obviously, it was very, very far from perfect and was not a benevolent system, but it was an improvement, and was certainly better than what was to come. In contrast however, Mussolini and Hilter defined their ideology by these terms. This was not a step to them, it was the end goal. Here's hitler, for example.
    1
  1108. (part 2/2, again, sorry for the length.) "Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic" "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 from Mussolini - “Fascism (his self-labeled system) should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” You can see, he doesn't try to excuse the acceptance of private property or limited appeal to a market as a step towards a goal, as lenin does. This is his goal. Calling this "socialism" is like giving a 100 on a blank test. As for the intent, well that just about covers it, he didn't intend for this to be a stepping stone at all. Similarly, we can contrast the actual policies. The Nazis, for example, did the opposite of the russians - they targeted small business, outlawed the creation of any with under 200,000 in starting funds, and the continuation of any with less than 40,000. It was not the hard workers that made it into the party, it was the richest. It was the corporations who got the most out of it, and the little people who got the least, the opposite of the NEP. As well as that, the money from both Mussolini and Hitler's economy didn't go towards public works. When they weren't spent on camps (which, to be fair the soviets did do as well) they were spent solely on the military. They didn't really even try to give much benefit to even the conforming people. And those are some key reasons why even the economy of both systems were not socialist. They also accepted class collaboration as a theory over class struggle (you know, the foundational theory of even non-marxist socialism) and thought that people being rich and powerful was utterly fine, as long as they worked for the beenfit of "the race" or "the nation." Really, whoever was left after the non aryans, gays, disabled people, leftists, ect were kicked out.Now on to the other bits. Well, as we've just discussed, there's more than just individual ownership and state ownership, but small point. Mate, two things - one, venezuela doesn't even fit your definition of socialism, their economy is around 70% private.(https://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/a165136.html) I don't even think they really fall under state dirigisme, it's more just an economy with a few key nationalized industries. For two, sure, the economy and Chile are doing well... but you realize an economy is a means to an end, right? This is another debate, but the economy, the market, are only here because we think it's the best way to help people. While the economy might be thriving, it doesn't really matter much if the people are starving and being thrown out of helicopters for thought crimes. When your inspiration called for a dictatorship or praised mussolini, you economy doesn't matter that much. Same with hayek, I disagree with him. If you have economic "freedom" but no personal freedom it's a useless system that doesn't even accomplish the core goal of capitalism, the betterment of society through individuals own rational self interest. It's just market for it's own sake. The thing is, it doesn't always turn out that way, sometimes the efforts of communists and socialists turn out grand. For example, unions like the Black Knights and AFofL are the reasons we have shorter weeks, democratic senate elections, and more workers rights. The socialist and communists radical abolitionists of the republican party like Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, Charles Dana, or Horace Greeley did a hell of a lot of good work in freeing the slaves, and the later civil rights movement headed by socialist MLK Jr. and communist Malcolm X could not be understated. You hear about socialists every day, Albert Einstein, Van Gough, Hellen Keller, Nelson Mandela, ect and hardly even know it. I would call those some pretty positive socialist movements. Yes, systems that have attempted socialism have failed horribly in the past, but when looking at those cases individually you find often that it's more complicated than just "socialism." Hell, the USA (biggest economy/military in the world) has been waging a passive and active war against socialist and communist countries/leaders since the end of WW2. You don't think that had any effect? I'm not a socialist, but i'd say the best hope for socialism will come with automation. As jobs vanish, as they already are, we'll most likely have to lose the idea of some sort of competitive market for anything with non-subjective value, like art or entertainment. Alongside that, any drift towards fascism is a drift to the right. Come on, even TIK says that, he's just arguing that the Nazism isn't a type of fascism, somehow. And don't you pull out that "right = less government" nonsense, we both know that ain't it. Anyway, side rant, forgive me. Mate, I have to say a few things about this as well. Absolute power does corrupt... but power, and then corruption are not set definitions. Our first president had an opportunity to be elected for life. He did not take it. Corporations, on the other hand, i'd argue gain more and more power daily, yet we refuse to recognize it because even though we are born to serve the market, it only exists in the back of our mind. We're not really seeing much of a shift leftward at all, we're seeing a counterbalance take effect. When Obama identifies more with Reagan than Trump does, you know you've gone too far right. We're just evening it out. Corporations, like youtube, like media, don't hold or stop certain conversations because they have an ideological drive to. They do so because it's profitable. A system of true free speech is one where you don't need to be worried about being fired for your opinions, because your life is not tied to your income. Free speech is not being able to pay to talk over someone, or shutting someone up because it isn't profitable to hear them speak. Companies like youtube shut this down, not because they care about hate speech or anything like that, but because getting rid of potentially controversial viewpoints or figures is how they convince advertisers that their platform is suitable for those ads.The only incentive for these actions is the only incentive that seems to matter under a capitalist system - profit. Even the fake outrages, like with Gillette and Nike, are just free advertisement for them. Anyway, that's my take, and here's a fun little video going over that issue in a comedic way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg The problem is, when you label socialism not according to what people call it, or what socialists called it, but with the goal to say "this is not good," of course your definition is going to have same problems. You could be like TIK up there, who outright said to me that socialism is hierarchy, and that corporations and the power they hold is some form of socialism. At that point, you've made the term so useless that someone using that definition and an actual socialists might be both talking about their "socialism" but seem to be talking in completely different languages. I hate fascism as much as the next guy, i'm a bit of a critic of capitalism, and i'm no fan of monarchims or imperialism - but yet I still afford those terms my time and respect in accurately defining them, and if I find some discrepancy, I look further, and there is usually an answer. It would be so, so easy for me to point out cherry picked evidence and tell everyone that fascism is actually social darwinism only, which prides itself in meritocracy and the strongest rising to the top. Therefore, any system that attempts meritocracy is fascist in some form. But that isn't true, is it? Again, if I could push a button to just get rid of fascism I would, as would most people, but in order to do that, you have to actually respect the act of defining it. If not, you have a system like modern day america, where everyone left of the current american president is a socialist. Hell mate, biden is runnning to the right of trump on some issues and he's being called a socialist, of all people. Imagine if we used that carelessly thrown around word, or TIK's definition, and some guy rose to power and decided to purge all socialists. You realize how many would be caught in the crossfire? At the very least think of a situation like that, even though it's highly unrealistic, when you define terms. And I think most people would have much to say on that topic, but yeah I would agree, that was a bit to get through and I feel kind of bad for hoisting this big thing onto you, something i'll probably have to split up into two parts to fit in the comments. Anyway, thanks for the engagement, and I look forward to hearing from you as well. And don't feel the need to make it anywhere near this length, or even the length of your previous one, i'm just as fine with concise, even single-sentence rebuttals, as long as they're made in good faith.
    1
  1109.  @kitrichardson5573  I also feel it is worth pointing out, if in a very small way, this is shown in TIK obfuscates the definition of social ownership by proclaiming that any grouping of people holding power can be qualified as a state, and since socialism wants to give power to a group of people (all people, but whatever) it must by necessity mean statist totalitarianism, by reverse engineering the terms and slapping his definition in as a qualification for definitions already used and accepted in a very different manner. And that... just isn't true, because at that point you're calling anarchists totalitarian, and I don't know how much more crazy you can get than that. You then have that situation again, where your definition of a state, anyone who has any other position on the state, will find themselves in utter confusion when conversing, because his attack on the state is attacking something else entirely. That's kind of the overall issue of his point, when you call something socialism you unconsciously might start it to elate to the socialists of today, but TIK's definition of socialism and capitalism being "hierarchy" and "the pure individual" are not at all what those people are talking about, so any criticism levied at TIK's terms doesn't actually really impact them. Anyway, sorry for dragging on, this just didn't fit in the above posts and I thought it was something worth saying about the semantic issues that have come up in this debate, so that they can be put into perspective.
    1
  1110.  @kitrichardson5573  Ah, that's your source. Yeah well besides him not actually saying where he got that number, judging from his political affiliations and views i'd say it's probably from the black book, which has a few problems I'll quickly list here: It was denounced by all but one of it's authors (as well as the publisher), that author being one that was alleged to be obsessed with reaching that particular number by the others. It counts people were never born, or conceived, but rather as estimates of people who may have been born under much better (unrealistically so, considering the state of the world at the time) country, as in a country that would have somehow had a better quality of life than in america, despite being a feudalist nation only a few years ago. On top of that, they count soviet soldiers and civilians that died from the nazis in WW2, as well as soviet soldier deaths in concentration camps. It was also released as a direct parallel to the "Black Book of Soviet J*wry," a book talking of the nazi crimes against russian jewish people in WW2, and was meant as a rebuttal, and a whataboutism. Yes, a rebuttal. Of the deaths of the holocaust. For those reasons, and the fact that it vastly undercutted the amounts of nazi-caused deaths, it was called out as a borderline anti-semetic rant by the creators of the first book. It also had issues with some basic calculation errors, and historical errors, like what Peter Kenez (professional historian of eastern european history, as well as a Holocaust survivor) points out. "Werth can also be an extremely careless historian. He gives the number of Bolsheviks in October 1917 as 2,000, which is a ridiculous underestimate. He quotes from a letter of Lenin to Alexander Shliapnikov and gives the date as 17 October 1917; the letter could hardly have originated at that time, since in it Lenin talks about the need to defeat the Tsarist government, and turn the war into a civil conflict. He gives credit to the Austro-Hungarian rather than the German army for the conquest of Poland in 1915. He describes the Provisional Government as 'elected'. He incorrectly writes that the peasant rebels during the civil war did more harm to the Reds than to the Whites, and so on" As well as that, the greatest problem of the book is how it attempts to downplay the deaths from other ideologies, notably nazism, but more importantly even from capitalist systems at the same time, and one such criticism is outlined here. https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm I in no way want to excuse or erase the deaths perpetrated under this regimes, but it's almost disrespectful tobury the millions of actual dead under tens of millions more of fabricated numbers. Those people were real, and often ignoring them by creating bigger and bigger numbers desensitizes people to the actual horrors of genocide, and as it almost seems the book was written with the intent of, trivializes events with "smaller numbers" like the holocaust. If you want more of an unbiased look at the deaths of communism, I would try "Le Siècle des Communismes," although I don't know how easy it is to get an english translation. Anyway, didn't mean to make this last that long, but I thought it was worth pointing out. However, I think that after over two hours of writing all this, it's time for me to sleep. I'll see your response in the morning, if you have one out by then, and quite frankly that would be a superhuman feat I would not ask of anybody. Anyway, good luck, take your time, and don't be afraid to be pithy, something it seems I am not the best at. See you then. also, sorry if you get spammed with notifications, I had to post these a few times until they actually showed up. And sorry for the spam in terms of what I posted as well, I never go into these things trying to make them this long, but they always turn out that way. I just keep thinking of more things worth adding, and then that spirals into chaos. Don't feel like you need to respond to it all either, just whatever you want to. And also sorry for the obsessive apologizing, I suppose. In any case, i am looking forward to your response, just don't accidentally kill yourself by trying to get to all of my inane ramblings. See you then.
    1
  1111.  @kitrichardson5573  Ah, ok, well thanks for being up front about it. And I would certainly have fun being corrected, thought not much of what I said can really be corrected from what i've seen. In any case, have fun with that. I'm happy though, that you thin highly enough of my work to compliment it, and yet seem oh so willing to critique it. I like seeing that in a person. I'm also happy that you're taking the time to actually read through it, I could count certain others who would love to do anything but that. But yes, no tldrs, and please, take your time. I really don't have much better to do, do i? I mean really, we're arguing history in a youtube comment section, mid summer. I don't know if really either of us have better things. In any case, as i said previously, i'll be awaiting your response but, dude, don't neglect work or something just for me. Take your time, and i'll be happy to respond when i see it. Take care mate.
    1
  1112.  @kitrichardson5573  Of course, yeah. As I said before, just feel free to take your time, live your life, and if you're really that busy then I don't want to get in the way of that. But again, if it's really the kind of thing where you don't have time... like that's all good? Don't worry, you won't offend me by choosing to actually spend your life on important things instead of engaging with me online. In any case, best of luck.
    1
  1113.  @richardbonnette490  Why would you assume that? Your buddy there just ran away after he got owned in debate. Are you looking to do the same, given your clear hatred of factual history?
    1
  1114.  @richardbonnette490  and more assertions backed by nothing. not surprised.
    1
  1115.  @richardbonnette490  Literally all of your claims are backed wholly by propaganda. do you not see a problem with TIK's attempted denialism and redefinitions?
    1
  1116.  @richardbonnette490  I meant exactly what I said, hitler's support of non-social, non-public, private property, a sad fact of his regime. Far from an assumption, it's a simple piece of observable material reality. And i'm sorry, where do you get this claim of "redefinition" from? The only three notable times where there has been a mass movement to redefine the term 'socialism' is the first time, that established the definition of the term, when hitler claimed that his right wing social darwinistic nationalism was 'socialism,' and when the american right spearheaded a movement calling all leftism or even liberalism "socialism." The nazis were the ones that tried to redefine it, Stalin stuck t the definition while twisting his actions to claim he was working towards it. The claim that the nazis had "state control of production" is sadly false, and is completely laughable when one considers the actual reality of the nazis political and economic influences. And the very problem is that these sources are the ones that prove TIK wrong, while he is more than happy to use open propaganda to support his own "points." The original sources in question were the very reason that nobody at the time took seriously the notion that hitler was somehow a socialist. There was no "actual socialist state," nor did hitler desire it. The only way to argue that is to either purposefully ignore the history of hitler's reign or change the definition of socialism, both of which TIK has attempted. Nazism is a form of fascism, and while italian fascism and german fascism are distinct in many ways that does not change the ways that they, and exclusively they, are similar and that set them apart. The issue is not a lack of primary sources, because of course said sources exist, the issue is with a lack of primary sources that TIK is willing to present. Sure, there's reasons to make the arguments TIK is, but none of them are based in a desire to deepen our historical understanding of the period. There have been countless who do exactly this, who survey not only the businessmen and economists but peer directly into the data itself, all while using the terminology appropriate at the time and updating the terms while keeping the concepts referenced consistent, and the vast majority find radically different results than TIK. This is because TIK does not use historically or contemporarily correct definitions or terminology, does not care about the economic data, he wants to make an ideological argument. That's why he has to label so much as marxist or communist propaganda, because any objective sources that prove him wrong just won't do. TIK, for all of his ranting and accusations, is just historically false. The historical trends in question show an economy in which the nazi state was present, and yet not in direct or indirect control, and they did not have desire to change this. TIK tries to twist this fact, conflating nazi ideology with nazi state, talking about hypotheticals and potentials rather than real actions, and so on. The historical sources in question explicitly rebuke the idea of supposed "control of private property ownership" being some widespread reality under the nazis. The kicker is, hitler wasn't considered a socialist. While a tiny sect of those (overwhelmingly staunch capitalist ideologues) invested in the issue attempted to paint hitler as some sort of socialist through their years, their attempts never gained steam, as the opposing evidence was just too great. That has only changed now, decades later, where misinformation spreads like wildfire and nobody bothers reading the actual history. So no, the nazis were never considered socialist compared to the other western systems of economy and government, that is a modern assertion. And I hate to break it to you but he didn't "not bother" to debate me, he had a debate with me and failed it spectacularly and then disengaged when that was clear. No need to defend that notion. It's far from a break in discussion, it was a clear cut removal from the discussion altogether. Not to say I blame him though, these discussions are largely useless because the historical consensus is not changing any time soon. This isn't some case of a simple misunderstanding, you've made your assertions and i've pointed out how hopelessly incorrect they are. What more must be said? Not much I personally think. I understand your position, and you understand mine.
    1
  1117.  @OUTERPANGEA  It is, yes, as i've proven time and time again, though one so willfully ignorant as yourself of course wouldn't admit this.
    1
  1118. @Wrong Opinion cry harder
    1
  1119.  @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
  1120.  @mitscientifica1569  MIT, why do you keep lying to defend hitler, when your denialist nonsense has been debunked time and time again?
    1
  1121.  @mitscientifica1569  MIT, stop with your denialism. Hitler hated marx more than you.
    1
  1122.  @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
  1123.  @mitscientifica1569  Child, just stop being a denialist.
    1
  1124.  @mitscientifica1569  cry harder
    1
  1125.  @mitscientifica1569  Oh, i'm more than willing to talk about the tens if not hundreds of millions that the far right anti-socialist hitler caused. Why do you continually try to minimize them, to make false equations, to defend them? I wonder
    1
  1126.  @mitscientifica1569  you just can’t take the fact that the evil mass murderer Hitler and his party deployed anti-socialist policies to murder over 50 million people through their world war , just like the evil conservatives/monarchists throughout all of history murder together hundreds of millions of their own people, which you support.
    1
  1127.  @mitscientifica1569  Evil mass murderer hitler, who killed far more than just 50 million (there's your denialism slipping through again) never deployed socialist policy of any sort. He, like you, hated socialism, and sought to violently purge it from the world. And you know this. The reason you try to distance yourself from him, in turn minimizing or denying his crimes, is because you know how similar you two are. No, child, one is not "just like" the other, and by saying so, you are defending the nazis. By constantly defending, minimizing, downplaying and denying the crimes of the nazis through false comparisons, denialist lies and denialist minimization, you are propagating nazi ideology. No, child, they never desired nor put in place socialist policies of any sort. You keep trying to equate them to random figures you call socialists, often minimizing the crimes of the nazis, because you know that the reasoning the nazis used to justify their crimes is baked into your ideology. You have been debunked MIT, all the sources effortlessly prove you and your denialist nonsense wrong. Your ideology is deeply evil, and you divert from this by claiming that hitler was "just like" his victims. You are a denialist and apologist for the far right anti-socialist nazi regime.
    1
  1128. ​ @mitscientifica1569  Child, the evil far right anti-socialist mass murderer hitler killed far more than 50 million (there's your denialism slipping through again) and he, like you, hated socialism, despised it, wanted it violently purged from the world. You claim hitler is "just like" his opposition and many of his first victims in order to distance yourself from hitler, which you need to do given the ideological similarities between you two. You just can't take the fact that your ideology is deeply evil, and led to the crimes of nazi germany, so you deflect from it, and blame hitler's actions on his own enemies. No, child, hitler is not "just like" his enemies and victims, and you trying to make hat comparison shows how much of a denialist you are. You'll do anything to downplay his crimes, apologize for and deny the worst of them, as long as it allows you to attack ideologies he hated as much as you. Hitler was a far right anti-socialist, that deployed said far right policies to murder tens if not hundreds of millions. All you do in your responses is attempt to deny his crimes, attempt to rewrite them if not erase them altogether. Your ideology is deeply evil, and it formed the basis for hitler's movement. You constantly apologize for, defend, and deny the worst of the nazis, because you know deep down that you two are not at all different. I'm sorry MIT, but you've been debunked, all the sources prove it. And, knowing that, your motivation for your apologia becomes quite transparent. Hitler never deployed socialist policies, nor is he at all comparable to socialists, especially in the positive light you paint him in. You are a denialist and apologist for the far right anti-socialist nazi regime, and you'll do anything to hide that fact.
    1
  1129.  @prithvisukka9271  Why do you assume I didn't watch a video that I clearly did?
    1
  1130.  @prithvisukka9271  This is exactly my point. After I proved you wrong, you shifted the goalposts, and in order to attempt to make your silly assertion, you've had to lie about hitler's policies, lie about his ideological goals, attempt to rewrite the definition of the term "socialize," conflated private dealings with nationalization, conflated nationalization with socialism, and so on. Your argument is build off of so many false assumptions and lies, it's utterly meaningless and not at all based in reality. Hitler's policy was to privatize, in order to better appeal to private owners, since private property was a part of his ideology, and as such he praised it. To him, the private market was just another part of the ideology, and as such, he bribed them with voluntary, competed-over contracts, to get them on his side. Not "puppets," not "nationalization." He never had the goal of complete nationalization, certainly not after the war.
    1
  1131.  @prithvisukka9271  I "started it" by responding to you
    1
  1132. @ Good job proving my last comment wrong.
    1
  1133. @ I’ve been hearing years of that cope, bud. If it were true, y’all wouldn’t still be here desperate to make me agree.
    1
  1134.  @Isildurwasbetrayed  Yes, that would go a long way towards explaining why you seem unwilling to respond to entire pages worth of counter arguments in this thread alone, and prefer to posture instead. What a piece of wonderfully unintentional self-exposure.
    1
  1135. @ Maybe this is hard for you to understand, having refused to read through my arguments yourself, but I did. Literally years ago. Some of us actually bother responding to points.
    1
  1136. @ and so we’re right back to the intellectual rigor I was expecting.
    1
  1137. @ bud you can’t even make the supposed ways I’m “wrong,” at some point you have to admit saying “watch the video” to someone who already has is just a strategy to dismiss any argument you can’t counter otherwise
    1
  1138.  @Isildurwasbetrayed  Ok, done, years ago as stated, now what? Hell, do you even have a reason to believe I haven't watched it beyond a bunch of other people trying to claim the same thing, only to be met with counter arguments you don't even seem capable of admitting exist?
    1
  1139.  @Isildurwasbetrayed  Or... maybe, though you may never have put in the thought to consider it, you might just be wrong. Good talking to you, think on it.
    1
  1140.  @Isildurwasbetrayed  There's the wit I was waiting for.
    1
  1141.  @Isildurwasbetrayed  Good talking to you bud.
    1
  1142.  Raptor Jet  Except I do understand it - I proved you wrong
    1
  1143.  Raptor Jet  This is a copy pasted insult that you've used not once, not twice, but three times before.
    1
  1144.  Raptor Jet  Exactly, people like you will never grow and understand, because they refuse education. How do you think humanity learns and grows intellectually ??? Through reading the great works of those that came before us , empirical experiences, and critical thinking, which you are not capable of doing because you a captive of your ignorant narrative and your right wing pro-nazi propaganda.
    1
  1145.  Raptor Jet  Its ok, you can admit I won
    1
  1146.  Raptor Jet  The cope is evident. I proved you wrong.
    1
  1147.  Raptor Jet  LMAO HOLY SHIT, DUDE YOU LITERALLY QUOTED A GUY WHO WOULD HAVE CALLED YOU A NAZI. Your god is ignorance. Marxism isn't a god, and you are simply a child who does not yet understand the world. You've been fed propaganda, kid. Wake up, grow up.
    1
  1148.  @mitscientifica1569  I'm sorry child, but this is simply false. Hitler hated marx more than you did. "'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the J** 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. .'" "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.” So, as always, you are a liar. Hitler attempted to use allusion to marxism when marxism was popular for political gain, however, he denied it later when he actually got into power.
    1
  1149.  @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
  1150.  @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
  1151.  @Drewbie176  And yet it isn't your opinion I care about. I care about facts, history, events, and statements actually worth my time to respond to. The random insults of a guy that can't handle a debate really aren't my top priority in terms of time, and i'm sure you understand. Have a good one, find an argument next time.
    1
  1152.  @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 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
  1153.  @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
  1154.  @tylerbozinovski427  anarchism is literally inherently left wing by any definition, the right cannot be anarchist.
    1
  1155.  @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
  1156.  @tylerbozinovski427  Wrong on all counts. Left does not refer to "collectivist tendencies," but to an opposition of hierarchy and authority. "Libertarianism" doesn't have much to do with either side. Anarcho-communism is a form of anarchism, "Anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism because it was explicitly created in an attempt to redefine the term. Simple. You need to be more than libertarian to be an anarchist.
    1
  1157.  @tylerbozinovski427  Because political figures lie? Not that hard to understand. Right wing "anti-establishment" "populists" more often than not just want to set up the same system, just with them in charge and more authoritarian. Sad but true.
    1
  1158.  @tylerbozinovski427  Sure, not all leftists are anarchists, but all anarchists are leftists. Also, opposition to hierarchy doesn't just mean opposing the current establishment, it means opposing the very rules and hierarchies said establishment abuses to exist. Nobody "planted" some idea in my head, that is literally just the definition of left and right, the right protects hierarchy and the left opposes it. Even the most authoritarian left wing systems promise to reduce hierarchy now to utterly abolish it later. Again, left vs right is not collectivist vs individualist, especially given the fact that the left essentially founded individualism and the right is more collectivist than ever. Anarchism can be both individualist and collectivist, but is always left wing. Also, anarchism inherently excludes certain systems of economics, so no, they aren't utterly unrelated as you trey to assert.
    1
  1159.  @tylerbozinovski427  You "have no reason" because you have no desire to look for one. Hate to break it to you, but both the right and left lie, it just so happens that the right loves lying about this topic, since its far more relevant to their modern operations than anything the left has going on. An eye for an eye helps nobody.
    1
  1160.  @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
  1161. @IL NGR It's ok, you can say it out loud. They were in the republican party.
    1
  1162. @IL NGR Wow you're a big fan of assertions huh. Again, I have to remind you, the switch had started long before that. This is an undeniable fact of american history.
    1
  1163. @IL NGR As I said before, you can't just blame people teaching history you don't like on them being wrong. We get it, you don't agree with history as it happened, and feel the desire to blame that instead on those who teach it to you.
    1
  1164.  @jamiengo2343  Does it change what name he ran under? No. Do they then get the claim someone politically opposed to them? I would say no.
    1
  1165.  @randomuser5609  The problem is, that "oppression" rarely actually, you know, exists. The myth of academia squashing conservative thought is a long used one, but is found utterly unsubstantiated. The vast majority of my teachers were conservatives, and I don't even live in a particularly conservative area. The problem is, we don't teach facts before ideology, and conservatives tend not to like when the former disproves their latter. The problem with contrarian ideology is that it doesn't work. The reason things are taught is not because of some secretive mob trying to indoctrinate kids, it's because it's generally understood information and useful to know. If teaching kids facts influences their politics... ok? Yeah, I know, but there is no brainwashing going on. To call things like america conservatives moderates is a compliment i'm not at all willing to afford them, because it doesn't work. Should we not "indoctrinate" kids into a belief? Yes. Is that what is actually literally happening? No, not really.
    1
  1166. @IL NGR Oh, buddy. This is sad. Not only do you have to lie, but you can't even do it well. You know we can actually check all of this stuff, right? And that every time you lie further, you dig yourself into a deeper hole? It wasn't just his organization, and there were two letters. One was a congratulations on winning the election and an endorsement, and the second was an anti-slavery piece. His ambassador didn't just say that, did he though? He quite literally said that lincoln was aware of marx, and cared about his perception of him. After all, Marx had been writing for the republicans for a good long while now. Is it possible that this is all fluff, and that none of it's true? Yes, that is possible. Is it likely? Not really. Marx wasn't some obscure writer in london remember, he was the european correspondent to the first republican newspaper. Did I ever call it socialist? Amazing. You're really good at these strawman arguments. I quite literally gave you the name of a famous socialist, that you promptly ignored. Shall I list more? Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, Charles Dana, and of course Horace Greeley... the list goes on. Oh, these were all republicans or working for republicans in official government positions, by the way. This is history, like it or not.
    1
  1167. @IL NGR I never said lincoln was a socialist, I said quite the opposite in fact, that he might have been a dem. I gave you the evidence, and now you're denying it,because you don't like history. I already corrected you on this. Marx did write for the paper, and it doesn't at all matter why he did it, but he was a well known figure among republican journalists for that very reason, his anti-slavery work for the tribune. Lincoln himself never wrote back,but his ambassador did, with kind words and some interesting confessions. Marx endorsed lincoln, which is further proof of lincoln being left wing. The ambassador that wrote back said that lincoln was aware of marx. Marx wasn't obscure, he was one of the only european correspondent and wrote for the paper often. All of this points to what I said being true, and i'm sorry to say, you being false. Hell, you remember that organization that wrote the letter? It was literally a socialist union. Was marx known for what he is today? No, but he was still a prominent leftist.
    1
  1168. @IL NGR Yes, which is because he was a staunch abolitionist, and wanted the slaves freed instantly.
    1
  1169. @IL NGR That says "should" mate, not "are." Might want to check that.
    1
  1170. @IL NGR 1. Personal views tend not to influence teachings. 2. I wonder why that is...?
    1
  1171. @IL NGR Well,maybe you should actually listen to what i'm literally saying mate. Let's go over it one more time. Lincoln was part of the left wing party.That party, republicans, had a notable socialist presence in the 1800s. The socialist movement of the 1800s was pretty much just in the republican party.
    1
  1172. @IL NGR You know tariffs were the equivalent to taxation back then,right? They supported huge public projects, welfare systems, land grants, regulation, taxation, ect.
    1
  1173.  @randomuser5609  In american school systems? Yes, I would say so. If anything here it's ironically the opposite, the mindset of proper education is being somewhat oppressed by some groups of conservatives,who want to go back to abstinence-only Sex-Ed and teaching creationism,though thankfully that faction is small. I cannot argue for other countries either, but yeah, that's the case here. I think that if that view is historically accurate, it should be taught,but I think if an equally historically accurate side is available they should be taught and contrasted as well. I think that the facts should be shown unadulterated. If those facts favor one "side," than so be it, but they tend not to. I think that if such views fit into historical discussions, then perhaps, but none of that really matters. If it's a debate about modern politics, or historical subjects, if both topics are equally true, they should both be presented, equally. I don't think giving people a certain perspective on history or a certain lean in terms of understanding that history is a bad thing, as long as it's done in adherence to the facts, and done in away to make children support them.
    1
  1174. @IL NGR Oh really? No, I gave you the names of prominent socialists, you actually have to prove that somehow all of recorded history is false. I want to see your sources, and if not, your reasoning. There was a socialist presence.
    1
  1175. @IL NGR I just told you. He was opposed to the things that large buisneses would do, when they would attempt to cheat Capitalism, and get something out of nothing, profit out of no work.
    1
  1176.  @corerlt  oh I agree of course. That's why I dislike it when conservatives like you try to pretend that the Democrats weren't the party of conservative slavery, and the republicans were the party of liberal abolition
    1
  1177.  @corerlt  Actually, the Democrats of 170 years ago are remarkably like the republicans of today. Right wing, white, religious, it all checks out. They loved their cops too back then, since the cops were, and still are, a racist force. You all make up stories about pedos and trafficking to deflect from your racism and hatred of anything that liberated minorities. Sorry, that's the truth. Conservatives have and always will be the ideology of racism, oppression, hierarchy and hatred, and we both know it. Now go cry elsewhere about it, child, since reality clearly is too much for you.
    1
  1178.  @adam_toddster5367  anecdotal evidence isn't evidence champ.
    1
  1179.  @adam_toddster5367  Studies are not anecdotal evidence, that's why they take from so many and often study observable things. You have not given me any of that.
    1
  1180.  @corerlt  No, i'm telling the truth. I know you hate it, your type often does, but its the truth. Everything i'm telling you is reality, and you want to revise it, which is why you get so defensive. You have no facts to back up your claim, which is why you resort to threats. I care about reality and truth, that's about all. You don't seem to care about those things at all. So, at the end of the day, you're just a lying pos with a keyboard.
    1
  1181.  @corerlt  see? Just proving my point. You can't argue with facts, so you try to do silly things like this.
    1
  1182.  @corerlt  Huh, funny. Because... i'm not a socialist. Nor, I suppose, is much of what you're saying at all true. After all, about 100 million people die due to capitalism every decade, and you're more than fine with that, in fact, you see that as preferable. The world is already dying, and its due to the rampant consumption of capitalism, , something you haven't quite figured out yet. You don't want to hear the truth, so you deflect. That's why you hate me talking so much, you want to silence me. The funy bit is, if you replace socialism with capitalism in your response, it makes much more sense. After all, its capitalism that is starving the world, and you couldn't care less. As i've said before, you can't even define socialism. You want me to "fight" you because you can't handle my words. I hate to break this to you, but you've been disproven at every turn. You can lie all you want, but we both know that you are wrong.
    1
  1183.  @moseschmidt  So you're a liar.
    1
  1184.  @moseschmidt  No actually, because its just a lie. Not reality in the slightest.
    1
  1185.  @corerlt  Ok, so you're a genocide denier. After all, the various genocides caused by capitalism kill far more than communism or socialism could ever hope to, and you're fine with that, it seems. "Nobody dies of capitalism?" How fascistic of you. Capitalism starves, beats, and freezes people, and you're absolutely fine with it. The only reason places like the US have enough to eat... is that we take it from other capitalist nations that no longer can support themselves. And yes, you threatened me. But please, continue to be one of those that can't see that every time capitalism has been tried, many millions die. You know you're wrong, and so do I.
    1
  1186. ​ @christsscourge  And yet you can't even give an example of this, you don't have an argument here, just a personal attack. That's actually pretty telling, you can't attack historical fact on actual historical ground, because that's been tried and failed so many times. I proved my points conclusively correct, and instead of actually addressing them, you do the same thing all the other failed arguers do - you back down to assertions that you won without evidence, and personal attacks. I'm sure that i'm not omnipotent, but compared to the drivel you people are spilling, i'm pretty sure that I am a lot closer. As I have reiterated time and time again (which you would know had you actually read my responses) I am not in favor of the dems, they are far from good, let alone perfect. And yet everything one can criticize them for, you find in equal or greater amounts among the republicans. I don't care what either group says, unlike you. And again, it is plainly apparent that you haven't actually stopped for a second to consider what I actually think. You're so caught up in your strawmen that you have already assumed my positions and decided to lump me into whatever group you dislike. And again, you're somehow taking the position that the republicans, who control the vast majority of the poorest and most segregated states somehow have less control over the poor or minorities? Again, you're calling yourself a centrist I assume, but you're outright lying to take the position of the republicans. Perhaps centrism shouldn't aim to take "both sides" when one or both are objectively wrong. The republican philosophy is not to "create opportunity," they often destroy opportunity, rather they prefer to throw people to the wolves and hope that those who survive are willing to lobby for the republicans later. The myth of "dependency" is literally just a republican talking point, it isn't a bipartisan or even apolitical reality. Again, you notice how you're skewing here? Exclusively to the benefit to one side? If we want to talk about dependency and power, you should look at the voter suppression in republican states. After all, what's a better way to get votes than to pretend that all the policies your enemies push for are for "dependence," rather than actually having a measurable economic and humanitarian advantage. Again, you are talking about "dems" as a whole group, of course ignoring those that literally marched with people like MLK Jr. You'll tactfully ignore the literal endorsements of the KKK instead, though. And again, my earlier point still stands. You want to talk about the prison industrial complex, or those bills? They were passed through bipartisan effort, and now the only people who actively oppose them are progressives, republicans just use those bills as weapons because they couldn't care less about race issues. You want to talk about cages, splitting up families, deporting record numbers? Oh of course Biden is responsible, but he still belongs to a party that has members that oppose it to this day. Trump? Oh, he's just accelerated it, and nobody is holding him responsible. Is this sad? I think you've shown your hand here.
    1
  1187.  Jetstom Ferrari  good news! There is socialism with individual liberty
    1
  1188.  @christsscourge  So you really can't admit you're wrong, can you? I mean, I literally corrected you on several issues, and your only response is (surprise surprise) more personal attacks. And I don't think you realize this but poverty entails a lot more than just basic income and living costs. After all, if it was just that and your assertions were correct, these states themselves wouldn't leech so much funding from other states, the people wouldn't need the most federal interference, the people would not be as uneducated and largely hopeless as they are. Of course its more expensive to live in California than say, Wyoming, but when places like Wyoming leech relatively far more funding, have far less educated people, and have much worse quality of life, you'd think that there were more forces at play. But of course that nuance is lost on you. Oh, also, there's a reason that more people own homes in places like Arkansas - its because the homes are worth so much less, not just because of the "different buying power," but because the state doesn't have the infrastructure to make any houses worth anything. Oh, and here we are again, a "Centrist" openly taking one side over the other. Anyway, are you serious? Do I really need to point out that throwing the poor to the wolves and pushing for the ability for, say, police to do whatever the hell they want in minority communities, isn't harmful to those respective groups?
    1
  1189.  @christsscourge  it's pretty apparent if you spend any amount of time researching the issues
    1
  1190.  @christsscourge  there are literally already links and sources within this thread, and within this comment section. If you can't find them, how is that my fault?
    1
  1191.  @christsscourge  do you have a source for that? It's simply false, so I want to catch you here before you embarrass yourself further.
    1
  1192.  @hiranmaydas4921  I mean, yes? Do they suddenly stop being physically bale to be racist because of their skin color?
    1
  1193.  @hiranmaydas4921  Oh I agree that the right wing is anti-individualist, but that isn't the issue now, because we're literally talking about racism. You can't deflect from that fact, no matter how hard they try. And Uh, yeah, if you hang around with people who actively spread racism, then you are complicit, and complicity helps racism spread. And that doesn't suddenly stop if your skin is a different color.
    1
  1194.  @hiranmaydas4921  Except i'm more politically informed than people like you would ever even want to be. I think the right is bad because of what they literally are, and literally do, not some dumb abstraction. I couldn't care less about the left, or most labels really, but I doubt you even understand the beginning of that. People like you are "politically ignorant", that's what you are. You are the only reason why there is so much divide among people.
    1
  1195.  @hiranmaydas4921  It's not hypocrisy when i'm just proving you wrong. What was your point, that I don't like the right wing? Yes, congratulations, and I have good reason. And yeah, hate to break it to you, but when the average "centrist" agrees with the right over the left 90% of the time, well then they aren't really centrists are they? You saw that above, but I guess it didn't actually get through to you nearly well enough
    1
  1196.  @hiranmaydas4921  Again, you're not pointing out hypocrisy, even if what you were saying is true. And luckily for me, it isn't, you're literally just creating strawmen and attempting to knock them down, and you can't even really do that well. Anyway, again, if someone claims to be a "centrist" but exclusively attacks or defends one side, then they aren't a centrist, its as simple as that. So if you align with the right on nearly every issue, as supposed centrists seem to, then they are not centrist at all but right wingers afraid of commitment. In any case, not sure where you got the "only my opinions" matter bit, that's your strawman, but yes (one more time) if a "centrist" agrees with the right on nearly everything, then they are right wing. It really is that simple, and easy to prove you wrong. Political illiteracy at its finest, hypocrite.
    1
  1197.  @hiranmaydas4921  I agree, you are a stunning example of hypocrisy and political illiteracy, but I doubt you were self aware enough to realize it there. Why are you so angry? Is it because you don't even believe yourself? Work on that.
    1
  1198.  @alexandertoro-quinones9984  Dude, CT isn't "far left," it's literally conservative.
    1
  1199.  @alexandertoro-quinones9984  And? Did I say "republican?" No, I said conservative.
    1
  1200.  @Stein871  even if that were true, don't you think that says something about conservatism
    1
  1201.  @Stein871  You mean that most conservatives are low-earning laborers, farmers, minimum wagers, ect, while it seems that the further left you go, the more people tend to want to get educated, help others, become doctors, and so much more. You ever wonder why that is? Why one political side seeks to help the world and help others, and the other side seeks to be selfish, and cannot succeed without doing that. Perhaps instead of blaming liberals for seeking to educate themselves and others, ask why conservatives so despise getting educated or helping people.
    1
  1202.  @Stein871  I did actually read the comment, which was I was easily able to refute your "points." Your continual refusal to recognize that conservatives tend to be far more selfish and uneducated is very telling. Just face it - the dumber you are, the more conservative you are. Hell, even in most companies, the vast majority of CEOs are liberals, just like the vast majority of scientists, teachers, charity owners, ect. Doesn't that tell you something? It should, but I doubt you're that smart.
    1
  1203.  @Stein871  First off, no you don't, conservatives couldn't care less about the individual. They want you to fit into groups, real or made up. "American," "Patriot," "Religious," "Straight," "White," "Conservative," and so on. In other cases, again, you're making excuses for the innate truth that conservatives are less educated, not just on more niche subjects, but everything. Don't you see your own cognitive dissonance here? If 95% of teachers are liberals, then the vast majority would have degrees and educations in math, science, english, history, ect. Which means that yes, they are far more educated than you, and you just hate admitting that. But of course what matters to you is a person being "useful," usually as a low-pay laborer, because bettering yourself as an individual beyond that is antithetical to conservatism.
    1
  1204. ​ @tdvwest9514 And I wonder why that system is in place, hm? After all, it isn't inherent in any way, we could very much change that if we want. The problem is, you and people like you have created a system in which you don't work to live, you live to work. And not even for yourself of course, you work for whoever is next highest up the ladder, and the very few at the top subjugate those beneath them. And again, smarted people have tried to "prove" such a "blatant bias," and always come up with the same results: left wingers are more likely to be educated, and more likely to selflessly devote their lives to something like teaching, with little reward. Hell, liberals aren't even left wing, what's your issue? And while I will note that its interesting your mind goes instantly to race, that comparison makes no sense. You assume an intrinsic value, one that cannot be changed, by saying that people of color must be uneducated in that case. In reality, as we can see in real life, the vast majority of the rich (especially in western nations) are white... but it isn't because non-white people are uneducated, its because getting rich has more to do with connections and investments that go back decades into the eras of open discrimination, the effects of which we can still feel this day. You see the issue? And again, you're literally coming at it from the wrong point of view, again. For one, no, conservatives are not "cancelled." People use their right to free speech and association to ignore conservatives, or mock them. Nothing wrong with that. The "elites" (nice framing there) tend to be more liberal (while still appealing to conservatives) because they've figured out that liberal policies further their goals. The problem isn't how the left (or what you call the left) sees the right as, the problem is what the right sees itself as, because frankly the right does not understand its own position. And if skin and religion have not much to do with a party choice, then why is it why so many whites vote republican, as opposed to the more diverse line-up of democratic voters? Is that all pure coincidence? Or can you admit that, in fact, republicans have been purposefully appealing to those types of people for decades now, because they know that those people will respond, and vote republican.
    1
  1205.  Jetstom Ferrari  Copy pasting doesn't make an argument. Copy pasting lies makes less of one.
    1
  1206.  Jetstom Ferrari  copy pasting will never equal a point
    1
  1207.  Jetstom Ferrari  I'm sorry for daring to point out your idiocy, and judging by your reaction, it hit home
    1
  1208.  Jetstom Ferrari  citation? nonexistent. Nice try, kid.
    1
  1209.  Jetstom Ferrari  Exactly, and yet you leave so much context out. It's why you know you're wrong
    1
  1210.  Jetstom Ferrari  Aww, and more copy pasted insults. You literally already used those against me. Or did you forget?
    1
  1211.  Jetstom Ferrari  Can you even type without crying?
    1
  1212. "quite a hissy fit" says the literal raging child
    1
  1213.  Raptor Jet  do you ever tire of proving yourself wrong?
    1
  1214.  @mitscientifica1569  Nope, as being right wing is a key necessity of fascism.
    1
  1215.  @lexlex44  "Um actually, correctly identifying fascism is fascist." No, child, correctly pointing out historical facts isn't trying to shut down people from talking. They are free to talk, and we are free to point out the history of the right wing movement of fascism. Sorry, but you trying to argue with me here, by your own logic, is literally fascism. Basically, you are a fascist, trying to silence me by saying i'm wrong. Deal with it!
    1
  1216.  @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
  1217.  @mitscientifica1569  Yes, someone who is wrong. You've quoted them before.
    1
  1218.  @patrickwinter7623  Nope, the nazis did not believe in command economies.
    1
  1219.  @paulrevere2379  Amazing. When faced with the truth, your only option is to deflect back to that demon socialism that you clutch your bible against. You live in a right wing country, one that has never valued freedom and fails further to value it to this day. Socialism has nothing to do with that, never has. Take accountability for the abject failure of your ideology. The problem is, self proclaimed "freedom loving people" are often those that reject freedom the most, and simply call the ability to espouse only their views and dominate/harm others "freedom." True freedom-loving individuals have no desire to associate with you. Insults won't change that reality. You are free to decry socialism as your personal demon worthy of exorcism, but to the rest of the world, it's just an ideology, an ideology, yes, getting more popular because your ideology has failed, and is failing. I am no socialist and even I can see this. The reward of a capitalist is naught but envy, the need to push further, beyond what could ever be considered sane or rational. Your misery has no place here.
    1
  1220.  @paulrevere2379  Oh don't worry, i'm well aware you don't subscribe to any ideologies that hold freedom in any high regard, as you can't even manage that yourself. No, freedom is an ideology, one you explicitly deny. And Emerson, you mean the near-primitivist, transcendentalist anti-capitalist? Amazing fellow, his own observations provided an early basis for my beliefs. And he was right, the envy of capitalism and the freedom it claims to nurture are incompatible. Where is the envy in simply asking for the full product of your labor? In daring to request that the work you do, should be decided on by you, and primarily benefitting you? Envy is the motivating force of capitalism, that, and violence. And they dare to call someone merely asking for the product of their own work jealous. Those who believe in some god that takes the world blind are, of course, envious. Envious of those that don't share their hellish beliefs, envious of those that are happy simply with their lives, envious of those that don't need a god to determine morality. No, your type despises freedom, and your adherence to a god of absolute force and power only proves that. To combat one's thought of envy is to combat one's desire for greed to the harm of others, and thus, to purge the very basis of capitalism from their thoughts. To live a life free of envy is to reject capitalism, and to reject the notion to impose it on others against their consent. Socialism is not forcibly control, or denial of personal freedoms, unless you consider the ability to harm and steal from others a "Freedom," in which case yes, that is discouraged. In a capitalist society, a person cannot decide for themselves how to order their lives. They must feed into the system, must bend to the wills of the market and private society, and cannot advocate any alternative without being called "sinful" or "envious" by the likes of you. Your very system is one that constantly, day in and out, restricts the freedoms of others. It is, after all, this system that has led to "the idea of big government/corporations." Take ownership.
    1
  1221.  @paulrevere2379  Oh, I'm well aware that freedom does not harm others. That is why, despite your insistence, the harm you impart on others cannot be called freedom, and cannot be excused by the goal of freedom. Capitalism is a system in which people's freedom is blocked, in temporary measures yes but most often permanent ones. Steal someone's labor and call it yours, you take away their freedom to own and operate their own means of production. Harm. Add to that the fact that capitalism is enforced through nearly solely state violence, and you get the picture. Forbid certain words or compel others, such as the statist or private political compulsion towards capitalism. Harm. Take away the right of citizens to move by mandating borders, currency and travel expenses and you take away a freedom of movement. All. Harm. Freedom does not harm. Capitalism is the result of freedom denied.
    1
  1222.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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
  1223.  @paulrevere2379  "Your scholarship is admirable" CAN YOU READ??? fucking hell you just proved my point.
    1
  1224.  @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
  1225.  @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
  1226.  @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
  1227. (he's the newspeaker, mate. His entire ideology, and the points he espouses, are literally self contradictory.)
    1
  1228.  @crimson6952  are you blind?
    1
  1229.  @TheImperatorKnight  Nice, except that isn't true. I've been reading over it, and it's all built on one big falsehood. Ste down from your ego.
    1
  1230.  @Inspector-Chisholm  A confession that i'm objectively correct and TIK refuses to engage reality in debate? Sure.
    1
  1231.  @radagast7200  What an amazing comeback. Really, i'm floored. You addressed all of my points and absolutely destroyed me in an argument, wow, holy crap! If only I knew someone as good at debating as you existed.
    1
  1232.  @radagast7200  Ah, this response. Where people know that they're wrong, and that their arguments don't work, but rather than address that you simply choose to pretend that's my fault. I'm steadfast in all of my points because nobody has managed to prove me wrong yet on a single one. Can you say the same?
    1
  1233.  @radagast7200  Nah, but you're supporting the arguments of those I argue against, which is what i'm referring to.
    1
  1234.  @radagast7200  By "laughing" at rational arguments you simply don't want to have to consider might be true. Sorry for being "obsessive" in regards to the truth.
    1
  1235.  @radagast7200  Oh don't worry, I've been honest this whole time, and there's no "socialist apologia" when I'm only discussing literal historical events. Perhaps you should stop trying to laugh at those combatting ahistorical nazi apologia? Just a thought :)
    1
  1236.  @radagast7200 Ah, and here it is. See? I knew you were supporting the ahistorical, nazi-apologizing lie that you are. No, sorry, one cannot "realize" that the nazis were socialists... because they weren't. I'm not a socialist, I have nothing to gain from defending socialism, but I am a historian, and I have something to gain from defending historical fact. The nazis, according to objective fact, were not socialists. Why are you so invested in trying to convince people that the far right anti-socialist nazis were Socialists? What do you lose when people remind you that they weren't socialists at all?
    1
  1237.  @gsmiro  Literally read this very comment thread, it disproves all of your cope.
    1
  1238.  @AverageAlien  why are you still denying reality :)
    1
  1239.  @AverageAlien  Child, I already have. And don't you remember what happened? Oh, yeah, you ran away after I debunked, demolished, destroyed your entire denialist cope. "A single part?" Child, your argument is lying in shattered fragments, which is why you keep running away. Cope, child. Cope.
    1
  1240. The one problem with that assessment of course being that the nazis weren't socialists.
    1
  1241.  @TheImperatorKnight  Mate, is this all you have now? Hearting comments on a month old video, committing fallacy because you've been debated into the ground and back? It shows a hell of a lot that I made the mistake to respect you before engaging with you, because now all you do is strawman arguments and complain to the few people who will fall for your nonsense that you have left. I have read their comments, and had the misfortune of watching the video, and I have found your frantic response to be sad. It shows that when you cannot engage in debate, you run to the few who still support you, and complain to them like that'll do anything. You didn't debunk anything, your entire argument is built on a fallacy, and instead of even trying to engage you try to censor them, drown them out, yell over them, call them names, and then... assume you've won. In fact, i assume if you bother to respond to this, it'll be in a similar manner. Dismissive, insulting, strawmanning.
    1
  1242. If this is the tactic of the modern socialists, then why are they the ones who have so clearly refuted TIK's point, and they are the ones he refuses to engage with? Why is it then, that it is TIK who is calling people names (Marxist, Denialist, Socialist, Nazi Apologist)? Why is it TIK who exclusively hearts the few who didn't watch the video and agreed with him, not for historical reasons, but because they came to this conversation (like him) with the conclusion already in mind? Why does TIK avoid all debates aside from to heart people he feels agree with him, and openly make fun of those actually trying to debate, all while instead of addressing his critics he builds strawmen and assumed he's won? Yes, it's happening everywhere. And you're helping to perpetuate it.
    1
  1243.  @MaharlikaAWA  Mate, if you got handed what you call "an entire book of a comment" and couldn't actually come up with a counter argument, dude, you might be in the wrong. Mussolini surrounded himself with Classical Liberals, Conservatives, and Religious people. He was kicked out of the socialist party for, you guessed, it, promoting anti-socialist ideals. He even described fascism, in his book "The Doctrine of Fascism," as a right wing political ideology. I think he has a reason to act superior if you're acting like this.
    1
  1244.  @MaharlikaAWA  Then perhaps read through the comments. Hell, he did it to me, it isn't that hard to find. I think you'll be surprised.
    1
  1245.  @MaharlikaAWA  Mate, do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? That's exactly what you just did, albeit with a much smaller "wall of text." You just said "well talking about the arguments being made isn't actually winning." Yes, gish galloping can be a tactic used, but you made a broad statement, and received a broad answer. IF you can't address that answer, then i'm sorry, but that isn't the fault of your opponent.
    1
  1246.  @MaharlikaAWA  I "assumed" that because according to all of the research I have seen and arguments i've participated in, he was right. I don't know how convincing his argument was, or what points he actually made, but do know that the conclusion he came to was sound. I don't care about how much he wrote, I wrote not a lot and still brought up some points worth consideration.
    1
  1247.  @infinitelegion3318  Ok? not sure what you're responding to.
    1
  1248.  @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
  1249. @Caporetto_1917 but... it wasn't. Yes, it's been said many times by denialists like yourself, but nazism has never been socialist. It literally has never met any dictionary definition of socialism.
    1
  1250. @Caporetto_1917 Again, you can repeat a lie all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Nazism was anti-marxist, but also anti-socialist, anti-leftist even. It could not, in any reasonable way, be described as remotely socialist. Marxism was perhaps the chief enemy of nazism, to the degree that even many capitalist nations were accused of being sympathetic to, or controlled by, marxism. "Marxist" was the label given to men, women, and children, in order to sentence them to death without ever giving a real reason, and you accuse them of being inspired by it? The little "inspiration" gained from Sorel was wholly based on organization and rhetoric, not ideology itself. You also seem unable to realize that the Völkisch movement was explicitly a hardcore conservative position, and that it explicitly rejected socialism. Hitler didn't see marxism-leninism as a "perversion" of socialism, he didn't see it as at all related to his usage of the term socialism. He was extremely open in saying that socialism, to him, meant simply "nationalism," and that the word carried no connection to the historical understanding of socialism when he used it. Socialism was not a "inferior version" of his ideology, but an enemy to it. While he spoke of opposing capitalism, more often this was just opposing nations that were openly capitalist, while appealing to both national and international private industry and industrialists. He hated internationalism, the aspect of capitalism that moved profits out of his country, and yet when capitalism served he country, he praised it, his own "productive capitalism." Of course, hitler's version of "socialism" was anti-socialist in all ways, and it failed to meet any dictionary definition of socialism. Of course it was not socialism in the marxist sense, nor was it socialism in the "race" sense, it was a right wing anti-socialist ideology.
    1
  1251.  @cidsapient7154  and thus, libertarian socialism absolutely can exist, and does.
    1
  1252.  @cidsapient7154  yes we've been over that. Good thing that you don't know what either word means then.
    1
  1253.  @cidsapient7154  So you don't know what "Collectivist' means, and are using it as a catch-all. Works wonders until you realize the inherent collectivism of capitalism and conservatism. Did that help you at all there, champ?
    1
  1254.  @cidsapient7154  But it already has, far beyond you stole the term. Another anglocentric worldview? Why am I not surprised.
    1
  1255.  @cidsapient7154  Again, proving my point for me. To try to equate them does nothing but minimize the crimes and the unique ideological evil of the nazis, makes them not an ultimate lesson in what not to do but "just another dictator."
    1
  1256.  @cidsapient7154  ah, random accusations with no substance. again, not surprised.
    1
  1257.  @cidsapient7154  Child, you continue to falsely correlate authoritarianism with socialism, and libertarianism with capitalism. This, of course, betrays your utter ignorance in these matters.
    1
  1258.  @cidsapient7154  And you the millions of deaths claimed by capitalists. but not even I would dare to claim that they were morally equivalent. There's a difference between apathy, incompetence, and active malice.
    1
  1259.  @cidsapient7154  And yet you constantly spend time advocating for a position that is, by your own definition, collectivist. It is a catch-all to you, completely useless in terms of actual political or conversational value.
    1
  1260.  @cidsapient7154  But it has, like it or not. "“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”"
    1
  1261.  @cidsapient7154  No, child. Because i'm not a marxist, just not someone as blinded by ideology as you are. Someone who can actually see history. Have you been reading anything i've said?
    1
  1262.  @cidsapient7154  Do you think that all criminals are equal, all crimes as evil and destructive as all other crimes? There's even a legal precedent for there being a clear moral difference. Manslaughter isn't murder, after all, certainly not of the first degree.
    1
  1263.  @cidsapient7154  Well i'm sorry to hear that, but that has little to do with the conversation at hand, very little at all. Many groups have been historically hated, excluded, discriminated against. Many even continuing to face that horrid behavior up into the modern day. But there has only ever been one hitler, and there has only ever been one act that tops them all in terms of evil, the one that defined his regime. To compare that to others makes his crimes so much easier for his modern ideological allies to defend.
    1
  1264.  @cidsapient7154  But i'm not. You said a bunch of random nonsense with no actual backing in reality. Insulting me doesn't change that fact, champ.
    1
  1265.  @cidsapient7154  But it isn't. Like it or not, historically, strains of socialism haven't been "inherently authoritarian." But as usual, your response is to make a random claim and fail to back it up. Libertarianism cannot be authoritarian, but it can, of course, be socialist. Hell, even the founders of modern "libertarianism" can admit as much. I can read, child. Apparently, far better than you.
    1
  1266.  @cidsapient7154  So you have no real response then, hm? Just "lol" and then you move right on. We've established that you don't like dealing with reality. My claim is present in the very comment you appear to have not read.
    1
  1267.  @cidsapient7154  An ideology that actually puts the individual before some abstract concept or group, be it religious, market-based, oligarchical, and so on. But that's a position that anti-socialists do not often take.
    1
  1268.  @cidsapient7154  Ah, so a deflection. Again, why am I not at all surprised. You realize that libertarian socialism, by definition, cannot make up the state of a country, right? And you think that quotes from the founders of modern libertarianism "means absolutely nothing?"
    1
  1269.  @cidsapient7154  No, child. I simply point out that they aren't anything like the nazis. These "marxist" regimes are characterized by political violence, repression, and failed policy. That's bad, certainly, but nowhere near purposeful worldwide ethnic genocide.
    1
  1270.  @cidsapient7154  I mean yes, I will proudly say that not all crimes are equal, and not all acts as evil as all other acts. Am I supposed to deny this? A shoplifter is not a murderer. A jaywalker is not a burglar. A torn-flag hanger is not an executioner.
    1
  1271.  @cidsapient7154  I have already, but then again, you probably knew that, didn't you? It's telling though, that you don't even seem confident in your own knowledge of the contents of the video... likely because you haven't watched it :)
    1
  1272.  @cidsapient7154  Because your version of "addressing" means quoting me, saying "no," and then ignoring responses. I've literally quoted people proving you wrong, from the movement you belong to. And you've done nothing but ignore it and walk away. Sad, it really is.
    1
  1273.  @cidsapient7154  I personally must confess to not seeing a tendency to tell the truth as something that needs "solving." But hey, looks like you haven't had to worry about that one for a while, hm?
    1
  1274.  @hermitthefrog468  Well, the simple problem is, they aren't following evidence and are creating historical propaganda to mold the future with this comment. I'd say that's worthy of taking credentials away, yeah
    1
  1275.  @coyote4326  You literally forgot how to spell "ad hominem" and are still somehow blaming this on me. This is genuinely hilarious, you're still stuck on a word you can easily google and find out how wrong you are about.
    1
  1276.  @Whiteqin  Well then stop looking for my comments on these videos and replying to dead threads? It's pretty damn simple, actually.
    1
  1277.  @zackfair6791  I mean, you're literally supporting a known liar, manipulator, and deceptionist, so i'm not exactly sure what high horse you're trying to be on? We get it dude, you're annoyed that its so easy to beat right wing shills in fair debates, since their ideas don't actually come with any sort of logical backbone. The fact that you openly admit to being ignorant yet still attempt to assert that everyone you disagree with must be wrong, proves my point instantly.
    1
  1278.  @coyote4326  Child, the reason you bowed out is because your nonsense got disproven. You can consider a fair debate that you lost a "waste of time," but it's clearly transparent the real reason you dropped out, that being that you don't actually know how to carry this debate, and don't have a single worthwhile point to make. And I wonder why I was arguing with you in two other threads, could it be because you responded to me with some utter nonsense, and i'm well within my right to reply to such transparent bs when its directed at me? I would recommend you stop lying, it's sad. The reason you couldn't make any "progress" is because you made shit up and then ran away when you couldn't back it up. You're literally trying to blame me for your own arguments flopping. I'm literally not a socialist, I told you this sentences into my first comment, but apparently you were too busy beating your head into the wall to actually, you know, continue the debate. The reason you came out of it worse than when you went into it, is because you provided nothing of substance, told clear lies, and got angry when they got disproven. Your entire response here is trying to blame me for your loss. Take your assertion that "he believes whoever gets the last word in wins the argument." Of course I don't think this, but you apparently think that "arguing"... doesn't involve responding to people who are directing arguments at you. Do you think one wins by leaving arguments unaddressed? I don't use logical fallacies, as we've been over in great detail and proven time and time again. The goal is not to "annoy you," but to get you to admit when you're wrong, something you still aren't able to do. Your final assertion is just... silly. Like, you make a giant comment where you slander me, lie about me, and insult me to a random person, and yet you expect me not to respond? Child, I don't care if i'm the "last one in a thread," I care if the things people are saying about me, or to me, are answered. Your willingness to jump to this one specific conclusion tells me a lot more about you than I think you intended. By the way, we've been over this. An Ad Hominem Fallacy is not "when you insult your opponent while in an argument," as this has nothing to do with logic. Instead, it is when you base your argument off of an insult, as in "you're wrong because you're a child." Saying "you, child, are wrong because x" therefore in no way constitutes a fallacy. Caling you those things, though clearly accurate, even if misplaced would not be a fallacy, because my argument stands just the same without their presence. Thus, no fallacy. Now, child, have you never googled the term? You assert that I can't even spell it correctly, yet a simple google search of your spelling returns the prompt "Showing results for ad hominem." You can't even spell it correctly, or read me correcting your spelling. So yes, you don't know what it is, you can't even spell it correctly, and you're shamefully secure in your ignorance. Sorry you lost, do better next time.
    1
  1279.  @coyote4326  Oh, you mean the "constant use of logical fallacies" that you can neither define nor spell, and that you have been continually proven wrong on my supposed usage of? Right. I, the winner of a debate you conceded in, do actually get to remind you of exactly how it ended. Sorry, that's simply not true child, and you know it. But please, prove yourself not a liar, for once. Find me a dictionary that spells it "ad hominin," rather than the actual spelling. This will be quite hard for you, given that "hominin" is a biological term regarding people, and has nothing to do with fallacies. Google and spell checking confirms it? Prove it, then. And yes, I do remember when you tried to justify your loss by ranting to random people about how, actually, it was your opponent's fault that you didn't know how to spell words, and then somehow getting annoyed when I respond to your sad little slander. Well, child, you had no reason to respond, but it seems internet arguments with strangers mean so much that you just have to get the last word, hm?
    1
  1280.  @coyote4326  Or, get this, it could be that people actually have lives, and thus can't reply instantly to random posts, whereas you replied within the hour to a thread nearly a week old. I agree, you really couldn't walk away, which is why you commented again, obsessing over our previous engagements, days after you had conceded your argument. Does it really surprise you that someone would want to respond to a direct comment insulting them? Apparently not, you do it all the time. Child, you've still been unable to describe "my ideologies," and yet you continue to infer my motives from your assumptions. Quite an odd assertion. You're the one that restarted this, child. Take some responsibility.
    1
  1281.  @jchinckley  All this just tells me that you're a bit insecure about your age. Frankly, I don't care what weird rules you operate under that justify your terribly illogical worldview. I call people "child" if they act childish. You don't listen to logic, no matter how much I present.
    1
  1282. @UCQs_ja4MU9dKIzn-95ENj8w Dude are you still getting annoyed that I reply to people who reply to me. How is it my fault that you're unable to mute a thread? I mean, I stopped replying for a month but you just couldn't walk away...
    1
  1283.  @coyote4326  lmao proves my point and, as if to cope, says "see I was right!" as if we can't see the whole thread of claims that came before, contradicting you...
    1
  1284.  @coyote4326  No, child. That happens when someone deletes a response while someone else is replying to it, such as you did, in order to post an objectively funnier and more cope-filled response.
    1
  1285.  @coyote4326  How does it feel posting a google definition that clearly proves you wrong? "Looks like I was EXACTLY right." To who, the blind? Do you even care about explaining your apparent illiteracy?
    1
  1286.  @coyote4326  Child, you're the one commenting on a month-dead thread. But hey, I see you learned how to spell ad hominem! Child, you literally presented evidence counter to your claim. You claimed that an Ad Hominem argument is when somebody uses insults anywhere in their argument Funny how this is the exact definition I had provided previously, that you had run away from. I showed you I was right months ago. From Google: ad hominem adjective (of an argument) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. So, you'll notice that in fact this definition does not state "when the other person uses insults in their arguments." It, instead, states that an Ad Hominem argument is when someone directs arguments against the person rather than their position. You'll notice the term "Rather." An Ad Hominem argument, as I explained over a month ago, would be saying "You are wrong because you are a child," because it is arguing against the individual, rather than the position, as shown by the definition. However, an argument such as "You, child, are wrong, and here's why" does not fit the definition of Ad Hominem, as the argument is being directed at the position, not just the individual. Despite claiming that you were "EXACTLY right," you have posted a definition that directly and plainly contradicts your claim. We can even see me correctly defining Ad Hominem in previous response along this definition, that you disagreed with. "By the way, we've been over this. An Ad Hominem Fallacy is not "when you insult your opponent while in an argument," as this has nothing to do with logic. Instead, it is when you base your argument off of an insult, as in "you're wrong because you're a child." Basing an argument off an insult means to argue against the person rather than the position. Wouldn't ya know it, the person who can actually spell the word knows what they're talking about. I call you a child because you act like a child. Refusing to admit when you're wrong, finding months-dead threads and reviving them while blaming that action on me, and then running away when you're proven wrong only to later return and complain that someone dared respond to you. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.
    1
  1287.  @coyote4326  Funny how you use "insults" and "logical fallacies" interchangeably despite directly posting proof this is not the case?
    1
  1288.  @coyote4326  Feel free to test it out between accounts, but this is literally the case. When a response is deleted midway through someone replying to it, the User ID is deleted and so youtube replaces it with a stream of numbers, usually corresponding to the specific link of the now-deleted comment. This happens if the comment is deleted during a response, not after. You really do just want to argue, do you?
    1
  1289.  @coyote4326  Most of that "auto-deletion" policy comes from individuals either being tagged for potential spam, or responses being tagged for spam, and thus deleted. The comment was still deleted, hence the string of numbers and letters. But hey, condescension is certainly the way to respond to being proven wrong, hm? How funny. Again, child, I'll quite referring to you by your designation when you prove it false, and so far the chances of that aren't looking good.
    1
  1290.  @coyote4326  Oh, child. But it does. I explained how this proves you wrong, but let me do so again. I'll ask you, do my responses consist solely of the word "child?" Do my arguments hinge on me attempting to prove your age and use that to dismiss your claims? Of course not. My arguments are against your position, I have no interest in arguing against your character. I use the word "child" to refer to you, in the same place one might use a name or rank. The definition specifically states "rather," as in, only calling you a child, and thus arguing you must be incorrect as a result. As we both know, the word "child" can be taken out of my responses, and my arguments stand just as strong. I'm attacking your positions, while calling you child. Sorry your own definition proves you wrong. "Not my argument itself?" Oh, child. I invite you to attempt to prove that claim. Good luck.
    1
  1291.  @coyote4326  And yet you're the one who, months later, decided that getting the last word was so important that you would revive a dead thread that I had forgotten about... to complain about me supposedly responding months later. Your notifications are not my problem.
    1
  1292.  @jonnybgoode7742  I am, buddy. As I have been. Take it easy, buddy.
    1
  1293.  @elijahrivera2858  Wait, are you forgetting that you were the one that deleted your comments, after exposing yourself as an anti-vaccine flat earther? You got destroyed by the facts and then tried to spam your way out of admitting defeat, because unlike me and Mike here, you didn't watch the video, and you can't provide counters.
    1
  1294.  @elijahrivera2858  why do you keep pretending I delete comments? Is that how sad your lack of an argument is?
    1
  1295.  @elijahrivera2858  You're still unable to provide a rebuttal?
    1
  1296. That... isn't even close to right. Hell, you're only agreeing with it because it supports your beliefs. Fascism is authoritarian, yes, but it's always been right of center, in most cases far right. The system you are describing is right wing. Marxism isn't even an economic system, and it certainly isn't that. Fascism is a right wing ideology, but it is aiming to put the nation first and tolerates private companies to meet the state's needs as dictated by the state
    1
  1297. ​ @iain5615  And, like usual, you make a whole bunch of stuff up (without once substantiating it) and expect me to believe you. No, you've proven yourself wrong, time and time again. The state back then wasn't the same as our states today, of course. But was it a state? Absolutely. And no, I will not recognize a "weakness" not at all inherent to humanity. As I said, we are selfish today, but we are not by nature. It is far more profitable to be selfless than selfish. We live in a world where every man, woman, and child can be fed. We live in a world where we, the americans, are well fed and can conduct that effort. But we don't do it. Not because we are selfish, but because the people at the top of our society are selfish, as our society worships selfishness and rewards it. We have, potentially, a society that can exist with the ability to life up all,and it's people like you who unscientifically decry such a thing to be impossible. Humanity is naturally selfless if anything, we are willing to lay down our lives, our time, our labor for each other. What you're doing right now is projecting the slefish world that justifies your actions onto the world that actually exists. No,not everyone is as selfish as the wors of us, and no, we are not this was naturally.This has been well recorded and documented, and it is scientific fact. If your whole argument relies on humans being naturally, evil, you need to do some introspection. Well, almost. Yes, there were a lot of wealthy landowners that were favored by and included within the state, that would later end up giving up their land to the growing middle class. However, this did not happen pre-socialists, in fact (as I had said) many of the first socialists dedicated their career to opposing the very active monarchies. It was those revolts that led to the middle class, with the monarchs and elites choosing the middle line between their system and socialism, an early parlimentary market-based system. Of course the rich resisted the attempts, they do much the same today. That seems to be the course of history. A state owned by private holders is still a state, that's just how state works. We call those oligarchies. Hell, the American state right now is run by people with hundreds of ties to business, stocks, real estate, ect. They are private property owners. Do they not count as a state, or what? After those oligarchies were either completely disbanded or neutered by such systems as parliaments or democratic governments, that's when that middle class began to finally rise up. The wealth then, as you said, had to be decided how to be passed down. However, you're framing this entire thing incorrectly. The "left" was every group of anti-monarchist at that point. That means that everyone, from reformist parliamentarians to capitalists to utopian socialists was "left" of the center of the overton window at that point. Did the left want to tax? Yes. Did the left also want not to tax? Also yes. Turns out that "the left" isn't a monolith. The right, at that time, was the ones literally saying they wanted to take back from private owners with no measurable future long lasting improvement to society, remember, they wanted to reinstate the monarchy. The fact that neo-cons in the US today are totalitarian is not proof that the world has moved further left, though I would certainly think it had. No, it's proof that your rudimentary version of left vs right doesn't at all work, and is largely nonsense fueled by a clear lack of understanding when it comes to what the left and right actually want, and where are the important parts they differ. A person who is right wing is not at all that. The right is not skeptical of government power, they in fact in many cases worship and excuse it. They don't have to give two damns about private property, like the monarchy did, that could seize it at will. The right is just as, if not more, capable of being totalitarian than the left. The left does not "look to the state," some of the most influential left wing political movements have literally been based on the abolishment of the state. Unfortunately, not all of the left cares about giving to the poor,or taking from the rich, and many don't believe in government policy to do that. This is the problem, you clearly have no understanding of what it means to be left or right wing. By your logic, i'm right wing.
    1
  1298.  @TheImperatorKnight  but your method of resolution involves a purely falsified definition. So in order to do history, you've engaged in ahistory.
    1
  1299. @Jinxed Swashbuckler mate, one of those people is TIK
    1
  1300.  @fabiofaria4243  but TIK is lying, and he shows so plainly himself
    1
  1301.  Ayberk Oddone. Gerwig  because this video is false
    1
  1302. @Jinxed Swashbuckler He might understand on a base level that social democratic states are not socialist, but he has outright stated that he defines socialism as any economy in which the government interferes, can interfere, has a policy of interfering, or has suitable control over it. Someone even brought up to him that his definition makes no sense, by pointing out how the romans built roads with public money over some people's land, so they must be socialist. He didn't even rebut this, he just said something about how bad the roads in the USSR were and then ignored it. so again, he might be willing to say that social democrat states are not socialist, but his definition of socialist fits within it most modern countries. That was what I was saying.
    1
  1303.  @philphlanigen  not really, no. They have a lot of meaning, actually.
    1
  1304.  @nipoone6109  The left and right wings have coherent definitions, the problem is, right wingers are often unwilling to hear them because they rightfully connect a number of right wing ideologies your average rightist doesn't want to take responsibility for. Them having an origin in the french revolution doesn't change any of that, and they were used to describe political beliefs well before the second world war. They do make sense, you're just not willing to admit it.
    1
  1305.  @nipoone6109  Because TIK's own sources wholly disprove his "points." And to claim the far left are antisemites when the left has had a huge history of jewish influences and advocates is absolutely insane. If you're willing to overlook literal neo-nazis to make a political point against people you don't like, there's no hope for you. Let me know when you come back to reality.
    1
  1306. No, just a general liar.
    1
  1307. @Dimitris Tsakalos fascism and national socialism are not socialism
    1
  1308.  @ShindlerReal  because it isn't true
    1
  1309.  @TheImperatorKnight  you didn't, you kept asserting that you did tho
    1
  1310.  @OWmyDragonBallz  Incorrect. America is built on left wing individualism, not right wing. Collectisivism was nor practiced by the nazis. Mussolini was not left wing, and FDR was trying to weaken the support between him and hitler. They did not take any socialism from the left, but took nationalism, traditionalism, and social darwinism from the left. FDR literally went to war with fascists and was one of the first in the government to call for doing so, while conservatives like Churchill and Mises praised fascism. Also, you defending the nationalism of nazi germany just proves the point, nazis were far right
    1
  1311.  @oaples8790  it literally states the opposite
    1
  1312.  @oaples8790  which is anti socialist
    1
  1313.  @oaples8790  germany was never socialist
    1
  1314.  @oaples8790  So you got proven wrong.
    1
  1315. thanks :)
    1
  1316.  @VeaFlea  Mate, you could at least try to argue without instantly devolving into insults.
    1
  1317.  @oaples8790  nice, cool
    1
  1318.  @VeaFlea  Uh. No mate, this has been well documented for a good long while now, it was a part of trying to devalue the drug market passed by a racist administration, during the war on drugs. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is the kind of stuff you learn about in the "cons" section of the war on drugs. Like come on now, no offense, but I thought this was basic knowledge. Here's a few sources to get you started, though this is nowhere near the amount you can learn about these actions, and i'd be happy to provide further citation to show how messed up the whole thing was, and how yeah, it really did happen. https://abhmuseum.org/war-on-drugs-or-war-on-blacks/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United_States https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2019/05/when-the-war-on-drugs-devastated-atlanta-black-neighborhoods-teachers-filled-in-the-void.html
    1
  1319.  @VeaFlea  are you joking mate? Seriously? I mean, I know denialism is a common thing at this point, but again, this is accepted history. The problem with drug trade is that drugs tend to stay the same value no matter how much you try to control them, so you can devalue it by flooding the market. So we did. To black communities.
    1
  1320.  @VeaFlea   @Steven Velasco     saying something doesn't count as evidence and showing that they do not are two very, very different things I'm afraid, and you've really only done thr former. Again, I gave you a few sources to show the different broad events that were happening at the time to fuel this behavior, as well as some of the events on a more zoomed in scale, how they actually effected individual communities. I have to wonder how much you bothered reading because the crack epidemic isn't just "crack in America," your excuse of "some black guys" spearheading the war on drugs that ended up directly harming black communities the most is wholly unfounded, ect. Like seriously, you didn't even provide any citation for that last bit, you just said "well common knowledge (as in anecdotal evidence) is good enough as citation, right?" And no, no it is not. Why would black community leaders push policies from white racists that would put a hugely disproportionate amount of black people in jail? The last source was meant to show that yes, our own government was absolutely willing to use drugs as a tool of separation and to harm economies and communities. This wasn't a new tactic of theirs. I'll give you that malice behind the CIAs actions at the time towards black citizens is still a topic of debate, but the results are undeniable, and it objectively did hurt black communities most. The debate isn't whether it happened, it's whether it happened purposefully. And I didn't start this topic, that was you, I just brought it up to substantiate the point that the US government has been shit to it's own people, and this is far from the only example. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-shocking-and-sickening-story-behind-nixons-war-on-drugs-that-targeted-blacks-and-anti-war-activists/?fbclid=IwAR0kd4j7SVj9iY_Bmp1eoL_Kbo3Orx9zM7Hcbd2-6oboK1hDOZmhD5PIxe8
    1
  1321.  @VeaFlea  *you're And I have, your only rebuttal had been "I don't like this evidence and don't see how it connects, so just keep feeding my denialism more." That isn't conducive to this deflection of an argument you're trying to have.
    1
  1322.  @VeaFlea  you mean like the further proof I just gave you? I'm assuming you're annoyed I'm writing paragraphs because you don't bother to read them, which makes sense. After all, you've been deflecting every second you decided to ignore my original point in favor of these tactics.
    1
  1323.  @floki_vt  He killed socialists, whether you like it or not. And him being not a socialist means that it was an ideological competition, and he came up on top.
    1
  1324.  @floki_vt  Authoritarian capitalism and state capitalism are not nonsense terms, not even close. Capitalism just means the ownership of the Means of Production are in private hands. You can have a strong state and have private individuals primarily in charge of production. Look at Chile under Pinochet for another example. And while fascism cannot be libertarian, again, fun fact the word "libertarian" was used to describe socialist ideologies long before capitalist ideologies.
    1
  1325.  @floki_vt  TIK's definition of socialism is not the pure definition, it's revisionism at it's finest. Of course you two would blame marxists for actually understanding socialism, but i'm sorry, your definition of socialism can be found nowhere but your imagination.
    1
  1326.  @floki_vt  Nope, worker control is literally the fundamental basis of socialism. Spamming nonsense doesn't make it more true.
    1
  1327.  @floki_vt  Just like if there were no guns around, you wouldn't have a right to them either? Or, say, life? According to your logic, rights are a myth.
    1
  1328. Not quite. Five hours of ideological drivel, occasionally interspersed with denialist attempts to rewrite history and redefine basic terminology. The notion that hitler, hero of the right, was somehow a socialist, is long debunked. Sorry?
    1
  1329.  @zeprowl  ah, more sad denialism. why am I not surprised?
    1
  1330.  @zeprowl  The right is defined through hierarchy, conservatism, class collaborationism, traditionalism, nationalism, and so on. You know, all the key aspects of hitler's regime, which is why the right loves him so much.
    1
  1331.  @zeprowl  Dude, how much self awareness can you lack? "The left learned a lot from hitler?" Try again. Let's put your accusations in context The left - Has facilitated protests which educate about and remove monuments to white supremacy and slavers - Has shut down a rise in far right extremism - Advocated for protest against right wing censorship - Advocated for a reduction of police violence and theft - Used their freedom of speech to protest people they disagree with - Presented and described themselves as individuals in ways that conservatives despise - Engaging in journalism that the right still hasn't managed to come back from - Advocated for an economic model that treats those at the top who abuse under them with the fairness and justice they deserve - Actually attempting to solve racial issues and listen to the voices of those victimized by them The funny thing is, you have to make your claims so vague to line up with what hitler supposedly did, you literally have to claim that exercising free speech and protesting authoritarian racism were "done by hitler." Your accusations aren't even accurate, with how much slanting you have to do. I mean, what you're essentially saying is "the robber and the self defender are the same because both tried to claim ownership of property!" It cuts out all context and simplifies it to an absurd degree. By "Destroying statues," you mean advocating to take down statues erected during jim crow to idolize confederates. By "Firing people on political views," you're referencing something that a. doesn't happen, and b. would be due to the actions of private corporations. You know, things the left aren't huge fans of. By "Censorship (first social penalties and then by law)" you mean a few things. "Social Penalties" are also known as free speech, I have no obligation to listen to you or agree with you. By censorship in law, you mean the tiny crackdown on open nazis. By "Looting and burning of businesses," you're referring to the actions of the few in a protest of the many, ignoring those doing worse on your own "side." By" Students intimidating and shouting down lecturers," again, you're referencing a little thing called "free speech." By "A fierce opposition to individualism" you mean an opposition to conservatism, as the left expressing their individuality in gender, race, class, from things as simple to dyed hair to wearing political slogans, is something the right despises By "Firing journalists who expressed views contrary to the ruling narrative" you mean the firing of journalists who are caught lying. By "An economic model that keeps capital in private hands yet sets prices and controls the activities of business." you're literally referencing capitalism. By "Dividing identities down racial lines and seeking to take from those who have too much" you mean listening to minority groups talk about how they're already "divided" up by society and that this needs rectifying. And what did hitler do? Destroying statues, monuments, and institutions dedicated to equality, research on sexuality and gender, and immigration centers. Attacking left wing political personalities as being a part of a conspiracy Censorship conducted against the poor, homeless, unionists, leftists (first social penalties and then by law) Looting and burning of businesses, notably those who were friendly to unions or employed minority groups/immigrants Fanatics intimidating and shouting down lecturers, notably lecturers of minority groups or that praised immigration A fierce opposition to individualism, in favor of nationalism Purging journalists who expressed views contrary to the ruling narrative, notably those who reported on the atrocities committed against immigrants, workers, and leftist political factions An economic model that keeps capital in private hands and further cements power in the hands of private owners backed and supported by the state. Ignoring or actively perpetuating white supremacy, asserting that the struggles of groups systematically disadvantaged were normal and natural, and asserting that those "with too much" earned it through their own work. funny how so little, when put into perspective, is actually practiced by "the modern left. Now, let's look at what the right's done. Destroying monuments and institutions, from trump's attempted attacks on international cultural sites to arson attacks on planned parenthood Firing people on political views, and the ousting from the party of all those that don't tow the dominant line Censorship,, (first social penalties and then by law) from the criminalization of protest to attempts to "patriotize" education Looting and burning of businesses, religious centers, and immigrant-friendly residences. Students intimidating and shouting down lecturers, especially trans, minority, leftist, or otherwise non-right wing lecturers A fierce opposition to individualism, treating all non-patriotism or multiculturalism as a crime Purging/firing journalists who expressed views contrary to the ruling narrative, and covering up their findings. See the panama papers. An economic model that keeps capital in private hands and allows the government to profit off of the pain and misery of others Dividing identities down racial lines and seeking to punish those that already have nothing. And so on. This isn't even bringing up the core similarities to hitler, the conspiracies about marxism, the justification of inequality, the "america/germany first" mindset, I could go on and on. The fact that you have to lie about the left, and in the process describe the right, proves my point perfectly. The right has a hero, one who taught them most of their modern playbook, and who learned from it himself. And that hero is, disgustingly, the most evil man in human history - hitler. All of the attempts to equate victim with perpetrator in the world can't change that.
    1
  1332.  @zeprowl  Unsurprisingly no. However, as I explained, the accusations levelled towards the "modern progressive movement" by you range from absurdly vague to downright false, and seem to line up far better with the right. huh, who would have thought.
    1
  1333.  @zeprowl  Hitler's economy and social views were without a doubt with the right - this makes him, without a doubt, closer to the conservative capitalists that proudly supported him than the socialists who he oppressed and killed.
    1
  1334.  @zeprowl  And yet hitler's rise to power is a product of the very right that Adam Smith helped to cultivate. Again, same core assumptions, same core morality.
    1
  1335.  @zeprowl  I'm noticing that you need to, again, use absurdly vague assertions and outright falsehoods to prove your point regarding "doing something hitler did." See, I mentioned things hitler did that were core to his ideology, things the right has repeated or endorsed in the modern day. You just named vague things that all political groups do. It's the difference between me naming exact policies and you saying "um... they both oppose their enemies?" When the action itself is in service to an ideology very similar to nazism, I find no reason to not condemn it as horrific. Hitler's playbook isn't something to be thrown out or watered down, as you insist. Doing something that's core to his ideology is absolutely horrific. The right defines itself through a justification of natural hierarchy, the notion that inequality is good and natural, and that some groups and individuals deserve to come out on top. The same fundamental notion that justifies a capitalist market economy can easily be formed into a support of far right nationalist talking points with only the switching of a few terms. I hope you realize that, historically, there have always been more capitalists in favor of slavery than against it. I mean, who do you think owned the slaves in the first place? Most modern capitalists seem woefully ignorant when it comes to the views of those like Smith, or even more recent figures. No. A few claimed it was morally decrepit, and yet they actively profited from it. "Those in power" in this case weren't the state, but the private owners. They needed to not only demonstrate that it was amoral, but demonstrate that it was inefficient, all to private owners that couldn't care less since they were making a profit. ie, demonstrating value or moral quandaries is nearly impossible to do when profit exists as an alternative. For all your claims on individual vs state, it wasn't the smithies who abolished slavery. I genuinely have no idea why you want to blame these things on the state. I'm no fan of it, but this is absurd. It wasn't "the state" generally that wanted colonialism, it was those rich, private property owners with either close ties to the state or support from it, who didn't want to lose money. After all, colonialism was, and still is, a lucrative endeavor. It was these profiteers pushing for colonialism. I must question your historical knowledge, because this is quite absurd. Merchantilism, by definition, is an economic system that relies on numerous colonial powers, most often held by force, being used for raw materials and sold back finished goods for the economic success of the other nation. This system doesn't favor trade and wealth over war, it favors enough wealth to win any war they need to, and enough wars to get all the wealth they want. I mean hell, the US was an active part of the UK's Merchantilist system when we revolted. A system in which the state helps to facilitate tens if not hundreds of violently-maintained colonies and strips them of resources for the benefit of a few on the mainland is hardly one that values "individual decision making over the state." In any case, no, this is not what the right means most to the right. It's what the right means most to you. Huge portions of the right actively rebuke Smith's assumptions, or find themselves acting against them in total ignorance. It was, after all, a right wing system that Smith was moving leftwards away from, that he wanted to change. No, what the right means most to the right most often isn't some utopian view of capital, but the idea of natural inequality, and competition for the top prize. Sure, not every conservative is openly violent in the pursuit of their ideology. But so long as said ideology leads to unneeded pain and misery, and so long as a conservative's first response to being told of a nazi in their ranks is "you call everyone a nazi," then they are actively facilitating harm. Because the right in the modern day is more ideologically compact than it has been before, and than the left has ever been. There are core concepts that define the right, core organizations that enforce this, and as I said, a right winger is far more likely to defend than deny one of their own on the far end. The population doesn't need to know where their inspiration comes to be inspired. Do you think every person who says "america first" is aware of its origin in american nazism? Look, I appreciate the whole "both sides" thing you're doing, it's better than the fanatic left-hating that most people here seem to do, but you're still making the same wrong assumptions, still addressing economics in nonsense terms. For example, for all the care you seem to give towards individual decision making, when a group of individuals decides to increase their own individual autonomy by relying on and reinforcing eachother as a group, now they're not individuals,, they're the state. "The state (the collective) is a nonsense string of words, because the stare and the collective aren't remotely comparable. And for all your claims of "the individual," it is clear that capitalism is defined by singular great men only in the minds of those that the collectives of private owners have fooled. Hitler didn't control his economy, at least not through anything more than the profit contracts and late-war demands that were shared by the rest of the world. He neither owned nor controlled the economy, nor did he desire to. He saw private property, and the competition within, as just another device to weed the weak from the poor. "Economic Fascism" is a nonsense string of words, given that fascism's economics string from De Stefani to Dollfuss, but as I said, hitler did not control nor own, and he did not desire to control or own. Step back for a second and think. The man believed in natural inequality, believed that competition and domination were inevitable, believed that he belonged to a group that was able, and morally obligated, to lead and kill all those that opposed them. How does this line up with an economy without competition, without hierarchy, without clear winners and losers? How can you claim a social darwinist wanted to even the playing fields? How can you claim hitler controlled the economy without throwing the basis of his entire ideology, and the crimes committed as a result of it, into question. Hitler's economic policy made him more capitalist than socialist, in no small part due to his open alliances with capitalists. His core assumptions show the same, his ideology would always be far more appealing to capitalists than socialists. Does this mean all capitalists are nazis? Of course not. But it does mean that your claims as to him being closer to a socialist are absolute nonsense, and that the modern right can absolutely be examined with full knowledge of the historical right. "People like me" feel the need to relate history to the modern day because history doesn't go away. We literally, in the modern day, have rallies of people proudly waving nazi flags, and doing so alongside the symbols of the modern right, and yet I'm supposed to believe they have more in common with AOC than the people they march alongside? It's not relevant that the right seems to largely care more about being seen with nazis than being with nazis? What can be claimed to be "left" about hitler, when his entire ideology relied on an extreme right wing view of the world? And how can we not tie those views to the modern day result?
    1
  1336. How is any of that socialist?
    1
  1337.  @wallyknew  You mean the pre-election propaganda pamphlet that they didn't actually put into practice, and still wouldn't be considered socialist as a whole?
    1
  1338.  @wallyknew  Incorrect. What I call socialism is socialism. What you call marxism is socialism. It predates marx by quite a bit, which is why your statement makes no sense.
    1
  1339.  @wallyknew  As I said-you have some clear issues using these terms effectively. Socialism is indeed a political system,but for some reason you take the ethical and social systems and lenses it builds off of and declare that in fact those things to being with are socialism. You very much can have socialistic systems that promote the individual. Hell, from you "each man for all" theory, Hitler wasn't at all a socialist. You would be right that Marxism isn't an economic system, but it isn't an "ideal," it is a method of historical and material analysis. It has nothing to do with economic planning, such as you describe. He didn't understand those things as ethical world outlooks...because they aren't. His understanding of them being economic is is no way a misunderstanding, it's through that understanding that he was able to critique or espouse certain parts of both ideologies. You can't redefine all of politics because you just want to. Marxism has never called itself socialism, that's a label, you apply to it, externally. By your logic as well, Capitalism should fail because Smith viewed it also through purely economic terms, right? But I guess that doesn't matter. Mhm.
    1
  1340.  @wallyknew  And you would be wrong. Not only does this make no sense given your previous points, trying to call socialism everything but some sort of economic plan, but you also forget that Marx was already working on quite a bit of sociological information, and those following him would work on more sociobiology. It is the very reason that seeing the world as a project that has apparently helped capitalism succeed. After all, under capitalism people are nothing but numbers, mindless workers toiling for the betterment of their bosses "programme," something they neither know nor care about. Those are ideals, ideal that reduce humanity to nothing, and are utterly irrational and inorganic. People still lay down their lives to create a better world, it happens daily. The problem, of course, is to admit that one would have to admit humanity are not naturally selfish. And, if the capitalist were to admit that, his whole myth of rational self preservation would fall. If people cared so much about being individuals, then capitalism cannot work for them. Spending hours of every day doing the same menial tasks, looking at numbers and machines all while acting like one yourself, sitting in a cubicle surrounded by a hundred more identical ones, that is capitalism. People are no longer themselves. We are a workforce. And idea and an ideal are the same, in the end, and people are willing to die for both. And of course, after all that nonsense you just spewed, how could I ever expect you to understand the basics of Marxism, or even make a rational argument about it? No, rather you have ad hominem attacks. Brilliant. Of course it's simple, it's simple just like every other historical lens. That's the point. Can history be explained by class struggle? Largely, yes. It, like all other explanations from a capitalistic to a post-modernistic explication, does have its flaws. But class is not merely about economics, something you seem to have trouble realizing. Two people could have the exact same income, and yet be members of different classes. OF course, your attempts to strawman the position and generalize it are noted. The simple fact is, no matter how much you don't like it, and how much this rant of yours contradicted your previous point, it certainly has been put forward, and taken, seriously. We both know you have continued to express your problems in debate, of leaving out the history that breaks your narrative, but do try to at least pretend to have more than unsubstantiated generalized insults.
    1
  1341.  @wallyknew  Class does relate in part to economics, but in no way is solely based on it. As well as that, no, marxism is not an economic theory. Even taking your narrative of perpetual class war as all that marxism represents (it isn't) it still would not be an economic theory. Those things set forward systems, policies, theories. Marx put forward a lens, a method of analysis, and nothing more. Also, again, there are plenty of issues with your analysis of Marxism. For example, Marx himself never passed moral judgement on the Bourgeoisie. He certainly thought that they were a naturally unproductive and dangerous class, but he never once attached that to anything but material (not ethical) analysis. Hell, he wasn't naive enough to say all proletariat revolutions were good, he made specific note to point out several bad ones. Your entire basis of hating marxism is somehow thinking it brought ethics into it. The idea of constant progress or "things getting better" isn't somehow a staple of materialism, though marx did see such a thing under a materialistic lens, optimism does the same thing. All of the people you name, Fourier, Cabet, Saint-Simon, Comte, Proudhon, Owen, were (as usual) not as you represent them. While some of them were utopians, (like marx) most were not. Especially Proudhon, he even made not himself that he (and his teachings) were imperfect, and that later generations would most likely correct them. Oh, and we've been over how marx didn't make hate the center of anything. There's a reason it's "material analysis" and "scientific socialism," and it isn't that it's based on wishy-washy feelings. It's because Marx actually, you know, tried to use the material trends of history to justify his ideology. But sure I guess, misrepresent all of that and try to make it somehow sound like it's an ideology born solely out of random hate. Ah, and here we are. This is the part where you call everyone you don't like a marxist, right? You seem to have issues with me calling out your ad hominems, and of course that's just what you'd try to do, but that doesn't matter. I mean hell, the very fact that you call me a marxist, and point to marxism somehow being some irrational ideology of hatred is evidence enough of your use of insults in argumentation. The issue I don't think you understand is that your word is not gospel. You can assert as much as you want, and good on you, but when it comes to actual facts you can't just say what you think should be true and act like I should adhere to it. Oh, and another insult, of course. Calling me young, and discounting my opinion through that insult. Honestly, here, it isn't me who has the issue with narrow-minded thought. It's the person who thinks calling everything they don't like hateful, and calling everyone they don't like by that name, who fits that description so much better. And that is what I have to say.
    1
  1342.  @wallyknew  If by all that you mean "I got annoyed at having to correct your nonsense for the 5th time" then sure, I agree. It is getting quite grating. But, as I said, not everything you don't like is the result of a single jewish man that's been dead for over 100 years. And while I certainly have no problems taking a compliment, I will have to inform you that no, i am not that young, and I believe what I do precisely because my view has been maturing. I was in the position you are now when I was a child, and I (like many I talk to) seem to have realized the inherent contradictions within your ideology. This is settled stuff, really, hitler was not a socialist, nor a marxist. The modern nazis, neo-nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, identitarians, traditionalists, they all sit on the right, just as they did back then. So no, I am not young, and i'm sorry to say it seems i'm living a hell of a lot of a better life than you seem to wish for me to live. But sure, keep up with the insults. We all know how well that works, right? But this final part is the best. You complain of a lack of open mindedness on my part, but you aren't even willing to recognize the existence of your opponents. Let me ask you this - in a capitalist country, in a capitalist world, surrounded by capitalism daily, with nothing but capitalism and the results thereof being taught to you and exposed to you... how is it somehow "free-thinking" to believe in capitalism, and a sign of closed-mindedness to believe in anything else? You've tricked yourself into thinking you're anything but the cog in the machine you are.
    1
  1343.  @thesci-ficafe3050  ok, no problem! Thank you for the civility, and I wish you the best.
    1
  1344.  @thesci-ficafe3050  well, thank you!
    1
  1345. The problem with using Mises as a source is that not only was he entirely politically biased, and in no way honest with his portrayal of socialist beliefs, is that during his career he (and many of his ideological descendants, come to think of it) had defended fascism, or other authoritarian far right regimes. Of course he would make an effort to then deny the clear connection between many conservatives and capitalists of the time and the nazis, because it's his name that is implicated there. You cannot dismiss an argument because it does not contain a single ideologically motivated response.
    1
  1346.  @jameskrych7767  What is this supposed to tell us? You'll notice, I never claimed he himself was a fascist. No,he just seemed all too willing to accept fascists, and indeed work with them, for the furthering of a select few political goals. Siding with them and praising on them, while not following their beliefs and criticizing them, still shows his connection.
    1
  1347.  @jameskrych7767  He called it a weapon, one he, and the right, was willing to wield.
    1
  1348.  @jameskrych7767  So you just straight up admit it. You admit they weren't socialist. Hell, Lenin had an excuse, he said that the NEP was a stepping-stone to socialism. But the nazis and the italian fascists defined that capitalistic system as their ideal economic system. It's like you think that by calling the NEP the product of Lenin, it makes it any less capitalistic. Thanks for proving me right.
    1
  1349.  @jameskrych7767  Oh it's not feels buddy, and you know that. If anything, you're the one who seems very adverse to objective history. You seem to have little to no understanding of what the right actually does, or what it means to be right wing. You see, it's only the America right that even claims to care about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, all while ignoring it or violating it every chance they get. Of course, their are much more moderate right wing ideologies, and much more extreme ones, notably, far right totalitarianism. The modern american right has nothing to do with classical liberals, though I find it funny that you invoke that ideology, as some major historical proponents of classical liberalism endorsed and worked with the nazis. But yes, of course the right must shoulder their blame for the non-socialist nazis, or the entirely anti-socialist fascists. You seem to care little for objective truth, as the objective truth points to both these ideologies being anti-socialist, and right wing. At the same time, you (like most right wingers) seem to despise using actual definitions for terminology, and seem content with calling everything you don't like socialism. After all, you call the outspokenly right wing anti-socialist fascists socialists, so it's only fair to assume you are suffering from some form of post-modernist brainrot. Those of us who actually care about the truth, as in those of us who aren't right wing, tend not to feel like dealing with your newspeak and historical revisionism. After all, it seems the only way you can argue against our truths is by strawmanning silly positions onto us.But please, keep making a fool of yourself. It only makes my job easier. No, I think you're still very much in the dark, either purposefully so, or maybe it trully is ignorance. I, however, seem to be learning a lot about you.
    1
  1350.  @fredo319  you know that just saying that doesn't make it true, right? Is this your alt account bud? You see, the problem is that James argued with his feelings, not facts. So he was easy to disprove in only a few minutes, which I did.
    1
  1351.  @darthbigred22  It hasn't been a prominent debate recently, mainly because people actually knew the truth before some idiots decided to make it a debate again. Yeah, sorry mate, that isn't really socialist, and also isn't really true. For one, the most obvious - the only "public work programs" they bothered with were roads and concentration camps. Not much help to the public cause. Self-sufficiency doesn't really work when they're trying to conquer the world, and socialists tend to be pro gun. I very much doubt many people actually consider him to be a capitalist, because he isn't, but him being a socialist is just as false. And in that book, i'm sure you heard him ranting for hours about the sanctity of race and nation, social darwinism, obviously extreme nationalism, and hatred of any and all equality? Yeah, not really. Like, at all. Checking all those boxes, as in what the nazis actually did, puts them on the far right.
    1
  1352.  @joseornelas1718  ...hitler's opinion of napoleon, as well as his attack on internationalism, have little to do with his antisocialism.
    1
  1353.  @joseornelas1718  ...hitler's opinion of napoleon, as well as his attack on internationalism, have little to do with his antisocialism.
    1
  1354.  @joseornelas1718  he rejected a core economic program, yeah. Doesn't have much to do with his antisocialism.
    1
  1355.  @joseornelas1718  No, both anti-communist and anti-socialist, do try again and do a bit better next time.
    1
  1356.  @colebehnke7767  You might not like them but I assure everything here is a basic fact, no matter how much that angers surrounding ideologues. But let’s go again, one by one. “Why create a unified union when you can ban them entirely?” First, he didn’t create a “unified union,” as stated previously the organization created was far more centered around owners than workers. As for why he did this, the answer can be found all around the world, but particularly in the history of germany itself, with Bismarck primarily. See, workers want rights and representation, and the worse their conditions, the more insistent they are. Bismarck, perhaps one of the most famous conservative, was well aware of this fact and thus devised a system of concessions, things that would make the workers somewhat happier while steering them away from more radical policy and ideologies. To put it plainly, this was a placating strategy, utilized to neuter unions not by fully abolishing them (and thus stirring up massive outrage) but replacing them with an ineffective, private oriented organization that granted the workers concessions just often enough to keep them appy. Next, “Why create a system of price commissars if it was only temporary?” This one is far simpler - because the market, especially the international market, is not the best at distributing wartime resources and industry. This measure was explicitly an echo of western powers at the time. “ If they were so capitalistic, then why did they switch to a planed economy?” They never switched to a full-on planned economy, though. They did create long term goals and incentives to orient the economy, but these were almost always in the form of contractual labor with bidding private industry. If you want to call an economy in which the government can pay for labor a “planned economy” you’re free to - just be aware that, especially (but not exclusively) in wartime, yes, even the UK as well as most western powers did exactly this. “Why did they suspend private property if they wanted all the power to belong to private owners?” They generally didn’t suspend private property, the only consistent case being in regards to “non-citizens,” and that property was almost always instantly reprivatized. Horrible system - but a private system. “Why would Hitler ally himself with the vary people he hates, what do you think the stab in the back theory was about?” This isn’t even a point of debate, he openly allied with the conservatives. Like, read up on von Papen, look at the list of the parties voting for the enabling act, and so on. He hated the weak leadership that led to the loss of the war in his eyes, specifically because he felt they betrayed their nation and traditional values. He didn’t hate conservatives, he hated individual pieces of conservative leadership that had failed to be as conservative as they advertised themselves.
    1
  1357.  @colebehnke7767  I really wonder why I still even deal with people like you.
    1
  1358.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  "More proof" being what, the same old video with a few new points all built on the same fundamental issue that destroyed the last one? You know, if he was truly so confident in his point, you'd think he'd have let it stand by itself now.
    1
  1359.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  But it really isn't. It's by far mostly a repeat o the same flawed arguments, with the only addition being some new avenues and sources to support the exact same flawed assumptions. All the video has managed to prove is how desperate TIK is for a win.
    1
  1360.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Unfortunately, everything here is false. That is, if you're not wiling to provide a definition of socialism that encompasses every player in the world and every government since. I'm sorry you hate that the nazis were so openly anti-socialist.
    1
  1361.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Oh, you mean the purely symbolic gesture that impacted almost exclusively just the page of paper it was written on? I hate to break it to you but removing the second amendment from the constitution would not make all guns vanish, and similarly, removing the "right" to private property is not the same as removing private property, much less fully abolishing it. We've been over this all before, please learn to read.
    1
  1362.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Sure, just as much as Adam Smith or Ludwig von Mises were failed socialists, as in they failed to want socialism. Now, I'm not sure you can read, but I am in fact not saying anything like what you suggest. I'm pointing out that your previous assertion is false, something you concede here but do not seem to understand. We've already been over how you don't know what "socialism" is, because by your definition, the most prosperous countries in the world are socialist. Hitler was not a "failed" socialist, he did what he wanted to and what he said he would do, it just so happened that neither of those things were socialism. He, on numerous occasions, explicitly said he did not want to abolish private property. He literally worked with private property owners from the world over. Also, you previously asserted that socialism was party control, then state control, now social control. Which is it? Or do you not even know?
    1
  1363.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  So, I ask you which of two contradictory things something is. Your answer? "It's both." Modern intellectualism, ladies and gentlemen.
    1
  1364.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  I'm still not a socialist and you're still deflecting. You do realize a) that the track record of socialism has nothing to do with this conversation and b) that by your definition of socialism this statement is false, correct? Hell, you even contradict yourself yet again in this response. It's almost as if you know you lost, yet again.
    1
  1365.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Ah, "brown" socialism being like "gold" socialism, right? "Brown socialism" being fascism and "gold socialism" being capitalism. Everything's socialism, why not. But no, I'm sorry, your statement is still false.
    1
  1366.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  They are though, by definition, and the supposed distinction between the definition of socialism and a more "modern" version is false, though it does expose how you openly attempt to change definitions. The definition of socialism has always been social ownership, and as the nazis both privately and publicly condemned social ownership, I find it hard to believe it was something magically granted to the victims of their dictatorship, rather than the private system we plainly saw in place. In other words, your statement is false, your explanation is entirely made up, and your assertion not only fails to follow your own definition of socialism, it fails to follow any sort of historical record at all.
    1
  1367.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  See this is kind of my point. I truly suppose every ideology is socialism now because you keep giving definitions that expand it far beyond the bounds of its historical reach, roots and application. You’re just saying blatantly false things, and the fact that you have to go this far to support your theories might be your first step in realizing how absurdly false they are.
    1
  1368.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Yes... during the NEP, which as I quite literally just mentioned, was explicitly put in place as a preliminary measure to an eventual socialist system. These sort of economic activities would not reappear until the eventual liberalization of the economy decades and decades later. I'm starting to think you don't know the first thing about what private property is, let alone socialism and it's place in history. It's like, you point out activity that is incompatible with even your definition of socialism, and rather than admitting that this must not have been socialism, you just try to change the definition again. Private property cannot exist under a socialist system, as the very definition of socialism necessitates that the means of production not be in private hands. Again, we've been over all of this. Have you just not been listening, or are you that desperate for a retort?
    1
  1369.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  So, your entire strategy now revolves around shouting "you lost" over and over without actually being able to counter a single thing I said? TIK showed that by any accurate definition, the nazis could not be socialists - hence him changing it. You've asserted that socialism is defined as either party, state, or social ownership of the means of production, and now assert that actually, you don't even need any of those. Definitionally speaking you are incorrect, and the half-remembered arguments you're basing your statements on from TIK were incorrect themselves. I'm almost starting to hope you're getting close to realizing the absurdity of your claims. Almost.
    1
  1370. Of course Hitler wasn't a Socialist. Anyone who looks into the regime and have a sufficient grasp of history understand this. The concept of Socialism predates Marxism. Learn your history. It's simple facts: There shouldn't even be a lively debate about this question, yet instead there is endless confusion in academia and elsewhere.
    1
  1371.  wannabchomsky  Oh nah, I just copy-pasted what he said but changed some words around. Not my actual position, just a fun way to show how stupid his dogmatism is.
    1
  1372.  wannabchomsky  Oh trust me, I know. I had to deal with him saying "youtube is marxist-fascist and anyone who doesn't agree is a holocaust denier," so at this point i'm just watching him self-destruct. Honestly I could write a book about how far down the dumps political discussion online has gotten, and used his quotes to perfectly show that. It's shameful, really, the way he keeps getting torn apart in argument but can only resort to shouting "I won leave me alone!" and insulting everyone who dares correct his false history. Hell, he kept denying actual useful sources that could accurately define fascism, or parts of the Doctrine of Fascism that prove fascism is right wing, by saying the fascist Italians weren't racist, and then complaining that youtube apparently isn't a private company. It's... baffling, the amount of shit this guy comes up with. I found these videos weeks ago expecting a debate, but the further I dive the more I realize you only need to let TIK keep talking for him to destroy his own arguments. Hell, even he doesn't believe them, when he talks about socialism "not working," he shows venezuela, not the multi'billion dollar international companies he calls socialist. He doesn't even believe his own nonsense, and when he was pressed on the issue of what his world would look like, he couldn't even answer. I actually respect his military history, but like you said, it's painfully apparent how ideologically blinded and how politically ignorant he is.
    1
  1373.  wannabchomsky  Yeah, especially that last bit. I could at least pretend to respect him before I saw that all he does is give attention to the people who didn't watch the video and just agreed with him on principle, and then he complains to them that the[insert buzzwords] want to cover up history or something. It's shameful.
    1
  1374.  wannabchomsky  ah yes, people not liking corporations is actually a contradiction. Yeah, that's nonsense. TIK really has no idea what he's talking about
    1
  1375.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah, and there it is. Here I had thought that you felt even a small bit of shame for your past stupidity, and that maybe upon scrolling through actual examples and quotation from you, you might have a moment of self reflection, or perhaps humility. Nope, you just went on and proved my point. What do you think that someone scrolling through this would say, hm? Here we are, providing examples, and here you are, saying "reeee." Not looking the best, champ.
    1
  1376.  @crimson6952  nope, you haven't
    1
  1377.  @TheImperatorKnight  Incorrect.
    1
  1378. Yes, there is bias. TIK's. You see, the idea that historians are somehow manipulated by a left wing mob into re-defining socialism was literally one taken from the nazis. Another issue, of course, it the hypocrisy you show. The reason why so many historians deny the obvious truth about Fascism or Nazism is because most of them hold right wing, or conservative, views. So, of course, they do not want to be associated with the Nazis. Also, by claiming that the Nazis are socialist and left wing, they can compare the left wing parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain and Democrats in the US, to Nazis. There is a great deal of political bias going on here. You see the problem? To call the nazis socialists, you have to redefine socialist. which means the bias comes from your end, mate.
    1
  1379.  @alexanderkreynin5257  Not really. For one, liberal and socialist are entirely opposed, so they would have no reason to defend a so called "socialist." For two, you have to realize something mate. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't a conspiracy. Maybe it's just the case that the more you learn about the world, the more left wing you become. Just a thought.
    1
  1380.  @kattkatt6961  But you didn't "correct" me, you just deflected. I hate to break it to you but a comment on twitter isn't a threat. I would count the hundreds of not thousands of elected officials being called directly with threats to murder them and their families as "threats," not to mention the constant implicit threats of the right in declaring the democratic party to be traitors and terrorists that need to be "dealt with." and of course, none of this is mentioning (again) the hundreds dead due to right wing domestic terror. So yes, the left threatens elected officials far less, it's the republican party platform after all. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to a few decades, when again, a huge blow against your argument comes from the modern actions of those claiming the titles you're attempting to explain away. Hardly a distraction.
    1
  1381.  @kattkatt6961  "The second you said this, I know you did not read history. A non Tsarist government did rise peacefully. It was the system of the Provisional Government that was then to be replaced by an elected body. " Would you care to perhaps explain exactly how said provisional government came to be? I'll do your work for you - it came to be after the February Revolution. So no, a non-Tsarist government did not rise peacefully, it rose after armed conflict, rioting and revolution. The new Provisional Government was not effective in actually solving the problems that had inspired the revolution in the first place, and as a result was extremely unpopular and was overthrown in turn. I have to ask if you had assumed that there was only one revolution in that time frame and decided to take out your annoyance on me upon learning that this wasn't the case. Sure, Lenin didn't have majority support for his specific ideology, but his revolution specifically succeeded because the provisional government was so ineffective. You claim I know nothing, while refusing to answer the majority of my points, only ever making up some nonsense based around the fact that you are apparently unaware of the February Revolution. So, as usual, you've been proven to know nothing. Why wasn't there a tsar in power by the time of the October Revolution? Oh, right, because armed conflict months earlier had taken him out of power. Do you see the problem with your assertion now? Come on. The provisional government was formed out of revolution, and overthrown from revolution. Again, my statements remain true, no peaceful transfer of power was possible in either scenario, which is why revolution happened.
    1
  1382.  @kattkatt6961  "Again if you read the analysis of Privatization in Nazi Germany, The source I gave you that you decided to ignore...which is only 22 pages long." I literally have read it? I thought I made this clear in my previous response, the work is specifically one cited often to debunk your denialist rewriting of history, which is why I was familiar with it and the arguments against it. I didn't ignore it at all, I pointed out that it doesn't contain what you say it does. Please stop denying recorded history. Of course private hands owned property, in far more than just in name, in action and policy as well of course. Again, as i've said, cases of nationalization were rare. That is exactly why the Junkers are brought up so often, because they are one of the only cases of actual state nationalization, even as short lived as it is. I'll also remind you that one can be both a private owner and a member of a party. Subscribing to an ideology or belonging to a party does not mean that you must act exclusively in accordance with said party or ideology, or even more absurd, that you belong to the state itself. The reason they avoided nationalization, again, was because from the very beginning, hitler and his faction of the nazi party opposed nationalization. This was a notion born within the nazi party, not outside of it as you assert. The reason deals with companies were made is because said companies already largely supported the nazis anti-socialist efforts. This is why deals with those companies more often dealt in positive incentives than negative incentives. The nazis, objectively, put a huge policy of privatization in place. They privatized specifically because they felt that state control of the economy and of german industry would ruin said economy. In order to get those private interests in line with their own, again, their most common method were guaranteed-profit contracts that said companies would compete over. So, no, your statements do not at all reflect historical fact, which is precisely what the source you not points out. The main reason industry wasn't nationalized is because the nazis ideologically opposed nationalization unless necessary, something they shared with other fascist movements. They allied with rich industrialists, not "drained" them, and they gained their support through selling them previously public property, putting governmental systems in place that would protect and concentrate their power, and giving them methods to profit. Their privatization was deeply ideological, and while it was certainly a method to gain private support, it wasn't born out of some secret desire to control everything from behind the curtain. Please actually read your source instead of just linking it and failing to figure out that it is literally based entirely around disproving your claim.
    1
  1383.  @kattkatt6961  What do you mean I "give up?" I, unlike you, have answered every single one of your points, whereas you take individual lines and ignore the entire rest of the response. I know you feel a desire to insult me, but that doesn't change the facts. The nazis kept business even when it disagreed with government, and made business agree through bribes, not threats. Business does what the government wants because they profit off of it, why wouldn't they? Privatized in everything, name, action, reality.
    1
  1384.  @kattkatt6961  Why do you assume yourself to know more than historians, and the only reason they might disagree with you being their own ignorance? Sad.
    1
  1385.  @kattkatt6961  "This was a prevailing theory at the very start but is again not completely true, he did not gain industrial support until mid to late 1932 when he had already basically attained power." Incorrect. What you might be thinking of is the fact that he didn't get support of small business until late into his career, which didn't last long. Industrialists, on the other hand, supported him from the moment that he became an actual formidable opposition force to the leftist parties. They specifically supported him, even when he could not harm them, because he aligned with their private interests. The consolidated businesses were private, not "state owned," which is a trend you can see in modern capitalist economies. And this "author's opinion" is, in reality, a world-renowned historian's analysis of the facts, something you seem willing to dismiss as soon as possible. An economy of private ownership cannot be a socialist economy. And again, we're dealing with you making odd comparisons where they aren't warranted. Built on slavery? Does that mean that the whole of the modern world is socialist, since the vast majority of modern countries from America to Britain were either hubs of slave labor? Attain higher living standards? Is that a socialist thing now, that only socialists want? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that literally every politician in existence actively argues that their policies result in a better life and higher living standard for their people? This is one quote of many, you're welcome to read the source itself, but your assertions are based on your own ignorance. He brings up clear support for why it's not socialism, did you not read the whole part regarding the private economy? He doesn't "Fail to recognize" anything, your assertion is historically false and not supported by the majority of historical works on the subject, which is why he counters it. Hitler never abolished private property, in name, action, anything. The notion of you owning something until a higher power disagrees is literally how every nation operates. Are they all socialist now? If you had actually read the source you cited you would know that it disproves you easily. A good historian that you seem to think was unaware of your absurd claim, rather than actively disproving it. And I think you fail to realize that privatization in the context of mutual benefit for private corporations and government is still privatiation. The government making allies isn't nationalization, those allies are still private entities, aligning with the party out of their own private interests. This is a trend we still see in capitalism to this day. The government having allies is not "government control," nor could it at all be considered socialist. And I "feel" that you are entirely wrong. You fail to realize that the source in question specifically focuses on hitler's privatization policy, which even in your warped ahistorical reading utterly disqualifies him from being a socialist. The piece specifically debunks the notion that privatization was in name only. The problem is that you somehow think that being an ally to a government, supporting a government, or belonging to the ideology or party that is in power in that government, makes you state owned. This is, of course, false. What you call "class divide socialism" is literally just socialism, you're expanding the definition to make room for conservative class collaborationists. Mixed markets are capitalist because the means of production are in private hands. "Nation divided socialism," whatever that means, doesn't even fit the basic definition of socialism. "Class divided or international socialism" is just socialism, please stop trying to redefine the term. And yes, as we've been over, none of hitler's policies actually fit the basic definition of socialism.
    1
  1386.  @kattkatt6961  Again, false. Why are you shifting the goalposts to just elected representatives that were attacked? And why in such a specific way? Is it because the facts i've provided utterly debunk your nonsense narratives? Why are we suddenly not allowed to discuss things such as Jan 6, an unabashed attack on tens of elected officials? What about the hundreds of personal threats sent out over mail, phone, and delivered in person to election voter staff and elected officials that deny right wing narratives? What about for example, the hundreds dead at the hands of right wing extremism? Also, why are you ignoring the fact that the republican party closer to the "founding of the nation" was the liberal, northern party that provided a home for socialists, progressives, and abolitionists? How does this prove your point at all? So no, the simple fact of right wing threats and violence making up a majority absolutely holds true. I hate to break it to you but an anonymous comment from anywhere in the world is not a "threat." Multiple calls, messages, and personal attacks by right wing voters on elected officials are certainly threats though, and many go far beyond that. I'm sorry you feel the need to fixate on one thing and ignore everything else. Why limit yourself to one form of representative, one part of the government? why not the hundreds of election officials that receive hundreds of threats? Why not the 300+ dead due to right wing domestic terrorism in the past decade? Hell, why not point out those you seem to have forgotten, like the attempted attack on the John L. Burton Democratic Headquarters, or the attack on Tim Carpenter? It's odd how limited your surveying was. There are, of course, far more cases than just the one mentioned, but it's worth pointing out how far you have to divert from the original point to even make an argument in the first place. The problem is that your metric of "flawed argument" is any argument you disagree with, and you're willing to dismiss said "flawed arguments" out of hand. I don't dismiss I prove wrong, something you seem incapable of. But sure, laugh away.
    1
  1387.  @kattkatt6961  Why are you talking about Lenin all of a sudden?? The topic of conversation was the simple fact that a Tsarist order could physically not be overthrown without violence, and that there was no place for peaceful transfer of power. The fact that you've had to divert to Lenin's involvement tells me that you know you lost this point. And here we go. I'm sorry, that's false. I pointed out that no methods existed to transfer power peacefully from the tsar, further pointing out that the bolsheviks (when they did revolt) had popular support among a population that opposed the Provisional Government, one that had not solved anything it tried to, and one that had taken no hard stance on the Tsar itself. Lenin didn't need to be a part of the February Revolution, nor did I ever claim it was. But thank you for admitting that it is true that the Tsar could not be peacefully removed from power. Also worth pointing out that while the revolt itself might have had popular support, the government formed afterwards did not. Again, this is a claim of you trying to project ignorance rather than actually accepting the fact that someone might have just proved you wrong. And you can't even seem to get the October Revolution, the one you claim I know nothing about, at all right. As you yourself said, the October Revolution was far from an action of a minority group, after all, bolshevik literally meant the majority party. The Provisional Government had been plagued by popular pushback against the vast majority of its policies, and again was resoundingly unpopular. In any case, it wasn't as simple as him attempting to overthrow the government because he didn't get a democratic majority. The government had previously failed to actually make good on its "elected" officials representing the people in any way, and when the bolshevik and bolshevik aligned groups began to talk of different systems that might work better, the Provisional Government panicked and openly attacked the bolsheviks, attempting to imprison their leaders and militarily protect against revolution. It was the Provisional Government that had attacked the bolsheviks based on a vote that threatened their power, and the Provisional Government that had shut down newspapers to stall a revolution. So Lenin "resorted to violence" because the failed Provisional Government responded with state force when democratic votes were held to change the system. You can insult me all you want, but you've somehow managed to wholly reverse the actual facts of history. I'm sorry that you're unable to respond to my points, but that really isn't my fault. Of course I have not only desire, but ability to refute your points, that's what i've been doing this whole time. I'm pretty sure at this point you're just annoyed you got called out on your ignorance. I refute, not dismiss. I don't really care how interesting you see me as, as no matter what, I remain correct, the thing that actually matters.
    1
  1388.  @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
  1389.  @coyote4326  Oh, child. What did this video "get?" It "got" a ton of children to come out of the woodworks, ready to be made a fool of, but that's about it. Why are you projecting your anger onto me? Does it annoy you that your bible here is so easy to refute? Of course my arguments come from a logical standpoint, I understand that you're so used to illogical insults that this might be a surprise to you, but to us in reality this is just how arguments happen. I'm sorry the truth offends you?
    1
  1390.  @coyote4326  What is my political motivation? You keep saying it exists, and yet you can't even guess at it. What does that say about you?
    1
  1391.  @jonathanstevey1748  Once again, I'm not sure why you quote this passage, as it entirely contradicts your assertion. Hitler is openly questioned on the fact that his party platform directly contradicts all previous and ongoing socialist movements, which disproves your notion that his ideology could be defined as socialism in his own time period. Hitler's response to this is lumping all of those previous and ongoing movements, marxist or not, into the label "Marxism," and asserting that this is not socialism. True "socialism," according to hitler, is an ideology that supports private property, that supports right wing nationalism, that allows for individual wealth. Hitler even openly admits that he might have called the party the "Liberal Party," the liberal party of the Weimar republic being an openly right wing capitalist institution. Hitler, after all, openly opposed the inclusion of "Socialist" in the party name. You've quoted hitler denying your point, and you refuse to explain how this supports the idea that he was left wing or socialistic. But hey, let's add insult to injury and look at more quotes, both from him and about him. "...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 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). 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 At this point Hitler turned to his neighbour Amann and said: 'What right have these people to demand a share in property or even in the administration? Herr Amann, would you permit your typist to have any voice in your affairs? 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." "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" "‘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.’ - Strasser, Hitler and I ""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."" - Hitler
    1
  1392.  @jonathanstevey1748  Your quotes here, as deflectionary as they are, also don't support your point. Sorel starts by praising Lenin, and shows his support for the very things that, as I've cited, Mussolini opposed. However, as we've been over, Mussolini's past is complicated. Shortly after he was expelled from the socialist party, as in, around the time or after many of the quotes praising his work had been stated, he began to move away from socialism, again, in his own words. Sorel, in his life, openly rejected fascism and nationalism as contrary to his ideology, after trying to stabilize the synthesis that had already formed. In any case, you can see in your own quote here that Mussolini praises Sorel not for his economic or social views, as in the things that define socialism, but rather for his views on the necessity of violent organization (revolutionary tactics) that Sorel was famous for having concretely theorized on, something that inspired conservatives as well as the emerging fascist groups. The key bit being that none of this proves that fascism has any connection with socialism, nor even that fascists held favorable views of socialists or vice versa. Sorel compliments Mussolini before Mussolini rejects the vast majority of his work, Mussolini compliments Sorel not on economics or ideology but on organization. After all, in Mussolini's own words he isn't a socialist, and in fact he praised Sorel for allowing for an anti-socialist revolution with his work. Sorry you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. So, what have we learned? Fascists despised the left, despised socialists, openly identified with the right and worked with/praised/were supported by right wingers, all while purging and repressing the left. They fit neither the definition of socialism nor left wing and they were very aware of this fact. You attempted to disprove this, but in the process only cited evidence of it. I, on the other hand, am more than happy to give proof when needed. "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." So no, child, fascism isn't a form of socialism, by any definition, in any true telling of history, and they knew it. Fascism is a form of far right anti-socialism.
    1
  1393.  @jonathanstevey1748  Ah, is this another case where you just say "it's been proven" and then run?
    1
  1394.  @jonathanstevey1748  But I refuted literally everything you said. It wasn't even hard, you did most of my work for me.
    1
  1395.  @jonathanstevey1748  But I refuted everything, did more work than you did, and it was easy. I called you ignorant because you have shown yourself to be ignorant, by the simple definition of that word. And that's probably why you lost this "debate," because you just assumed that everyone who proved you wrong was a communist, and your arguments were based off of ideology, not reality. Child, I'm not a communist or socialist, but even I can see your ignorance. According to your definition, socialism is one of the most successful ideologies in the world. And no, child, socialism is not just a "centralized economy," nor is it even that. No, child, but proving that fascism is right wing makes it so, and I'm more than happy to say that i've easily done that. Being able to see reality doesn't make you an "arbiter of truth." Child, feel free to insult me all you want, but it won't change the facts. Fascism isn't leftist, as we've been over its wholeheartedly a movement of the right and an ideology of antisocialism. Funny how you're unable to actually prove a single one of your claims despite constantly repeating them and being asked to provide evidence. Likely because no evidence for said claims exists.
    1
  1396.  @jonathanstevey1748  Child, I just quoted hitler himself saying he hated the left, and that his movement was of the right. You literally think that quoting the people in question is "Revisionist history.* You got disproven. Deal with it.
    1
  1397.  @jonathanstevey1748  "Revisionist history?" Child, I cited everyone from the figures themselves to the best known master economists and historians in their field, most of which TIK also cites. Hitler hated the left, he said so himself. He hated more than just marxists, but the very ideological foundation of leftism and all those that subscribed to it. He wasn't "the left," he was right wing. Sorel himself wasn't a traditionalist, he just came up with the concepts that traditionalists would later use to insert traditional/conservative beliefs to justify their ideology. He didn't "reject Sorelianism," what you describe as "Sorelianism" was never advocated for by him and came about explicitly as a result of conservatives. He didn't create the ideology that would become fascism, he had ideas that conservatives used to create an ideology that would later serve as a key inspiration to fascism. And, jesus, what did I just say? "Nuh uh" isn't an argument. Marx didn't call for a state, he called for a stateless system. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as Marx explains, is a system in which the proletariat (all people, under socialism) have complete political authority over themselves and the economy. (dictatorship) A system in which the people have complete political authority over themselves is not one that requires a state, just workers. Marx wasn't an authoritarian, and your insults towards him are completely off topic. Imaging thinking that poverty or dedication to study discounts one from being an economist. Hitler wasn't a socialist, child. Cope. He didn't just "Question" a socialist party or system, he actively and openly rejected, repressed, and purged all leftist and socialist movements/ideologies while allying with the right and being supported by them in turn. Opposing socialism doesn't make you a socialist. Nazi Germany, economically, was as far from socialism as you can get, as I proved with citation. Hitler despised state ownership, and he allowed private companies to decide themselves how much to make and how much to profit. Hitler and Mussolini literally both abolished unions and created organizations that gave owners even more power and authority over their property, and these organizations retained full authority over the companies. This isn't being "brought under the state," this is pure private control. Again, you don't know what a command economy is. And no, child, socialism is not a command economy. I cited for you the dictionary definition, and noted how you tried to change the definition when your ideology failed. Why are you running away from the dictionary? You already lied about this, child. Socialism, simply put, 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." Now, as we've been over, Hitler was rather open about his distaste towards community control, praising instead private individuals in control of the means of production. "Community control" is synonymous with "Social control," both being control by the community as a whole, and both of which hitler despised. I'm not sure you know what a command economy is. A command economy is one in which a government, any government right or left, orders the economy and industry to produce something. Top-down instructions. A socialist economy can be a command economy, but only if the ruler in place is totally representative of the will of the community as a whole. A socialist economy is defined as one in which the means of production are socially owned. Now, child, regulated/owned/controlled by the community doesn't mean government control. Do you understand how silly your assertion is? You literally say that a community can control through government, so therefore community control is always state control and the two are synonymous. This, of course, is not true. The community can own the means of production as a whole, in different groups, subservient to one leader, on an equal playing field, without a state at all, even. So, no, even by your own definition and logic, socialism is not government controlled economy. "Usually" is not "Always." Marx is funny to bring up here, given that he was open about his notion that socialism is best put into practice without a state at all. He didn't call for an economy under the state, but an economy without the state. Socialism is social control, not state control. You're asserting that socialism is as old as civilization. A group of people taking ownership of their own labor isn't a "Governing body," like it or not. Individuals aren't the government. Socialism is defined a social ownership/control of the means of production, which the nazis and fascists openly despised. I've already proven all of this, and you've provided literally zero evidence contradicting these clear facts.
    1
  1398.  @jonathanstevey1748  No, you literally quoted him saying that he defined all socialism as marxism, opposed marxism, and defined his ideology as being pro-private and right wing. As in, not socialist. "Revisionist history?" Child, I cited everyone from the figures themselves to the best known master economists and historians in their field, most of which TIK also cites. Hitler hated the left, he said so himself. He hated more than just marxists, but the very ideological foundation of leftism and all those that subscribed to it. He wasn't "the left," he was right wing. Sorel himself wasn't a traditionalist, he just came up with the concepts that traditionalists would later use to insert traditional/conservative beliefs to justify their ideology. He didn't "reject Sorelianism," what you describe as "Sorelianism" was never advocated for by him and came about explicitly as a result of conservatives. He didn't create the ideology that would become fascism, he had ideas that conservatives used to create an ideology that would later serve as a key inspiration to fascism. And, jesus, what did I just say? "Nuh uh" isn't an argument. Marx didn't call for a state, he called for a stateless system. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as Marx explains, is a system in which the proletariat (all people, under socialism) have complete political authority over themselves and the economy. (dictatorship) A system in which the people have complete political authority over themselves is not one that requires a state, just workers. Marx wasn't an authoritarian, and your insults towards him are completely off topic. Imaging thinking that poverty or dedication to study discounts one from being an economist. Hitler wasn't a socialist, child. Cope. He didn't just "Question" a socialist party or system, he actively and openly rejected, repressed, and purged all leftist and socialist movements/ideologies while allying with the right and being supported by them in turn. Opposing socialism doesn't make you a socialist. Nazi Germany, economically, was as far from socialism as you can get, as I proved with citation. Hitler despised state ownership, and he allowed private companies to decide themselves how much to make and how much to profit. Hitler and Mussolini literally both abolished unions and created organizations that gave owners even more power and authority over their property, and these organizations retained full authority over the companies. This isn't being "brought under the state," this is pure private control. Again, you don't know what a command economy is. And no, child, socialism is not a command economy. I cited for you the dictionary definition, and noted how you tried to change the definition when your ideology failed. Why are you running away from the dictionary? You already lied about this, child. Socialism, simply put, 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." Now, as we've been over, Hitler was rather open about his distaste towards community control, praising instead private individuals in control of the means of production. "Community control" is synonymous with "Social control," both being control by the community as a whole, and both of which hitler despised. I'm not sure you know what a command economy is. A command economy is one in which a government, any government right or left, orders the economy and industry to produce something. Top-down instructions. A socialist economy can be a command economy, but only if the ruler in place is totally representative of the will of the community as a whole. A socialist economy is defined as one in which the means of production are socially owned. Now, child, regulated/owned/controlled by the community doesn't mean government control. Do you understand how silly your assertion is? You literally say that a community can control through government, so therefore community control is always state control and the two are synonymous. This, of course, is not true. The community can own the means of production as a whole, in different groups, subservient to one leader, on an equal playing field, without a state at all, even. So, no, even by your own definition and logic, socialism is not government controlled economy. "Usually" is not "Always." Marx is funny to bring up here, given that he was open about his notion that socialism is best put into practice without a state at all. He didn't call for an economy under the state, but an economy without the state. Socialism is social control, not state control. You're asserting that socialism is as old as civilization. A group of people taking ownership of their own labor isn't a "Governing body," like it or not. Individuals aren't the government. Socialism is defined a social ownership/control of the means of production, which the nazis and fascists openly despised. I've already proven all of this, and you've provided literally zero evidence contradicting these clear facts. And yes, you ran from reality, and are continuing to do so by only copy-pasting points that have already been disproven. It's actually pathetic.
    1
  1399.  @jonathanstevey1748  the idea that hitler was somehow a socialist is a purely american idea, one that no other place in the world subscribes to, because they saw hitler's right wing ideology firsthand. In europe, notably in the places that saw hitler's terror close up, the simple truth is taught, that he was a right wing anti-socialist.
    1
  1400.  @jonathanstevey1748  you're literally praising groups that fly hitler's flag, and yet you can't admit that the nazis are right wing? Pathetic.
    1
  1401.  @jonathanstevey1748  Hitler like you was a far right anti-socialist. You can't deny this, the facts are in, so you insult me and run away. Pathetic.
    1
  1402.  @jonathanstevey1748  Literally zero of this is true though. The only goal you seem to have is denying the past of nazism. I've disproven everything you've said, with quotation, citation, and the facts you run away from. Child, as I said you can insult me all you like, but I owned you here, and there's nothing you can do about it. I literally just stated that Hitler openly conflated all socialism with Marxism/Bolshevism, can you read? Hitler, much like you, was a right wing anti-socialist. You have, so far, provided no evidence or argumentation opposing this simple fact, because none exists. Deal with it. He openly defines "socialism" as a right wing, pro-private anti-leftist movement, and yes, he proudly defines himself as all of these things. He opposed the inclusion of socialist into the party name and made obvious his opposition to socialism, but he then redefined it as an ideology you yourself agree with. Socialism is "inherently antisemetic?" You might want to tell that to the millions of jewish socialists throughout history and in the modern day which fight against the antisemetism of the right at every opportunity. There would be far more, if the right wing nazis hadn't killed so many. Marx was antisemetic, but the book "On the Jewish Question" was responding to the right wing "Jewish Question," and disagreeing with it. Hitler openly rejected Marx's analysis of capitalism. Hitler openly stated that his inspiration for his antisemetism was the german volkisch conservative movement. You accuse me of practicing revisionist history, but not once have you provided any evidence of this. Because you know that I'm not, that i've provided the simple truth, and you can't disprove it. Your denial of science in another aspect is noted, you seem to really despise evidence, especially when it disproves your proud fascistic narrative. Child, historians and economists proving a claim, and me quoting them proving that claim, is not an "appeal to authority fallacy." It's ironic that you're accusing me of not being able to think for myself, when 90% of your responses are copy-pasted. By the way, child, everyone from Germany to Britian is aware of the right wing anti-socialist nature of hitler. Denying this is purely an american phenomenon, and one laughed at by the rest of the world. Funny how you make this claim, again, with no evidence. In Europe, they literally still have right wingers openly praising hitler. They had to make laws to stop the right from lying about his past. They don't teach that naizsm is a form of socialism or that hitler was a socialist, you make this claim with zero proof because it's not true. They teach the truth, that hitler was a far right extremist who hated socialism, and that nazis was a private right wing ideology. So, according to you, the historians, the economists, the entirety of the european education system, and the nazis themselves, are all wrong about nazi ideology.
    1
  1403.  @jonathanstevey1748  Child, TIK cites "this thoroughly debunked book"
    1
  1404.  @jonathanstevey1748  No, child. See, when I cite something, I include the name of the source, as well as the name of who said the quote. You can literally see all of the multitudes of sources I cite, directly from speeches, from different authors, from party minutes, and so on. You "recognize the book?" Which book? I've cited several. Not a "single source" as you claim. You claim "the book" is debunked, yet refuse to provide evidence, likely because not only are these sources long proven, but because you're afraid since I won the debate, and you're running again.
    1
  1405.  @jonathanstevey1748  Proud nazi groups on the right, that wave hitler's flag to this day.
    1
  1406.  @jonathanstevey1748  No, child. Fascism isn't a form of socialism. You're really dedicated to defending fascism, aren't you?
    1
  1407.  @jonathanstevey1748  child, stop quoting fascists (you agree with!) and listen to facts : Once again, I'm not sure why you quote this passage, as it entirely contradicts your assertion. Hitler is openly questioned on the fact that his party platform directly contradicts all previous and ongoing socialist movements, which disproves your notion that his ideology could be defined as socialism in his own time period. Hitler's response to this is lumping all of those previous and ongoing movements, marxist or not, into the label "Marxism," and asserting that this is not socialism. True "socialism," according to hitler, is an ideology that supports private property, that supports right wing nationalism, that allows for individual wealth. Hitler even openly admits that he might have called the party the "Liberal Party," the liberal party of the Weimar republic being an openly right wing capitalist institution. Hitler, after all, openly opposed the inclusion of "Socialist" in the party name. You've quoted hitler denying your point, and you refuse to explain how this supports the idea that he was left wing or socialistic. But hey, let's add insult to injury and look at more quotes, both from him and about him. "...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 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). 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 At this point Hitler turned to his neighbour Amann and said: 'What right have these people to demand a share in property or even in the administration? Herr Amann, would you permit your typist to have any voice in your affairs? 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." "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" "‘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.’ - Strasser, Hitler and I ""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."" - Hitler
    1
  1408.  @jonathanstevey1748  You're lying to defend fascism.
    1
  1409.  @jonathanstevey1748  Awww, are you running away again because I so easily debunked you?
    1
  1410.  @jonathanstevey1748  you've proudly praised fascists, dude. Even you admit it.
    1
  1411.  @jonathanstevey1748  I'm sorry, this is false. The fact is that Nazi germany not only left most industries in private hands, but left economic autonomy in those hands as well, and allowed for the private market to exist unimpeded. Ah, Mises. See, Mises was interesting because, despite attempting to claim numerous times that nazi germany and fascism generally were socialist (and being rightfully laughed off in his own time) he never seemed to want to delve into the fact that he had been a proud fascist, and worked towards developing fascist economic ideology in his own time. Oh, did you forget that? What Mises failed to identify, as has been shown with economic and historical study of the time period, is that private ownership of the means of production existed in name, function, and reality, under the nazis, and that the defense of private property was one of the nazi government's top priority, control of said economy being one of their biggest enemies. For it was the private owners and not the nominal german government that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the placid and helpful nazi government, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the acting, true private owners, was one in which they had more control than in any german period prior, which Mises also ignores. "De-facto Government Ownership," as Mises attempts to assert describes any economic in which the government is present in reality and the economy, no matter the actual degree of ownership, or intention/actions of the government. Hi assertions were not logically implied, but rather, ideologically implied, ignoring the whole of logic and history in the process. See, the nazis were open in their belief, as I have quoted previously, that the common good and indeed the common worker must be subservient to the private good and the private individual in order for the nazis to truly enact their ideology. The individual and his property, in nazi ideology, was just as if not more important than the government, and his private ownership was essential in nazi ideology. He is a part of the ideology, and his property, similarly, is supported by and endorsed by the ideology. What Mises called "de facto socialism" was a term that could be used to describe any economy at the time, that was, a wartime economy. The application of the term of course ignores that the nazis were openly hostile towards price and wage controls, and only implemented them sparingly and temporarily when the war effort necessitated them. See, the nazis despised public works and in fact much of the money they earned in this period was due to the privatization of these public works, or their scaling down. The nazis desired to rearm themselves, so they created incentives for the private companies to support their ideology, and indeed they did. The effect of these anti-socialist policies was a reduction in the living quality of many of the citizens of nazi germany, and to deal with shortages, Hitler poured even more money into his crimes and horrific right wing ethnonationalist push. As Mises himself noted, one potential effect of these temporary price controls was this rise in shortages, which the nazi government again either ignored, or used as an excuse to profit further, and further cement the power of private owners, by allowing them even more control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed. However, even if the government took this duty into its own hands, this would not be social ownership or socialization of the economic system in any regard, as the collective or community as a whole has even less power now. Of course, that hypothetical is oot, given that the private owners exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership. Mises' assertion of "socialism" relies on a redefinition of basic economic terminology, and a deep need to lie about the past of the nazis. "Socialism on the german pattern" is by definition ore similar to right wing conservatism than any socialist movement, which makes sense, given the right wing conservatism of the nazis. See, the problem is, Mises is passing judgement on all socialists by attempting to lie about the actions of a non-socialist government, examine policies that were never implemented, and by redefining basic terminology in a way that essentially renders socialism as a concept meaningless. See, there is no such thing as a "nazi variant of socialism," given that any honest defining of the terms and examining of the data results in the simple fact that the nazis were not socialists. The "price controls' in question not only don't define socialism, but openly show the fact that Mises is attempting to ignore the history of policies or the reason for their implementation in order to push his revisionist nonsense. He's attempting to criticize socialism by redefining socialism and then lying about different regimes in an attempt to push his redefinition onto them. The nazis, by definition, could not be called socialist, and the failure of price control policies generally as well as the nazi's reluctant and limited implementation of similar policies could not be called socialist by the basic definition of the term. The nazi's reign of terror was built on ideas that were antithetical to socialism as an ideology. Communism is by definition stateless, and it's incredibly fallacious to refer to "any type of socialist state" while listing nazism, given that the nazis weren't socialists. This betrays one of many of Mises' ignorances regarding economics. The nazis had no central government economic plan, and communism by definition has no central government to plan the economy. Socialism isn't a "planning process," but Mises must define it as such in order to push his revisionist claims. Fascism, simply put, fits no rational definition of socialism. The only way to claim otherwise is to either redefine socialism in such a way that it can cover nearly every ideology to date, lie about the past of the regimes and ideologies in question, or both. And it seems both you and Mises have decided to do both, criticizing socialist based on policies that socialists need not advocate for, but that you define socialism by, and then finding similar policies in other places, ignoring the context, and criticizing them as a whole as if they belong to the same movements. So no, child, as I've proven, fascism is as far from socialism as you can get. Mises would know, having been a fascist and proud anti-socialist and all.
    1
  1412.  @jonathanstevey1748  But you have. You've proudly and consistently praised the right, especially thinkers of the right, ignoring their fascist association. You insult those who dare listen to the science and receive vaccines or protect themselves with masks, aligning yourself with the radical right wing extremists who wave the nazi flag. Child, you started this debate with a smear campaign/character assassinations because you have no other points. I blew your argument out of the water, and you deflected and insulted rather than responding. And when I take one of your deflections by the horns and use it to prove your own sympathetic view of, and ties to, nazism and those that praise it, you suddenly get defensive. I've argued against you without knowing your political views, until you exposed them, and I argued against that. You, however, have no idea how to argue with someone you do not know the political views of, so you call them a communist and run away. As you just did. And you're free to cope with your crushing loss, but it isn't going away any time soon for you.
    1
  1413.  @jonathanstevey1748  But it's the truth. Calling fascists socialists is saying that people from Einstein to MLK were as evil as hitler. It's saying that hitler's enemies and victims deserved their death. It's ignoring the modern right wing groups that proudly wave nazi flags, and placing the blame on the left. Insult me all you want, the facts won't change.
    1
  1414.  @jonathanstevey1748  No, child, I'm telling you the painful truth. Escaped... from where? Oh, that's right, before the nazis forced the political collapse of Austria, Mises was voluntarily and happily working as the head economic advisor to Engelbert Dollfuss, the head of the Austrian Fatherland Front, the ruling fascist party. Does working for a fascist to help develop fascist policy not make you a fascist, or sympathetic to them? Stop strawmanning. And child, it isn't a "copy pasta." It's called a citation. Said citation contains multiple speeches and books, all of which TIK cites, so I'm not sure why you keep referencing the one paragraph as a "debunked book" when it's neither debunked (you failed to provide evidence for this assertion before) nor is it a single book. Run away, child. You got owned.
    1
  1415.  @jonathanstevey1748  No, you're blocking me because you got caught in a lie, and then realized you have nothing left but insults and deflection.
    1
  1416.  @jonathanstevey1748  Would you happen to agree with the phrase "death to marxism?"
    1
  1417.  @jonathanstevey1748  need I remind you I'm not a communist?
    1
  1418.  @jonathanstevey1748  You're literally calling me a subhuman communist and you expect me not to rightfully connect your ideology with that of fascists? You're blocking me because you can't disprove my arguments, you call me dishonest without proving it because you know you can't, you call me disingenuous to get out of points you know you can't respond to, and you claim to not show support for certain groups despite proudly defending them and sharing their ideology. You claim I can't argue without assigning an ideology to my opponent, and yet here you are, bowing out of the argument and assigning a political ideology to me, one I've explicitly said I disagree with, because you can't argue otherwise. Facts aren't "commie smears." You attempt insults and ad hominem because you can't have an honest conversation. I engaged you honestly in debate, wrote a respond, and you ran away. Insults don't change the facts. Imagine being so ignorant that not only have you forgotten I'm not a communist, but that communism by definition is stateless, and people have been enforcing your ideological viewpoints by gunpoint for centuries now. Calling me subhuman literally just proves my point, fash.
    1
  1419.  @gch8810  Unfortunately yes I have, and i'm sorry for you having never read it, because hitler's anti-socialism is clear. Your ideological cope is noted.
    1
  1420.  @gch8810  Hitler was, most definitely, a right wing anti-socialist. The fact that you think a bigoted screed lacking in any and all economics shows "socialism" is telling.
    1
  1421.  @gch8810  By that you mean "Wow! I really can't respond to your arguments."
    1
  1422.  @gch8810  says the person spam replying because they can't handle me being right.
    1
  1423.  @Wargulpartal  So which do you prefer, rationing doctors due to need, or due to how much you can pay for them?
    1
  1424.  @Wargulpartal  Then why have those strategies of helping the poor historically failed, miserably?
    1
  1425.  @Wargulpartal  Some of the most successful and long lasting policies in america have been "socialistic," and some of the most destructive have been free-market capitalist.
    1
  1426.  @Wargulpartal  You're literally just asserting random stuff at this point, and it shows. You can't even come up with any real counters to the examples given, all you said was "no." and then reacted that like irrefutable fact. So, along the vein of what you did - sorry, you're wrong. and most likely a troll, but that's another issue entirely, and one to deal with later.
    1
  1427.  @mitscientifica1569  No, as they were not right wing, a key component of fascism :)
    1
  1428. ​ @mitscientifica1569  It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that theHitler 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
  1429.  @mitscientifica1569  Stop with your denialism.
    1
  1430.  @mitscientifica1569  It's as if you don't have a single original thought.
    1
  1431.  @davidlindsey6111  No, yes, and no, and given that I don't think you actually understand even the terms you accidentally managed to get right, . please attempt actual research.
    1
  1432.  @a.r.5695  I agree - you continue to assert that your baseless ramblings reflect reality, but of course, no evidence can be found to support said assertion. The problem here is that you define "real experts" as anyone that agrees with you. Given that historians, scientists, economist, and so on more often take the left's side than not, in your mind they must just be "not real experts." But when a random ideologue backs up your ahistorical and false notions, you believe them without another word. You continue to lie, and it will never become true. Of course, the nonsense assertions of the right, as they have been time and time again in the past, are easy to refute. After all, they openly admit that the majority of experts show facts that align with the left, they only try to write this off as conspiracy rather than for a second admitting that they might be wrong. We are seeing yet another failed attempt at rewriting basic knowledge we've known now for a century. Hitler was not a race based socialist, nor was he a socialist at all, as we've known since before his reign. He was a far right anti-socialist, much like you, which explains why you want to so desperately disassociate yourself with him, despite holding many of his views. You can make up nonsense about socialism all you want - telling a lie again doesn't make it true.
    1
  1433.  @bdan6954  I love how you can't even come up with a single argument. The definition I cited was literally the standard definition. As in, literally the first dictionary definition when you google it. Something you didn't even bother to do, because you claim I made the definition up. I'm not a socialist, and your attempted "rebuttal" is pathetic. I hate to break it to you but people and parties lie. In fact, Hitler initially opposed the name socialist for the party, and killed the group that put it in place. Do you care at all about history? Only a right winger could ignore all the facts in favor of a slogan. Ah, and the typical conservative argument, "This one thing i'm wrong about is like another thing i'm wrong about." You mean the well-recorded and long proven reality of the american party switch? I mean you claim that nothing about the parties changed, which is hilarious. Child, the republican party of the 1800s was the party of feminists, socialists, leftists, and regulationist progressives. The democratic party at the same time was white, southern, religious, and deeply conservative, arguing that the government shouldn't impeded their "property rights." That "property," disgustingly, being human beings. What do you mean none of their policies changed, pretty much all of them did. The slave driving and segregationist white conservative southerners kept their policies, it just turned out in time that a different party claimed their support. "Note, nothing else about the parties changed, just that." Kid, you can't even get your strawmen straight, this is really pathetic. How sad that you can't accept history. Why would I "accept" your fanatic, ideologically loaded insults in favor of clearly proven historical reality? How is supporting the legacy of MLK, Greeley, or hell even Willich "the worst ideologies in human history?" I, unlike the right, share no allegiance their brothers, to the anti-socialist nazis or right wing slavers.
    1
  1434.  @engelsteinberg593  Please stop lying about really basic things.
    1
  1435.  @engelsteinberg593  "Capitalism is the natural order of things" is a demonstrably false claim made by religious fanatics.
    1
  1436.  @engelsteinberg593  Child, this is just pathetic, your arguments are nonsensical.
    1
  1437.  @engelsteinberg593  Child, just because its an ideology you agree with, doesn't make it any less of an ideology. Capitalism is not the "natural order of things," it is an ideology that was constructed during/following the industrial revolution. Cooperation and capitalism seem, at most points, diametrically opposed, and we see a system of mutual (or social) property enacted when capitalism is not forced upon people.
    1
  1438.  @engelsteinberg593  Saying it doesn't make it true, and evidently you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  1439.  @engelsteinberg593  I hate to break it to you but saying "things can be false" doesn't actually disprove when things are literally true. Yes, there are plenty of citations for plenty of claims, and some of them might even be false, but that doesn't mean that you can just claim all citations are problematic just because people keep brining them up to disprove your nonsense narratives. You actually have to disprove the sources in question to make a point, not just dismiss them because you feel like it. Sure, dictionaries aren't perfect and can get things wrong, but again, you cannot claim that dictionary definitions are false simply because you think some must not be perfect, you actually have to address the specific definition in question and provide your specific reasoning regarding why you think it might be flawed or outright false, as of now you've failed to do either of those things and are just going off about unrelated nonsense that just proves your anti-intellectualism. There are only a few, and only a few of even that small amount actually reflect the historical usage and interpretation of the terms. The problem is that your definitions make little sense at all, you define socialism as anti-capitalist systems of welfare, but fail to define capitalist, anti-capitalist, or welfare. The definition I have provided includes references to all of the pertinent vocabulary as well as historical citation that justifies the definition in question. Yes, different socialists have different specific beliefs, but they all require the idea of socially owned property to be socialist. In any case, you're free to criticize them on the basis of not reaching this goal, but your criticisms can't even be that rational, you go on about the "natural order" of capitalism, failing to realize that you don't need coercion or force to end capitalism, because capitalism isn't natural, its an ideology like any other that is already forced on people to this day, and to think otherwise is just an attempt at a naturalistic fallacy, and a psuedo-religious claim that has no bearing on reality.
    1
  1440.  @engelsteinberg593  And you are free to make that argument, however you have no right to attempt to redefine socialism based off of what you think of the ideology or those calling themselves socialists, rather than actually sticking to the historical definition of the term, which is incredibly important in this case. You can create whatever terms you want, but if you want to alter the definition or understanding of other terms, you need a very good reason.
    1
  1441.  @engelsteinberg593  Yeah, no. As we've already been over, you need to stop relying on authorities you don't understand and definitions you don't want to learn.
    1
  1442.  @engelsteinberg593  False on both counts. Social ownership has a concrete definition and real world examples, And while TIK attempts to redefine "state" as "human organization," he fails, and his further attempts at an association fallacy regarding social ownership and statism also fail. Social ownership is not ownership by "a kind of state," unless you somehow think a dictator perfectly represents all their citizens.
    1
  1443.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, child. The very fact that you call me "commie" for no reason proves that you label anyone who goes against your narrative as left wing. I'm sorry that you hate the fact that the nazis were right wing.
    1
  1444.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, the burden of proof is on you. Why would you defend the nazis? Why would you fail to offer evidence?
    1
  1445.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Why do you claim "their ideology was the name of the party" without considering how they defined said words, or the fact that hitler opposed the inclusion of "socialist" in his party name at all?
    1
  1446.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, child, this is all wrong. The burden of proof has been met on my side, I have provided evidence and argumentation for every single one of the facts I present. You, on the other hand, are fine with making assertions that you know you can't bac up, and that you have no interest in trying to prove. Their ideology very clearly wasn't in the name of the party, for example, given hitler's rejection of the party name, and purging of those that decided it. I'm sorry that you feel that your opinions are facts, but they just aren't. Until you can deal with the facts I have brought to your attention, you have no argument. I'm no communist, but your readiness to call me one proves my point exactly, you call anyone anything if you feel like it. Hitler and the nazis, wait for it.... were right wing. This is the simple truth, and its one you can't even address. Who pushes their policies, who shouts their mottos, who flies their flags? Well, the right of course, as they always have. The nazis hate the left, they said so openly. Please attempt to stop making such silly claim. AS we both know, Hitler and the Nazis were openly, proudly, and undeniably... right wing ;)
    1
  1447.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  I already have, and your inability to respond proves my point exactly.
    1
  1448.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Lmao exactly my point, thank you. You are an ideologically driven fanatic that, upon hearing facts you cannot disprove, you jump into unrelated culture war bs. Yes, child, you've defended the nazis. It's horrific, but not uncommon on the right.
    1
  1449.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  I don't think you know what an "ad hominem" (you spelt it wrong) is. I've proven a claim, you have yet to even attempt to do so on your side. We've been over this already, child. I hate to break it to you, but propaganda more often than not is inaccurate. Hitler opposed the inclusion of "socialist" in his party name, and purged those who added it, before attempting to redefine the term himself to better fit his right wing anti-socialist ideology.
    1
  1450.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Awwww, so you're admitting you can't handle the fact that I easily rebutted your false argument in mere seconds?
    1
  1451.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  I'm not a communist, child, and that isn't how the burden of proof works. I have made a claim, and I have proven it. As of now, you have made several claims, but failed to rebut a single one of mine, or provide argumentation/evidence for your claims. You cannot refute the fact that the nazis weren't socialists, and that hitler opposed the word socialist being used to reference him and his ideology.
    1
  1452.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Oh, child. This was far too easy. I've rebutted your arguments easily, and your only response is to insult me. Why would I dismiss the name of the party, when hitler made it so clear that he despised it? Why can't you deal with the fact that this makes your revisionism void?
    1
  1453.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, the only argument that you have is that the nazis used the word "socialist" in propaganda. You don't care about it as propaganda, don't care about hitler's history of opposing that term, don't care about hitler's proud admissions of being on the right, don't care about the definitions hitler uses when using these terms. This is because we both know that you're, sadly, wrong.
    1
  1454.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Awww, are you seriously running away already? This is just pathetic, child.
    1
  1455.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  At least you can admit that all you have are verbal attacks. After all, once I easily disproved your claim and rendered your argument nothing more than an embarrassment to you, what else can you do?
    1
  1456.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Oh, child. I already have! Again, hitler hated the party name, did all he could to oppose it, and killed those that added "socialist" the second he could. When are you going to stop projecting and debunk this? You aren't, are you?
    1
  1457.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, child, again, your only point is that you're taking the nazis on their word
    1
  1458.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  But I did, child. Please attempt to stop lying. I didn't pivot, I disproved your assertion that "the ideology was in the party name," since hitler's ideology is the one we're talking about, and he hated the party name. No theories, this is objective historical fact. I've refuted your false nonsense, time and time again. Can you offer a rebuttal? You still have not done this. I suppose i'll just keep having to wait, child.
    1
  1459.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Why would I refute a name hitler hated?
    1
  1460.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, how can you claim the nazis were left wing when you push their polices and defend them? They, of course, like you, were right wing anti-socialists
    1
  1461.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, you keep talking about "theories" to distract from the fact that every single statement of mine is not an unproven theory, but rather a conclusively proven historical fact. I know you hate this, but it does not make it any less true. Your next sentence is hilariously ironic. " will take what is written by hitlr himself over some pseudo armchair historian who will scapegoat a villain just so he doesn't align with your ideology." Child, i've been showing you, quite literally, what is written by hitler himself, where you prefer the words of TIK, a fanatic armchair "historian" that has done all this, lied about hitler, just to get him further away from his own ideology. I'm sorry you can't handle the teeth, but the truth remains objectively. there's no subversion child, only a reality we don't like.
    1
  1462. ​ @imaproblem4youtubecom674  "Your side loves children" is pretty hilarious given the amount of times right wingers have been called out for wanting to lower the age of consent, or have been caught violating it. Are you still projecting? No, i'm simply calling you a child because it reflects who you are, a child, someone who is not yet capable of actual reasoned thoughts or logical assertions. You call everyone a "commie," child, much like your heroes the nazis before you. Don't you find that odd?
    1
  1463.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, you can't make any progress because you have nothing but insults. I've disproven you, conclusively, and all you have are random assertions and insults based on who you think I am, rather than actually addressing my arguments. You are unable to "educate" me because it is you who needs educated.
    1
  1464.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  As a person who can take both, I can conclusively say that from this conversation, it appears you have neither. Are you done making a fool of yourself :)
    1
  1465.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Come on child, this isn't that hard. You got easily disproven and then your only response was to cope and seethe, insulting me based off of whatever culture war nonsense you're on about, coincidentally showing your support for a certain group in the process...
    1
  1466.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Oh i'm well aware that you're anti-socialist and american, your support of a certain ideology makes that absolutely clear.
    1
  1467.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  What deflection, child? How is calling out your attempt to run away from your failed argument any sort of a deflection? Evidently, you don't know the first thing about my ideology.
    1
  1468.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  It's amazing, you genuinely don't know how to construct an argument, you just keep deflecting and insulting.
    1
  1469.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Child, the reason you can't give a decent response is because you've finally realized that facts don't back up your fanatic position. There has been no "theorizing" by me, i've simply pointed out historic facts. You aren't able to prove a single thing, unlike me. I compare you to the nazis because you use the same rhetoric, push the same policies, and seem like you're fine with the actual historical reality of right wing nazism.
    1
  1470. ​ @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
  1471.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Oh, child. You really can't come up with anything of substance, can you? How sad.
    1
  1472.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Ah, right, that's why you get so offended when I call you a child, right? Because you're oh-so confident in your "statements"... statements you decide to make up and then just roll with, hm? Child, you're the one springing to so many insults, how am I the miserable one? It seems that after you realized the terrible humiliating defeat you've suffered, you're trying to convince someone, anyone, perhaps even yourself, that you enjoyed being ground to dust. How very "confident" you sound :)
    1
  1473.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Yes, you repeated what I said back at me, how original, good work. Problem is, when I said it, it was true.
    1
  1474.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Yes, offended. Because when I dare to call you child, you launch off into a tirade of defensive insults and random assertions. You do like to insult, I merely call you by a single word that you have proven the accuracy of through your continued immaturity. Not much more to say there, child. It's amazing, you're still operating under the delusion that i'm a communist. Is that what you have to do to justify your silly statements? Call random people communists?
    1
  1475.  @imaproblem4youtubecom674  Oh i'm well aware. And it was far from an assumption, i'd call it an observation.
    1
  1476.  @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
  1477.  @mitscientifica1569  MIT, hitler hated marx more than you.
    1
  1478.  @mitscientifica1569  Oh, child. It's ok, one day you will come up with more insults.
    1
  1479.  @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
  1480.  @coyote4326  Child, you proved that point immaculately, amazing job. you proved your cult like thinking by, without evidence and without provocation, referring to a random person as belonging to a specific ideology you dislike. This is, quite literally, cult like thinking, making assumptions and attributing guilt/manufacturing hypocrisy around fanatically labelled enemies. It relies on fanatic, cultlike assumptions, to its core. GG, child.
    1
  1481.  @ABadRash  yeah that largely isn't true tho
    1
  1482.  @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
  1483.  @daniloculla510  far right anti-socialist authoritarian, fascist, nazi, ect. You know, the thing we've known him to be for nearly a century?
    1
  1484.  @prithvisukka9271  gotta love how you assume the truth is ideological and its speakers idealogues merely because they disprove you.
    1
  1485.  @prithvisukka9271  The truth that you desperately don't want to deal with
    1
  1486.  @prithvisukka9271  I fail to see how your lack of reading comprehension is my problem, and furthermore, exactly what am I supposed to fix when you won't even tell me what you think is wrong?
    1
  1487.  @prithvisukka9271  The truth regarding this topic that we've been going back and forth on for a day now, it's pretty obvious dude.
    1
  1488.  @prithvisukka9271  I've literally told it to you like three times now? Can you actually just not read?
    1
  1489.  @mcpartridgeboy  If you think TIK's point of view is at all sensible, you're beyond help.
    1
  1490.  @mcpartridgeboy  dude, what? that isn't the comment I was responding to, i was clearly talking about your assertion about supposedly sensible points of view, can you read? In any case, I agree, it's dumb to say you can't look it up, which is why i've been using the dictionary definition of socialism throughout this entire thread. Simple.
    1
  1491.  @peaknonsense2041  Child, he's actually read the works in question. Unlike you, who repeats falsehoods long after they're disproven.
    1
  1492.  @mlbp2567  Don't bother with them. I already explained this weeks ago and they didn't listen.
    1
  1493. @tripplefives It literally isn't, please stop making random things up child.
    1
  1494.  @peaknonsense2041  child, you're openly admitting that you never even read the works in question, and you're coping with the fact that you don't understand it, and your hilariously false assertions have been specifically responded to and rebutted in the past. If you had understood it, you wouldn't have just run away when you were rebutted, but would have provided something of actual note as a counter. You were unable to do that, because we both know that all you have is the ability to whine about your propagandistic delusions being wrong. You insult both of us because you know you can't prove us wrong, and you know you have nothing else. If "commies" are too stupid to learn, how does that reflect on you, given how badly you lost a debate to one?
    1
  1495.  @mcpartridgeboy  I'm literally not, read back the thread. You commented on the assertion that TIK's point of view was the more reasonable one. Remember? "Im ashamed to admit i used to say that about the soviet union, i wasnt even that young, i was a socialist until i was about 35, but im very grateful to people like tik guiding me to a more sensable point of view" Stop lying.
    1
  1496. @tripplefives I'm sorry, that's false. If you're looking for the ideological foundation of nazism, then you should be looking at the conservatives they openly praised as the founders of their ideology.
    1
  1497.  @peaknonsense2041  Child, I hate to break it to you, but you can't just name capitalist hives and scream "communist!" whenever you feel like. After all, it is you who has been proven to be illiterate and incorrect, over and over again. Of course you want people to pay me no mind, you don't want them exposed to the truth.
    1
  1498. @tripplefives The nazis didn't "use marx's work as a blueprint," they despised marx and all the ideas and movements that both arise from and were supported by marx's ideology and similar ideological foundations. The nazis despised everything about marx and his work, citing many of the same things you do, and utterly rejected him and his ideas. The "folks we call marxists" today align with the historical meaning of the word, but it certainly cannot be said that they have deviated the most from Marx's definition. Defending the nazis really isn't a good look pal, and hell doesn't exist. If it did, it certainly wouldn't be reserved for random writers. Karl Marx is a man that, like him or not, pioneered a whole strand of economic research and political thought, and even capitalism would not be where it is today without his ideas. He wasn't a "practicing satanist" and the very fact that people still argue about his ideas today proves just how long-lasting and impactful he's been on history. And even he was pretty open that he was merely compiling ideas, not creating them.
    1
  1499. @tripplefives This just proves your utter ignorance regarding this topic. You absolutely can have socialism without totalitarianism. If people were allowed to collectively manage the means of production and wealth of the nation, how would they even go about hoarding wealth, and what tangible benefit would this have? As of now, the group forcefully attempting to strip individuals of wealth would be the private market. I'm not sure if you actually know what armed robbery is, but it certainly isn't a system of collective ownership of the means of production.
    1
  1500.  @peaknonsense2041  If you're at the point where all you have left is "no one cares," you've conceded.
    1
  1501.  @peaknonsense2041  child, I really couldn't care less about your sad attempts at nonsense.
    1
  1502.  @mcpartridgeboy  I literally presented it days ago, maybe next time actually read back your responses without instantly jumping to hostility.
    1
  1503.  @peaknonsense2041  Child, no matter how many times you cry and run, I still won't be a communist. And you'll still have to deal with the fact that you were proven wrong. But hey, thanks for admitting that you're more than willing to make up whatever you want to justify your nonsense hatred of all those that disagree with you.
    1
  1504.  @peaknonsense2041  Still coping with being proven wrong? How sad.
    1
  1505.  @prithvisukka9271  Already have, come on, basic stuff
    1
  1506. ​ @Kainis80  One day will come when those defending these self-contradictory ideas have a hint of humility and are actually willing to engage in debate, but with you, I can see that day has not yet come. You just cannot hold these beliefs and still be open to being proven wrong. If you were open to being proven wrong, you'd no longer hold these views, after all. Anyway, I'm sorry, but on multiple levels this is wrong. First off, you try to switch here between "advocated for" and "has been tried," the difference between on paper ideals and implementation. You're free to criticize socialism according to the track record of those attempting to follow the ideals, but you're not free to go back and rewrite the ideals themselves when they fail to be implemented. This is even a pretty common criticism of socialism, the inability to realize its desires, something you can see in some of the most widespread criticisms of these regimes, such as Animal Farm. Remember, it ended with the humans and pigs being indistinguishable, not with the core teachings being proven horrific in their own right. That being said, no, not all socialists advocated for "state run socialism." Even if one sets aside your categorical error in trying to list Owen, Saint-Simon and Marx together (as if the latter's work was not largely based on disproving the formers) they quite plaintly didn't advocate for statism. Marx initially saw it as a means to an end before rejecting even that later in life, Saint-Simon was quite explicitly against nearly all government intervention, and Robert Owen believed that the church and the family would be just as much a part of the organizational structure and community management of his ideal society as he state. So your claim there is just plain wrong. Further, who is the "we" you refer to?" No sane person calls all socialism "statist socialism," or further uses "national socialism" as a synonym for "statist socialism." The concept of "national socialism," even as a name, was one largely pioneered by the nazis, and almost entirely left behind with their own anti-socialist ideology. It isn't in common use, and even TIK here points out that it isn't synonymous with what he sees as "other" statist socialisms. This also just isn't what the DPRK calls itself. Calling it feudalism with new lipstick is also... quite an assertion, but again, I doubt you ever planned on justifying it. Feudalism is feudalism, and as sources within this very video claim, it actually has a hell of a lot more to do with the start of private ownership and market organizational structure than "socialism." Moving on from that, we again come to the issue where you claim to be able to elaborate, but refuse to just... do so. No, please, go on. Explain how Bolivia's democratic process is really the exact same organizational structure as Stalin, if you really think about it. It's crazy how you claim this is the sign of some broader ideological grouping, yet the supposed proof of this grouping is something as vast and near-universal as... nepotism. Corruption. It's genuinely bizzare how you claim this same thing we can see happening in everything from crime families to McDonalds branch ownership is a sign of this terrifying, all encompassing "socialism." Beyond that, I think you just seem very new to this debate. Bringing up the non-agression pact between Nazi Germany and Russia like it's some new piece of information? Congratulations, you figured out that power-hungry despots care more about power than their supposed ideals. Good job. You're trying to teach someone the "actual history of their own failed ideology," but you seem to be unable to even define the ideology in question, and throw around fifth-grade history class fun facts like they're devastating arguments. This is the "intellectual murder" you seem so confident in, and god, come on. I have been having this discussion for years now. I have been studying this for years. I have, no joke, hundreds of pages of notes on this exact subject. You can see my comments on this video alone going back 3-4 years, hundreds strong. I will bet you money, real money, that you cannot name a single point that I have not heard and replied to before. So genuinely, take a minute, stop, think, and reply when you're actually ready to deal with being objectively, yes objectively, wrong about so many basic things that it made this reply this easy to deliver.
    1
  1507.  @jchinckley  “bartering” isn’t by itself an economy, it describes an action and a stage in economic development. The lack of a government is what makes it so unstable, and why “bartering” as an economic ideal or reality is always temporary. Bartering isn’t capitalism, as most of the private property capitalism has built itself around either does not exist or holds no more weight than unclaimed land. Yes, you are wrong.
    1
  1508.  @johncassidy3071  not really, especially given their early attempts to fill it with capitalist economists
    1
  1509.  @Kainis80  I’m sorry, have you done any actual studies into the meaning of feudalism beyond your view of it as medieval kings or some such? And again, objectively, it’s really easy to blow this argument out of the water by just saying “that’s an awful definition.” Your argument is that socialism is just feudalism because both have a strong man and both have a subservient group? Sorry dude, I can’t come into work today, it turns out my boss is a feudal lord which seems a bit unfair.
    1
  1510.  @HablaCarnage63  The nazis killed all socialists. They weren't socialists.
    1
  1511.  @AverageAlien  I love how you have to deflect to a thoroughly disproven video you haven't even watched to make up for your lack of historical knowledge or arguments. Hitler hated socialists, the left, even moderate liberals and progressives. Calling hitler's hatred of the left a "civil war between different branches of socialism" is like calling the American Revolutionary war a civil war between different branches of monarchists. Hitler was a socialist just as much as Washington was a monarchist, or to say, not at all. What a child you are, you can't even come up with your own arguments and have to pretend that this video disproves the very historians and economists it cites.
    1
  1512.  @AverageAlien  I mean, yes, you very easily can. For example, I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. You really don't know the basics of history and economics, do you?
    1
  1513.  @HablaCarnage63  I agree, he was an antisemetic conspiracy theorist, but he hated leftism, marxism, socialism, communism (ect.) and critically, international markets rather than all markets.. He was more than fine with the process of capital within his own boarders. The fact that you think his autobiography has much at all to do with his economic policy proves you actually need to read it. Further, the fact is that "socialize the german people" is a nonsense argument that makes zero economic sense, not in practice but in very statement. Socialize means to make something become socially, or collectively, owned, just as nationalize means to make something nationally owned, privatize to be privately owned, ect. You're proposing that Hitler wanted to put his "people" in the control of... themselves? The only logical way to read your argument is that Hitler was proposing self-determination and whatnot but that's obviously not what you mean. He didn't want to "socialize the people," or socialize the economy for the people, or in fact have any system of mass social ownership. Business was not controlled, and certainly not for the people or by party members, but by private individuals and owners that aligned with the nazis for personal benefit. And yes, this very discussion of socialism vs anti-socialism is what got so many socialists, semi-socialists and random left leaning individuals purged.
    1
  1514.  @HablaCarnage63  Fourth time writing and posting this response since youtube seems to not like it, I had to split it in two to post it for whatever reason. The nazis killed all the socialists, yes, as their ideology was a form of far right anti-socialism and thus not comparable to socialism at all, that means my statement that they killed all the socialists remains true. Hitler didn't want any competition from the left, yes, which is why he opposed socialists, anarchists, communists, unionists, even liberals. However, he was fine with some other parties, those being the conservative parties that got him elected and were elevated and protected by his regime in all but the rarest of cases.
    1
  1515.  @HablaCarnage63  Yes, you seem to have real issues with reading comprehension, and yeah, your "argument" is complete economic nonsense. Focusing on class is literally nothing like focusing on race, class is literally a result of economic And that's false. Again, only the most wartime essential industries had quotas or price controls, the vast majority of industry was wholly controlled by the private owners, your assertion is just nonsense. And I agree that his economy was insane, irrational ,and a failure, but this has nothing to do with his desire to preserve private processes and initiatives taking place in his country, and the private acquisition and application of profit and property still happened. A private individual who sides with any organization for personal benefit, even if it does align with that organizations goals, that doesn't mean the organization owns the individual in question. he didn't want to "socialize the people," he wanted to propagandize them. You're just repeating back TIK talking points without understanding them. And I agree, his system was one that favored social darwinism to the extreme, and yet you somehow feel he was in favor of a system of enforced economic equality, which is quite silly. But none of this matters because you still are completely unable to recognize 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," or explain how your absurdly broad definition makes sense. Calling anti-socialism by its name very much makes sense. And your definition of marxism is so absurdly wrong that you've included the whole of socialism within it. What you're doing is like saying that capitalism is actually a form of socialism, and when people say it isn't, telling them "No you're thinking of collective-socialism, that's not all socialism, i'm talking about individual-capital-socialism" and destroying the coherency of the term.
    1
  1516.  @HablaCarnage63  He didn't kill "other" socialists, he killed socialists, period. He wasn't a socialist, and his system existed as a pure rejection of not only all forms of socialism, marxism or otherwise, but a rejection of the left in its entirety. He didn't want a socialism for his nation, and he didn't want to "provide a socialism that focused on the nation," as he had no desire for the socialization of the means of production, even in the context of just one country. Again, what you're saying is like saying "Actually, Marx's system was just social-capitalism, he wanted a form of capitalism that didn't focus on capital like Adam Smith's." Third Way, by definition, isn't socialist. I'm not sure how else to make it clear, but he never held socialism as a goal, never was a socialist, and never put anything remotely resembling socialism, even "socialism for the nation," in practice. You are calling something completely anti-socialist a new type of socialism with no backing. Hitler wasn't a socialist. And it's amazing how you can admit the man didn't follow any economic program or system and yet still cannot wrap your head around the fact that he wasn't at all a socialist.
    1
  1517.  @mitscientifica1569  You forgot the "right wing" part necessary for fascism
    1
  1518.  @HablaCarnage63  the question was already answered child. He left out a core aspect of fascism, that being right wing.
    1
  1519.  @mitscientifica1569  except you forgot one of the required elements, that being that the person is right wing
    1
  1520.  @mitscientifica1569  Funny, George Orwell actually 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." Your quote has no backing, fash. In fact, it comes from Orwell quoting stalin's pre-war propaganda...
    1
  1521.  @HablaCarnage63  How am I making up names by pointing out that being right wing is a core and necessary part of being a fascist which is just a basic political and historical fact?
    1
  1522.  @HablaCarnage63  Hitler wasn't a socialist. Because of course, hitler's ideology had no desire for socialism and nothing in common with socialism, and your assertions have zero historical backing. Your ahistorical view that distances types of anti-socialist and anti-leftist violence from eachother is flawed and utter nonsense. Hitler was less of a socialist than you.
    1
  1523.  @HablaCarnage63  Of course, understanding the true legacy of hitler is a problem for you, because you want to distance him from the right where he obviously belongs, and instead combine him with random people which he hated and ideologically opposed.
    1
  1524.  @HablaCarnage63  Given that fascism isn't a form of socialism and marxism is a method of historical analysis and not an economic system, you have been fooled yet again. I'm sorry you hate your connection to the far right fascists. There is no historical basis for the notion that the nazis were somehow socialists except in your head. If the word never existed the nazis would still be right wing anti-socialists.
    1
  1525.  @HablaCarnage63  Except that he wasn't a socialist, had a great deal in common with other anti-socialists and differed only from other anti-socialists in that he eschewed the spreading of totalitarianism internationally in favor of spreading anti-socialism with one nation in command of it all. Which quite understandably led to conflict with other anti-socialists, but whose model for government eventually won out among all his enemies even as his burned corpse was rotting in the bombed out Reich Chancellery garden. Enjoy the actual facts, denialist.
    1
  1526. ​ @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
  1527.  @HablaCarnage63  The simple fact is that hitler wasn't a socialist, he deferred greatly if not entirely with all socialist movements of his era and before it, and he had no desire to spread socialism in any nation, certainly not in his own which he viewed was the result of private interests and ambitions. Of course, you call them "other socialists" because you can't deal with the simple fact that his far right anti-socialism was far right anti-socialism, just as stated, just as advertised, just as implemented. There's a reason only the right flies his flags today. Enjoy reality.
    1
  1528.  @HablaCarnage63  Yeah, the problem there being that as we've been over before, time and time again, that isn't true
    1
  1529.  @idk-cj2qy  You're free to make your own observations, and I am free to disagree with the backing I have thus far provided. And yeah, those are all distinct terms with distinct meanings, unless you're willing to argue that inanimate objects and a classification of individuals and groups are actually the same. Insult me all you want, I suppose. Have fun?
    1
  1530.  @idk-cj2qy  Everything in reality is related in some way, we all exist after all. But similarly, everything in reality is distinct, and the question is when relating them is if the similarities outweigh the differences. I think in those cases, that much is clear. And if that's hw you say it than true, perhaps a better phrasing would be "observation that is meant t detract from views or arguments," the statement in question I think is very false.
    1
  1531.  @idk-cj2qy  And I absolutely disagree, given my previous statements and previously tying those very concepts together and showing their fundamental interrelation, while also making note of their distinction Again, you're free to say what you want, your thoughts are out in the open now, but I disagree. And I have touched numerous times on the relation of those very functions.
    1
  1532.  @idk-cj2qy  A body is not private property, a body is personal property, property of the person that literally owns their own body. The destruction of property can happen through ownership or complete rejection of ownership, and anything in between. You simply don't like that I refute your imagined connections.
    1
  1533.  @idk-cj2qy  On and on, more assertions and no hint of substance from you. Food, land, and shelter can be owned privately, socially, publicly, and so on. The notion that they belong to a single individual or group though is absurd. Space like distance, or space like the stars and the void? You keep saying that, and yet prove quite the opposite.
    1
  1534.  @idk-cj2qy  Nope, not really. Theft will always exist. What you're describing has no relevance to the topic at hand, nor does it describe what you're trying to imply that it somehow does.' A lack of the right to something doesn't at all translate to a lack of the thing itself. I have no right to the internet and yet here I am, on it. You think that yes, but I think the reality is that everyone just thinks fundamentally different things than you.
    1
  1535.  @idk-cj2qy  I mean yes that is ownership, and the fact that it took you this long to figure that out is a bit worrying, to be honest. And certain people are also arguing that they have a right to such things, a right that gives them the ability to take and take with no hint of giving. I don't quite care about morals, nor is this an argument of moral philosophy. The purpose of morality is to guide people to agree with you. A truly moral system is not one preached under threat of violence.
    1
  1536.  @idk-cj2qy  But there is a distinction, there are names for the hundreds of types of "ownership" you talk about, and ignoring that makes no logical sense. And yeah, welcome to reality. You just keep claiming that with no actual backing or argument in favor of it so...
    1
  1537.  @idk-cj2qy  Private property laws don't just "outlaw" theft, they get to define theft first, legalize the types they favor and outlaw the rest. And morals are nonsense impulses meant to describe real world effect that can be describe a thousand other ways.
    1
  1538.  @idk-cj2qy  But that isn't true. You just aren't looking at the links between these abstract concepts at all. And I do hope you grow out of thinking that.
    1
  1539.  @idk-cj2qy  Control isn't ownership though. Again, please, think of the abstract concepts. Everyone owns everything and yet ownership is distinct.
    1
  1540.  @idk-cj2qy  Theft is a moralistic assumption that is created and applied by the demands of those in power. They legalize theft they agree with. And you have clearly ignored definitions this whole time, why stop now?
    1
  1541.  @idk-cj2qy  Control isn't ownership. I can own something and not control something, or control it and not own it. In your attempt to change concrete things into abstract functions and relations you've denied the very things you're trying to defend.
    1
  1542.  @idk-cj2qy  Ownership is, similarly, a construct created by whoever is in charge in a society. And again, you claim this, with no argumentative backing. Which makes sense, given that it's the literal and objective exact opposite of the truth. Definitions are connected, yes, but that doesn't mean that you haven't been ignoring them in an effort to push your statements.
    1
  1543.  @idk-cj2qy  I'm sorry, that simply isn't true. You need to study these subjects more, clearly. The problem here being that, as we've been over, you would prefer to rewrite the definition of ownership than concede to the obvious notion that you are incorrect. Yes, power is a concrete thing. Yes, control is a concrete thing. They always were. You were the one denying their basic and objective nature.
    1
  1544.  @idk-cj2qy  Perhaps you should actually respond to my statements, rather than repeating the same nonsense. Ownership is a concept devised by those who also devise the notion of theft. They very well often disagree on those. It is a construction. and yes, we've been over that you do not understand the abstract or concrete functions behind each word again, nor do you understand how the elements of each abstract concept are related. You simply assert otherwise because people point out facts and observations you don't like admitting to.
    1
  1545.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, I control many things I do not own, and seemingly own things I can't control. Power and control are concrete factors and reality of actual life. the very fact that you deny this proves that you have not studied it. they are only not concrete things to someone like you, that ignores them
    1
  1546.  @idk-cj2qy  Given you don't understand the very basics of theft and ownership, and do not understand the theft inherent to the systems you defend, I think you need to do some research. No, I would not claim something so absurd. you did claim that, though. And as i'm not on the right I would never say something like that.
    1
  1547.  @idk-cj2qy  I don't really have control over a lot of what happens in and to my body, yes. That's down to unconscious function and other people, nature, animals, and so on. You evidently have no idea what control or ownership even are, and seem to be abandoning their abstract reality. Power and control are the units themselves. It is a concrete thing that can be observed. Those who deny this only do so in order to excuse their own neverending desire for control
    1
  1548.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, you just described the universal units that they are all measurable in. Control. your application of said units is more than flawed, yes, but you're starting to get there it seems. We can only hope you learn more. And I hate to break it to you but economic viewpoints have little to do with the concrete and very real power that proponents of the STV often hold, politically, economically, socially, and so on. No, you are attempting to rewrite and deny their basic nature and function.
    1
  1549.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, that isn't what i'm claiming. I'm showing you that there is no one definition of either of those terms, and that they are decided not according to some objective truth and again, i've said none of this, you have. I am simply pointing out your lack of understanding on any of these subjects or discussions.
    1
  1550.  @idk-cj2qy  thank you for so concretely showing your ignorance, by claiming distance isn't a concrete, measurable thing. You cannot tie together any of these forms of power and control, and thus as you have shown time and time again, you do not understand the discussion
    1
  1551.  @idk-cj2qy  A question you only now asked, despite previously accusing me of giving an unsatisfactory answer. Child, you don't even know how to answer a question.
    1
  1552.  @idk-cj2qy  Child, does distance exist, yes or no? Can distance be measured, yes or no? come on, be honest. Everything I described falls under terms you do not understand nor attempt to understand, yes. You simply don't know how they're linked.
    1
  1553.  @idk-cj2qy  As you continue to refuse to address, yes, it as an objective fact that the definitions of ownership and theft are decided societally, not according to an all encompassing meanings. And you continue to deflect from the abstract concepts in discussion... could it be because you don't understand them?
    1
  1554. ​ @idk-cj2qy  And yet, we can measure control. Total control, no control, minimal control, authority, non-authority, voluntary, and so on. The simple problem is, you don't understand measurements of control, or the definition itself, so you do your best to pretend it simply doesn't exist.
    1
  1555.  @idk-cj2qy  I didn't - you did. Again, you continually project your own statements onto me with no reasoning. why have you so easily abandoned the abstract? Nevermind, I think I know.
    1
  1556.  @idk-cj2qy  Oh, those are units though. Imperfect, imprecise, vague units that require both further clarification and definition, but units all the same And yes, you did. You pretended that was the case, ignoring the obvious reality available to anyone that has studied the subject, that you are wrong.
    1
  1557.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, I can't find an single example of me saying that, especially not in response to your new deflection. Yes, you are completely unable to link abstractions to terms, as has been blindingly clear. It's like if someone held up a banana, named it that, and then you declared that the person had no idea what they were talking about and were actually lying and ignorant of their meaning. And we've been over this, child. I'm sorry you can't read.
    1
  1558.  @idk-cj2qy  That isn't at all what I said though. Descriptions can be units, after all, all units are descriptions. You're still having problems linking the concepts together. Child, you need to top making assumptions based on statements you don't understand and can't link together
    1
  1559.  @idk-cj2qy  I understand you don't know about the correlation between measurable, concrete, and units, but you could at least attempt to think about the terms for a few minutes before responding. Units are complex, precise, and constant, descriptions and measurements. You have abandoned the abstract because you have admitted you don't understand it. Good bye, talking to one as deluded as you is useless.
    1
  1560.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, that isn't what I was responding to and what my statement was directed at. The simple fact is, you can't manage to link the concept of a banana to the concept of atoms, to farms, to people, to consumption, and so on. One does not need to use numbers to measure things. One does not need to be described with numbers to concretely exist. Distance exists, even if it further needs more clarification to find out exactly how much exists. Absolute control does mean something. No control does mean something. You have yet to link the abstract concepts.
    1
  1561.  @idk-cj2qy  If you had started with any of this instead of your esoteric nonsense we would be done by now. Which actions? And by which standards do they say this? You understand that he did a hell of a lot, yes? Hitler did consider jewish people to have committed violence and theft against his people, that doesn't make that claim justified, but it illustrates my point. If we're both talking about how it's wrong, you can imply shove your observations. Your thoughts have been made known and I know well what you think of me and my arguments, so continuing to assert the same stuff is pointless. Furthermore, how is correctly pointing out ideological justification something wrong to do? Again, one can point out the horrible motives and unjustifiable actions while also pointing out that the viewpoint through which we see those actions is one tailored to our individual society. These people are more often than not capitalists, who frame any discussion of theft or harm as damage to private property. That's why they see some of Hitler's actions as immoral or evil. That doesn't mean they reject all of his actions or views, though. I very much do see that those two things are different and one is more justifiable to the other. I also see that the mass social forces that inspired the nazis were not unique to them, and we see those same patterns in all aspects of human society. They believed their morals had some sort of objective backing, yes. So do people today, in order to judge things like theft. I don't care about morals in this discussion, nor have I pushed any moral viewpoint. How is pointing out the flaws of different moral viewpoints pushing any one of them? Do you see any questioning of what you see as objective fact to be a pushing of something you see as false? I'm done.
    1
  1562.  @idk-cj2qy  Measurements aren't just done through numbers though, and units are just one way to describe a concrete thing. You tried to assert that "the thing" didn't really exist, because there was no numerical system to point it out with. I rebutted this as being false, which it is. And yet, you still repeat it. No progress is made.
    1
  1563.  @idk-cj2qy  Because that has never been the subject of the actual conversation at hand, which you continually want to avoid and don't want to deal with in regards with your previous ignorance on these subjects. Ownership is a concept created and enforced socially, with no objective moral backing to it, and can be created surrounding different principles and ideas. And no, that isn't what that means at all. You can have ownership without control, and that doesn't mean that you own everything, it just mean that society can say that something is yours even if you have no control over it. Societal enforcement isn't the key to this, but societal norms. Individuals can try to enforce their own will through violence and control, and it most often does not work out well. And your original point is long discarded, I have no reason to keep dealing with your nonsense.
    1
  1564.  @idk-cj2qy  I'm sure they were to you, so go ahead and have fun assuming that, as we've been over, abstractions and all.
    1
  1565.  @idk-cj2qy  Or maybe listing a bunch of thing doesn't do anything Subjective Values. Subjective Rights. Social Laws. Changing Morals. Notions of Control. Nonexistent Society. Causeless Actions. Baseless Judgements. Missing Justice. And so on. All seem to fit into the same system
    1
  1566.  @idk-cj2qy  Wow, so clearly that i've already picked up on it and answered it. As you said, reread carefully. My previous replies are enough to respond to your new ones. Frame the question, find the nuance.
    1
  1567.  @idk-cj2qy  I never said I didn't have a set of moral values I used to make my personal statements, I simply said I push no one system of morals or values in this conversation. ne can certainly point out that they thought their actions were justified. Similarly, you can utterly abhor the nazis for more than just moral values. And as I said before, reread carefully. My previous replies are enough to respond to your new ones.
    1
  1568.  @idk-cj2qy  Because I have personal moral values that oppose his, morals I am not pushing in this conversation, and because objectively, his regime was devastating for those in his country. Not a moral argument And yet again, please just reread carefully. My previous replies are enough to respond to your new ones.
    1
  1569.  @idk-cj2qy  According to those individuals, yes, and according to modern sensibilities, which lean far more towards the correct answers than what the nazis themselves said, and yet it is true that the nazis themselves would have said quite the opposite with the same social justification.
    1
  1570.  @idk-cj2qy  There are many, actually, each individual to different moral systems. However, yes, there is a correct objective judgement of hitler's actions along objective, and not moral, lines. And again, though you keep preferring to ignore it, please just reread carefully. My previous replies are enough to respond to your new ones, as I have already said so many times.
    1
  1571.  @idk-cj2qy  Except, i'm not. Do try to stop lying. I'm saying there are objectively true statements that can be made, and an objective judgement reached from them. For example, Hitler was a mass murderer and a failed leader. No moral judgement, only fact.
    1
  1572.  @idk-cj2qy  And they would be wrong, as we've been over. Again, you simply refuse to actually read my responses where I explain this over and over again, and I get the impression you're just talking to yourself now while responding to me. I beg you, urge you at this point, to do any amount of reflection, to please reread carefully. My previous replies are enough to respond to your new ones, as I have already said so many times.
    1
  1573.  @idk-cj2qy  Oh, child. You have no idea what i'm even saying, do you? No, not his "value judgements," his policies his orders, his actions. They led to a lost war and an objectively worse life for his citizens. I'm not talking about morality. I explicitly said that this judgement had nothing to do with morals. Learn. To. Read.
    1
  1574.  @idk-cj2qy  Again, you don't seem to actually be able to follow the conversation or my statements. Yes, they are right in that area you mention, though wrong in many other, such as their often misrepresentation of hitler's actual actions and beliefs.
    1
  1575.  @idk-cj2qy  Did values influence his concrete positions, orders, and policies? Yes. Were those positions, orders, and policies as immaterial as "morals?" No. Can they be judged objectively? Yes.
    1
  1576.  @idk-cj2qy  Again, I said quite literally the opposite to that. It's like you can't read and will do anything to project some sort of denialism onto anyone but the people you defend, who I am fine with calling out.
    1
  1577.  @idk-cj2qy  Not really. My choice to go outside and film an interesting bug has little to do with the value I place on a nuclear family, or lack thereof. People often make choices that can even go against their values. Again, no. Judged as in to pass a judgement. You really have some trouble with reading, huh?
    1
  1578.  @idk-cj2qy  Yes, he did, according to mine and others moral systems of judgement, though we differ elsewhere
    1
  1579.  @idk-cj2qy  Evidently not, as I was completely apathetic in doing it. Perhaps I didn't even want to go outside. Also, you're conflating value systems with preferences and desires. No, to judge whether to condemn or accept, and so on. One doesn't even need morality to do that.
    1
  1580.  @idk-cj2qy  That was your statement, never mine. Why don't you answer the question yourself? All this work you go through to avoid dealing with basic reality.
    1
  1581.  @idk-cj2qy  Again, desire and want are not the same thing as moral values. They are distinct concepts. A desire for food is not a moral or value driven judgement. And luckily then i'm not judging if something is good or evil, but an objective measure of it.
    1
  1582.  @idk-cj2qy  Hitler's actions? Yes, they were, according to my system of morality, and the facts I have brought forth.
    1
  1583.  @idk-cj2qy  Nope, because desiring a continued existence is not a moral question. And, again, no. How many times do I have to write it? This analysis is devoid from morality. According to the objective facts of his reign, he was a mass murderer and a failed leader, and thus on that basis alone is worthy of condemnation. Those facts exist independent of my moral view on him and his judgements. Your statement "so his moral judgements were wrong and because of such, you value him low on an objective measure?" makes no sense, given i've never said anything like that, and have in fact previously pointed out that an objective judgement of him is done with no moral input, mine or other's. Objective is objective.
    1
  1584.  @idk-cj2qy  Didn't say "someone," I said you. Your own self preservation by itself is not a moral argument nor a moral problem. It's when that desire comes into conflict with other desires, of yourself and others, that it becomes morality based. You somehow took me saying "Eating isn't a moral dilemma" and turned it into "murder isn't based on morality." No, murder is a moral question, and you're a liar who can't read. I didn't say "someone's existence," I said your own self preservation, as an individual. Stay. On. Topic. If you really can't have a discussion without endless deflection than you should leave.
    1
  1585.  @idk-cj2qy  Why don't you answer the question you're asking yourself?
    1
  1586.  @idk-cj2qy  We're talking about morality, not environmentalism or veganism. Yes, you can easily survive without forcing your will on others and engaging in moral debate. And I didn't say anything of the sort. Self preservation is surrounded with other life, but only becomes a moral question when it comes in conflict with that, or your, life. Similarly, values aren't desires, as we've been over. I would love to introduce you to the modifying word "and," which can, in the case you just pointed out, represents two different unrelated clauses or statements. Again, that statement has nothing to do with moral bad or good, you can make a further moral judgement based on the objective judgement I have brought up. You are the only one bringing "bad" into the equation, i'm talking about facts.
    1
  1587.  @idk-cj2qy  Nope, sets of values can impact you but they aren't omnipresent. And they don't equally condemn the person, as in the abstract they defend and parrot many of his ideas, which is why I disagree with them.
    1
  1588.  @idk-cj2qy  Never said anything like that, so not sure why you're asking me that question. And yes you very much can. Yep, you don't need to eat other people after all, nor do you need to eat living products. And yes, that isn't a value. Morality can be used to judge leadership, which is not what I did. And I was judging, not measuring, his conduct. Again, I never used the term "bad." That's all on you. I simply said what I said, he was a mass murderer and a failed leader. He hurt people, he failed in his goals. That deserves condemnation, in an objective, amoral stance.
    1
  1589.  @idk-cj2qy  Again, stop deflecting. If you have to respond, respond to what I actually write, instead of asking random questions that either have nothing to do with my statements, or i've already answered them. That's your own question, to yourself. Answer it yourself.
    1
  1590.  @idk-cj2qy  Do you consider their life equivalent to that of a person's? Do you think it is possible to survive without those things? Do you think that breathing is theft? Why do you assume me analyzing him objectively, means that there is no moral arguments to be made? Why do you continue to use words like "good or bad" in a discussion of objective policy and conduct? It's a simple observation.
    1
  1591.  @idk-cj2qy  I already have, i'm just waiting for you to catch up. Have you answered your own question yet?
    1
  1592.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, I did, quite openly. You then decided to project your own moral assumptions on the nature and justification of theft or retribution onto me, which I declined. I never explained your argument, yes, despite your constant desire to turn your own moral assumptions onto me.
    1
  1593.  @idk-cj2qy  Why do you continue to conflate desires and needs with moral values and systems? Do you have an alternative mode of life? Why do you continue to invoke morality, when I said specifically my analysis did not need, require, or modify morality? Why do you keep using the terms bad and good, when I have done nothing of the sort, and am only using objective terminology? So those are value judgements of life? Choosing whether a life is worth keeping alive or not? So there is an objective purpose of morality and a measure of morality? Because you are condemning him or praising him. For what? Bad or good at what?
    1
  1594.  @idk-cj2qy  You don't literally have to say that sentence to convey that meaning. Furthermore, as i've been over, we aren't discussing morality, we're discussing objective facts and the judgements that can be gained from them. It must be noted however, that you deem property more important than life. And we've already been how ownership has everything to do with subjective societal notions.
    1
  1595.  @idk-cj2qy  Why do you continue to conflate moral and value systems with basic desires? Again, I never said "bad leader." You did, and you continue to ignore this fact. I said he was a failed leader, and gave my reasoning - he made life worse for his citizens, lost the war he poured the country's resources into, and didn't accomplish the majority of his goals. He was a failed leader. Those are all objective measures I have previously stated. Again, stop inserting "good" and "bad." I simply said he was a failed leader, it is then up to individual moral systems to discuss if that failure represents a moral good or bad. We aren't talking about that, however. Why do you keep trying to find excuses to praise hitler?
    1
  1596.  @idk-cj2qy  WE weren't. YOU kept trying to deflect to that after I continually rebuked your misunderstandings. Good thing i'm not talking about theft. You are, and you've been trying to deflect to that for a while. And I disagree. Your moral judgements have been known for a while now, and they're useless. So you admit your view of society is entirely subjective and not based on objective reality? Good. We all knew it already.
    1
  1597.  @idk-cj2qy  Morals are more than wanting to take a nap or play a game. That is one factor of objective historical analysis, yes. If they fail their goals and duties as a leader, they are to be condemned as a failed leader. Quite simple. Again, Stop. Inserting. Moral. Arguments. I'm discussing the facts of what he did, you are free to pass those facts under a moral lens to determine if they were "good" or "bad" but that is not my goal. Why are you calling hitler a good person?
    1
  1598.  @idk-cj2qy  This entire time you have been deflecting from your own misunderstanding of the terms and asking me to make moral assumptions, or justify your moral assumptions. You don't know the definition of property and ownership, and the invocation of these materials proves your prior statement false. I am talking about objective fact, you are attempting to deflect to moral assertions and statements of opinion, which I have not done.
    1
  1599.  @idk-cj2qy  I know you do not believe him worthy of condemning, but I have given my answer time and time again, his failed leadership means he is condemned as a failed leader. Apparently, you didn't read that far. Of course i'm not surprised, I never am by your apathetic dismissal of reality.
    1
  1600.  @idk-cj2qy  I agree, your recent assumption right there is a lie. Morals are more than wanting to take a nap. Fact. Morality is subjective, and you admit that your basis for argument is not based on objective reality. Fact. So yes, you lied. I have no idea where your assertion that I did comes from, as it seems you simply want to deflect from your misunderstanding. Where is my lie, child?
    1
  1601.  @idk-cj2qy  I said failing at being a leader leads to one's condemnation as a failed leader. Again, you insert moral statements into a discussion of facts, and not morals. I have no interest in that. Of course I don't state moral arguments, i'm making an argument from fact.
    1
  1602.  @idk-cj2qy  And that's simply false. It isn't a moral question that wakes you up from a nap, it is basic human instinct. Not everything is a moral quandary. And i'm sorry, but your continued deflection has no place in actual discussion. The fact that you cannot back up your previous assertion tells me you aren't ready for reality.
    1
  1603.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, I didn't. I simply pointed out that some people's moral assumptions were more in line with the facts of Hitler's reign as a failed leader and mass murderer. You continually deflected from that, and now lied about it.
    1
  1604.  @idk-cj2qy  Again, please actually attempt to read my replies. Self preservation, by itself, is not a moral argument. When that notion conflicts with the life and desires of yourself or others, moral problems arise. Do you think that forcefully drugging someone against their will is in conflict with their desires? And yeah, dead is dead, if you want your corpse to be eaten who am I to deny you?
    1
  1605.  @idk-cj2qy  I corrected your false assumption and your only reply is "No, actually you're wrong about your own thoughts?" Amazing.
    1
  1606.  @idk-cj2qy  You never answered my question. Do you believe that a plant life is equivalent to a human life?
    1
  1607.  @idk-cj2qy  Again, simply saying "no" when faced with actual, indisputable facts is doing you no favors at all. Simple denial is a tool of desperation.
    1
  1608.  @idk-cj2qy  At least you're precise.
    1
  1609.  @idk-cj2qy  Great, at least you again admit that the entire basis of your argument comes from one subjective lens that is not the subject of discussion
    1
  1610.  @idk-cj2qy  Again, simply saying "no" when faced with actual, indisputable facts is doing you no favors at all. Simple denial is a tool of desperation.
    1
  1611.  @idk-cj2qy  It's amazing, you've started responding to statements I haven't even made as if they're some sort of refutation of my words. That is your entirely subjective view, and as we've been over, i'm not here to debate your moral opinions.
    1
  1612.  @idk-cj2qy  Amazing. Yet again, you assume that making an argument from objectivity means that one cannot make moral arguments, or hold moral views. I suppose you think every scientist is just a dictator in the making? I answer you, time and time again, and it seems you can't read.
    1
  1613.  @idk-cj2qy  You mean you'll, once again, ignore previous statements. Those things don't exist "to" do anything. Chunks of flesh have no purpose. Humans, as a whole, can claim purpose. Mere existence isn't predicated on moral assumptions, unless you think fish have their own moral code. Morals aren't just survival. Perhaps your morals are, perhaps that's how you phrase and think about your morals. But, simply put, that isn't the measure of morality. A subject I now know for certain you have never studied.
    1
  1614.  @idk-cj2qy  Life and evolution are not sentient beings, they do not have goals nor do they have a higher purpose in any shape or form, just chance. The "reason" plants produce oxygen is because that's how they evolved. There was no higher power or reason for it, it just happened that way.
    1
  1615.  @idk-cj2qy  Because we're animals. According to you, the most moral system (according to your statement "The objective purpose and measure of morality is how well it keeps your life and species alive") is one in which everyone is locked up, free from all harm, free to live the longest possible, and only engaging with eachother to be forced to breed the next generation. For the survival of the species. How "moral."
    1
  1616.  @idk-cj2qy  So, again. In your own judgement, the most moral system is one with total control over the individuals within, who are locked in their own rooms, no threats, no stress, nothing. Perhaps they need not even wake up.
    1
  1617.  @idk-cj2qy  There is no reason. A pure flip of chance got us here, devoid of purpose or reasoning. Life is not a license to morality. Sentience exists without purpose. Humans make purpose. Nature does not.
    1
  1618.  @idk-cj2qy  That's implying that I do, in fact, have that desire. In any case, again, life has no purpose, there is no higher meaning to random mutations that resulted in something that can question its mutations.
    1
  1619.  @idk-cj2qy  And as we've been over, there is no reason. I will take your continued deflection though, as a sign that you support that "most moral system," and thus have no right to lecture on morality.
    1
  1620.  @DonVigaDeFierro  Why are you asking me if I care about accurately recording and portraying historical events and figures? You do realize I care nothing for the defense of socialism as an ideology, and am not a socialist, right?
    1
  1621.  @idk-cj2qy  I suppose you then assume that apathy is the same as active drive. It makes sense given your past assumptions. My "line" will be erased from the gene pool anyway so to be honest I don't really care about your psuedo-eugenics. You are asserting that, in the world, there is some greater purpose that put us here. This, of course, is false.
    1
  1622.  @idk-cj2qy  I'm not the one that advocates for a perpetual panopticon under the guise of morality. You don't care about others - only your own survival, remember?
    1
  1623.  @idk-cj2qy  And yet, here I am. Continuing on is simply the easiest option, and so, here I am. Again, apathy is not drive. And I simply, and seemingly endlessly, pointed out that there is no purpose, no reasoning, and no higher power that has influenced humanity. You do judge your life to be more important than the lives of others. If not, you would feed yourself to the hungry. The very fact that you only pretend to care about others to further your own survival proves my very point in that regard. No, if you do not have any desire to live, you will not live. I did not say I support that action that you take. I did not say that the world existed for life. I said life is just a state and your sentience and emotions are a consequence of that. "I judge my life to be more important than certain other life." No, certain other life does not mean no life. To sustain my own life, I need to care about other life anyways.
    1
  1624.  @idk-cj2qy  Those "instructions" aren't instructions of morals, though. They're instructions of survival, that humanity adheres to because we are animals like any other. Morals aren't genetic, kid, and again, that's basic. You are free to pretend that your morals are god given while giving them any other name, but the simple fact is, it is a flawed moral system with no backing in the actual desires of humanity, for more than safety. I have no desire to "pass down" my instructions, nor do I care if it's my genes that populate the next generation. You're thinking like an animal, not a person. Your genetics don't tell you anything. They can't speak, they can't understand. You attempt to speak on their behalf, and fail. And again, no thanks. Your "instructions" lead to a humanity locked away for "its own benefit."
    1
  1625.  @idk-cj2qy  I really don't. The human body has safeguards in place that will physically stop you stopping the functions of your body in the vast majority of cases. And you just showed it. How can you claim you care about others when even the help you say you want to give them is for your own benefit? I would love to introduce you to the whole of the animal kingdom. A huge amount of species are intercompetitive, territorial, aggressive, ect. We are too. And yet, here we are.
    1
  1626.  @idk-cj2qy  I am well aware, yes. Because morals, quite literally, are not genetic, and your morals aren't based in genetics or human desire.
    1
  1627.  @idk-cj2qy  And why would I bother? Again, it is so much easier to simply trudge on. I have no overwhelming need in any particular direction. I think you have a bit of an issue with projecting your authoritarian, anti-human morals onto everyone else. You can just admit to being selfish, you don't need to try to redefine the term or accuse everyone else of it to disguise it. And once again, that simply isn't true. I'm sorry this hurts your eugenicist feelings but it's simple reality.
    1
  1628.  @idk-cj2qy  What makes it easier? Well, the simple fact that actively choosing to resist the functions of the human body, to resist ingrained natural responses, is harder. It's far harder to bite off a finger than just leave it there. So no, not my feelings and needs. You can insult me all you want, but of the two of us, at least I don't advocate a perpetual, dystopic panopticon in the name of supposed morality, nor do I advocate your eugenics. What are my feelings, champ? How is continuing on a natural course, laid out for me by millions of years of evolution, anything of a conscious decision? I'm going down the conveyor belt of life, like millions others who never spared a thought to your assertions. I'm afraid you simply don't understand basic reality, or morality for that matter.
    1
  1629.  @idk-cj2qy  I am apathetic to the notion of a continued existence of my "genes," what you say is the pinnacle of morality. That isn't feelings. You seem to think any sort of disagreement with your odd, eugenicist religious definition of morality simply doesn't understand. What an egotistical assumption. Have you ever considered we might just understand better than you?
    1
  1630.  @idk-cj2qy  I mean you can read my statements as however you want, its clear by this point that is isn't actually what I say that you're responding to, but some sort of figment of me in your head that you've constructed out of pieced together fragments of some of my disconnected statements. This conversation was so... enlightening.
    1
  1631.  @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 still about as obvious as it could really be, showing the same results, 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 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 and anti-socialist, 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 understand such an important "fact" about political leanings 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 he had openly rejected both their methods and their beliefs, in favor of a right wing system, 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 or socialism. 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. The concept of volkism was one the right had long held up as ideal. He thought that the processes of capital 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, nor are those the definition of socialism 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
  1632.  @idk-cj2qy  Dude, you're talking to someone who has been copy pasting nearly that same exact response for months now Yes, they could attempt to lie to me and I would point out that they were lies, something you yourself have problems with. You claim that moral systems are the same as basic desires, and that continued existence is the same as asking to murder someone. You don't know what a feeling is, and you advocate for an authoritarian system of total control. Simply put, you don't know what you're talking about, and deflecting now to hegel further proves that :)
    1
  1633.  @idk-cj2qy  Yes, I don't agree with your system of "mortality" that advocates keeping individuals locked away in separate concrete chambers for their supposed own safety and a preservation of the species. Not too hard to understand. And I certainly don't agree with your notion that only your life matters, and other people only count if they help you further that goal. You can't connect the obvious. You don't seem to understand that your system of morality makes no sense as if far gone objective, and in fact seems to fail when practically applied. Apparently, leisure is immoral, while perpetual imprisonment is entirely moral, according to you. Your system of morality is nonsense. You've been disproven so many times it's almost funny. You're stuck In a loop of the same dead assertions. No need to bother pleading your case to strangers to attempt to validate your loss.
    1
  1634.  @idk-cj2qy  Well this confirms it. You appear to want to remove people who have different (according to you "inferior") moral views, and now seem to not even regard them as human. I hate to break it to you, but morals aren't genetic, and you have no right to remove those who disagree with you. That's quite a worrying development, go to have people you disagree with refered to as inhuman objects to be "removed."
    1
  1635.  @idk-cj2qy  I mean yes, openly advocating for the removal of those you deem genetically and morally inferior is literally eugenics. The fact that you aren't deny that tells me all I need to know. Your moral system and assumptions make no sense Deflecting from open eugenic arguments really isn't a good look and proves my previous points perfectly.
    1
  1636.  @idk-cj2qy  Yes, you did in fact multiple times make note of your odd belief that morality was genetic, and you repeated the fanatic assertion that your tyrannical moral views were objectively correct. Dancing around this subject only further process the validity of your support of it
    1
  1637.  @idk-cj2qy  Apparently, according to you, morals are genetic and are only determined by a set of genes. I said nothing of the sort that you're asserting. How sad. That's totally how morality and sentience works. It's quite clear that advocating for the supposed genetic superiority of those that agree with your authoritarian system is eugenics. Apparently you don't understand that no one gene creates intelligence, and morality isn't genetic. Apparently you don't understand that advocating for the "Removal" of those you deem genetically inferior is eugenics. Apparently you really will make up anything to respond to in order to avoid dealing with your authoritarian views and adherence to eugenics.
    1
  1638.  @idk-cj2qy  Mate he's said the exact same thing to me. Again. You are talking to a bot.
    1
  1639.  @idk-cj2qy  You really think that avoiding the subject will allow you to divert my criticisms of your frankly horrific ideology and "moral" views. Again, comparing those who disagree with you to bananas and calling yourself superior proves my point. You seriously don't seem to be able to address a single thing i've said, nor a criticism i've made. And gosh, when all else fails you just deflect back to a point you previously lost, huh? Kinda sad, not unexpected. He really thinks software exists without hardware. Another weirdo that thinks plants or rocks have consciousness. He probably really thinks humans are "superior" and should exterminate bananas for being "inferior" lol. He seriously thinks bananas have the same intelligence and morals as humans. And he still doesn't get I was asking him to stay alive, even if his feelings said otherwise.
    1
  1640.  @idk-cj2qy  Yeah, i'm not responding to that, nor have my criticisms been based on whatever drivel you just spewed out. My criticisms have been based on the statements I have named, time and time again, that you have not rejected or changed your mind on. Morality isn't genetic. Consciousness is more than genes.
    1
  1641.  @idk-cj2qy  I do hope you realize that "has genes" and "is genetic" are not the same thing. Even if one presumes that all morality comes from living things, the morality of an individual is not determined by hereditary genetic traits. Morality, like ideology, religion, ect, is determined by social stimuli, not by genetic traits. There is no utilitarianism gene. Also, AI has no genes. Human beings are more than their natural programming. Genetic information doesn't matter nearly as much in social development than society itself, which is obviously not genetic. There's no evidence for your conclusion, and the fact that you need to conflate "genetic traits" with "the action of anything that has genes" to try to make a pint proves as much.
    1
  1642.  @idk-cj2qy  You asserted that one's moral viewpoints were based on their genetic makeup. Genetic - relating to genes or heredity. As in, you asserted that certain individual hereditary genes, in people, were the cause of their moral viewpoints. Specifically you referenced genes that impact what you see as intelligence. You didn't assert that "things with genes have moral opinions" or "you need to have genes to have morals," you specifically asserted that specific genes impact both your intelligence and moral viewpoints. As in, you believed that morality was a trait determined by hereditary genes. Morality is genetic, in your view. Not as in morality is only found in things with genes. Stop deflecting. You asserted not that you need genes to be moral, but that the genes you had specifically determined your morality, and that the same genes that determined intelligence determined your moral outlook. What part of this has to do with geneless things, or bacteria? Oh, you're deflecting. I don't understand what's so hard to get. You don't seem to understand the meaning of genetic, and so you deflect to "anything having genes," when we've been over the specific way you invoke hereditary morality. No, morality is not a genetic trait, nor is it hereditary, as you assert. Morality is an individual and societal opinion, not a biological pre-coded one. Deflecting to "bacteria don't have consciousness" and "you need genetics to build civilization" does not address the specific ways you have invoked genetics in the past, which you are now running away from. Stop. Deflecting.
    1
  1643.  @idk-cj2qy  Because bananas do not have society, nor do they have the capacity to create it. Morality is not something determined by genes, but society and social stimuli. There is no utilitarianist or nihilist gene, nor are their hereditary genes that necessitate you adopting those moral viewpoints. The fact that inanimate objects, plants, or unintelligent life doesn't have moral theory doesn't impact that. Bringing those up does nothing to support your point. And there are humans that dont value life, either their's or other's, which is almost always the cause of social stimuli, not genetic or hereditary traits.
    1
  1644.  @idk-cj2qy  Given that you have been in the loop of denial for the past two days, you don't have much of a leg to stand on with your complete nonsense eugenics. I do hope you realize that certain species not being sentient doesn't make morality genetic? You lost long ago. It seems you're just trying to manufacture "loops" to deflect from that fact. You're just taking the absurd notion that humanity can produce moral systems, and stretching it to the nonsense statement of morality is based on genes. Genes are instructions, yes, but it isn't "materials" that add to that, since materials are already accounted for. Survival isn't based on morality, nor does basic evolutionary theory do anything to back up or even explain your previous odd assertions. Congratulations, you successfully figured out the very basics of evolution, though you seem to pose them as an absurdity that has not come to pass, nor are you able to connect the concepts being discussed. Do you at any point plan to address your previous statements on hereditary morality and authoritarian moral systems? I'm guessing not given you've yet to do so.
    1
  1645.  @idk-cj2qy  It's amazing. I give reality to you in the most concrete terms possible, and invite any sort of response to things you have said previously. Even a "No, I didn't say that" would do. And yet, here you are doing all you can to deflect from your past assertions on the hereditary nature of morality. Insults don't change reality. And again, perhaps try to actually respond to my statements. I know you need a basic explanation of evolution, but even you should know that same-species fighting and competition is far from rare in nature, yes?
    1
  1646.  @idk-cj2qy  I'm aware you don't want to have to explain your viewpoints on those things, given that you likely can't as you don't understand them yourself. You're free to keep deflecting but what I can see is an obvious attempt to avoid the subject of your previous claims. You've made your views on those things readily apparent, and you don't seem to be willing to defend them, which I cannot blame you for given how absurd they were. And I said I didn't particularly care, and then we moved on to discussing your other outlandish and unsupported claims, as we've been over. Not sure where you got that supposed statement of mine from, but we've already seen you be more than willing to just make stuff up so I'm guessing that's how you got it.
    1
  1647.  @idk-cj2qy  As we've been over, your previous assertion was not that you needed genes to be moral or have a oral outlook, (which is coincidence, not causation) rather you asserted that within humanity, there is a specific set of genes that determine intelligence, and those genes also determine your moral outlook. This, quite literally, has nothing to do with morality being found in things with DNA. Again - your original assertion was not that morality was only found in beings with "sentience, the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, not being the result of life and life" that had DNA. Your assertion was that within humanity, your moral outlook is decided by the genes you have inherited. So no, pointing out the existence of AI doesn't prove you wrong, as your request as nothing to do with the assertion in question. If you can show me an example of a scientific study that found that morality, empathy, the capability to experience feelings and sensations that all leads to a specific moral outlook and so on are specifically tied to a set of hereditary genes, you would be proving yourself right. Your assertion has never been that morality is among living things only. STOP. DEFLECTING. I've never said anything like that, unlike you. I've proven you wrong and time and time again asked you to get back on topic. You asserted that moral outlooks are determined, within humanity, by a specific set of genes. You are not trying to move the goalposts, as to frame your previous assertion as simply "you need DNA to live" which has nothing to do with your previous points. Tell me, where is the utilitarianism gene? I've responded to you every time. You, on the other hand, ignore what you cannot disprove, and deflect what you cannot rebut. I hate to break it to you champ, but you don't know what genetic means, and trying to pretend that your assertions on genetic morality amounted to "you need genetics to think and thus be moral" is a lie. If it isn't, feel free to prove me wrong and reject the notion that certain moral outlooks are the direct result of specific genes within humanity. Not genes that allow us to live or be sentient, but genes dealing with intelligence, as you previously asserted.
    1
  1648.  @idk-cj2qy  "You never pieced the obvious together" is a funny way of saying "you noted the connections but easily disproved 'Idk's' assertions." I hate to break it to you but the only genetic predisposition that impacts morality is the ability to be sentient. Beyond that morality is not determined at all by genes, but social stimuli. You asserted that an individual's moral framework was decided by what genes they had. So again, where's the utilitarian gene? Life isn't made "to do" anything. Life is a random chance event that sometimes ends up better, sometimes worse. Not ever adaptation is beneficial, not every aspect of life is made to live better. Humans are far from biologically perfect, it's society that continues our existence, not natural evolution. Again, the basis of human morality isn't survival. That's the basis of your moral system, which as we've already been over, has extreme flaws. Nor is the absolute basis of morality somehow determining that human lives matter most, given that there are numerous moral frameworks that refute that notion. And i'm sorry, that's false. You asserted that morality was objective and your adherence to "correct" morality was predetermined by a specific few genes that impacted intelligence. In any case, no, not all moral systems are predicated on the value of life, or societal/species/individual self preservation. Your system is, and it's flawed as hell/
    1
  1649.  @idk-cj2qy  I'm sorry, that's false. Just because say, your parents held a moral viewpoint does not mean that you will. Your response to social stimuli is based on said stimuli itself, not genes. And that is the result of your assertion - by necessity, your assertions necessitate the existence of a set of genes that will make one into a utilitarian. Society is the result of random chance and more often than not a dismissal and rebuttal of nature, the natural, and life itself. And we've been over your claims. I'm sorry, that's false. Empathy may be an advantage, but like all evolutionary traits, it started as a random mutation that was then baked into our skulls after millions of successive generations. So you assert that there is "no evidence" for evolution? I see you still have yet to learn the difference between a moral value of life and a desire to live.
    1
  1650.  @seanmarkham6965  insults won't change reality "bro." try again.
    1
  1651.  @MrReco12  Oh, I think he knows. He literally tried to imply that people disagreed with Mises because he was Jewish, not because of all that economic stuff he proposed, or the fascists he seemed to support. He calls socialism antisemetic because marx was, ignoring that he previously said marx was in no way the creator of socialism. He also ignores a lot of bigoted capitalists like Hayek (which he cites) or Hoppe, and all those who inconveniently supported regimes like pinnochet's or mussolini's. He even copy-pasted his first response into another thread of a guy who was just asking him a simple question. I really do think, like I said, that his goal is just to get people to shut up by calling them all bigots on the flimsiests of pretexts, not actually try to bring any legitimate topic or historical criticism forwards.
    1
  1652.  @TheImperatorKnight  Corporations are Capitalist. Corporations, despite the literal base etymological terms you try to ascribe to them, have always been used to reference private entities.. Corporations are hierarchies of society consisting of thousands of people who are collectively owned by their shareholders. They aremade up of individuals individuals (Private) and therefore are not socialist, as they have private individual control of the means of production.
    1
  1653.  @j.greenriver6293  Then you must have simply failed to learn or evolve as a person, simply devolved. Your "lesser evil" nonsense only works if the person in question actually Was the lesser evil. Everything we can see about Allende would suggest that he was the lesser evil, but it seems utterly unfathomable to you who is already happy supporting a mass murderer. 1. This is false. The CIA had to orchestrate the coup because the majority of Chileans already knew who they wanted, and it was Allende. You're saying that you must know better than the people for what the people want, which is the thought process of a dictator to be. What Pinochet actually did is what matters, he literally made himself a dictator, not hypothetically. The worst you can say of a possible Allende rule is better than what Pinochet actually did. 2. This is false, he literally was neutral and he wasn't elected because of some international plot, he was elected because he had massive amounts of popularity among the people for opposing the system that would eventually ruin the country.
    1
  1654.  @gabbar51ngh  Except... there was no "proving wrong" to be found, child.
    1
  1655.  @gabbar51ngh  Look, I know you desperately wish that was the case, but saying it does not in any way address the fact that my points were never addressed, much less disproven.
    1
  1656.  @gabbar51ngh  Ah yes, what an amazing citation. "Several historians." Odd, then, that fascism in no way was born out of socialism, but instead was born out of a dissatisfaction with socialism, and the want of the conservative elite to continue to keep their power. Rich conservative people are about as non socialist as you can get, but i'm sure to an intellectually dishonest hack like yourself anything is true if you simply pretend it is.
    1
  1657.  @j.greenriver6293  You're right, we can't tell who was the lesser evil, but we can tell who actually did by far the worse things and who was the most detrimental to the country, and that would easily be Pinochet in that case, no matter what was thought. 1. That... isn't a good sign for the ideas you're defending. Also, the assumption that the Coup would have happened regardless is a bit silly. Without support from the CIA, they would not have had the funding, nor the ideological rigidity, to actually make a major movement or even a semi-stable regime after said coup. 2. Saying it over and over doesn't make a lie any more true, and yeah, that's a lie. You can call me dishonest all you want, but I am telling you the truth like it or not. You can either hear it, take it in, and grow... or run away and dwell forevermore in ignorance.
    1
  1658. ​ @gabbar51ngh  Why do you call me a dishonest hack, when I have only been proving me wrong? Are your lies so totally consuming to you that you think a denial of them is a denial of reality itself? Sad. Your "yellow socialism" is literally born of a rejection of socialism in favor of capitalist conservatism, (the very existence of private property under staid system proves that) under what other systems do companies even exist? You call it socialist simply because it calls itself as such, but they were not socialists, your article proves as much, they believed in a system in which the people and the private market worked together. Do you call this socialism? Why do you defend ideologies responsible for so much death? Mussolini? You mean the man who openly said that he rejected socialism, marxism, and leftism, and worked with religious conservatives to wipe out leftist parties? And hitler, who said that socialism means a protection of private property, who said the left would destroy civilization, and who purged actual socialist? You have yet to provide evidence that even comes close to proving what you think it does, your one citation so far literally proves my point. Empirical Evidence stands firmly on my side while all you can post is propaganda claiming "A system in which private property exists is totally socialism!"
    1
  1659.  @gabbar51ngh  How does this "crush my rhetoric?" You have a lot of confidence for a guy who just gave a citation against your own point. Your source openly admits that those calling themselves "yellow socialists" rejected socialism, and instead sought to redefine it into a system where the private sector works with the people and government in a single nation. However, even this quote "faded away" by the time the fascists rose. Also, the ideological origins of fascism are not in "yellow socialism", but in the writings of those like Spengler and Evola... open conservatives. Your source, if you even read it, should tell you plainly that you are wrong. You appear to have found a passage describing how ex socialists rejected the notions of socialism to form something ideologically similar to fascism, that promoted a corporatistic (Right wing) economy that merged private and public... but didn't actually read it, and you somehow came to the exact opposite conclusion! Oh you poor, poor child. Cry as much as you want but evidence here straight up crushes your rhetoric.
    1
  1660.  @gabbar51ngh  They rejected socialism. Period. Your article explains this fully, have you perhaps not read it? So, explain how an ideology that rejects equality and calls for the protection and continuation of private property is socialist? I'll wait. (You can't, it isn't.)
    1
  1661.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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
  1662.  @Scornfull  TIK attempts to and like with his other claims utterly fails to prove anything beyond his own ideological fanaticism and willingness to ignore the facts in pursuit of it. Sorry kid, TIK doesn't. TIK's "literally" wrong.
    1
  1663.  @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
  1664.  @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
  1665.  @doublebassman123  No lies besides your own, champ. One day you might even learn to tell the truth about the very basics, but i'm not holding my breath.
    1
  1666.  @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
  1667.  @doublebassman123  oh, cry harder child. One day you all will come up with a new insult, until then, this is boring.
    1
  1668.  @phonox  It's amazing. Conservatives actually can't argue against leftists without literally making things up. I would genuinely respect you more if you actually attempted an argument, but the fact that all you have is random political talking points that are used more often than they are justified means that you have nothing better to say.
    1
  1669.  @phonox  someone needs a lesson in economics.
    1
  1670.  @doublebassman123  to let you know how unoriginal and soulless your insults are.
    1
  1671.  @kattkatt6961  lmao you're still coping because I proved you wrong three times over. The fact that you can't even accurately recall the arguments you were trounced in proves my point even more. When you have to lie about an argument to random people, then you know you lost.
    1
  1672. ​ @kattkatt6961  As I said, you're still coping with a loss you can't even tell the truth about. That fact alone should be cause for reflection, but something tells me that an honest hard look at your own failings is beyond you. This is just more proof of my point. Either you literally can't remember our conversation or you've somehow convinced yourself that it had anything to do with the viability of communism as an ideology, which is especially odd considering that i'm not a communist, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. The fact that you start this off with a deflection to a random ideological argument is very telling though. You never cared about the history, which is why I caught you lying about it. I literally provided evidence time and time again, far more than you ever did, and yet in order to pretend your argument was at all successful, you have to lie about even this. Yes, your argument was thoroughly "trounced," and it would do you well to be honest about that, if only so you can try to reinforce it for the next person that mistakes you for a person capable of debate. I've simply provided the definition of capitalism, one you are only now even questioning, because it proves your preconceived notions false. I mean, you literally can't handle the fact that those that built the ideology of capitalism and those that made it the force that it is today have, by definition, ignored any sort of principles of individualistic apathy or "leaving people alone." Thus, to justify your "understanding" of the subject, as devoid of historical fact as it is, you need to redefine the term and bury its past. You do something similar with private property, again forgetting that by this definition, socialism becomes a form of capitalism. You renounce the works of thee faces of capitalism as well as the historical record itself, ignoring the necessity for capitalism to exist within a statist society, and your only evidence for your claims are unnamed sources that even you seem ignorant of. Child, I "came back" because you, unprompted, felt the need to lie about a weeks old internet argument that you conceded to a random person, and all I simply did was correct the story... only to be met with a wall of text in which you attempt to restate lost arguments. And yet, somehow, i'm the salty one? Sure. I provided you proof, the quotes from hitler were but one example, and proved that you are unable to deal with evidence that proves you wrong, somehow using his public rejection of socialism and the left and defense of conservatism, traditionalism, and the right as a vessel to attempt to prove exactly the opposite. You can't even keep your story straight, because I hate to break it to you, rejecting both "camps" is more than "a whole lot of nothing." You just can't stop lying. Child, I never claimed "Lenin was in the right" regarding anything, because I personally disagree with Lenin on the majority of actions and positions. I simply, correctly, pointed out that you tried to equate the nazis and the soviets as "sore losers," when in reality the nazi's violent actions happened before any elections and continued long after them as well as them politically conspiring to win, and the soviets and especially soviet leaders didn't decide to randomly revolt, the "democratic" government itself took violent action against them after talk of a potential vote to change the structure of said government, the very thing that a provisional state is meant to do. Of course, both of these things ignoring that you asserted that peaceful transfers of power led to this provisional state, when in reality it was a bloody uprising, but whatever. And your only defense of this is... equating it to the American South, which made the first strike in all capacities, rejected democracy, and didn't care about votes in any capacity? What? And then, somehow, trying to say that by pointing out the above facts, i'm "justifying the raciest slave owning south?" You, quite literally, just claimed that pointing out the government's actions against lenin... means siding with the Confederates. Perhaps one of the most desperate arguments i've ever heard. I do truly wish one day you find the courage to engage in debate honestly and learn to let it go when its all over, and how instantly dismissing and even ridiculing all evidence you are given utterly voids your claims of no provided evidence. I'm not the one that brought up this argument again unprompted, child. That would be you. Happy new years, and may you learn to log off once in a while.
    1
  1673.  @kattkatt6961  Amazing. Can't even tell the truth about running away, can you? what exactly is the point in engaging with someone that can't even tell the truth about their own intentions? Child, if you had actually bothered to read my response you would know that I quite literally reiterated that point, capitalism does require statism, and communism is defined as stateless, classless, and moneyless. The fact that you feel the need to boil down everything to a "troll" proves my point even more. Why bother engaging when you're just going to ignore the points made and claim everything you disagree with is disingenuous or a case of trolling, simply because you have no other points to make? Again, you continually try to attack statements that i've never made, and similarly, statements you are unable to prove I made, or even supported. When have I said that all statism is capitalism? Or did you confuse that statement for the factual inverse, that all capitalism, in definition and historical record, is statist? You can throw out whatever half-assed insults you want, but that doesn't constitute a point. You call me arguments laughable because all you can do is laugh, certainly not counter them or even provide any discussion surrounding their validity. Why do you want to pretend I have my "dick out for marx?" Child, you responded to a random person and decided to make it about me, despite them not mentioning anything besides random assertions on capitalism and Boris Yeltsin, which of course, has nothing to do with me. And here you are, unable to move on even after saying that you were. "No you' isn't an argument anyone would make unless they were below the age of 18, as in, a child. In any case, maybe when you stop doubling down on your ignorance, you can figure out that your constant deflections and long disproven assertions don't actually constitute arguments. If you're talking about a government brutally cracking down on its own citizens, including political rivals, publishing locations, and the spread of information itself relating to their regime, I would direct you to look no further than the "democratic" provisional government that you are defending. You know, the government that attempted to forcefully disband political opposition and workers movements, often by violence. Of course, you have to ignore this to continue to defend your long debunked argument, and with it, your pride. I mean, the very fact that you ignore this proves your inability to argue truthfully, as the violence conducted towards workers movements and even Lenin specifically would utterly rebuke your statements about any peaceful power transfer being possible. You don't seem to understand that the government in question was about as "democratic" as north korea. I'm not sure why you continually deflect from your proven false claims about how the Tsar fell and the provincial government's view of Lenin, but you don't seem to want to stop. In any case, as if to prove my point, you have decided to dredge up your old failed arguments, utterly ignoring the refutations I served them when first presented, as if to prove your obsession and terminally online life definitively. If you need me to be your emotional punching bag, fine, I am happy to serve in that role. But you need to realize the absurdity of your silly little claims and the blatant ideological nature of your failed arguments. You need to paint me as something I am not to attack me, because if you did not, your attacks would fail even quicker than they have been. And i'm sorry, the state attacking people is far from "bullshit," and for a person that supposedly lives by a motto of "leave people alone," you seem to be very willing to ignore actual state violence. Pointing out the flaws in say, the weimar republic, is far from nazi sympathy, given many of the nazi's first victims were vocal critics of the weimar's failures. then for once in your life, put your money where your moth is. You do a hell of a lot of posturing about how i'm beyond help, irrational, ideological, whatever, for someone that is still actively choosing to waste their time on... internet arguments. UI honestly doubt you actually have anything better to do, but we both already knew that. If answering our question shuts you up, fine. I don't care about "some economy," I care about people, and I care about those people living the lives they want, and not forcing the lives they want other people to live on unwilling participants. What was that thing you said before? Leave people alone? Yeah, that, but actually this time.
    1
  1674.  @kattkatt6961  "I broke ya" is probably one of the saddest copes. In any case, the "answer" is that I actually take the "leave people alone" mentality beyond apathy, something I would hope more would see the basic necessity of, but apparently that has yet to happen. So sure, call me what you want, it doesn't seem to be right but you already knew that. Thanks, I guess.
    1
  1675.  @kattkatt6961  It's amazing, even when someone directly answers a question, one you seem to care an awful lot about for some reason, your instant, natural response is to go off on some weird tangent to justify your own odd perceptions of the world. It is funny, though, how your best ideological criticisms can only come out of you... making up hypocrisies. Because, as we all know, the best way to criticize someone is just to make stuff up and hope that you got it right.
    1
  1676.  @kattkatt6961  Dude come on, if you want to say something, say it to the person you're actually talking to, not the random person you feel like tagging instead because they made the mistake of responding to you on something unrelated, giving you an excuse to start yet another wild tirade. One day you'll realize that being logical isn't a bad thing, and being illogical isn't a sign of intelligence, more just irony poisoning. But oh well, you do you, have fun and make up whatever stuff you want I guess, not like I could stop you.
    1
  1677.  @kattkatt6961  It's amazing, you actually will do anything to avoid actually responding in good faith. You can't even deal with the answer to the question you asked, upon actually begging given an answer you ignored it, and preceded to spend hours making random things up, in service of your own fantasies. I can't even tell what you're trying to say, could you drop the irony poisoning and just say what you mean or say nothing at all rather than wasting everyone's time? So apparently, according to you, "leave everyone alone" is a nazi position. Pointing out his political goals while calling him evil apparently, according to you, cancels the last part out. Oh, and the idea that someone can be anything but capitalist or socialist, which you decided to phrase as "He had to have been not a socialist, while being not a capitalist, while not being neither but without being both," which is just repeating the same core thought several times, is illogical to you, likely because you have no economic knowledge of any sort. Sorry your trolling got yo nowhere kid, and the fact that I backed you into the corner of pretending that everyone who proves you wrong does so from the position of your favorite nazi ideology is an amazing testament to your lack of skill.
    1
  1678.  @kattkatt6961  I mean hey, at least you admit it. You ran away after I responded to every single one of your arguments, a fact you despised so much that you decided to repeat them, unprompted, to random people. You at first claim that there was no evidence presented, then claim that the evidence presented was worthless, then go back to claiming that there was little to none, of course ignoring the vast swathes of citation you must ignore to remain ideologically ignorant. The fact that you equate your failed argument with "the world" says a lot. I'm not sure exactly why random people insulting me and then running away would at all change the simple fact of your loss, and it's odd that you're trying to appeal to an audience when none is to be found. Of course, now that the dust has settled and you've been poorly coping for hours, you want to claim the existence of "gaslighting and cope statements," as an attempt to salvage your dead ego. It's pretty similar to the way you hinge your whole argument on a quote, one you can't decide if you want to dismiss, invalidate, or just ignore, so you keep switching between them. Of course, i've never changed definitions or my stances, but again, the point of these comments is to allow you to vent your frustrations with your clear loss and salvage what's left of your ego, doing anything to insult me as a person because you've repeatedly failed to actually address my arguments. So please, call me whatever you want, it won't make that loss sting any less. Trying to downplay and mock the existence of those that despise various forms of bigotry really isn't a good look pal, especially when we can see that exact rhetoric mirrored in modern nazi groups. But I doubt you care about the basis of your ideology and rhetoric, given your love of siding with those you claim to hate. You can stop the clownery kid, at this point its pretty pathetic. I hope one day you can realize that going off on hours of unrelated tangents about people you don't like, making random things up the whole time, is by definition a cope statement :)
    1
  1679.  @kattkatt6961  amazing how the vast majority of your "criticisms" seem to revolve around strawmen. It's almost as if you know you lost the actual logical debate, and have to resort to fallacy to save face, hm? Stop being so terminally online, kid. For once, stick to your guns. Get a life, go outside, stop obsessively responding to people with nothing but paragraphs about why you shouldn't bother responding. You have nothing of value, and yet you decide to continue on anyway. If you cared about logic for a single second you would see the uselessness of your responses, but you never have, have you? No, child. Just because you only want to admit to a single quote that you never read, doesn't mean that there's far more, of course. Of course a single quote is way too much for you, given that you were unable to actually provide data, studies, analysis, or any sort of citation for a single one of your claims. After we had gone over the simple fact that the right is responsible for literally hundreds of times more political violence, and that right wing politics are far more violent than left wing politics, you deflected by focusing on a single small point of that, that being individual political representatives attacked... and you still got caught lying and leaving out names and attacks that completely disproved your narrative. But, you don't care about that, because apparently, you forgot about all of the rebuttals that were so easy to create. Your assertions were proven false, your lack of citation was noted, and in the end, you ran away. I responded to every single one of your comments, and you, of course, ran away. You failed to respond, but apparently your pride was still tied up in that argument you lost, so now weeks later you decided to rant to a random person that never even mentioned me about that lost argument, and you launched into paragraph after paragraph of insults when I simply responded with a few sentences, pointing out your obsession. You apparently are unaware that other people get youtube notifications. Of course, rather than dealing with what I actually said, you would prefer to deflect to your own interpretation. It's so much easier when you just pretend that every time I talk about modern nazis, i'm just talking about some random group, right? It's almost as if your rhetoric exists to defend and normalize nazi groups, devaluing the term and allowing for open nazi identification and rhetoric in modern politics. Again, child, just screaming "NO YOU!" when I point out your flaws and obsession with that lost argument really isn't a good look for you. And of course, my statement, "I hope one day you can realize that going off on hours of unrelated tangents about people you don't like, making random things up the whole time, is by definition a cope statement :)" remains accurate to your behavior. Child, I know you feel the need to manufacture a reality in which you won, but it's quite sad. If you were actually secure in your victory, you wouldn't feel the need to bring it up weeks later unprompted, and spend a whole day now hurling insults towards a person that has no interest in dealing with you. My ideas have been presented, and despite your hatred of them, they remain solid, based in reality, and proven. Of course, you're free to cope, mald, seethe, ect, but I am happy with where we left it, after I presented evidence you couldn't refute, and you ran away. You do remember that, don't you? Here you are, only now even daring to claim the opposite after a day of discussion, as if even you know it isn't true. Don't you remember? How you were a coward, and ran away, after I proved you wrong? I sure do :) In any case, yes, anyone is free to go through these comments and see which "ideas" you've stuck to. Those ideas being, of course, "No you!" and "I don't like you!" Look, i'm sorry it didn't work out for you last time. I can only recommend you start doing genuine research, and open yourself up to debates that you're more ready to have. Maybe you should stop using the rhetoric of open nazi groups in their attempt to normalize the very claims you are making, hm? And please, stop assuming things, especially in such a sad 2016 way. No, child. You've, for the most part, engaged in constant insulting, because it's all you have. I mean even here, your "I don't insult you, loser" comment doesn't inspire the most confidence. I choose to live my life as I always have, debating and dispatching you children one after the other. You know, not being terminally online, not tying identity to internet arguments, and so on. Oh, wait, you don't know, do you?
    1
  1680.  @kattkatt6961  Ohhhh, I get it. The reason you can't see the problems with your statements is because you, again, constructed another reality rather than dealing with them. Rather than actually dealing with the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, you've decided to set up a series of assertions. The first two are correct, mostly, however you decide arbitrarily to include your third assertion, which you refuse to back up or even explain. Of course you don't understand the situation, you've decided to make up a third variable and insert it artificially in order to dismiss the entire thing, without justifying it. No, child. The most ";logical conclusion" has nothing to do with your hatred of citation or refusal to read quotes that prove you wrong. And, of course, there is nothing logical about being two opposing things at once, and yet neither of them, nor is it at all logical to assert that this belief is being peddled. I know you can't handle citation or critical thought, but no child, this isn't logical at all, nor is it found in the quote, or any of the other information you refuse to read. The fact that you had to utterly manufacture a contradiction rather than dealing with the obvious reality of history speaks volumes. See, the problem is, you apparently have not spent any amount of time studying economics in any capacity, and are thus unaware that there are more than a small handful of economic ideologies. You've conflated him not being in line with some third options... with him not being in line with the concept of a third option altogether. See the problem? You fail to even justify your assumptions here. How does not being a capitalist, socialist, or state capitalist leave you in some "economic limbo?" I do hope you realize that there are hundreds of years and thousands of pages discussing economics that fall outside your narrow perceptions, yes? I hate to break it to you, but a system which claims to leave everyone alone and yet does not ensure this value is met is, by definition, a basic logical contradiction. It's far from any sort of contradiction to suggest a system in which the values are met, in fact it's quite the opposite. How do you propose a world in which we leave people alone, but also are openly apathetic towards those that would reject that right for others, and force their will onto other people? No, child, the problem with your "joke," if you want to call it that, is that it made no logical sense and even your later explanation of it, something that spells a death sentence for a well-meaning joke, doesn't relate to what you actually said. But asking you to stay consistent has clearly proven to great a burden. why would I bother further coddling the person that calls anyone who calls them out terminally online, and yet continues long-dead debates even after they personally insulted anyone who did that, and asserted they would do the opposite? Your pride really is caught up in this one, hm.
    1
  1681. ​ @kattkatt6961  No, child. You got called out, and now you're being terminally online again, tying your pride to an argument you claim not to care about, spending time fully aware that you're unable to reach any sort of position of rationality and that this discussion is pointless. You know that, and yet you continue to advocate for it to continue. A "logical flaw" that you made up, that betrays your ignorance on a subject that you continue, for some reason, to tie your personal pride to. Child, did you think you came up with the term "strawman?"
    1
  1682.  @kattkatt6961  What is even your goal with this conversation? I can only assume salvaging your pride, since even you have admitted that nothing productive is being done.
    1
  1683.  @kattkatt6961  Er, no. You're still failing to understand the basic terms. This is why conversation with you is impossible, you have misunderstandings but rather than trying to explain or understand the concepts, you paint your misunderstanding as a logical fault of the point which you can't accurately represent. Let me give you a little bit of a hint here. The author in question did not, in fact, say "no third options." Rather, he said that the nazi economy did not represent "third way" economics. You'll notice that these are different terms, and in fact, you can look up "third way economics" and find that it is its own economic school. I mean, if you had actually read the quote it explains even this, saying that third way economics are "between capitalism and socialism," and thus, not exactly a third option completely separate, hm? The problem is, you are evidently entirely ignorant of the concept of third way economics, an essential economic concept when understanding the 20th century, and have decided instead to rewrite a quote in a way that showcases ignorance of not only context outside of the quote, but of the very quote itself. It isn't some unsolvable logical problem, child, you just can't read. I'm truly sorry that you don't understand the basics, but there's really nothing I can do about that. In any case, let's take your cat metaphor in a more realistic direction. There is one cat with apathetic owners, it is allowed to roam the world as it pleases, alongside many other free cats that are free to make their own choices and govern their lives how they wish. However, some of these free cats will be abducted off the street, and given to families that will, for better or worse, utterly control every aspect of the rest of their lives. And of course, you have the cats that advocate for this, that are fine with living a life of control as long as it allows them to enjoy their basic necessities, with hopes of good owners. You see, your society is one in which a cat might be free, but it also might be abducted by other people, systems of control. In other words, no cat is truly free unless they are on top of their own new hierarchy, because everyone else is at risk of being put in another family, or hell, killed by another cat. The simple fact is, in order to have a society of free cats, you cannot be apathetic towards people that would actively choose to revoke the freedoms of others for their own personal gain. A society in which the freedom of all individuals not only exists, but is ensured, is the only free society. You seem to believe this is somehow about protecting people "from themselves," which is incorrect. Do you get it now? No, child. The statement presented is in line with the quotation, that you evidently haven't read, and is further in line with your stated ignorance on the topic. You can, quite easily, be in line with some ideologies and not others. You do it, I do it, and so on. This is quite literally explained in the initial quote, where the author makes note of the fact that he does not fit into the primary two ideologies of the time, but also does not fit into the in-between ideologies, or popular compromises/third options of the time. I've made no error, you've simply exposed your ignorance of basic economics. Your only goal in this conversation has been sidestepping clear facts and definitions with the goal of nonsense deflection. Hell, you've shown here how terminally online and obsessive you are, and yet unable to even research the topic. You call him a liar when you feel like it, say he's telling the truth when you feel like it, but in doing so and trying to refute other more nuanced accounts, you have to ignore the entire context and historical reasoning, as well as the basic definitions, that were in play. It's amazing how, again, your entire argument revolves around using strawmen to justify your ignorance. Saying "do you know who Mises is" is like saying "hey have you ever heard of this band called the Beatles?" How little do you know of the field of economics, that you assume Mises is some niche figure?
    1
  1684.  @kattkatt6961  It's amazing. You genuinely can't deal with an argument that you lost, so you resort to unending insults, and then bid me to run along. Alright, let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is. You clearly don't see the point of this discussion, you can recognize the lack of productive conversation... and yet you, and you alone, are advocating for it to continue. Why? I'm giving you an out, one in which you can even have the last word, and something tells me you won't take it. No, child. I pointed out your ignorance regarding a well known subject, and you don't want to admit it. You, only now after days of discussion, have built up the courage to openly reject the established reality we have been working under, because your fee-fees got hurt and you feel like retaliating. Child, you lost this argument weeks ago when you failed to accurately represent basic reality. You lost when you refused to provide evidence, and when you ran away, refusing to respond to any argumentation or evidence that utterly countered your vapid assertions and hollow insults, because you simply couldn't handle leaving it like that, with you in such a devastating position.. You cemented that loss when you, unprovoked, ranted to a stranger about a weeks old argument that you lost. And you put the final nail in the coffin when you tried to project this all onto me. Child, I do hope you realize other people get notifications, and in fact, I got your notification, which is why I responded. You might be unaware, as illiterate as you are, but the very person you were ranting at had previously tagged me. But of course, realizing that I was summoned back into this mess by the very people you defend doesn't look good for your narrative, does it? Of course, hours later, when I saw that you had taken out your frustration with a lost debate on some random person, I had no choice but to provide a simple three sentence response, talking about you coping with failure, which prompted you to spam massive paragraphs of insults and deflections, as if you were simultaneously trying to revive your dead arguments and also insult me for daring to humor them. I understand how angry you get when people point out your falsehoods, but please child, find some other punching bag. Of course, when I saw you spreading your cope to random people, I felt no desire to respond to your pulverized arguments. Why? Well, we both know they were already dead in the water. I merely responded to the fact that you, obsessively, had returned to "set the record straight" to random people, clearly insecure with how we had left the previous arguments, after you had ran away all those weeks ago. If you were able to forget it and move on, you wouldn't have been the one to bring up those arguments... but you were, even by your own admission. After you ran away, I would have hoped that you would have taken the time to attempt to address your own arguments, if for no other reason than to strengthen them. But you weren't able to do that, were you? It was you that returned, child. I was fine with leaving it in the past, and yes, I continue to "lecture" you on your inability to do this. You started this, child, and now you're practically copy-pasting my observations of you in an attempt to cope with that fact. You can come up with whatever insults make you feel better, to be honest, it's a bit pathetic. You haven't apparently had a new thought in a while, you literally need to steal my own statements and fire them back in an attempt to validate yourself, and when doing so neglect to mention the part where many are specific to you and chronologically make no sense when examined objectively. In any case, the sad truth is that you attempted to revive an argument you lost weeks ago without prompting, and rather than even carrying that to its natural conclusion, you've decided to make me your punching bag. Have at it. I understand that no matter what, you're unwilling to put your money where your mouth is, and for all your posturing of "projection," you're still the only one who cares about continuing this. If you were logical, rational, hell, secure in your points, you could let this go. You had an amazing opportunity to do that last night, for example. And yet, you didn't. I understand your need to project your odd fantasies into this encounter, but I would rather prefer you don't, it's quite uncomfortable. In any case, I do hope by now you've realized the falsehoods present in your assertion of a supposed uncited "misquote," so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, alongside that history of your retreat and you coming back. So, as i've said many times before, let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is. If you're so insistent that I "let go of my pride" and stop responding, I'd be happy to give that to you. A deal, an agree to disagree, I'll even let you get the last word in, if we can end this civilly and wish eachother the best. I am clearly willing to "let go of my pride," let my arguments stand and fall as they are, something you clearly desire of me. Can you do the same? So, what do you say, champ? Do you really want me to "let go of my pride," and are you willing to make that happen? Or do you just want me to shut up, so you can regain some ego? Your choice.
    1
  1685.  @kattkatt6961  child, you were literally the one to come back after all this time, unprovoked. Even you can admit that, right? It's your pride that brought you back, and now it keeps you here.
    1
  1686.  @kattkatt6961  I have a boyfriend to get back to, so what is it, deal or no deal?
    1
  1687.  @kattkatt6961  Alright, happy to oblige. Have a happy new year, a good rest of your life, and may you and your loved ones be granted by whatever higher force or lack thereof you believe in with the best of luck, peace.
    1
  1688.  @kattkatt6961  ...ok then. Well, I wrote that before, but whatever. I repeat my blessings, though you might not see it now, but have a good one.
    1
  1689.  @derederekat9051  Do what? Argue with random people on the streets? What? Why the hell do you jump to some need to do things "in the streets" when that doesn't fit this type of conversation at all?
    1
  1690.  @phonox  "interesting" was sure a word for it...
    1
  1691.  @sanniepstein4835  You = not able to tell propaganda from fact. It's a bit sad, dude. Try again.
    1
  1692.  @NeoclassicYT  so you don't know what socialism is.
    1
  1693.  @NeoclassicYT  And yet everything you've said demonstrates the exact opposite. An funny you should describe my criticism like that, given that your assertion that I criticized was flailed out, vague, and presented without evidence or argumentation. Very, very intellectually poor, hm?
    1
  1694.  @NeoclassicYT  But I have, I openly and within my first response pointed out that you evidently don't know the definition of socialism, and you have provided no argumentation or evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry you feel the need to deflect from your logical duty to back up your silly ahistorical assertions, but that doesn't mean that I can just let your vague and projectionist intellectual dishonesty go unchallenged. I've criticized your exact statement, a statement you presented as a broad conclusion without evidence or argumentation. And what exactly is the point of "responding within you comment?" I respond to your comment. It's not exactly difficult.
    1
  1695.  @NeoclassicYT  Thank you for admitting you're out of arguments, so you just have insults.
    1
  1696.  @NeoclassicYT  Nothing of value, no rebuttal? Just sealioning, hoping I can provide you an education where others have failed to bring you to reality?
    1
  1697.  @NeoclassicYT  I hate to break it to you but the statement "You don't know what socialism is" and "You don't know the definition of socialism" are synonymous. I have no need to ask for the definition, I know it and i've cited it in this very thread. I've also never asked for your definition, given that you've stated it and i've criticized it. Your inability to read basic english isn't "word games." Child, insulting me doesn't make your own apparently illiteracy go away, nor can your attempted projection hide your dishonesty. And here's the part in the argument that illogical children like you always come to. Because you crave conflict, rather than sticking to the point, you engage in a barrage of barely related questions. Once I answer said questions, you'll ignore the answers you don't like, and focus on shorter answers that you feel you can respond to. I would be happy to answer your questions, but we are both painfully aware of the fact that these questions have been answered before, and that you ask these not to give yourself a chance to be convinced, but to continue an argument you're tricking yourself into thinking you haven't lost. Why do I need the "benefit of the doubt?" Child, i've done nothing but provide reality, you've done nothing but spew insults. Why are you deflecting away from your argument, and asking me to make one that you can attack instead? This all started because I rightfully criticized your ignorance regarding socialism, and rather than trying to back up your previous assertions, you shower me with insults and ask me to make your arguments for you. Can you even make a defense? Come on, let's hear it. If you cannot answer the questions yourself, which you pretty clearly can't, you have no right to ask them to me. And yet, since I have to be the bigger person here, I'll answer your deflection on its face, though it won't matter to a denialist like you, given that your confusion regarding socialism is purposeful. 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." The "enforcement" of socialism ranges between types, from state intervention to no enforcement at all. Socialism is an economic ideology, it doesn't "penetrate deep into society," unless you're referring to the old nazi conspiracy theory. Hitler and Mussolini were not socialists by deed, word, or policy, they were admittedly right wing and against socialism as a concept, the idea that they were somehow socialists is one only popularized nearly a decade after their deaths, not due to new information, but due to a rising tide of right wing extremism that forced conservatives to either come to terms with or deny their history. "National Socialism" is a type of fascism, specific to Nazi Germany, that advocates for extreme ethnonationalism, antisemetism, economic social darwinism, imperialism, and so on. Fascism refers to a collection of ideologies, most popular in the 20th century, that are characterized by right wing authoritarian utlra-nationalist governments, most often holding core to their beliefs a national/ethnic myth, a cult of personality, traditionalist social beliefs, and so on. Marxism is a term either used to describe Marxism, a historical method of analysis focusing on class conflict, or the personal economic prescriptions of Karl Marx, which can be best described as libertarian socialism/council communism in modern terminology. None of these concepts are inherently philosophical, though the traditionalism tied to nazism/fascism is undoubtedly flawed as a philosophy, namely in its constructions of artificial "pasts" to support modern morals, and marx's personal philosophy was undoubtedly flawed, namely in his social views, though this has little to do with marxism by both definitions. Hitler openly spoke of his alignment of the right, and the title "Socialist" only came to be associated with his party after it was proposed by Strasserites and passed against his will, a group which you may very well know criticized hitler for anti-socialism, and were then murdered. Hitler then carried on using the title, but openly spoke about his desire to distance it from all other conceptions of the term, and defined it as synonymous with nationalist, and racist. Mussolini, similarly, wrote extensively on his criticisms of the left as a whole, his adherence ideologically and practically with the right, and his rejection of socialism and marxism as ideologies. They considered themselves, plainly, nazi and fascist respectively. But of course, you didn't actually want answers, hence the sarcastic insults built into your very request. The questions are pretty basic, so basic that you should have been able to answer them yourself to defend your point, and yet you seem wholly incapable of that. Of course, if you actually wanted a far more in-depth answer, you would have stuck to the conversation (your definition of socialism) and have either provided evidence for your case or, mildly less fallaciously than what you did, ask for mine. You did neither, and attempted to drown me in questions, which I have answered comprehensively and concisely. But, as I said, you aren't looking for answers. You're looking for some new branch of the argument, in order to deflect from a position you know you can't defend. By the way. that line is nearly word-for-word ripped from your response, hence the "projectionist." You took me paraphrasing a sentence from you, an apparently are completely oblivious to the fact that you wrote it. "Too typical for leftists?" Child, are you a leftist? You are, after all, out of arguments, so you have resorted to insults, lies, deflection and projection. You can't even defend your own assertions, and yet you accuse me of being out of arguments? You haven't made one yet. No, child. See, if you were prepared to have your mind changed, you would have done so already. You would leave your echo chamber, seek out first hand sources, modern news, historians, and so on. Any other source that could start to add to your information on the subject, before you move onto another source. And it would not take long at all to not only answer all of these questions, but to correct the ignorance you showed in the original comment I criticized. These answers, despite being all you asked for and more, won't be enough for you, because logic doesn't come before ideology in your head. I used to be in your position, and rather than asking random people to do the work for me, I went out and looked. Now I see how silly my old positions were, and I feel embarrassed for those still holding them. I have taught. I have answered. And yet, something tells me you won't be convinced. All evidence points to the simple fact that your mind can't be changed with arguments. If it could, we wouldn't be here, you would have found this information yourself, or at least not attempted to deflect and bombard to avoid a point you know you could not defend. My mind has been changed, because I went and did the work. But hey, I could be wrong. Here's your opportunity to prove that you are capable of admitting when you're mistaken.
    1
  1698.  @NeoclassicYT  This is exactly my point. Rather than address arguments you know you can't refute, you simply deny the arguments themselves. You're waiting for an easy victory you'll never get, because no matter how much you hate the truth, you can't get away from it. You have no rebuttals because you know you cannot rebut my arguments.
    1
  1699.  @NeoclassicYT  You're allowed to read my responses dude.
    1
  1700.  @NeoclassicYT  Even if I had not responded to you in full, "my arguments" are that you are wrong, an argument you have presented exactly nothing to counter. You can't just say "what are your arguments besides your arguments?" You haven't given me anything to suggest my criticisms are unsupported. I've answered your questions.
    1
  1701.  @NeoclassicYT  Oh my god you're doing this again. read my responses. I can only address your pathetic deflection so many times. You were wrong in your assertions about socialism, and your inability to back them up.
    1
  1702.  @NeoclassicYT  Again. Not only is that far from my only statement, the burden of proof is on you to defend your statements, not me to prove them true before I prove them false. So far you've done nothing but deflect. Prove me wrong.
    1
  1703.  @NeoclassicYT  Your statement has yet to be proven true. This is the crux of the entire discussion.
    1
  1704.  @NeoclassicYT  ...the one I responded to, time and time again? come on.
    1
  1705.  @NeoclassicYT  ...I can because I have, so any times, and each time I tell you that I can only put up with deflection so much. And here you are again, just proving my point
    1
  1706.  @NeoclassicYT  You have yet to give me a single reason I should do that.
    1
  1707.  @NeoclassicYT  This is exactly my point. I answer your questions, what is your response? "answer them again. answer them again. answer them again. Oh you don't want to repeat yourself for the fifth time? You must not be able to answer the questions"
    1
  1708.  @NeoclassicYT  But I have. So, so, so many times. As of now, you've failed in all regards to prove your assertion that I have not, and deflected every single time I ask for evidence of your claim. So far I've answered all of your questions, met your deflections on their own ground even when I had no obligation to do so, and directly criticized a statement you appear unwilling to defend. Insults won't change that. No, child, I was "attacking you" (proving you wrong) because you said a statement that was objectively false, and rather than attempting to defend said statement, you've spent hours upon hours trying to avoid it. Again, I urge you, can you actually read through the thread? I didn't waste a half hour of my time typing out a massive paragraph answering all of your questions just for you to pretend it didn't exist. I have stated factual information, which is far more than anyone can say of you. I've given my direct criticisms and reasons for them so many times, and even when directly asked to do so, you are incapable of arguing for, much less proving, your initial assertion. Child, I haven't "twisted your words," i've answered your questions, and the fact that you see honest debate as "lying" and thus to be avoided is very telling. Funny you use that phrasing. "I'll even admit it if you convince me." See, last time you said that you were open to being convinced, I addressed every single one of your claims, and yet made clear that all of your actions pointed towards the exact opposite of your assertion. You are wrong. When that was explained in explicit detail, your response was not to address rebuttals to your claims, but to deflect, pretend they didn't exist. So no, you aren't capable of being convinced, given that evidently ideology is more important than reality to you. And again, why am I supposed to do all of your work for you? I criticized your claim, and rather than attempting to defend your claim, you've either ignored the topic altogether, deflected to other topics, or tried to pressure me to make a claim that you could attack instead of defending your own. I've already stated all of my arguments in one place, and you ignored them. All you were required to do was either defend your original claim or respond to direct criticisms/answers, and yet you couldn't do that. Why would I bother doing more work than you've ever done, just so you can deflect again? You've been corrected, if you aren't even capable of scrolling through this thread to see that response, why am I obligated to do it for you? It's no more than just a simple scroll, far easier than the many things you have asked of me. Can you manage that? For me? Of course you can't. That's why you're still here, isn't it? Unable to defend your points, unable to respond to criticism, you want this to be an argument about arguments rather than the actual topic, given that you've long since already lost that battle. " Please, reiterate all your arguments in one place in your next response so that I could be corrected." Please, learn to scroll.
    1
  1709.  @NeoclassicYT  Why don't you know how a simple scroll function works. Child, you are daring to accuse me of lying because you're not capable of scrolling up. No, child, I answered ever single one of your questions, and you can't even be bothered to scroll up a single day to see the massive paragraph that sticks out in this thread. I'm not applying some "verbal tactic," i'm pointing the simple fact out to you that you're incapable of doing the one thing that you were tasked with doing, defending your assertion, and so you've been attempting to deflect for days now. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. You are lying, or severely incompetent. You, unlike I, have failed to answer a single question. Why would I follow your "assignment" when you'd just ignore it again? Why would I do your work for you when you can simply scroll? Can you not manage that? At this point, you've put more effort into deflecting and blaming than it would have taken to just respond to the points.
    1
  1710.  @NeoclassicYT  I already have. And you're running away.
    1
  1711.  @NeoclassicYT  SCROLL UP.
    1
  1712.  @NeoclassicYT  Stop inverting the thesis and deflecting. You had an assignment, and you failed, because you conceded your argument.
    1
  1713.  @NeoclassicYT  Child, "no you" isn't an argument. Stop inverting the thesis. Do you have any evidence that i've been deflecting, despite directly answering your questions? No? That's what I thought. I know you haven't put much time or effort into this, which is why you're unable to put in the simple amount of effort that comes from scrolling up. You have yet to give me one single good reason that I must do your work for you. I've already proven you wrong in front of everybody, which is why I keep having to tell you to scroll up, because anyone actually bothering to take the time to scroll through this thread can easily find the respond where I answered every single one of your questions. You had one job: defend your assertion, or respond to rebuttals. You have chosen to ignore both. You're unable to even provide an argument in defense of your original assertion. No, child, I have no obligation to do your work for you, and the fact that i've told you exactly where to find this information and you ignore it, tells me a whole hell of a lot about you. As I said, you're deflecting. You want to make this an argument about arguments, rather than the topic. That's not gonna fly, bud. "Condense all of your statements, facts and arguments and all your philosophical aptitude into one comment and destroy me!" Do you understand how big, and pointless, of a request this is? You're asking me to condense the arguments of 100 years of history, hundreds of comments, and hundreds of hours of unrelated study, into one comment. That wouldn't even physically fit in one comment. No, child. I will not be putting the entire history of the human race and my perspectives on it in one comment. You've already been proven wrong in front of everyone, your arguments and deflections have already been destroyed. You ask the impossible, rather than just scrolling up. Why would I copy paste information you can already find in this thread? Why would I waste my time doing your job for you? Simply put, I won't. You have an assignment. Chop Chop.
    1
  1714.  @kejiri3593  No, child. False. You're literally describing the wishes, desires, and policies of conservatives and blaming them on progressives. Like, think, for just a second. Progressives in the 1800s ranged from abolitionists to hardcore anarchists, how exactly does this fit with your assertion? Conservatives, then and now, have been pushing for social control. Progressives wouldn't love to have eugenicism back, given how reliant eugenicism is on conservatism as a basis to it. Conservatives created eugenics and have been pushing for them since. Where did you get the idea that progressives show any favor for it, especially in the modern day, and only don't do it because their enemies did it? In any case, no, the idea of a "control freak government" started with the deeply conservative absolute monarchies, you know, the things progressive and socialist cultures hated for centuries. Come on.
    1
  1715.  @kejiri3593  Child, making stuff up and getting annoyed when it gets disproven isn't a good look.
    1
  1716.  @kejiri3593  Woodrow Wilson, you mean the proud supporter of conservative organizations, white southern conservatives, and capitalist policies? How out of the loop are you, champ?
    1
  1717.  @kejiri3593  And here you are, just proving my point. More embarrassed right wingers, who can't handle their part in history.
    1
  1718.  @kejiri3593  And yet, nothing you've said so far is reflective of actual history. you do realize that anarchism is a direct offshoot of socialism, correct? That socialism does not have to be authoritarian? that right wingers have a far more storied and long history of supporting authoritarianism, such as nazism? Come on now.
    1
  1719.  @kejiri3593  Woodrow Wilson was a capitalist reformist that scaled back many of the changes that progressives had made, and was disavowed by progressives in his own time for his rejection of progressive social views. The progressive movement from the 1800s was literally the first major movement to reject eugenics. Again, eugenics are deeply conservative. Are you telling me that people progressives hated, and capitalists, had a "huge influence" on progressives and socialists?
    1
  1720.  @kejiri3593  Again, just saying it doesn't make it true, especially when what you're saying was already disproven.
    1
  1721.  @kejiri3593  You're saying that conservatism was very popular with progressives, and that the only reason progressives don't follow conservatism is because of the nazis?
    1
  1722.  @kejiri3593  So you don't know the literal definition of socialism. Child, learn to read.
    1
  1723.  @kejiri3593  Yes, you're saying something that's transparently incorrect. No, child, this eugenicism and racism is explicitly a result of conservatism. This isn't that hard to understand, you just need to learn actual history instead of propaganda.
    1
  1724.  @hueghh3775  I mean hey dude if you want to just ignore the rest of the thread you are absolutely welcome to do so Personally I find that to be a poor basis of any sort of criticism or discussion, but hey, that's just me.
    1
  1725. @Austin Sturtz Here's a link as proof: I first commented here over a year ago, and have been commenting since https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=UgwL2_COH2t1ZgVT1gF4AaABAg (scroll to see my comments)
    1
  1726.  @mitscientifica1569  No, as they were not right wing, a key component of fascism :)
    1
  1727.  @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 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
  1728.  @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
  1729.  @roguedisciple5961  Incorrect at all sides. Your denialism really is sad. Pathetic, really. Of course, the nazis opposed central planning in all forms, seeing it as not only an ideological weakness but an affront to their supposed supremacy. After all, how can you claim to be the master race if you need a state stepping in to force everyone to be productive? Furthermore, the assertion itself is false, the nazis were just far more open about the relationship between party and private than other states at the time. FDR's policies were not "borrowed from Mussolini," primarily because a. FDR's policies were already very much being pushed before Mussolini's concrete agenda formed, and b. Because Mussolini's policies were literally headed by classical liberals. In any case, they weren't all following the same ideology, but enacting the same policies. Wartime policies. And yes, of course TIK admitted his sources openly and eagerly contradicted his narrative. His whole point is that his definition of socialism must be correct, and so anyone who disagrees must be wrong and uneducated. Given that every state in existence, and a small, friend-owned lemonade stand are "completely consistent with [his] definition of socialism," he evidently has no room to speak. The problem is, historians were extremely clear about the definition of socialism (that TIK ignores and tries to fallaciously rewrite) and why it is what it is, TIK simply disagrees and attempted to rewrite it. Further, TIK attempts to rewrite the actions of the nazi party to fit his new definition of socialism. The authors described exactly why said policies weren't at all consistent with the definition of socialism, but then TIK turned around and redefined socialism to fit within the policies. The best example of this would be TIK going to a doctor with the goal of being diagnosed with cancer, but when they tell him that he doesn't have cancer and that being insufferable isn't a symptom, he decides to write a 5 hour video explaining why actually, cancer exactly fits the definition of symptoms he's lying about having. The problem is, people like you would rather cry "cognitive dissonance!" at the actual educated experts while wholeheartedly and blindly supporting the authority of a a fanatic right wing youtuber. TIK pretty openly said "The only evidence I could find for my five hour long video that attempts to explain "a is b" is sources that say a is a, so actually a means b and all of those sources are just liars or uneducated. His sources contradict him.
    1
  1730.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  1731.  @mitscientifica1569  George Orwell happily pointed out the true basis of nazism, with the far right, which tries to do so much to deny their greatest influences. Why do you keep lying about Orwell, a man who openly proclaimed nazism to be a right wing conservative anti-socialist ideology born of capitalism? Why do you keep including him quoting others as his own views, and ignoring his actual quotes? He made it clear that "National Socialism" was no form of socialism, so why do you continue to attempt to invoke his name in order to feed your lies? He never said "national socialism is a form of socialism." He quoted propaganda that said it, and went on to disagree. Even in your own quote, he happily points out that the nazis have not put in place socialism, but protect capitalism. Why do you spread such pro-nazi nonsense?
    1
  1732.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. In reality, orwell happily and quickly debunked you who want to distance far right anti-socialist Nazi ideology from their own preferred form of far right anti-socialism, despite still openly supporting the same policies. Orwell made this known through repeatedly pointing out the right wing and anti-socialist basis of nazi ideology. 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
  1733.  @Scornfull  Fascists are and always have been right wing :)
    1
  1734.  @Scornfull  Child, you have to pretend I have no arguments while literally replying to my arguments because you know you can't disprove a single one of them. You can try to bury your head in the sand but it's pathetic to just shout "You have no arguments!" when the opposite is plainly true. All people hear is "I don't want to deal with your arguments!" I'm sorry you can't accept reality and i'm a sorry you can't cope with evidence that proves your fanaticism wrong.
    1
  1735.  @AltaMirage  Yeah, sorry that isn't true. My argument quite literally proves the conclusion. I'm sorry you don't like the facts, and i'm sorry you feel the need to baselessly label those who put you wrong as "butthurt socialists," but that isn't an actual argument. Face it, you were proven wrong. You can make random accusations of "circular arguments" or "butthurt socialists," but we both know they aren't true. Come on, try harder.
    1
  1736.  @AltaMirage  But nazism... isn't socialist. MIT here is a self-admitted propagandist.
    1
  1737.  @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
  1738.  @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
  1739.  @AltaMirage  But... it isn't. Sorry you can't deal with the truth?
    1
  1740.  @AltaMirage  I'm sorry, were you unaware that hitler opposed the inclusion of socialism into his party name, before killing those that proposed it and openly redefining the term to fit his far right anti-socialist ideology? No, it is not socialism, by any definition of the word or any historical account. We have seen forms of socialism that focus on race and nation, and they are not nazism. Nazism is right wing ethnonationalist authoritarian anti-socialism.
    1
  1741. @Wekil except nazi ideology is less socialist than you.
    1
  1742.  @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
  1743. @Wekil OH NO, SOMEONE PURPOSEFULLY SPREADING FASCISTIC RHETORIC GOT CALLED A NAZI, QUICK, MINDLESSLY DEFEN THEM!!
    1
  1744.  @AltaMirage  because you're entirely ignorant of the truth at all
    1
  1745. @Wekil But it wasn't socialist?
    1
  1746. @Wekil The problem there being that definitions are not decided by how you feel they should apply, but what the actual word means. Socialism doesn't stop meaning collective control, just because one example never achieved said system. In any case, no, the state did not own the means of production in nazi germany, and your assertions are downright odd. Von Papen for example was not purged in the night of the long knives, he was Hitler's vice chancellor until he later spoke out about nazi violence, which is when he was replaced by one of his personally chosen conservative council members. He was never the subject of direct nazi violence, in the night of the long knives his office was ransacked but no violence came to him, and he died of natural causes at 89. So no, he and his supporters were not purged. They collaborated with industrialists long before they had any power to "command," and long after they realized they had no sway by use of violence over international markets. There are far more differences than just the ones you fail to accurately represent, but that's another issue. In any case, under nazi germany, farms, businesses, industries, remained private, and were never under total control of the government, or anything like it. In fact, hitler openly abhorred systems like these, saying they would lead to the destruction of german industry. A farmer owned his farm, and in the vast, vast majority of cases, he was in control of how much he produced and the prices of production. This only changed late in wartime, and was always temporary. Private property was a key part of nazi ideology. The nazis didn't "force" their collaborationist industrial allies to comply in all but a handful of cases, rather, they offered contracts and profit for those that did what the nazis want and gave them what they needed, and private leaders were all too happy to oblige. Wages fell under the nazi regime, while the rich got richer. In any case, he certainly didn't nationalize healthcare or education, those were already nationalized under the Weimar Republic, and he privatized, restricted, and scaled back these programs. Industrialists got rich off the backs of oppressed nazi-era workers and nazi pro-private economic practices, and those same companies are still around today. Nazi ideology is as far from socialism, marxist socialism, anti-marxist socialism, all types of socialism, as you can get.
    1
  1747. @Wekil Your ignorance continues to shine through. Capitalism is literally a system in which, historically, the government has always had the ability to "shut down" private business, there is literally not a case of capitalism where this does not exist, and it doesn't contradict the definition of capitalism. In any case, again, this isn't relevant, given that the nazi party operated primarily off of positive incentives than negative ones. China isn't socialist, it quite literally has one of the highest populations of billionaires on the planet. How can you claim that they are socialist, but also not socialist anymore but in fact corporatism? The fact that you call corporatism socialism proves how wide your definition of socialism is, you literally define any ideology you don't like as socialist. Corporatism isn't a variant of socialism, it's quite literally a system of private ownership, capitalism running its natural course to the bitter end. You are falsely claiming that socialism is actually marxism, and that "marxism" (Socialism) isn't actually all the types of socialism there are. Again, you ignore the fact that the nationalized healthcare existed under the weimar regime and was scaled back and restricted when the nazis took power, that public schools are a staple of capitalist governments and that the nazis despised honest education. You're ignoring the fact that industrialists didn't make less money, they literally made more by a significant amount, and those companies are still around today because of that, what more is there to answer? Again, showing your ignorance. Hitler had to purge socialists out of his anti-socialist party, because it wasn't only his party at one point. He had been in open competition with the strassertists for the majority of his time in the party, and would later purge them after they had openly described his anti-socialist views and criticized him for them. Factories were not only privately owned, but privately operated. You're conflating ideological alliance with party control, private business did what the nazis wanted not because they were "Commanded," or because they were under "firm control" (because they weren't) but because they either agreed with nazi ideology, or realized that they could profit from the nazi regime. The nazi party, in the vast, vast majority of cases, purposefully stayed out of production, wage, and exchange commands, only ever breaking this trend late in the war with wartime-essential industries, something they made clear was temporary. You're claiming that the soviet union was not just run by socialists with socialist ideology in mind, but that it actively achieved a socialist economic system, while providing zero citation. You continue to assert that your opponents are "equating marxism to all socialism," but you're openly calling anti-socialist ideologies socialist, and you don't seem to be able to define either term. Hitler collaborated with capitalists specifically because he didn't restrict their profits, and because he gave them more, with the benefits of no pesky unionists protesting their horrible wages and work conditions. Hitler's corporatism was undoubtedly not socialist in any way, shape, or form, and this is obvious from a simple viewing of the definition of socialism. There, of course, was both voluntary exchange/trade in business/party association and alliance, and competitive markets under the nazi regime, especially relating to how the nazi party allowed businesses to compete over guaranteed-profit contracts, but the workers were not included, they had no choice. You don't seem to realize that capitalism is never wholly voluntary, and that it is defined by private ownership, not action. You don't know the first thing about the concepts you've wasted so much time arguing about.
    1
  1748.  @ashfox7498  Their assertions aren't even true, I have no idea why they think otherwise.
    1
  1749.  @AltaMirage  You seem to think that I care about the assertions of random people online, over observable reality. Sorry to disappoint.
    1
  1750.  @AltaMirage  I engaged with facts, you decided to respond with random assertions about your own life. "hypocritical." Ha.
    1
  1751.  @mitscientifica1569  can you even conceive of new insults?
    1
  1752. prove it. He disagreed himself.
    1
  1753.  @humanbeing1675  Wow, all of that is false. The nazis quite openly eased gun laws for citizens and supported (and were supported by) christians, hence the "nordic religion," and hence christians supporting his ideas to this day. He was, without a doubt, right wing.
    1
  1754.  @humanbeing1675  The man openly disagreed with the term socialist, attempted to oppose it being added to the party name and later purged those that added it while attempting to redefine the term to fit a pro-private right wing conservative ideology. The fact that you think you've somehow seen "more than enough quotes for the opposite" tells me that you've probably seen nothing but individual snippets that you were too afraid or lazy to look up.
    1
  1755.  @razzberry6180  the only elements they shared were the willingness to form a dictatorship. that's literally it
    1
  1756.  @razzberry6180  Ok, you don't see the contradiction in that, at all? First off, the few texts marx had on economy almost all directly spoke about the problems with a capitalist one, not the upsides of a socialist one. I too have read marx to understand the economy, but our economy is not marxist. As well as that... you really don't see the problem with saying "businessmen," "markets," and "marxist" and implying that the three can be used within the same system? If there was markets, there could not have been a socialist economy. There can be socialistic elements, like denmark, but it very much cannot be socialist. There were a few similaities in pure policy between nazis and socialist movements, but when you look at the context and motivation behind them they don't fit into a socialist framework. For example, a socialist policy would be nationalizing a business with the intent to give it to the people directly as a co-opt. A non socialist policy might be nationalizing a property because it's the property of a group you don't like, with the intent to either keep it only for the state or to sell it into private hands. All superficial similarities disappear once context is applied.
    1
  1757.  @razzberry6180  Yeah, that's just not true. What you stated was that somehow people had begun to read more Marx, and that's literally it. Sorry, by the way, it wasn't nationalization. It was privatization that took the country far, far away from socialist policies. It wasn't nationalized, while aspects were government influenced or guided, it absolutely was not under full or even major governmental control. Now you're just making thing up. I never said I agreed with them, which is an important distinction, but just that I had read them. Of course your strawman falls apart instantly. However, most economists must not be "worth their salt" because only the perpetually unsuccessful ones have even tried to "disprove" it. However, though I don't agree with Marx all that much, it turns out he was spot on with most predictions. You really are going to look outside right now and tell me that the workers aren't revolting over the conditions of the country? The fear of hoarded wealth was objectively proven, and you can see the results all day. The use of "fake money" based on nothing doesn't once address this fact. That's not a market system champ, that's basic human processes. There is no capital gain that comes with the natural processes of the body, that's something that happens within and without any sort of market systems. Value, as in personal and monetary, means stunningly different things. People having preferences is also not something that pays into market ideology. None of this has anything to do with market economics or a market based economy. You can pretend that somehow the act of breathing proves socialism will never happen, but to everyone else it is just absurd. And they did all they could to hang on to the governmental and private power, and not once hand it to the people. No system will ever conform perfectly, but they didn't even want to conform. They wanted the system they got, which was decidedly anti-socialist. The issue is you don't know what you're arguing for or against. You're outright admitting you know that they are different, but that if you cherry pick historical examples you can try to force them to seem even remotely similar. You evidently don't understand human nature, or the actual utopianism of other systems, but I don't care about your personal feelings toward justifying your denialism. I don't care if you think the system is bad, that's not what this argument was about. According to who, you? You and who else, preferably someone who knows what they are talking about? For one, this has nothing to do with the question at hand. You just agreed that they certainly weren't the same, they had vastly different policy in different areas. You also pretty eloquently explain exactly how you have no idea what socialism actually is, or how a socialist society is structured, but whatever. Socialism doesn't mean a system devoid of hierarchy, that's more anarchism. It means a system where the people, in all their different positions and expertise, collectively own the means of production. You're talking about non-statist socialism, which absolutely can exist, but you're ignoring what exactly that means, but again, this is a different topic. The economic ideals were intensely different. The idea of "collectivization of a group" is one the right shared, and is exceedingly vague. Socialism hated capitalism, Hitler redefined capitalism and hated that. The system was in no way the same, and when you're literally saying you have to change terms to force that conclusion, you're admitting you are wrong. And again, I don't care about your empty criticisms of a system you don't understand. Your criticism of socialism is based on a misunderstanding of what it calls for, and you're criticizing our current system as well as this new bad "socialist" system. As I said, this is a conversation of categorization, we're not talking about the respective merits of these ideologies. But that doesn't matter here, because I think it's pretty open and shut - fascism and socialism cannot be compared.
    1
  1758. I watched the video, and i'm not a capitalist
    1
  1759.  @TheImperatorKnight  All you're doing here is somehow proving you're the real postmodernist.
    1
  1760. Sheesh, that's ironic. Haven't checked the comments yet?
    1
  1761.  @deangoldenstar7997  True, but that scale just doesn't work, because it makes supposedly conflicting ideals overlap.
    1
  1762.  @deangoldenstar7997  And yeah, that is a problem, because it simplifies political ideology far too much. But that's just my opinion on it, though i would agree, the left/right line is really what's most commonly taught.
    1
  1763.  @robgoodsight6216  "people forget" that because it isn't true.
    1
  1764.  @robgoodsight6216  there is no socialism in it
    1
  1765.  @robgoodsight6216  it's true. Deal.
    1
  1766.  @robgoodsight6216  ok
    1
  1767. Child, i'm deeply sorry that you have such an emotional connection to your ideology, and get from that a deep need to deny reality and defend ahistorical denialism, but it isn't a good look. The fact that you assume that rational critique must be some sort of emotional instability proves exactly how your mind works, and suggests a good deal of projection on your part. People don't like this video... because it's wrong. Also, how can you claim to condemn nazism while repeating nazi talking points? Odd.
    1
  1768.  @AverageAlien  again, is this the best you can do? Are these the arguments you were so proud of?
    1
  1769.  @AverageAlien  Funny how you call me a nazi sympathizer, given how your entire internet presence seems dedicated to insulting the enemies of the nazis and defending their crimes.
    1
  1770.  @voltageisthename  *you're. Child, I am not and have never been a marxist. This is the problem with the conspiratorial modes of thinking that you people dedicate your lives to, its embarrassing.
    1
  1771.  @voltageisthename  I mean yeah, he murdered millions of people, primarily but not exclusively jewish people, but he didn't nationalize industry, he stole it from jewish citizens and privatized it. What is a conspiracy is that hitler was, despite his policies, words, and actions, somehow a socialist. It's absurd yet people still think it.
    1
  1772.  @SoloTravelerOffTheBeatenPath  And yet none of that, even if it were fully true, makes hitler a socialist
    1
  1773. and yet, it's not marxist who are doing that now. It's TIK.
    1
  1774.  @Dinoceterios  dude, he thinks your country is socialist
    1
  1775.  @retroman--  Oh, child. Your ignorance is, honestly, hilarious. Child, did you not notice that the nazis were right wing, as they proudly declared? That only right wingers, all over the world, loved, respected, and agreed with them? Oh, you didn't know that? Or did you know that, but try to project your own faults onto the greatest enemies of the nazis, the left? It's a shame how ignorant you are. The nazis were, and always will be, right wing. Cope. Ah, and literal nazi rhetoric, you really do have absolutely no sense of self awareness, do you? Oh, child. No, slave owners, separatists, the creators of the jim crow laws, all of those were done by conservatives. If you think those things detract from your respect of a person, as they should, than you admit you are deserving of no respect.
    1
  1776.  @zagorith14  Isn't it hilarious how even conservatives know how shameful their past is, so they need to project it onto the left? You're a proud slaver, kid. Own it. You're trying to call other people authoritarian while actively defending actual historical authoritarianism. You aren't even interested in what they're actually saying, you've just made up some fiction in which they tell you exactly where you can spend your money, which they never advocate for, but you need to lie about in order to mask your authoritarian tendencies. Also, fun fact, this has literally never been true and any amount of research will prove it. "Virtually only the republican party," you say? Leaving out quite a bit of history there, bud. What you meant was "virtually only northern liberals/leftists of both parties supported those policies, while virtually only conservative southerners of both parties rejected them." It was, after all, liberals and leftists who fought against slavery and supported every policy that would reverse slavery and give minorities the same rights as whites. The "democrats and leftists" were open enemies. How brainwashed do you need to be to think that there was anything remotely "leftist" about the openly conservative, religious, "you can't take my property away" confederates? You want to talk about leftists during the civil war era, why not bring up Horace Greeley, or August Willich, or hell, the fact that Marx himself proudly endorsed Lincoln explicitly because he was an abolitionist, and was a part of one of the biggest organizations protesting the British monarchist (right wing) government's potential involvement in the war. Leftists abolished slavery, gave their lives to fight it, and leftists just kept fighting for civil rights, for the legislation that we build the idea of equal rights upon. Do I need to remind you of the fact that the people actually protesting against Jim Crow and Segregation were open socialists like MLK or Malcolm X, while open conservatives called them anti-white communists? It was, by definition, leftists who supposed freedom and equal rights for all. It was conservatives who held up signs saying "Race mixing = communism." There are literally still proudly conservative organizations that trace their lineage directly back to being founded as pro-confederate organizations. You're so ashamed of your past that you have to delude yourselves into thinking that open communists were right wing. You know you were on the wrong side of history, and you know that your political line continues that trend of dehumanization and horrific crime to this day. Those "typical commie or socialist losers" abolished slavery while you were fighting for it. If that isn't working, I don't know what is. Cry about it. Hate to break it to you bud, but it seems you only watched the video, rather than engaging in any actual research, given that even the historical sources cited in this opinion piece readily point out its falsehood. You just can't handle the internal contradictions of your attempts to erase the past of the right. I'm sorry, you have no excuse here. You project your failures and, my guess is, you'll never engage with your critics. You just can't handle being wrong.
    1
  1777.  @Aneko101  Dude, the very fact that your entire argument hinges on constantly having to insult me in order to maintain your own failing confidence proves more than I would ever need to. I'm sure reality doesn't mean much to you, but i'm proud you were at least able to admit it. It is telling though, that you feel the need to call anyone who proves you wrong a "marxist utopian." Huh, that's funny, I can think of someone else that called all his political enemies marxist conspirators.... in any case, sorry you have nothing but denial, historical revisionism, and of course, projection. That is, after all, why it was so easy to prove you wrong, and why your "arguments" are entirely reliant upon insults now. Sorry you got proven wrong. Cope.
    1
  1778.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  First off, ideological influences/roots. The nazis, and fascists in general, were most influenced by the following figures - Spengler, Evola, and to a smaller extent Darwin and Carl Schmitt. First off, Spengler invented the idea of "Prussian Socialism." It was an ideology he was adamant had nothing to to do with any other socialism's, but he only devised the name from the same root word. This prussian socialism was nationalistic, corporatistic, in favor of private property as long as it benefited the state. Sound familiar? It wasn't quite fascism, it was a sort of proto-fascism, but it was nothing like socialism. Spengler was against labor strikes, trade unions, progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich, any shortening of the working day, as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment. Not very much socialism. He, however, did share the same idea that his socialism was an ancient german tradition of sorts, that Marx had stolen. He also wrote extensively on the supposed collapse of western civilization, which heavily influenced the rise of fascism, and personally supported Mussolini. As for Evola, he was also heavily involved with the italian fascist party, considered himself a "super fascist" (I have no idea, his words not mine) but more importantly he was the largely the creator of traditionalism, a social policy that was very similar to the nazi's later sort of german mythos, something he sort of acted as a foreword to. He wasn't as much a fan of the fascist forces as they manifested, he wanted them to be far more reactionary and mystical, but he certainly did count himself among their ranks. As for Darwin, he himself did little to benefit the fascist movement, but Social Darwinism, which was largely pushed by reactionaries at the time, was a cornerstone of Nazi society. They believed in a sort of enforced superiority, eugenics, which the spread of social darwinism had very much popularized. Finally, while Carl Schmitt wasn't as influential as the other figures or ideologies mentioned, his anti-democracy work in the years before the rise of the nazis was somewhat influential in the ranks, as well as useful for radicalizing many other germans. He remained an avid supporter of a new nazi state until he died, sometime in the 80's. While his ideas are somewhat less commonly talked about, regarding the use of democracy and state power you can see at the least he very much echoed nazi sentiments. All of the ideologies I mentioned, and all of the figures (save darwin) were right wing, conservative reactionary figures. Now - associations. I'll try to keep this a bit quicker. Hitler only came into power due to the effort of Franz von Papen, a conservative figure in the government who saw hitler as a way to take power against the increasing popularity of socialism. While he would later be expelled form the party, he also served as hitler's first vice-chancellor, and helped to populate hitler's first cabinet, many of which would go on to have long careers in the party. One of the first economic advisors for Mussolini was Classical Liberal Alberto de Stefani. Mussolini and Hitler both would spend a large part of their later regimes trying to appeal to the religious conservative crowd, Mussolini most of all, although a previous fascist country had managed far better, the FSA. Speaking of the FSA, their fascist party (even before takeover) The Fatherland Front under Engelbert Dolfuss employed a certain man by the name of ludwig von mises. While he would flee later to american after the FF took full control over the country and Hitler began to reach his influences into the country, Mises still taught the same economics that were so popular under the FF, and would later say that while he wasn't a fascist, he viewed it as a necessary tool in the defense of western civilization, like the Spengler fellow, a sentiment that would be echoed in part by later ideological descendants of Mises, and in a way re-contextualized by figures like Hoppe, who shared many of the same bigotries, disdain for democracy, and desire for "physical removal" of those he deemed unfit to participate in society, from communists to gay people. Hitler himself often found himself allied with conservatives industrialists of the time who would go across the ocean to work with him, most notably Ford, who would write books on jewish people Hitler personally praised and was awarded with the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest honor a non-german could receive, and funnily enough Koch sr. The list goes on, as you can imagine. As for policies, this one is rather simple - hitler opposed the right to collective bargaining, enriched the ruling classes of his time, and never came close to handing the workers the means of production. For a more in depth look at Hitler's betrayal of the "socialist" title, I recommend James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" for the rise in movements, both in capitalism and socialism, which only sought to take power and did so in betrayal of their principles and ideology.
    1
  1779.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  The socialists you gave (which is to say two potential socialists and a pre-socialist) did so in very different ways to hitler, and in no way resembled his own policies. Socialism has never had a basis of interclassism, though some socialists have attempted to intigrate the ideas of interclassism in their work. Right here, you're doing the same thing that I disproved, you're trying to shove nearly all of socialist history onto the "marxism" label without once knowing what that means. Hitler did not align with the upper classes to provide people with a good quality of life, he shoved the people in jail cells when he could. He also had no desire to unite the classes. Germany's system never once developed any sort of equality under Hitler, saying that's socialist (even when it didn't happen) is like saying America is socialist.
    1
  1780.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  You said, in these words exactly, that hitler was like Owens in that he was interesting in "uniting the classes." Be more careful with your words if you don't want them to be repeated back to you. And again, your examples of supposed class co-operation are anything but. Take china, where the rich and the poor don't cooperate, the poor are forced into labor that the rich profit off of. And i'm aware it's authoritarian, but you can't claim to care about the workers and do that.
    1
  1781.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  That just isn't true, not even a small bit. The act of taking wealth from any class cannot be considered inherent to the political right or left. Take Adam Smith, for example, who not only created capitalism but said that the rich should be taxed at a rate proportional to their income. Is he left wing? What about monarchies, that could easily take the wealth of any peasant or noble. They were literally the first things that were even called right wing. The class collaboration that you mention didn't happen under nazi germany, and your definition of right vs left is suspect. What you describe as left wing does not need to be left wing, and the right wing does not need to privatize. Again, the original right wing system was a system in which the state owned everything. that is not a system of privatization. Capitalism is far from the only right wing system, and should not be considered as if it was. And yes, Hitler did live like a king. So did his party members. And so did many of the people you mentioned. The problem is those policies make them fundamentally anti-socialist, and that was even known in the days they were still alive. As for the citizens having higher income and living well, some did, but many just got thrown into camps for no good reason. As for equality, there was none, the rich got much richer and life for the average person just sort of became somewhat decent.
    1
  1782.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  Sure. "The third period is from the Nazi ”seizure of power” in 1933 until the eve of World War II in 1938. After 1938, the statistical office stopped publishing income tax statistics, so we do not know how the income distribution changed during World War II. The Nazi-period is marked by an extraordinary increase in the top percentile’s income share from 11% in 1934 to 17% 1938."
    1
  1783.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  Ok then, let's do this. "First of all i'll not get onto debunking your first one cause I personally think you just abide the Saint-Simon's point and Robert Owen's too; if you just take a look, Robert Owen also said that he wasn't working to make his own Socialist Utopia, just trying to make capitalism way more fair; again, that's similar to Hitler's actions under your same argument, and somehow Saint is not similar to Hitler?..." Owens wasn't working to create that utopia specifically was, well, he was a utopian socialist. Utopias aren't things you can really create not easily anyway. He himself was in a position of power, so like I said, he was in favor of himself and people like him using that power to help others, rather than doing the same thing a different way, and giving everyone power. Owen was trying to make capitalism more fair, not because that was his only goal, but because it's really all he could do. Yes, that is very dissimilar to hitler. Owens didn't necessarily want a state controlled economy in it's entirety, because he wanted the upper classes of industry to raise the poor to their level. It still very much was a class-based system, the goal was just to eliminate class difference by using the rich to raise up the poor, not by using the poor to raise up themselves. That, again, is very much not what hitler wanted or did. The thing is, the national socialism you describe cannot be called socialist, in the slightest. They obviously don't care about class, both class struggle and class colaboration. Their goal, as you said, was about their nation. Stalin wasn't really like that, his goal was the expanding of his ideology, but then again that doesn't really matter. You point it out perfectly, Hitler's goal was not socialism, but ultra-nationalism. What you get wrong, however, is the notion that they cared about "fairness" They got elected on propaganda films calling disabled people leeches, do you really think they cared about equality or fairness? The rich got richer, the poor stayed the same. And again - the system you describ is not just not socialism, but anti socialism, against capitalism and socialism itself. "Making myself clear: I do not say that Owen's was the inspiration for Hitler, but said that Owen's system was similar to Hitler's one; why do I say that?..." My point with showing the ideological origin of the nazis was to show that they didn't take inspiration from those fathers and forefathers of socialism you mentioned. All socialists that came later did that, but hitler came from an entirely different group, entirely different ideology. And after all that, the systems were very much not similar, especially Owen's and Hitlers. Again, hitler didn't want a state controlled economy unless he had to, he praised the german private industry many times, he only interfered when said industry went against the Nation. He also didn't want the classes to work together, he sent to poor to camps often. His was an ideology of superiority and power, and he was perfectly fine with the rich crushing the poor. His "agreements" with Owen are so vague as to be rendered inconsequential. "Yes, CCP." ...And? Are they supposed to be socialist now? "Again i'll go back to what i've said on my latest comments: "Taxation or imposition of taxes to rich population it's just one sort of left economics, there's more ways" But the rest was something Hitler didn't, it's well-recognized that Nazi Germany had a beneficiary system just as Canada or Scandinavian Countries." And those aren't socialist. Again, Adam Smith himself wanted some forms of welfare and public housing, does that make him a proto-socialist? Hitler's economics pulled from both the left and the right, but mainly the reactionary authoritarian side of the right. He had very mild welfare policies, most of which were already in place, but only for the people he actually liked. "I jumped the other part bc it wasn't even a point, to debunk it: "Roots doesn't define the final result, cause if they do, then Mussolini would have been a Communist." And that's something we both disagree, right?" In theory, yes, but not only does that not discount the point it doesn't matter all that much. For Mussolini, being a socialist was a part of his past that he renounced, and he actively called fascism right wing. For the figures I mentioned, they were actilvey right wing and conservative when the nazis learned from them. "But now with this, again; the base of French Socialism (admitted by lot of socialist networks i've found) is Henri Saint-Simon, who's even a fanatic of Adam Smith, isn't that the same?" Jesus. First off, Marx himself praised the work of Adam Smith. Does that now make him a capitalist? No, because in both of these cases we only need to look deeper to find them both agreeing in certain aspects, and disagreeing in many, many others. This isn't some secret. The roots of ideology are important to debate, because when your ideology comes from a guy that hates socialists, another guy that hates socialists, and a guy that thought socialists would end the world, you cannot call yourself a socialist. Hitler's "socialism" had next to nothing with those other socialist ideas, and aligned far more with the revolutionary conservatism of the time. One more thing - Marxism is not an economic system. It isn't based on redistribution at all, it's based on material and historical dialectics. "And Mao just got into power due the weakness of China due the Second Sino-Japanese War, the idea of Fascism came of the time Mussolini was a communist renegade." Fascism came from Mussolini's rejection of socialism, (and he said as much) and there is a huge difference between someone taking power because of a war that weakened the country, and someone taking power because they were literally handed power by a conservative political figure. "Yes/No, why if Hitler wanted to appeal that Crowd did he let abortion be legal and one of his SS's commander be homosexual? And he wasn't even executed for that but for power cleaning. I'm not that sure." He didn't, in both cases. The second that he took power that gay officer was executed. As for your abortion myth, he forced abortion onto minorities that he thought were subhuman so they couldn't have children, but as for the group of people he liked, aryans, he outlawed it completely with strict punishments. "If Hitler's goal was to make every German person be proud of their lineage and their greatness, and his way was redistributing money that Germany got by business not by taxation isn't that Socialist? Again, look at what Fourier even said; he wasn't worried about class struggle but instead separating classes, and he's still recognised as socialist. " Again, just no. Hitler's goal was the creation of a German mythos that would rise up all true germans, but he didn't redistribute money to do that. He enriched business at the expense of the lower classes to accomplish his goal, he couldn't care less about the people below him, because his entire ideology was not based on raising people up, but on individual people showing their superiority though brutality and raising up from the masses. Finally, Fourier wasn't considered a socialist, he was pre-socialist, but he didn't discount class struggle, he just thought it should be solved through separation, not integration. "In terms of Economy I would say you got me, but I recommend you to see the segment of economical policies on this same video; as long as there're those ones Hitler also went the whole way around and tried to give Germans a good quality through public services." In terms of Economy I would say you got me, but I recommend you to see the segment of economical policies on this same video; as long as there're those ones Hitler also went the whole way around and tried to give Germans a good quality through public services. But just asking, was the Great Leap Forward a Socialist Politic? And it was against the people but enriching a crowd, is Kim's Family Economy other sort of Socialist Politic? The same, enriching a minute crowd of oligarchs, but both were with full-controlled economies tho. Well then, that's settled, and yes I did watch the entire video all the way through. Most of the economic policies hitler "aimed" for never actually came to pass, and many were like the abortion thing, where he gave mild benefits to his own people while throwing the vast majority of those he disagreed with into camps. Public services are not inherently socialist, plenty of capitalist countries have them today. And as for your question, somewhat for the first one, no for the second. The Great Leap Forward was meant to help the lower classes succeed, and it somewhat did, though with a terrible cost of human life. It was socialist because it tried to help the lower classes, but less socialist because in practice it didn't work that well. However, the modern day continuation of China cannot be considered socialist. As for North Korea, it's practically a hereditary monarchy. The only thing remotely "socialist" about it is the name, and not even really that.
    1
  1784.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802  Ok mate, have a good one I guess. And i'm not a socialist, but I would somewhat disagree with your criticism. The thing is, socialism is a system that can be done many ways. It can be done with a large state, or no state at all. I think the arguing between different sects of socialists is healthy, it helps to further develop those ideas, but I would agree having that happen in an ongoing socialist country isn't the best. As for morals, I don't quite understand what you mean, but the idea that whatever "socialist" system is thrown away and labeled un-socialist after it fails just really isn't right. The issue is that so many things are called socialist, and so few fit the definition. Take venezuela, for example. It was only ever called socialist after it failed, by people looking to discredit socialism. It had a 70% private economy for Christ's sake, how is it socialist? I think that the pursuit of socialism can and should be blamed for all of the things you mention above, but to blame socialism itself for it is like saying that unicorns killed a person because they umped off a cliff because they thought they saw a unicorn. It doesn't really make sense, it's just association. One more thing - there are plenty of capitalists and conservatives that maintain that true capitalism has never been tried as well, TIK being one of them. Its not exactly a one-sided deal.
    1
  1785.  @victor-hugedivitorilamas5802 ok then, response. "Completely on disagree, China's economic system is based off on co-operation; the lower classes work into a corporativist system, where the rich got the manufactures and row resources refined by the poor, and so the rich has to deal with the International Market,..." That... just isn't true. For one, the definition of cooperation. "the process of working together to the same end." The rich in china and the poor in china are not working towards the same end. The rich work to get richer, by developing property and gaining more and more wealth. The poor work in sweat-shops with suicide nets, manufacturing cheap goods for the rest of the country to ship off. You could say they "cooperate" in that they work towards the goal of "making things better," but then half of the world is cooperating with the other half without even knowing them, which doesn't make much sense. The thing is while it is possible that the rich in later generations will use that wealth to reinvest in the country, but at the moment that very much does not appear to be the case. If the cooperation can only happen across multiple generations, is largely involuntary, and has no guarantee of happening, I don't really consider it cooperation, especially when the interests of the upper classes and the lower ones are diametrically opposed. I mean hell, Tiananmen Square happened because China put down a protest by the lower classes and socialists who resisted the market reform that was leaving the people behind. Not really cooperation. "https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/adam-smith-and-progressive-taxation No, he's not; he stated that taxes should've maked as way as we want to keep having public services, but private services are good too; also he's about the flat tax more than the progressive tax,... First off, no offense, but this isn't really a great source. I read through it, and it's just a blog ofa person saying what they thing Adam Smith means, but they don't really explain why. They say that "proportional taxing" is a flat tax, which is silly. He clearly says, in this line ("The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.") that the tax would change depending on the revenue they brought in. I wouldn't call it progressive taxation, but an early form of graduated tax. Hell, you can look in the comments to see people disproving in. It's pretty clearly not talking about a flat tax. He also does show favor for some public services. Anyway, this isn't this important but it's important to point out, and here's another quote about that subject from him. ""The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess …. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." "The problem with calling monarchies right-wings is that we'll then have to say that classic liberals are left-wings..." The problem with calling monarchies right-wings is that we'll then have to say that classic liberals are left-wings. If you remember one of the biggest clashes of history between right-wings and left-wings was the French Revolution, where both terms were invented, and so the anti-monarchist (And so, the Liberals and Burgoises) were depicted as left-wings, and the pro-monarchist were depicted as right-wings. So I'll just blurry it. I agree, somewhat. Back then, classical liberals were on the left, and monarchists were on the right. However, that doesn't mean that neither is still correct. How has the overton window changed since then? Well,we've moved left. Now monarchism is still right wing, but much further right and less common, where as classical liberalism would be put now on the moderate right. Monarchism is still right wing, but it was the "normal" right back then, and now it's the extreme. That's how overton windows work. Another thing worth mentioning is that it wasn't just classical liberals fighting against monarchy in the french revolution, it was also anarchists and socialists. "And the original system is far from the actual system or the Hitler's-era system. Everything changes and sure you know it." The original monarchist system, yes, but that in no way means we can't call hitler right wing, because he does fit the definition far better than calling him a left winger would. "Throwing people has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, I would say again; was the Great Leap Forward a socialist policy?..." I already answered that question in my other response, but yes, obviously killing happens under socialism and capitalism. The problem is, these systems are defined by specific things. Obviously socialism can't be defined as a system where nobody in the proletariat dies, but that isn't the point. Take this as an example - can you call a system capitalist if the upper classes are strongly repressed and thrown in jail every few years? Not really, no. Similarly, a system that is meant to put the workers in charge can't be full of killing millions of workers and brutally repressing all of their power. That just doesn't make sense. "You're right, Keynesianism is a left-wing system and Libertarism is way more right-wing, but there's non right-wing system that doesn't apply capitalism, 'cause the right-wing is meant to the idea of individual over group. " That just isn't true. There is no basis to say that individualism = right wing, because again, monarchism was right wing, and egoism (literally the most individualist possible) is left wing. Trying to narrow down left vs right that much just isn't a good idea, doesn't work well. "And Equality is making two groups grow alongside, Equity is getting one less-able group grow in charge of others. So in the basis is equality." If the lower classes (the ones that aren't killed or imprisoned) are growing in wealth by 1% yearly, and the upper classes are growing in wealth by 10% yearly, that isn't equality in the slightest, that's just natural growth and favor for the rich. "Equality =/= Redistribution, Equality is more about overcome statistics." And again, the rich are getting richer and the poor are hardly getting anything. Not much equality to be found.
    1
  1786.  @Scornfull  Sorry for so easily proving you wrong over and over again. Must be embarrassing for you, huh?
    1
  1787.  @lrussell851  "one of yours?" What is "mine" here?
    1
  1788.  @lrussell851  Child i'm orry, but you're going to have to cope with reality. Hitler was one of yours, one of the right's, and none of your denialism will change that
    1
  1789.  @craigstobbs9215  I call people that because they act like that. Yeah, it's a dick move sometimes, but i've delt with so many people saying the same silly things for so long that i've run out of patience for those that claim to be cordial until they have their ideas challenged. what exactly is the point of surface-level civility if it does nothing to convince a person that simply can't be convinced? Yeah, most people I talk to that way have already proven themselves beyond the reach of argumentation, and i'd like to remind them of that fact.
    1
  1790.  @lrussell851  Says the person that's willing to lie about history to cover for history's most despicable criminal.
    1
  1791.  @craigstobbs9215  No, I pointed out that he's stunningly ignorant of many of the studies done on the leaders of these regimes and the ideological basis behind their actions, and that many people have addressed this ignorance and his own inconsistencies and made the problems with them known. You are the one attempting to support the supposed truth of his statements, as always the onus of presenting evidence is on you to support your claims not me to address claims you haven't even argued for yet.
    1
  1792.  @craigstobbs9215  And I have done that, and i've done it more and more as time goes on. At this point, my goal is just to get the arguments out there, so hopefully eventually someone more receptive might spot them in the comment section and inspire them to think a bit. but sure, pleasant disagreement is always better.
    1
  1793.  @craigstobbs9215  sure, be my guest, and understandable, good luck with that.
    1
  1794.  @lrussell851  and yet here you are, lying. History isn't 'on your side,' history reviles the actions of far rightists like hitler.
    1
  1795.  @calebnemrow2677  While this is certainly one of the more unique and funny arguments i've heard in favor of revisionism, it still remains false. Socialism as an ideology is, and always has been, left wing. I'm not sure why you bring up the Jamestown colony, not just because they were a survival rather than ideology oriented settlement, not just because they didn't follow socialistic doctrine, but because the original settling of the colony was years before socialism had even concretely formed as an ideology. In any case, socialism does not require authoritarianism in "all its flavors," and in fact the definition of socialism becomes harder to achieve under authoritarian rule. Socialism isn't just a type of authoritarianism, nor would that line up with your assertions regarding supposed right wing socialists. Also, there's no reason that socialism and anarchism are incompatible, not just because of the long standing ideological overlap, but because order and anarchy are not antonyms.
    1
  1796.  @calebnemrow2677  No? No, I said nothing of the sort. "Human nature" is the myth of an ideologue, people want to do whatever allows they, and those things and people they care for, to survive. Your assertion, however, that goodness and coexistence are incompatible with human nature just shows your ideological fanaticism. "Basic human nature" isn't just whatever justifies your ideology champ
    1
  1797.  @feudinggreeks3316  Your remark would be a lot more meaningful if this thread hadn't been inactive for nearly a year.
    1
  1798.  @feudinggreeks3316  Yeah bud I reply to people who tag me. You'll notice that's about all I've done for a year.
    1
  1799. And yet, it isn't.
    1
  1800. the nazis weren't socialists mate, and just no.
    1
  1801.  @AppliedMathematician  Yeah, it's only like you've told everyone you respond to a few times more than necessary. And I say you want to absolve the far right not through your ideology, but through your actions, thought they do seem to feed into eachother. You don't want to "not absolve the far left," you want to blame them for the actions of the right. And yet, you spend hours upon hours, days upon days arguing in the comment section of youtube videos that exist solely to validate the conspiratorial rantings of far rightists who would rather deny and erase their history than deal with the historical implications of their rhetoric and policies. That's quite telling. Trying to paint the far right nazis as not far right is absolving them, and absolving the modern far right who openly calls to follow in their footsteps, which even you must be able to see. The far right cannot push socialism, cannot believe in socialism. Yes, socialism is inherently left, a basic fact that you even call into question to deflect from your nonsense assertions. How does this not follow from the definition in question? Yes, and in the modern day, we can see that the modern anti-socialists amoung the rising fascist movement, as well as the modern anti-socialists among the traditional conservative movement, all do their best to convince anyone willing to listen that the other isn't true anti-socialism, and are secretly pawns of socialists, or socialists themselves. This is a tactic the very neo-nazis in question use. Correspondingly, we can see that nazi ideology was a nationalism and was an anti-socialism. It wasn't, though. The history, the definitions, the record in question all prove that no socialism was put in place or desired by the nazis. But then again, history isn't your strong suit.
    1
  1802.  @AppliedMathematician  And yet you spend hours upon hours feeding into their narratives and without critical thought repeating their denials of their own past, absolving them of their own crime and putting it on anyone but them. Those are the actions I speak of, and the actions you don't seem willing to acknowledge. Projecting your own ideological motive onto me doesn't change this fact, and it never will. What ideology, child? Do you even know? Have you even thought that far? War is nor peace, ignorant not strength, slavery not freedom, and the nazis not socialists. Orwell knew it too. And yet, here you are, invoking his words while trying to do the very thing he feared, in service of those he hated his entire life.
    1
  1803.  @renanvinicius6036  He supported a "german" economy, one in which the state would work to benefit private owners, that would in turn follow the nazi ideology. A system of private markets, with the full backing of nazi ideology, justifying their existence. Oh, he was no libertarian, but it's undeniable that he wanted a system in which private owners ruled their land with an iron fist. And no, for the love of god, to be a socialist you literally by necessity need to be against capitalism. Social Democracy is a capitalist system that some socialists think is preferable to corporatist capitalism, and thus advocate for temporary reform to that system. And i'm sorry, this just isn't true. Hitler had no socialist views, this is confirmed by his actual economic policies, and recorded conversations with some of his top party members. Early in his career, before he purged the party of leftists, he attempted to say that he respected marx, and that he had learned from marx. However, after the purge and when he had taken power and had no more need to appeal to leftists, he openly admitted that his ideology was explicitly counter to marx and socialism, and that marxism represented the ultimate evil in his worldview. Not only was he influenced by conservatives, they were his primary ideological influences, which is why he held so deeply conservative principles. It's amazing that you think a man that was dead for centuries, that believed in one type of conservativism, could discredit the conservatism of another. Especially amazing when one considers how similar their rhetoric and viewpoints are, each only differing moderately in terms of application, but interestingly, not foundation. But again, i'm wasting my time here, you don't care about reality.
    1
  1804.  @renanvinicius6036  Child, why do you keep running away from the truth? Oh yeah, why would someone assume that the ideology that fostered these bigotries, held them close, spread them, popularized them, internalized them, and so on, comes from them? How odd... Oh, some on the right claim to be against these things, but pigeons like you don't understand that in reality they work against those goals. If you honestly think any conservatives, anywhere, are working to solve these problems, you're more brainwashed than you think. You don't want to solve these problems, you don't just not want "radical solutions," you don't want any solutions, no matter how pragmatic. Conservatism is literally about believing in inherent inequality and hierarchy, how is that not leading to prejudice? Conservatism is by nature a bigoted collectivism. You can't handle my statements being correct, I know, but it's sad how you can't even handle these basics facts. Nothing is "created from my mind," because it's all true, despite you hating it.
    1
  1805.  @renanvinicius6036  You just can't handle that I proved you wrong, huh?
    1
  1806.  @renanvinicius6036  can't handle the history of conservatism, hm?
    1
  1807.  @renanvinicius6036  Why are you lying about the past?
    1
  1808.  @renanvinicius6036  But I did, you can't handle the fact that Schmitt was directly influenced by the conservatism of his time, which finds its roots in the thinkers you love so much, like it or not, child.
    1
  1809.  @renanvinicius6036  pigeon, inequality, hierarchy, tradition, power, struggle, bigotry, and so on.
    1
  1810.  @renanvinicius6036  child, do you never stop running from basic reality? Does the truth just offend you so much? Damn, do you really get that offended when someone proves you wrong, you need to start stalking them? Child, I don't get "offended" by people like you, I simply correct their misconceptions, and if they can't handle that, how is that my fault? Are you just now realizing the pattern of denialism and avoidance that defines your ideology and movement? Child, as i've said, insults don't change the facts. I don't use straw man arguments, unlike you, and I have no reason to tell a lie, I speak simply the truth you don't want to admit to. I answer your questions, and you can never respond to said answers because doing so would compromise your narratives. Literally everything i've said has been true, which is why you can't disprove it. "The guy" I mentioned was literally a conservative, and yet you'll do anything to deny this, except produce proof of course, because none exists. I don't "deny" anything, I convey the beliefs of conservatives with none of the fluff that you're so used to putting on. I'm more than willing to read conservatives, but more than that, i'm willing to criticize them fairly, something you cannot do. I hate to break it to you, but by definition, under capitalism your workers are your property, and you are a slave to the owning class. You can argue that this system is good, or that it's beneficial, but all you're doing is attempting to justify the system i've already mentioned. And did you not yet realize that the heritage foundation is literally a conservative think tank?
    1
  1811.  @renanvinicius6036  Again, you call me dumb because... you can't prove me wrong :) I've never denied that some on the left are bigoted, because some are. I've simply pointed out that the basis of the majority of historical bigotry is essentially conservative, and has clear roots in conservatism. Again, this is why conservatives support these policies today, while socialists, liberals, marxists, ect, opposer them. You can't even handle the real histories of these regimes, you lie about them to get over the fact that you know your assertions are false. You keep projecting your argumentative tactics on me, pigeon, and unlike you I have no desire to dictate over people, nor to say what is reasonable or not. I simply speak the truth.
    1
  1812.  @renanvinicius6036  Oh, my beliefs are far from unquestionable. the simple problem is that you are intellectually incapable of actually providing good criticisms of me, as you've shown so far. Again, to literally quote myself, "I've never denied that some on the left are bigoted, because some are." Pointing out that historical bigotry has been conservative, and even left wingers can hold those views, is just a fact. Come on, child. Oh, and stop deflecting.
    1
  1813.  @renanvinicius6036  again, there's no strawmen kid, you're literally just coping with being wrong.
    1
  1814.  @renanvinicius6036  But child, it is. You've given me examples of left wing people with occasional right wing conservative viewpoints, viewpoints that were criticized for being right wing even within those people's lifetime. Again, people on the left can be bigoted, but bigotry itself, especially historical bigotry, almost always comes from deeply conservative notions relating to class, race, and nation. You have to keep pretending I see the world as one good side and one bad side because you can't actually handle just reading my response. You don't even know what my "solutions" are, and I hate to break it to you, but every movement that has ever actually succeeded in solving these problems in society has been explicitly against conservatism. You can insult me all you want, but that remains true. Again, sure, you can keep listing left wingers with conservative views, but unless you can prove that those views aren't conservative, this doesn't mean much. What has put millions on the street and caused this country's history of constant instability and collapse is "free market." Of course, don't let reality in, we can't have you realizing that capitalism is an ideology that promotes the persecution of everyone that disagrees with you, even other non-leftists like social democrats.
    1
  1815.  @renanvinicius6036  so you don't know what socialism is.
    1
  1816.  @renanvinicius6036  The right isn't defined by the "free market" champ.
    1
  1817.  @renanvinicius6036  Yes, we're already aware of how you've thrown the pieces off the board and shit on the table when you didn't get your way, but what does this have to do with me? You're running away because you realized that you can't actually disprove any of my assertions, you need to mock them and get angry at them, and child, that's not how it works. Yes, the left historically has been the one fighting against the rampant bigotry that forms the core of conservatism and conservative beliefs. You finding people from decades ago that hold beliefs that modern conservatives still peddle, while modern leftists renounce them, is proof of that. The left is literally defined by opposition to inequality. Meanwhile, you throw out meaningless conservative nonsense and fail to respond to even a single point. Again, you clearly have never read a single word from marx, given that he openly admitted, many many times, to not being the "father of socialism." You haven't been able to prove that these views are at all in line with their ideology, which should be simple, but you're unable to do it. Marx never used his personal bigotry to advocate for his ideology, nor did he assert that his ideology would "solve" his bigotry. He didn't write "bigotry theories," nor did those have to do with his idea sense of revolution, and the left (unlike conservatives) wholly rejects these individual views of his. Starting the strawman with "NOOOOOOOO" doesn't make it any less false, child. Yes, these senses of bigotry are deeply conservative in nature. Also, please try to keep straight who you're talking to, I never said the only socialism is the marxist one, you're thinking of the other person. In any case, yes, liberalism is a form of capitalist ideology, and thus cannot be marxist by definition, marxism is literally based around the eventual end of liberalism. That's not "identity theories," it's just a simple fact that socialism and marxism cannot be liberal. In any case, marx may have held bigoted views, but it's only the conservatives that keep those views alive, not the left. Again, you don't know the difference between "the left" and "leftist," and now you're arguing that "liberal marxists" exist? What? Like, your entire argument revolves around not even knowing who you're talking to, making things up with no substance because you got beat in an argument. Of course marxism is different from liberalism, they have conflicting "engingeering" and purpose. When have I ever said otherwise? You're a pigeon, child, incapable of actually debate. I've proven you wrong, and your only response is to insult me and run away without ever even addressing my claims. The only person who has wasted their time is me, me trying to disprove statements with logic, when you were never logical when you said them. You're free to run away child, but just know how easily I proved you wrong. You don't seem to understand that despite all your projection, arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon, he shits on the table, throws all the pieces on the board to the floor and then comes out with his chest puffed out thinking he won the argument.
    1
  1818.  @renanvinicius6036  your entire argument is literally just a spew of strawmen i've already addressed.
    1
  1819.  @renanvinicius6036  child, what the hell is a "liberal marxist" and why are you accusing me of being one?
    1
  1820.  @renanvinicius6036  Yeah, normal people call that the "real world." Sorry you don't like living in it. There is literally nothing wrong with correctly pointing out that multiple groups can hold the same belief, and that said belief retains its origin and ideological ties despite different groups adopting it. If one side hates the viewpoint, and one doesn't, how can it not belong to the one side only? You're trying to insult me because you can't actually prove me wrong, and you know it. You pretty much openly admit hat you can't bother actually reading a single one of my responses, because literally everything here that you've said, i've addressed time and time again, even as you continue to ignore it. Where have I ever said i'm "anti-democratic?" I haven't. Where have you ever proven that both "sides" have good intentions and solutions? You haven't. Again, child, social democrats are left of center but they aren't leftists, how many times do I have to explain this to you? Do you actually think that anyone who isn't on the right is a leftist? Every philosophical and political book that shows the origins and beliefs of social democracies pretty openly shows that they aren't leftists, in detailed argument, but you ignore that. You randomly insult me, and then somehow assert that left wing governments always become dictatorships, ignoring the whole of human history in the process. Why are you randomly bringing up 70% private venezuela? Do you even know what you're talking about? Of course not. Liberals are literally right wing, liberal means capitalism. Again, the word is "read," and i've literally proven that i've read more marx than you've ever read, ever. Of course his theories were based on conservative views, which is why he never used them to justify "the revolution," especially not in a way of keeping the revolution going forwards and getting stronger. His views ran counter to his ideology. I know you're running away, but its hilarious how after even all of this, you can't even respond to a single argument, you just deflect to a new random argument and fail even that. Your entire assertion here is literally made up, child. Child, do you think those countries are rich because they're "free market," and not because they spent centuries pillaging and enslaving the rest of the world, which has only recently been freed? "Free market" economies fail constantly, and as we have seen, are not able to efficiently allocate resources once a surplus has been reached, which leads to famine, disease, death. Again, your list is made up, because you include a number of nations that "free market' nations support, as well as asserting that 70% private Venezuela is somehow not majority "free market." Again, it seems you're only now realizing that most of these countries have been under the iron fist of capitalism for decades if not centuries, and only a few have broken free, and yet you're trying to claim they're equal? And no, of course your "free market" economies don't have "more free speech," but that's just another fact you don't want to hear. Stop deflecting, stop making things up, and join the real, pragmatic world. There's nothing "idealistic" about the truth.
    1
  1821.  @renanvinicius6036  what happened to you running away, child?
    1
  1822.  @renanvinicius6036  back to shit on the board some more? Thank you for admitting you never read marx.
    1
  1823.  @renanvinicius6036  Child, do you still not understand that "from the left" and "leftist" are different things? how dumb are you?
    1
  1824.  @renanvinicius6036  child, you literally can't help yourself from lying. That's why you aren't even trying to prove me wrong, because you know you can't
    1
  1825.  @renanvinicius6036  Look up literally any article on liberal vs left, youtube doesn't allow me to paste links. Leftist specifically refers to a person on the left who is against capitalism, whereas some forms of capitalist ideology, like social democracy, can be left of center and yet not leftist. I've explained this so many times and only now do you actually bother to pay attention? You thought wrong. Sorry?
    1
  1826.  @renanvinicius6036  yeah none of that is true though champ
    1
  1827.  @renanvinicius6036  i have to conclude that you just can't read
    1
  1828.  @renanvinicius6036  the fact that you only took notice of my full responses now kinda proves my point. I write things that evidently you don't read, and you've only further proven that now. It doesn't matter though, because even now you refuse to admit that said responses exist. I already have explained exactly that, again, have you been paying attention? I have explained exactly what ties the right to historic bigotry, and how modern conservatives keep that tradition alive, and that's something you cannot disprove. You haven't been able to prove that the right don't support or believe these things, you haven't even attempted to try to make that argument. There are people on the left that are bad for other reasons, but we're specifically talking about historical bigotry, and you'll find that yes, it was deeply conservative in nature. The fact that you only have insults as responses proves my point perfectly. I'm happy to debate, the problem is debating with children like you that can't handle being wrong, even though you were proven wrong time and time again. I'm literally debating "what is different from me," why do you feel the need to make up insults? And when "the right" in question is trying to revive neo-nazi ideology and has proven itself to be far more dangerous and authoritarian than the left, i'm fine opposing it. Of course, that research you claim doesn't exist, but that's just another one of your claims that you'll never bother to substantiate. The problem is that you're unwilling to even admit to the actions and history of the right, so of course you're here with me debating it, because you genuinely have no other recourse to protect your narrative. I don't lie child, I tell the truth, and i'm sorry you don't like it. Again, child, you're showing that you don't know the basics. I never said "the left only believes in total economic control," I literally do not believe in total economic control. Neither did marx, of course, he believed in stateless collective control, but you having never read marx wouldn't know that. Again, you don't know the difference between "on the left' and "leftist" and you just keep using them as the same term when they don't mean that at all. Again, let me remind you, the Heritage foundation is an explicitly right wing conservative think tank, that has been disproven many times in the past. Their goal is to spread conservative ideology, do you think that they're a better source than actual unbiased economists? No, they weren't able to show "level of property rights," as if such a thing is quantifiable. Actual economic data proves them wrong, but you don't care about that. I'm no utopian, again, you don't even know my ideology, though you keep guessing over and over again, and keep getting it wrong. I'm just someone who wants to show you the truth, and you're someone that takes propaganda as gospel. You can't even come up with original insults, pigeon. Try again.
    1
  1829.  @renanvinicius6036  Leftists are literally against capitalism by definition, that's what the word means even from not marxist perspectives. You really just make stuff up huh? That isn't anything to do with marxism specifically, that's literally just the definition of leftism, as i've provided to you in the form of citation. Leftists are, by nature, against capitalism, that's literally how leftism is defined, and not all leftists are marxist, nor are they statists. You're a literal child, and repeating falsehoods don't make them any less false. Socialists may believe in welfare systems, but they don't believe in capitalist systems at all. Again, socialists cannot be capitalists, and leftists cannot be capitalists. You apparently don't understand that being against capitalism doesn't mean total state control? Basic welfare or regulation isn't socialist or leftist, and it never has been, it's literally a part of a capitalist economy and thus cannot be either leftist or socialist. You really just can't understand that there are more people on the left than just leftists, and you can't handle that this is the objective truth, you just keep running away. How am I confusing left with leftist?? You literally still think they're the same thing! You really can't come up with any original insults, you need to steal them from me. They're different things, and you still don't understand that.
    1
  1830.  @renanvinicius6036  Of course people on the right can hold leftist views, they can believe in equality, in the reduction of hierarchy, in the problems that massive corporations cause, and so on. Again, this really isn't that complicated, it's quite common sense if you bother to think for a second.
    1
  1831.  @renanvinicius6036  literally all you can do is hurl insults, you don't know the basics of conservatism and it shows. why do you work so hard to deny the objective history of fascism and conservatism?
    1
  1832.  @renanvinicius6036  you haven't refuted a single argument from anyone yet, it's actually sad.
    1
  1833.  @renanvinicius6036  so you're literally pushing neo-nazi talking pioints and acting like they disprove other people's points?
    1
  1834.  @renanvinicius6036  thank you for openly admitting to being a pigeon!
    1
  1835.  @renanvinicius6036  but none of that is true child, that's why I proved you wrong in all of them.
    1
  1836.  @renanvinicius6036  Why can't you respond to my refutations? Is it because you know that you've been proven wrong? You admitted that, so....
    1
  1837.  @renanvinicius6036  leftists are all against capitalism by every perspective, not just the marxist one, pigeon
    1
  1838.  @renanvinicius6036  I'm sorry, that isn't true. Hell, there are tons of leftists that don't even believe in a state. There are also liberals, right wingers, and non-leftist left wingers that believe in welfare provided the state. Corporations by their very nature cannot be leftists, and hybrid economies are by their nature capitalist and thus cannot be leftist or socialist. I hate to break it to you but corporations are private and thus cannot be a part of systems with total government control. You don't seem to understand that North Korea's system isn't even leftist, since your definition of leftist has no basis in actual reality. Also, statelessness is not only in communism, communism is not only a part of marx, that isn't how marx described communism, and communism isn't utopian. As i've said, you got it all wrong. Leftists, by definition, must be anti-capitalists, that's literally what differentiates them from other people on the left. This has nothing to do with marxism in the slightest, and you know that, you're just using that as an excuse to run away from the truth. what makes one a leftists is not believing in government welfare, because the majority of humanity believes in exactly this, including conservatives. The means used explicitly matter, and I hate to break it to you, you still don't know the basic definitions. You, pigeon, have admitted that you are wrong, and showed your ignorance. You said that english isn't your first language, and yet you're trying to lecture me on it? That's sad, kid. Well child, let's see what nonsense you come up with, you pigeon, come back here to drop all the pieces from the board to the floor as you usually do
    1
  1839.  @renanvinicius6036  You openly admit that you don't have any knowledge of the terms in question, and even after I correct you with citation, you can't handle that? Run away, pigeon. I won.
    1
  1840.  @renanvinicius6036  the definition of leftist is literally being against capitalism and left wing
    1
  1841.  @renanvinicius6036  neither of those are leftist
    1
  1842.  @renanvinicius6036  dude, you're literally just making things up. Cope. No, private corporations cannot exist in economies in which the state has total control. Big corporations and big government working together seems to be what all conservative economies are currently working towards. Capitalists seem to not like free markets where they can lose money, are you surprised? That is an agreement of the right, one that leftists don't support. That is corporatism, a right wing capitalist ideology, that naturally results as the end point of a "free market." Again, you're literally just spreading conservative propaganda and calling it reality because you agree with it. Hierarchy is a concept that is universal across nation and culture, the application of said force and coercion just varies slightly from time to place. Hierarchy is literally defined as control, it as nothing to do with responsibility or individuals, it has to do with power and coercion. You're literally saying that one has to obey their "superiors" under threat and coercion, and that they're somehow superior, and then saying that hierarchy somehow isn't about control? Come on, stay at least a little consistent. The right despised equality, both in outcome and in opportunity, which is why they work against it. Some rightist claim to believe that all people regardless of grouping have some equality, but most don't, and many of those who claim that, don't actually believe it. Conservatives don't care about equality, and they don't care about most people's desires and objectives. The problem is that conservatives don't care about, say, why the NBA is predominately black, they just pretend that all inequality is natural and that nothing can be done to fix it when it's harmful, which is why conservative ideology is so deeply tied to racism. That isn't "meritocracy," that's a very specific set of societal facts that are causing an outcome, and many times those outcomes are harmful, and actively harm the pursuit of actual meritocracy. That's the problem, that this system isn't the best, and that conservatives are actively suppressing better and more fair systems, because they go against conservative ideology and assumptions regarding inequality.
    1
  1843.  @renanvinicius6036  who are you even talking to? You keep confusing me and Ash, and it's really odd because i'm not sure if i should respond to your comments directed at them, they're just as meaningless, but it seems like they're directed at me?
    1
  1844.  @renanvinicius6036  AGAIN, how many times do I need to explain that "the left" and "leftist" are different things? You even asked me for an explanation, I provided it, and you ignored it anyway. Leftism is, by definition, anti-capitalist. Sorry?
    1
  1845.  @renanvinicius6036  dude, come on, this is pathetic.
    1
  1846.  @renanvinicius6036  you're still not listening, you lied many times and I corrected you
    1
  1847.  @renanvinicius6036  child, your definition of leftism is utterly made up and false, and manages to include most conservatives while disqualifying huge amounts of actual leftists
    1
  1848.  @renanvinicius6036  you, objectively, are wrong.
    1
  1849.  @renanvinicius6036  "the left" is a position on the political spectrum, which is defined by being opposed to hierarchy and in favor of equality. A leftist is a person who is not just on the left, but who is also against capitalism, and as a result pushes ideologies that are inherently anti-capitalist, such as socialism, marxism, communism, anarchism, ect. Again, child, i'm not a marxist, nor do these definitions have anything to do with his theory and ideology. These definitions objectively apply, because they are objectively correct. Yours is the radical interpretation, mine is the simple truth that is backed up with dictionary definitions. Again, the simple fact that leftism is defined by left wing anti-capitalism has nothing to do with marx, and is in no way the "marxist view," even though you keep repeating that without proof. No, not every ideology that calls for social welfare through the state is leftist, little pigeon how dumb are you?? This would mean that nearly everyone is a leftist, from most conservatives to most capitalists. It would also mean that actual leftists like anarchists and libertarian socialists, who have been leftist since the founding of the term, no longer apply according to you. You made a definition up, and yet again, I utterly debunked it. "my" definition is literally just the dictionary definition, and yet again, you've yet to provide any actual proof that is isn't true. Leftism is not based in the idea of "social welfare," again, you're a child making things up to justify your lost argument. Again, denialist, the nazis and fascists despised leftism, even by your definition they were less "leftist" than capitalists, they despised syndicalist organization and worked with private owners to harm the working class, which they learned to do, as I've already proven, directly from conservatives of their time, as nazism and fascism are intrinsically conservative, right wing movements. What's so "protectionist" about laws that serve only to benefit the private workers? You did ignore my answer, because it disproves your narrative. You think i'm wrong, but you can't give any actual reasoning besides your own fanatic opinion, so you just keep repeating it. You really are just strutting all over the board, so proud after shitting yourself because you actually think you're making a point. No, pigeon, you're just spreading your right wing opinion instead of facts. Your definition of leftism is objectively incorrect. Amend it.
    1
  1850.  @renanvinicius6036  Dude, as I keep saying, you don't know the basics. Like, you realize that most marxists don't believe in "total economic control," right? And that countries like china, one of the biggest in terms of billionaire population, aren't examples of this supposed total control? Like, you really just make things up and then refuse to deal with any sort of corrections or rebuttals, simply because you know you can't, it's actually sad.
    1
  1851.  @renanvinicius6036  listen for once.
    1
  1852.  @renanvinicius6036  child, when have you broken anything i've said down? You simply cry and run away when I point out the truth. You're a child, one that's making this argument wayyyy too easy for me.
    1
  1853.  @renanvinicius6036  Ah, and here you are again, openly acting like the pigeon we both know you are. I prove you wrong, I make you feel embarrassed at how quickly your narrative is dismantled, and you start crying, start talking about "offending," start making up strawman arguments to avoid dealing with my argument arguments. Yes, you're a child. Stop defending nazis and fascists, they explicitly opposed both class welfare and syndical organization, saying both were failed and part of the same conspiracy they kept fighting against. The economy of brazil is quite literally the largest capitalist economy in latin america, second in the whole americas, what are you talking about? You do realize that Mussolini despised worker autonomy, and appointed "classical liberal" economists to his regime, right? You still don't seem to realize that the primary motivation behind fascism is quite literally conservative ideology, because without it, they would have no justification for their atrocities, their ideology would lack a backbone. They are, of course, opposed to centralized economies and the nationalization of the economy in all but the most necessary cases, which Mussolini himself made known. Again, you keep listing random, entirely different economies, and then comparing them to random assertions, without evidence. You didn't give examples, you made statements and acted like just saying them, makes them true. You can insult me all you want, pigeon, but it doesn't change the simple fact that you can't rebut my arguments at all. I have no desire to execute conservatives, but again, you know that already, since the majority of your arguments count on you lying to me, anyone random nearby, and yourself. "Good hate?" What, so i'm supposed to love people calling for my death? No thanks.
    1
  1854.  @renanvinicius6036  I mean champ, thanks for admitting it. I tell you objectively true things, and what is your response? Nothing. "Lmfao." You have nothing of value to say, nothing important to contribute, no meaningful response to what i've made objectively clear to you so many times, and so you just ignore it, and then repeat it once we've moved on. Not being able to refute an argument isn't something worth bragging about bud, I hope you know that. And yet, here you are, doing just that. The only reason you're wasting your time, is that you continue to respond without actually being willing to listen to or understand what i'm saying to you. Like, again, your entire argument revolves around insulting me, I attempted to have a peaceful, fact-based discussion at the beginning, but you abandoned that as soon as possible, and began hurling nonsense as fast as you could. It's hilarious how far you'll go to avoid actually responding to my points in a meaningful way without making shit up. I'm ludicrous for... pointing out the flaws in your argument? You didn't say anything about "China in Mao's time," you literally just said China. Again, your metrics are based off of conservative propaganda, but are you ignoring that said economic improvements would have been impossible without the industry that was put into place before the semi-liberalization of the economy was? You don't even know what a "marxist economy" is, and now you're praising an economy in which the poor are more poor than ever before, while a few get rich. No excuses are being made, you're just ignoring history. Countries like West Germany and South Korea are rich not because of their economic programs but because the USA, the head of theft and murder in the world, offers them boundless support so children like you can make this exact comparison. No excuses, just facts. Why are capitalists so afraid of a fair fight?
    1
  1855.  @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
  1856.  @mitscientifica1569  No, child, you misquote people you know nothing about, to attempt to prove points the historians in question don't agree with. Even your own quotation, or rather, planarization, admits that. You don't care about the scholars, certainly not when they continuously prove you wrong, again and again, because you don't like the truth. All you have are insults because you know your "arguments" are worth nothing, and are as easy to debunk as they are for you to copy paste. I'm sorry kid, that's the simple truth, and you'll have to deal with that. So, to repeat once again. 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
  1857.  @renanvinicius6036  you just say things you aren't interested in proving, and get annoyed when they're proven false. Child, South Korea wouldn't even exist without the intervention of the US, and South Korea only exists today because the US continually provides funds for its defense and upkeep, even as the citizens experience wave after wave of poverty. The fact that you don't know this and yet feel qualified to speak on this issue is legitimately sad, you are literally making things up as you go along. Like, child, read your own responses. Exporting to who? With whose protection? They exported to the American market, enriching both economies while the US allowed South Korea to exist in the first place. Of course, its worth pointing out that these policies and businesses didn't help "all the society," they helped a small number of the top members of society get rich, while a huge amount went into poverty or debt. The state had to crack down on all the anti-capitalist protesters, it got so bad. You have this utopian view of capitalism that just isn't reflected by the real world.
    1
  1858.  @renanvinicius6036  You failed to address, much less refute, a single one of my arguments. Your entire argument at this point, as you admit, is nothing but insults. I gave you articles, quotes, dictionaries, citations, and you give me insults. You really are a pigeon, huh? This whole time I have been open to you actually making arguments, and I have tried my best to understand and respond to every line of your increasingly deranged assertions, but as now even you admit, it's pointless. You aren't here to be corrected, or even here with the possibility in your mind that you might be wrong. You're here to spread your ideological narrative, and you won't take no for an answer. You can make fun of me all you want, insults don't change facts. The simple fact is you've never refuted a single one of my argments, you've deflected and projected and insulted all over the place but failed to ever directly respond to a point with any sort of logical critical thought. The reason you can't actually, say, cite a single occasion where you "broke" my arguments, is because they don't exist. I'd be happy to bring up a list of every single one of your assertions, and every single one of my unanswered refutations, but you wouldn't read it. You just pretend to have refuted anything without doing any of the work, and you can't even explain why, you ignore me even when I give you want you want. You're free to try to "offend" me, but it's crystal clear that this is all you have left, as your actual arguments have been ground into dust. Of course I went into argumentative methods, I disproved and refuted your points entirely, but its not like you've actually been reading my responses, so how would you know? I've refuted you time and time again, provided arguments and citation where you only provided insults, and you know it. For example, I proved that "leftist" has a different meaning than "all of the left," and that leftist was defined as an anti-capitalist left winger, with sources. Your response? Apparently, nothing. You say you laugh because you know you can't prove me wrong.nChild, you once said that you don't accuse random people of being socialists, and yet here you are, accusing me of just that. You do realize that i've pointed out that i'm not a socialist, yes? Why do all of your "arguments" hinge on personal attacks made up because of imagined traits? Odd behavior.
    1
  1859.  @renanvinicius6036  Child, you're lying and you know it. Stop stealing, stop lying.
    1
  1860.  @renanvinicius6036  You can't handle the fact that you know you aren't able to argue against a single one of my points, can you?
    1
  1861.  @renanvinicius6036  All you had to do was actually bother to even respond to a single one of my points. You failed to do even that.
    1
  1862.  @renanvinicius6036  cope. and. seethe.
    1
  1863.  @renanvinicius6036  so no actual arguments? Wow, why am I not surprised.
    1
  1864.  @renanvinicius6036  i'll take this as you admitting defeat.
    1
  1865.  @renanvinicius6036  why do you keep telling such silly little lies? You really are afraid of the truth, aren't you? It's ok pigeon, thank you for admitting you were wrong. Child, you can insult me all you want, but every new response you makes proves that I am continually correct in pointing out your sad, childish ignorance. You actually think that the economy of south korea has nothing to do with if the country exists or not. Child, there's no non sequitur, the economy of a country would not exist if the country did not exist, which objectively means that the korean war and the US' involvement in it must be considered. The US acted as the sole reason that the South Korean economy, and hell, even country, survived for as long as it did, and thus, it is responsible for the modern failures of said economies. The economic growth of South Korea is entirely due to it being defended by the US, and it selling to a market dominated by the neoliberalism that the US has been pushing worldwide for decades. Of course there was a gap after the war, do you assume that the people do not need to recover, the industry does not need to be remade? You really don't understand the basics of economics, and bringing up random unrelated countries and failing to substantiate your claims with even them doesn't do much for you. Pigeon, they sell their products and services to the US because they are an economy with cheap labor, that the US exploits by promising defense and military presence. South Korea is horrible for the average worker, but "the economy" does fine because the rich can sell the labor of the poor to the USA. That is the "free market" you're talking about, one in which the people are enslaved to the private sector and international alliances alike. The rich aren't the ones producing technology and economic development, that would be the poor, and they're not the ones making money from it. Child, its clear that you can't accept basic economic reality, and to be honest, i'm sad for you. It's a simple fact that the rich in South Korea got so powerful (leaving everyone else behind, of course) because of their political and economic ties to the US. You admit this, you admit that i'm right, but then you spend line after useless line arguing not that it doesn't happen, but that it's a good thing. The "goods" being exchanged are slave labor for statist military occupation. Of course you're dumb, but i'm glad you admit so here. Why do you keep bringing up Cuba and North Korea? As I said, it's like you're afraid of a fair fight, so you keep bringing up countries that have been specifically and purposefully economically stunted as if that's some sort of "own." Cuba literally cannot exchange between nations, because the US prevents them from doing so, and yet they still have better healthcare and in many cases social services than the US. No, child, if a country gets richer, the poor people do not automatically become richer. This is literally just basic economics. Take, for example, the USA, in which the mode of the populations yearly income is between 5k and 10k, as compared to denmark, a far poorer country, yet one that has nearly double the mode of yearly income. A rich country just means a handful of rich people and rich politicians, the people don't get the benefits. I do find it funny that you try to deflect from this fact, though. The USA has objectively failed to transfer their wealth to their citizens. On the other hand, you openly cite free market (china) and free market conservative (russia) economies to try to prove me wrong. "quick exemple between a nation that doesn't have Free market economy between a nation that has free market economy" Child, all three economies are market economies. Yes, they're poor because market economies, as we've seen time and time again, are terrible at efficiently distributing resources and wealth to those that deserve it. Thank you for proving, with the market economies of china and russia, that the "free market" fails. I hate to break it to you, but when one actually looks at the majority of market economies, we see violence, slave labor, death, statism, and poverty. Take, for example, the most dangerous country in the world to live in, South Sudan, a proudly capitalist, conservative, free market economy, and one of the poorest in the world. The truth is, you don't actually know what a market economy is, nor do you care to examine the examples that disprove your narratives, such as the countries that are currently wallowing in poverty that swallowed the lie of utopian capitalism whole, or the rich countries that can't even take care of their own citizens. You can insult me all you want, but its a simple fact that your assertions are just false. Your only evidence to the contrary is listing market economies as non-market, or in this case, anecdotal evidence. Do you really think that one random person overrides all actual data and observation? If you want the lives of cubans to improve, tell the US to stop forcing the rest of the world to not trade with them, forcing them to be self reliant and still managing to survive. Take, for example, cuba's medical program, one so successful that they're able to send doctors to other countries to help people in greater need. The US despises the fact that even after its best efforts, cuba has not collapsed. Again, if you want their lives to increase, stop blaming the victims of your own policies. If you want to see people hardly able to eat, with stupid authoritarian governments and horrible economic policies, you should look at the results of conservative leadership.I ask you, for once in your life, to stop taking propaganda as fact, to stop spreading your ideology even when its disproven, and to listen to reality. What do you even think socialism is? Socialism is clearly 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." But you don't care about that, you just want to call whatever random countries you think of "real socialism." Again, child, i'm not a socialist, are you reading my responses? If you want to prove that socialism is "fundamentally utopic," go ahead and try, but the whole of economics would disprove you there. Feel free to insult me, but there's nothing utopic about simple collective ownership. Insults won't change that. You can call me whatever you want, but we both know the real reason you're still here. It's because you know that leaving now would result in your loss, you know that your points are false and you don't have any arguments to back them up, and that's why you stay, because you're embarrassed with your defeat. You have yet to disprove or even address a single one of my arguments and it shows. To you, "idiocy" is facts that you don't like. Feel free to use this against" people who are not actually as left wing," i'm sure upon hearing my arguments, they;'ll see how easily you've been disproven. Cry. Harder. You claimed you were leaving, three times now. So that's another lie. Sad.
    1
  1866.  @renanvinicius6036  wow, pigeon, you're actually less educated than I thought, jesus.
    1
  1867.  @renanvinicius6036  Yes, I said that since you did indeed admit defeat, admit to being a liar and to being wrong. However, you stuck around, likely because you're deeply insecure due to your points continually being easily disproven, and because you, like a pigeon, think you win the chess game because you knock the pieces and board off the table, and shit everywhere, instead of playing fairly. Child, rational people change their minds when exposed to new information, and thank you for admitting that you are not at all rational. I've proven you wrong, what's so arrogant about that? My guess is that you want to accuse me of random things to soften the blow of your own defeat, and it's transparent as all hell to everyone else watching. I'm sorry, pigeon, that you were on the wrong side for this one. You still have the opportunity to admit you were wrong, learn, and grow. Something tells me you won't take it, though.
    1
  1868.  @renanvinicius6036  but you didn't prove me wrong. you proved me right and then failed to make random assertions, as usual Child, you proved m,e right, and then you ran away when I showed you the truth that you were so afraid of. Leftists in south america didn't copy laws from mussolini, since mussolini's economic advisor that created the laws he passed was a proud conservative classical liberal, how can a conservative make leftist policy? You really are a child. He was kicked out of the socialist party for siding with the right on the war, and immediately afterwards he openly declared that he was not a socialist, and that socialism was a flawed utopic system that relied on state welfare. He hated the bolsheviks more than you do, for the same reason you did. He didn't want any sort of socialist revolution, as he was an open conservative, and wanted to preserve the italian systems that he thought progressives had undone. He said, in his own words, that he was not a socialist and that his ideology, fascism, utterly rejected socialism and was of the right. I know you've never actually read the Carda Del Lavoro," or looked into his actual policies, but he despised social welfare, and thought it would lead to the destruction of his economy, a position still alive and defended by conservatives including you. You still don't know what a marxist is, so your ignorance can be forgiven. Child, stop stealing insults that don't make sense. I openly refuted your every false claim, effortlessly destroyed them with facts and logic, and like the coward you are, you ran away from the truth. I say you're lying, because I have proven that you are lying. You can't handle the truth, and the pro-fascist narrative you push has nothing to do with reality. The fascists hated artificial welfare, just like you. Fascism is, at its core, a conservative movement, that has everything to do with conservatism. Corporatism is quite literally a private system of capitalism, one which conservatives love. You didn't refute me, you are simply saying that I'm lying because you cannot handle the truth - and i've actually proven that. Child, you literally stole a quote and then got annoyed when I used the same one to more accurately describe you? You are a literal pigeon, you fit the quote perfectly, and even you admit it. I've proven you wrong so many times, it's so pathetic that you even try with the same old insults. Cry harder, child. I've already won this "competition," i've proven you wrong and showed you to be the fool we both know you are, i've aligned myself with facts and you've rejected them in favor of ideology. It isn't a war, its me beating you and you running away, for all of time. Child, your entire argument revolves around you believing your own lies, wholeheartedly thinking your made up insults are somehow true even though you know you just made them up. You say you're done, and yet you stay here, to attempt (and fail) to mend your wounded pride. You call me a liar, but you never take the step to actually prove a single thing I say false, because you know you can't. I tell you to open your eyes, and you reject me because you can't handle that. I'm not in a "radical bubble," I'm in reality. You literally cite openly conservative propaganda organizations and then have the nerve to accuse me of being in a bubble? Again, child, i'm not a marxist, you need to stop lying about random people to make up insults that even you don't believe. There's nothing remotely like flat earth beliefs in my arguments, unlike yours. Of course, unlike you, i've watched the entire video, whereas you haven't watched a single second of it, because it contains far too much information for you to understand. There's nothing hypocritical here for you. Child, I hate to break it to you, but your statement is the reverse of the truth. The majority of socialists have been right wingers... and then they grew out of it. The majority of the right has never questioned their beliefs, and either have to deny the truth, or stop being right wing. You choose option one. There's nothing hard to digest, child, it just isn't true. Oh, and don't forget, this all started because you asked a question, I answered it, and you didn't like the truth?
    1
  1869.  @renanvinicius6036  You didn't refute me, you are simply saying that I'm lying because you cannot handle the truth, you can't handle that mussolini was a proud conservative and anti-socialist just like you, as he himself said. Fascists hate social welfare more than you
    1
  1870.  @renanvinicius6036  child, you support fascism.
    1
  1871.  @renanvinicius6036  fascism is conservative, just like you are, and mussolini was a proud right wing anti-socialist welfare hater, just like you
    1
  1872.  @renanvinicius6036  why are you so afraid to make an argument? It's because you know i'm right, isn't it?
    1
  1873.  @renanvinicius6036  Child, you claim that i failed to refute you, but you can't actually prove this statement, of course because it isn't true :)
    1
  1874.  @renanvinicius6036  why do you support conservative fascism, much like mussolini, known conservative?
    1
  1875.  @renanvinicius6036  "the majority of the right, were socialists when they were younger" Do you have any citation? No? I thought not. Because we both know it isn't true :)
    1
  1876.  @renanvinicius6036  it's amazing, you really don't know any originality. I tell you I won, you start crying and scream the same. The difference is, I can actually prove that I won. You're just sad and offended because you didn't. I keep pointing out that even you know that i'm right, even you have admitted that you can't handle the truth, because it explains your behavior. It explains the random lies you make up, and the way that you hate that they're disproven. For example, you told a lie here, and said that Mussolini never said he wasn't a socialist anymore. Yet, when one actually looks at quotes from Mussolini, we find many statements saying just that, such as "'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist 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), and more. Three quotes that instantly prove you wrong, three quotes noted by leading experts on fascism and history, in which he proudly states that fascism is a movement of the right, and that he has utterly rejected socialism. Everyone who has ever studied his biography knows this, because he himself made sure it was known. He never said he "continues to be a socialist" after he created fascism, he said that years before he became a fascist. You can't handle this fact. Also, hate to break it to you, but history is literally filled with people changing their ideologies late in life, including many US presidents like Thomas Jefferson. You absolutely can "teach an old dog new tricks," as we see from some lifelong marxists turning conservative, like Mussolini or Sowell. You literally think it's "pathetic" to believe that anyone can change their mind after they turn 30, do you realize how absolutely nonsensical that assertion is, how little sense it makes at all? Hate to break it to you, but conservatives aren't individualists. Conservatives are corporatists, capitalists, monarchists, fascists, but not individualists. The notion that a group, when separated, is weak and when together is strong is quite literally the basis of many conservative movements, such as nearly all right wing nationalism. People like Mussolini praised economic individualism, that being private industry, but they like all conservatives despised the individual rejecting the nation, the religion, the race, and so on, and being their own individual. This shows exactly how they were conservatives, and exactly how similar they are to modern day conservatives like you. And again, child, corporatism is a "free market" system, it might not be the one you like but that doesn't change the objective facts of it. Again, you continue to tell lies that you refuse to cite. Can you explain how and why the Carta del Lavoro was applied, how it represented Mussolini's ideology, with citation? No you can't, because you don't know a single thing. I, however, can point out that no such thing was ever put into place, by naming figures like Alberto de Stefani, proud capitalists at the top of Mussolini's government, and again by quoting Mussolini on his ideal economy. "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation." Does that sound very leftist to you? How about, let's quote some conservative figures of the time, and see what they thought of him. “The Roman genius impersonated in Mussolini, the greatest law-giver among living men, has shown to many nations how they can resist the pressures of Socialism and has indicated the path that a nation can follow when courageously led. With the Fascist regime, Mussolini has established a centre of orientation from which countries which are engaged in a hand-to-hand struggle with Socialism must not hesitate to be guided.” That was Churchill.The point is that you don't know what you're talking about, don't understand the basic history of this subject and don't understand the definitions of the words you throw around. You, for example, keep using the word "utopian," and yet when I defined both socialism and marxism and asked how they were possibly utopian, you simply ignored me and started a new rant. You can insult me all you want, but it's crystal-clear that you are out of your depth here, and i'ts my job to show that to you. I don't ignore what you're saying, I respond to it in full, and then remark on how silly and brainwashed it is. Yes, conservatism is what it is, but you continue to say that it is what it isn't, and that somehow that's an argument. I've quite literally cited you books from conservatives, but you ignore them all. Again, we've been over this. I've refuted your arguments, and I can point to exactly where I did it and how easy it was. You're childishly shouting the same because you cannot think of an original quip. You haven't refuted anything, pigeon. You've just swept the pieces off the table and crapped on it. Funny, it's only you who has been proven to be lying here. Projection much? Child, we've been over this so many times. You really can't even listen, can you? You don't know what liberal means, don't know what marxist means, and yet you keep throwing those labels around. When I make the historically objectively true observation that the majority of Marx's bigoted claims came from Kapital and personal letters, you ignore it, and continue to assert that a book refuting conservative ethnonational antisemetism is where the real bigotry is, because you haven't read beyond the title. Again, his bigotry is never used to justify the "revolution," because said bigotry went counter to his ideology. He didn't say "the jews needs to be out the revolution" or anything like it, that's exactly why so many later marxists spoke out against antisemetism, or were jewish themselves. Again, a left wing figure being criticized for conservative views doesn't make their views left wing. Because this has been a competition, one you sorely lost, and one that you're unable to come back from losing. I point out that you have nothing but insults, and I tell you the truth, which you see as an insult. You continue to insult me essentially because you know that you can't win this argument, and because you're trying to salvage your broken ego. So again, i'll say it proudly, you are a child, a pigeon, and you have proven how incorrect and completely irrational you truly are. You reject facts in favor of your own ideology, and you openly admit to this. You got proven wrong, and you're just too afraid to admit it. This is exactly my point. You don't have any interest in actually having a conversation or discussion on these issues, you don't care about the actual history, you just want to annoy people, to sling insults and random statements and hope one of them stick. I don't hate you, I just pity you. I think you need to realize that living life as if the goal is annoying people or wasting their time is a sad life indeed. I think its funny that your response to being proven wrong again and again is to say the same things, over and over again. I've literally proven I know more than you on economics. South Korea is rich because they have a military, political, and economic alliance with one of the biggest states in the world. Heritage is a site made by conservatives, to spread conservative views, that has been disproven in the past. You don't know what central planning is, and don't want to deal with the fact that these "free market" countries are only rich because their state and private sector pillaged and murdered their way across half the world, all for the "free market." You didn't break, refute, or hell, even address my arguments. Look at this response, for example. No references, no citations, no refutations. And yet, you say you "broke" my arguments. I systematically and easily dismantled your entire narrative, and your only response is to cry. No, child, you didn't break anything, you ran. You assert otherwise because you can't deal with having lost this horribly, with the fact that you have nothing to offer. I respond to you, showing you reality, facts, citations, arguments, and you respond to me with rage and insults. Fly away, pigeon. The game is over.
    1
  1877.  @renanvinicius6036  You're a proud anitsemite and you cannot stop lying, this you admit.
    1
  1878.  @renanvinicius6036  Again, child, you openly praise fascist propaganda and ignore actual citation. You have admitted that fascism is a far right conservative ideology. Thank you for the easy victory.
    1
  1879.  @renanvinicius6036 YOU ARE A LIAR. Mussolini proudly said, over and over again, that he was not a socialist, and that fascism was far right. No biography says he "continues to be a socialist," because even he disproved that lie. You have no citation otherwize
    1
  1880.  @renanvinicius6036  You need to make things up because you know that i've won. I've proven that mussolini, like you, was a far right anti-socialist conservative, i've proven your ignorance, i've proen you to be the fool we know you are.
    1
  1881.  @renanvinicius6036  child, you're literally saying that Thomas Sowell, one of the most famous modern conservatives, must be a marxist now. You're pathetic.
    1
  1882.  @renanvinicius6036  I've educated you on economics. you've run away.
    1
  1883.  @renanvinicius6036  Why can you never provide citation for your claims? oh, I know, because even you know that they're false.
    1
  1884.  @renanvinicius6036  you have never refuted a single one of my arguments. This, you admit.
    1
  1885.  @renanvinicius6036  You think fascists weren't conservatives because they said something conservatives proudly say every day?
    1
  1886.  @renanvinicius6036  Again, child, you haven't "broke" a single thing in my arguments, you've made easily disproven assertions, and then got mad when I pointed that out, and easily disproved them. You can't even cite a single time you proved me wrong, because it doesn't exist.
    1
  1887.  @renanvinicius6036  cry. harder. kid.
    1
  1888.  @renanvinicius6036  Child, I point out the things you get wrong and prove you to be the fool we know you are as a result. It's quite simple, i'm surprised even you don't understand it. I agree, engaging with someone like you, that openly admits to not wanting to argue in good faith, is a waste of time. No distortion, just the truth. Insult me all you want, do whatever you want, really, but the truth doesn't change no matter how much you want it to.
    1
  1889.  @renanvinicius6036  why is it so hard for you to provide anything of value?
    1
  1890.  @renanvinicius6036  can you give a single good reason one should not give up on you?
    1
  1891.  @renanvinicius6036  you've been disproven so consitently, so completely, why would anyone bother to take a single thing you say seriously anymore?
    1
  1892.  @renanvinicius6036  Why are you deflecting again? You do realize the slavery, the forced labor camps, the hatred of workers, all of it had a long history in conservatism before the nazis. Slavery is the right's game.
    1
  1893.  @renanvinicius6036  You do realize that Spengler was a proud conservative, yes?
    1
  1894.  @renanvinicius6036  But you didn't refute me, you just proved me right! You proved that fascism is a deeply conservative ideologyt!
    1
  1895.  @renanvinicius6036  So wait, you think quoting a program never put into effect means more than the actual words and actions of the proud anti-welfare conservatives, the fascists?
    1
  1896.  @renanvinicius6036  thank you for proving that mussolini's intentions were not in favor of state welfare for any workers! You made this easy for me.
    1
  1897.  @renanvinicius6036  I will give you actual citation, the thing you're afraid of. Of course, in your actual response, we see nothing regarding intending social welfare from the state to the workers, we instead see a system that is meant to give conservative capitalists power, and take them away from the workers. Let's see the truth, hm? "During the coalition period, Mussolini appointed a classical liberal economist, Alberto De Stefani, originally a stalwart leader in the Center Party as Italy’s Minister of Finance,[6] who advanced economic liberalism, along with minor privatization. Before his dismissal in 1925, Stefani "simplified the tax code, cut taxes, curbed spending, liberalized trade restrictions and abolished rent controls", where the Italian economy grew more than 20 percent, and unemployment fell 77 percent, under his influence.[7] To proponents of the first view, Mussolini did have a clear economic agenda, both long and short-term, from the beginning of his rule. The government had two main objectives—to modernize the economy and to remedy the country's lack of strategic resources. Before the removal of Stefani, Mussolini's administration pushed the modern capitalistic sector in the service of the state, intervening directly as needed to create a collaboration between the industrialists, the workers and the state. The government moved toward resolving class conflicts in favour of corporatism. In the short term, the government worked to reform the widely abused tax system, dispose of inefficient state-owned industry, cut government costs and introduce tariffs to protect the new industries. From 1927, these legal and structural changes led into the second phase, the corporative phase. The Labour Charter of 1927 confirmed the importance of private initiative in organising the economy while still reserving the right for state intervention, most notably in the supposedly complete fascist control of worker hiring. In 1930, the National Council of Corporations was established and it was for representatives of all levels of the twenty-two key elements of the economy to meet and resolve problems. In practice, it was an enormous bureaucracy of committees that while consolidating the potential powers of the state resulted in a cumbersome and inefficient system of patronage and obstructionism. One consequence of the Council was the fact that trade unions held little to no representation whereas organized business, specifically organized industry (CGII), was able to gain a foothold over its competitors. A key effect that the Council had on the economy was the rapid increase in cartels, especially the law passed in 1932, allowing the government to mandate cartelization. The dispute was sparked when several industrial firms refused CGII orders to cartelize, prompting the government to step in. Since the corporations cut across all sectors of production, mutual agreements and cartelization was a natural reaction. Hence in 1937, over two-thirds of cartels authorized by the state, many of which crossed sectors of the economy, had started after the founding of the Council, resulting in the noticeable increase in commercial-industrial cartelization. Cartels generally undermined the corporative agencies that were meant to ensure they operated according to Fascist principles and in the national interest, but the heads were able to show that cartel representatives had total control over the individual firms in the distribution of resources, prices, salaries and construction. Businessmen usually argued in favour of "collective self-regulation" being within Fascist ideological lines when forming cartels, subtly undermining corporative principles.[34] De Stefani was appointed by Mussolini in 1922 as the Minister of Finance. He was a liberal economist and a former stalwart leader in the Centre Party[clarification needed][2] who favoured policies such as free-trade, lowering taxes without too much government interference and privatisation of businesses such as the communications industry.[3] He also undertook a thorough reform of the taxation system in Italy which was adjudged a success at the time, although it has been noted that the reforms he enacted had been laid out by his predecessor Filippo Meda but not enacted.[4] De Stefani took advantage of the dictatorial powers afforded to Mussolini's regime to enact these reforms, which had previously been blocked by parliament.[5] The economy prospered under de Stefani's direction, as part of a Europe-wide growth. Both wages and the cost of living fell under his direction.[3] He accomplished his goal of a balanced budget for the financial year 1924–25.[6] By mid-1925, however, the economy was heading towards crisis." "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)" For [Giovanni] Gentile, history showed how the rise of secularism and individualism had destroyed faith and heroism. He saw fascism as the continuation of the struggle between the idealist spirit of [Giuseppe] Mazzini [an Italian nationalist, rejected the liberalism of the Enlightenment period, & an anti-Marxist] and the materialist scepticism of [Giovanni] Giolitti [a moderate liberal], the two souls of Italy" (Robert Eatwell "The Drive Towards Synthesis: Natural History" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 192). And so on. Where is the "worker welfare?"
    1
  1898.  @renanvinicius6036  why are you deflecting away from mussolini proudly naming his conservative alliances?
    1
  1899.  @renanvinicius6036  the problem is, again, we went over exactly how these supposed "worker guarantees" only ended up ignoring the plight of the worker as mussolini openly allied with the right. Let's see some more about fascist economics, hm? "Almost immediately after his expulsion from the Socialist Party, Mussolini noted that the war had crystallized whole populations into national units in which intragroup class distinctions had been by-and-large obliterated. In effect, Mussolini began to argue that national rather than class units constituted more adequate subjects of analysis. …‘Class,’ Mussolini maintained, ‘is based on the community of interests, but the nation is a history of sentiments, of traditions, of language, of culture or race.’ One could not plausibly argue for the priority of class interests as opposed to national interests. …By January, 1915, he could maintain, ‘The Working Class International…has not only demonstrated its impotence in the face of events and its inability to prevent the war, but its literal nonexistence as well.’ The reality of then current conflict made it obvious that the peoples of Europe were striving to fulfill their national and not their class aspiration. In view of such a realization, the advocacy of class war was a vain prescription. What the circumstances demanded was national unity. The consequences of this re-orientation were obvious. Mussolini advocated a return to the nationalism of Mazzini and a rejection of Marx if the reality, complexity, and urgency of contemporary events required it. By May 1915, these convictions were firmly established” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 142-144). The minoritarian governing class of the nation must govern. It must mobilize the efforts of the nation in the service of victory. It was in this capacity that the governing class proved itself, in Mussolini’s judgment, incompetent. He declared himself anti-parliamentarian because parliament had failed the nation. Parliament in Italy had become ‘a plague that poisoned the blood of the nation.’ It was necessary to extirpate it. His objection to parliament was no longer based upon a conception which construed it as representing special class interests; it turned on the judgment and defending the vital interests of the nation” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 146). "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). "Fascism, by contrast [to libertarianism, 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). "This book is not concerned with the so-called 'mainstream right,' such as conservatives and liberals/libertarians, but only with those on the right who are 'anti-system,' defined here as hostile to liberal democracy. This is what I call the far right, which is itself divided into two broader subgroups. The extreme right rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule. The most infamous example of the extreme right is fascism, which brought to power German Führer Adolf Hitler and Italian Duce Benito Mussolini, and was responsible for the most destructive war in world history. The radical right accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law, and separation of powers. Both subgroups oppose the postwar liberal democratic consensus, but in fundamentally different ways. While the extreme right is revolutionary, the radical right is more reformist. In essence, the radical right trusts the power of the people, the extreme right does not" (Cas Mudde "The Far Right Today" 2019 digital: p. 6). “ 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.” The problem is, even your own citations don't prove your points. They looked down upon welfare, thought it was a failed policy that only drained the state and rewarded the lazy. They wanted the help the "workers," yes, by making them work, and work with their private owners, the same thing conservatives say today. I have to conclude that you haven't actually read your own citations. And of course that's not to mention you ignoring Mussolini's open declarations of conservatism.
    1
  1900.  @renanvinicius6036  Interesting that you bring up Spengler, given he so easily disproves your point. Spengler proves that open conservatives were attempting to take the title "socialist" for their own, without ever belonging to the left, or socialism. In the book Prussianism and Socialism, Spengler argues that "socialism" must be private, must be based on conservative traditionalist principles, must be hierarchical and right wing. Does that sound like socialism to you? He was an open conservative, a proud member of the german neoconservative movement. Let's read some quotes on him - "Spengler is regarded as a nationalist and an anti-democrat, and he was a prominent member of the Conservative Revolution... He saw Benito Mussolini, and entrepreneurial types, like the imperialist mining magnate Cecil Rhodes,[3] as examples of the impending Caesars of Western culture...", "According to some recent critics such as Ishay Landa, "Prussian socialism" has some decidedly capitalistic traits.[38] Spengler declares himself resolutely opposed to labor strikes (Spengler describes them as "the unsocialistic earmark of Marxism"), trade unions ("wage-Bolshevism" in Spengler's terms), progressive taxation or any imposition of taxes on the rich ("dry Bolshevism"), any shortening of the working day (he argues that workers should work even on Sundays), as well as any form of government insurance for sickness, old age, accidents, or unemployment.[38] At the same time as he rejects any social democratic provisions, Spengler celebrates private property, competition, imperialism, capital accumulation, and "wealth, collected in few hands and among the ruling classes."[38] Landa describes Spengler's "Prussian Socialism" as "working a whole lot, for the absolute minimum, but – and this is a vital aspect – being happy about it."[38]" Spengler denounced marx not because he didn't understand "the socialist nature of the germans," but because Spengler's "socialism" was an explicitly conservative, capitalist ideology. Spengler despised the idea that the poor had any conflict with the rich, since he saw the rich as justified in their power and wealth. He didn't like the modern progressive leaders, he hated socialism, and he was very open about both of these things. But of course, he used the word socialist, so you ignore that. He, like you, seemed to like to project, calling marxism capitalism while pushing a system of private ownership. True socialism, according to Spengler, was capitalism. Corporatism, the private, free market system he advocated for, is the natural end result of capitalism. You didn't refute me at all, you ran away, and in trying to deflect, proved my point for me. Done :)
    1
  1901.  @renanvinicius6036  In other words, in an attempt to deflect from mussolini's conservatism, you ran away and brought up yet another conservative, who was also incredibly influential to the fascist movement, and praised mussolini
    1
  1902.  @renanvinicius6036  On some level you have to understand that you're just making this easy for me
    1
  1903.  @renanvinicius6036  Thank you for admitting that you've been refuted :)
    1
  1904. And yet, the video fails at it's goal.
    1
  1905.  @MrYukoncornileus  Nah, i'm just right. It's ok, you can admit it.
    1
  1906.  @MrYukoncornileus  That and everything else, like the side of the political spectrum they rested on, their philosophy, justification, the fact that the nazis weren't socialists in any form, the list really goes on and on. Did both suck? Yes. Were they the same? Not even close.
    1
  1907.  @MrYukoncornileus  Nazi germany was a right wing, authoritarian state that granted the workers nothing and put them in camps if they dared say a bad thing about the nation. They allied with conservatives and capitalists far more often than with socialists, and preached a system of natural meritocracy and social darwinism. Everything I just told you, and so much more, proves they were not at all socialist. The similarities you're seeing is that they were both authoritarian.
    1
  1908. Hitler: isn't a socialist Idiots: classic socialist
    1
  1909. no offense, but you might want to fact-check tik before you do that, at least on videos like these
    1
  1910.  @TheImperatorKnight  TIK, would you just for half a second stop trying to shut down arguments and stay out of things that you really don't have a reason to barge into.
    1
  1911.  @markmaier2503  I would hope so yes, and I wish you the best of luck, but if you want good sources on the classification of both contemporary and historical politics and political ideology, you can probably find far less biased and more comprehensive sources elsewhere.
    1
  1912.  @markmaier2503  His explanation of economics is frankly silly, which is the problem. He argues that there is next to no distinction between corporations and the state, both of which he considers socialist entities. That's my problem with using him as a source, that just isn't how we understand and use those terms today.
    1
  1913.  @markmaier2503  Perhaps, but the point is that he's been doing this for a while now. People get into a discussion in his comments, good faith or bad faith, and he decides to come in and shut it all down all while blaming those who are trying to talk. I just find it a bit annoying, yes he's in his right, but it doesn't seem conducive to productive argumentation.
    1
  1914. let me add in more "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism " And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago." " Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national." "“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility." "Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” - Adolf Hitler. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1 https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/ https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKBN1K331J
    1
  1915.  @harnanmylvaganam6311  I watched the entire thing, thanks. And why do you ask?
    1
  1916.  @ajknaup3530  Saying "madness" doesn't make something not true. The actions and ideology of the nazis did not fit the definition of socialism. The actions of the USSR do not fit the definition of socialism. Perry basic stuff.
    1
  1917.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  they do support "private property" though. Just the private property they agree with, like nearly every advocate of private property. Your "therefore," yet again, does not logically follow. In any case, TIK advocates for a system he calls capitalism, which is defined by exclusively private ownership of the means of production. As in, as I said, a system in which the private companies he calls socialist, marxist, fascist, ect, would not exist. And given his railing against "socialism" as a failed system, evidently he wants to benefit "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." And yes, you can support private property but make exceptions. This cannot be compared to racism, as being racist against any one group makes you a racist even if you don't hate other racial groups, whereas you can support private property in some areas and still support private property. The only way to not support private property is to call for the complete abolishment or dissolution of it. And I suppose you think that basic capitalist economics are "the labor theory of value?" Profit is defined as income minus expenses. The statement "as the product of their labor must always be more than what they are paid in compensation." is objectively true, as their generated profit for their boss (income) must always be less than what they are paid (expense) or necessary profit will not be achieved. You say I support the labor theory of value based on the idea of surplus labor, which is not only not exclusive to the LTV, but also has nothing to do with what i'm saying. You support a system where people owe their very lives to bosses, and you can't even prove your assertions. And you're joking, right? "And anyway, how is the product of my labour [sic] necessarily more than what I am getting paid as per my contract, which I signed?" Because you are generating profit for your boss, which is income minus expense, as we've gone over time and time again. And quoting you, directly, isn't omitting anything, nor is it removing the easily viewable context. Would you like for me to quote your entire response and online history next time, to avoid "omitting" anything? He was consistent with his support of certain parts of private property, this didn't change, and thus wasn't inconsistent. He didn't contradict these beliefs either, that claim of yours is unsupported. Given that he was a fascist, his support of private property is a given, despite your unfounded and unexplained assertions otherwise. He was consistent, in support of certain consistent types of private property. Abolishing the income tax is a policy proposed only be socialists when said socialists also advocate abolishing the state. Did he advocate for this? No? Then it was not a socialist policy. Socialists advocate for autarky in the context of collectively owned property in a single country. Did he advocate for this? No, he advocated for private property. And the "idea of fascists being socialists" is just that, an idea, just as a fantasy is an idea, and just like a fantasy, it has no bearing on reality. The fact that fascism was born out of a rejection of socialism should point any reasonable person in the opposite direction of them being socialists, but reasonability has never been your strong sense. Another funny addition - if you truly believed that socialism is collective (which you define as state) control, why would they need to even involve trade unions, according to your definition? The very existence of organized labor, even in what most would call the private sector, is "public" according to you. The fact that you then go to this length to appeal to other definitions of socialism tells me that you have no confidence in your definitions of public or private. And again, your unfounded assertion that a system that prioritized control of private corporations, while abolishing trade unions, had an opposite system, is false. In fascist italy, you saw the power of the trade union was overtaken by the power of organized business private corporations. (Fascism and the Industrial Leadership in Italy before the March on Rome, Sarti, 1968) Ethnic conflicts based... on ideas of cultural or ethnic superiority! Amazing. I love as well how you utterly skip over the fact that the imperialist and colonialist conflicts were based on the nationalism of the imperializing nations to begin with, which were the chief subjugator of these other countries. And how is pointing out ethnic tensions a "blood and soil" argument? Also, the movements of Germany and Italy were objectively independence movements, as not only did they attempt to reunify their shattered parts, but also remove said parts from the restrictive control of their neighbors. Hell, even hitler framed his nationalism as a push for the independence of what he saw as "ethnic germans" from their unfair separation and rule by other nations.
    1
  1918.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "Second time" as in you know that you already asked this question, and it was already answered. He advocated for a system in which these private companies would not exist, and has spent hours calling them socialist and in turn railing against socialism. Do you presume that he has no desire to dismantle them in his idea society? Again, your assertion that the conditional support of private property = not supporting private property at all is not founded in reality. Ownership of private property has always been based on arbitrary decision making, types and ideas of property have fallen in and out of style and are debated to this day. Conditional support of private property is support of private property. You do realize how little you understand of basic economics, and that one does not need to prescribe an objective value to labor to realize that they must impart more value onto their bosses than they receive in return? Do you realize that in the modern world it is impossible for everyone to be self employed, some must work for others, and a true system of wholly self employed people would not be capitalist? Your single example of one man doesn't change this fact - there must be a lower class of employees in capitalism. Any functional business uses its employees to generate profit from their labor, the worker is not guaranteed this profit, and in fact, it is guaranteed that they will not receive the full amount of what they have made their boss. And why would I include in a quote irrelevant information and pointless qualifiers when the original quote gives the context and meaning of the statement? Can you find an example of a statist socialist advocating for the abolishing of an income tax, when in reality, the vast majority of statists socialist advocate for precisely the opposite? Hell, do you understand many statist socialist systems don't even advocate for systems of income by profit, so how would they even apply such a tax? And as we've been over, it is entirely possible to support or disavow only choice parts of private property while still maintaining support of private property. Well at least you can admit that fascism is an ideology that utterly rejects marxism, socialism, leftism, ect. And I notice you leave that question unanswered - again, according to you, as long as the economy is in the hands of any group bigger than a family, would it not be state or collective owned by your logic? Pointing out that trade unions are collectives does not disprove the fct that you do not seem to have confidence in your definitions, or else you would simply point at the existence of business owned by more than families and declare the economy to be state owned. And private corporations are far from an oxymoron, they are two words that are intertwined more than many, many others. Corporations are owned by private individuals, the shareholders, yes. Not publicly, by a state, but privately, by a myriad of private backers. We've been over this hon, corporations are private. And the motivation and excuse for imperialist and colonialist conquest was more often than not nationalism, a desire to expand the nation and to push out against the world for room and resources for the "superior people" of whatever nation wad doing the conquering. Nations and ethnicities can overlap quite heavily. And what do you mean independence from whom? Independence from the countries who split them apart, independence from the countries which often absorbed or nearly directly controlled said fractured parts of those countries, independence from the countries that ruled over people that Germans and Italians thought were rightfully their citizens. Fascism is by necessity a nationalist belief, and not one for independence. The fact that not all nationalist countries happened to go fascist isn't prove that fascism is nationalist.
    1
  1919.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743     he spends literal hours railing against socialism to the point of attempting to redefine the term to all statism, and all statism to simply all human organization greater than a family. The man clearly has a huge problem with socialism, why do you assume he would allow a capitalist (what he calls socialist) state, or the private companies he calls states. The "repetition" comes from the fact that you are utterly unable to actually provide any sort of evidence of reasoning as to your claim that conditional support of private property means a total rejection of private property. A man wearing red pants is still wearing red, even if his socks are blue. And I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm simply stating a fact you are unable and unwilling to address, that fact being that the labor of the employee must always profit their boss more than the employee is paid in turn. How much each party values their takeaway doesn't change that. A system of true self employment and self ownership is historically one advocated for by self labelled and adamant anti capitalist socialists and anarchists. I mean, a system where each and every individual, as in the community as a whole, owns the means of production without usury, profit, or employership? How does that sound like capitalism to you? Add that in with the voluntary associations and that sounds far more like what you would call an anti-pricate nightmare than what you'd call capitalism. Simply put, our modern system is more private than a system where every individual works for themselves. Many systems are, as that system... Isn't private And again, why would I quote redundant, useless, pointless, or already established statements instead of what I actually need to quote? And ah yes, Kim Il-Sung, the start of a monarchist regime. How "socialist." Next you'll tell me that you unironically think monarchist socialism is possible. Fascism rejects all socialism, not just your callous redefinition of it. Socialism, Marxism, communism, leftism, ect. Leftism is defined as a push for equality and a lessening of hierarchy. Where did the Nazis fit this definition? They didn't? Right. And because you feeling the need to include trade unions proves that you don't have confidence in your definitions. If you did, the inclusion of trade unions would be pointless, as the mere mention of companies and corporations would prove in your eyes that this was a supposedly public effort. The fact that you feel the need to include trade unions, when in historical reality their influence was always overshadowed by private corporations and business owners which lessened their powers, proves that you either don't actually believe that public is anything larger than a family, and your lack of an actual refutation is only further proof of this. But it isn't, according to any source on basic economics or advanced economics and so on you can take. All business incorporates and attracts a large amount of the public with significant influence over the business, these people are called "customers." Corporations are private entities run for the profit of a few private individuals, and having large amounts of private backers does not change that. Again, by your definition, the influence of the public's support of a company would make said company public. Good thing your definitions are not reflected in reality And it doesn't change the fact that all of these aspects of colonialism were either intertwined or direct results of nationalism. Nationalism has been justified religiously for centuries, and the expansion of a nation being seen as a god given mission is a result of nationalism. The need for profit, similarly, is a result of nationalism, because who do you thi k they're trying to get money for? Their country, their people. All of merchantilism and the associated colonialism and imperialism, for example, was literally just the extraction of goods and resources for the benefit of the home nation in question. The need to offload prisoners is, again, a product of nationalism, in that it is in support of the idea of a superior people, which the inferiors must be separated from. See the connections? And... Oh gosh. Do I literally need to give you a crash course in WW1 and pre-WW1 Europe for you to admit the control over both fragmented countries? I mean, they wanted so desperately to unite, who do you assume held them apart or separated them in the first place? Think Which is why I said that they can, not that they can overlap, not that they always do. And while ethnic conflict as a result of arbitrarily drawn borders is the case in the middle east, before even this said ethnicities had developed their own pseudo nations, a historical occurrence that also took place in Europe. And yes, fascism is nationalistic, by what seems as the historically unavoidable result of and definition of nationalism.
    1
  1920.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So, he opposed the idea of socialism, railed against private companies he labelled socialist because they dared to moderate their own platforms, and declares socialist systems to be horrible failures that are an attack on human rights... but he's just fine about them. But we aren't. We're talking about a man who is wearing red, as in, they support private property, but not wearing all red, as in, they don't support all examples of what others call private property. This is common, again, within even those who advocate for private property above all else. Remember the intellectual property debate? Your claim of inconsistency, and thus him not wearing red at all, is false. Profit is determined, again, by income minus expense. Profit may hold subjective value to one person, but said profit is objectively income minus expense, and thus, must be more than what the employee is paid, and often it is only "profiting" both parties in unequal amounts. I hate to break it to you but each individual owning their own means of production is the foundation of socialist and anarchist theory. It seems you have yet to understand that a collective... is made up of individuals, many individuals. I guess socialism is "very private" to you .Voluntary associations, as we've been over, are something capitalists seem to detest in that their associations are through coercion, and voluntary collective associations are dubbed as states by statist capitalists. Markets, however, aren't capitalism, and private property is not a result of markets of voluntary association. Also, we've been over this, individualist anarchists are still anti-capitalists. For example, you quote Tucker here, apparently assuming his definition of private property is the same as yours. Sadly for you, his did not include some pretty basics things, Tucker saying ""interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder." How very capitalist of him. 6 words that are utterly pointless, and do not necessitate inclusion for any real reason. He was, quite literally, the start of said dictatorship. His system could not be described as any form of AES, and in the beginning they even admitted this, saying that they needed Juche before socialism, self reliance before self actualization. That was before the propaganda machine took hold, at least, thought that's more historical context I don't imagine hearing from you. But they didn't reject "only Big-S Socialism," they rejected all socialism, all leftism, and the traditional allies of both. The nazis were fascists, all you're pointing out is that different forms of fascism competed or despised eachother, and this is only natural. I mean, the vast majority of even openly fascist countries fought among themselves, they were nationalists who believed that their nation, their people, and their mythology was the only correct type, of course they didn't like those that claimed the same. This is like claiming a monarch wasn't a monarchist because they despised the monarch of another country that equally claimed to be chosen by god. Fascism is simply the ideological umbrella nazism is located under. But thank you for citing Hitler's head propagandist, always a funny source to see pop up. "[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)." And this has to do with Mosley because he, like the regimes before him, rejected socialism and leftism. I already have, remember? A citation you have failed to address. Trade Unions in fascist systems were abolished or subjugated, the remains of them then put under the direct orders of both their bosses and a state that wanted to maximize private efficiency. The economy of the nazis, the italian fascists, austrian fascists, ect were run by large private organizations, not trade unions, and not the government. However, this shouldn't matter to you, as we've been over, the very existence of private organization is enough for you to label them collective, right? But hell, here's a few more. (Ian Kershaw "Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris" 1998, digital: loc. 10,031). (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214). (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 p. 16). William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, New York, NY, Simon & Schuster, 2011, p. 203 I did feel the need to include trade unions, not because of confidence in definitions, but because that was part of the corporatist system. The fascist economy in Italy was run by employer organizations, trade unions and the government. [The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, page 143] Back up your claims that "private" corporations undercut trade unions, and then get back to me. Which is an absolutely false definition of both private and public, but thanks for trying to cite a segregationist to say otherwise. Corporations being backed by private donors or stockholders is in effect no different from them being backed by private customers. Both how indirect and minimal power over the actual workings of a company, and yet, both are used by the company to further their goal of private profit. You simply think all private organizations are public because they are supported by private individuals. And while that opening statement might be true in a void, it is certainly not true in the actual recorded history of nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism. And yeah, they were trying to get currency for their leader... you know, the person they thought was chosen by god to lead their superior nation to prosperity? And again, the idea that a country should be purged of the "unsightly" folk is based in nationalism. Nationalism and the religion that backed it were intertwined. And ah yes, the countries holding you apart that kept a strict watch over you and often put political pressure on your fractured parts to remain fractured has no power over you, yes! What an amazingly inept "observation." I recommend taking any introductory course to WW1 and pre-WW1 Europe. And yes, there can be, usually for the support of one nation... to the exclusion or detriment of others. Both of which always end up in the same place, the first definition.
    1
  1921.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Well no, youtube is far from the only private company he's attacked, he attacked amazon for example, calling it marxist. And, as we've been over, youtube is a private company owned by private property owners and private shareholders. And capitalists literally claim that socialism even in theory is an attack on human rights, he is no different, so i'm not sure why you're trying to downplay his hatred of private companies to paint him as a socialist-tolerate. Because wearing blue socks =/= wearing all blue. The man in question has explicit support for forms of private property, with caveats in the forms of private property that aligns with national interests. He supports private property, objectively, even according to his ideology there is internal logic in his supports of only certain types. Income of the boss must always be more than the worker. That is a Tucker quote, as is the statement ""Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism". Individualist anarchists, historically, didn't always believe that markets by necessity or implication would lead to their desired system, in fact many pointed out the inherent problem with capitalist markets as shown by even the modern society they lived in. In reality, they often did emphasize action against the state. Private Property is not natural, hence it being a system only held up through violent and constant statism. Rothbard also very openly proves that the right cannot hope to replicate their mentality, given that he himself became an open statist in defense of "traditional values" and law and order systems, which absolutely doesn't sound fascistic at all, not one bit. Allying with a notorious racist didn't help his case there either. In any case, you differ from most capitalists when you decree that socialism can be voluntary. ...You mean the very thing you've been doing for about three days now in our other little thread, where you call something a lie while leaving out any argumentation or the points against you? How honest. And yet it was he who quite literally set up a system that would allow for exactly this. Also, "he was a socialist because he collectivized things" is just an... amazing point. There definitely are no other explicitly non-socialist ideologies like monarchism which put industry under the control of collectives! Why not? Does the capitalism of the S imply that only this specific term may be rejected, and all the other socialism that they directed so much hate against was to be simply ignored? And citing a fanatic convinced by his own words isn't particicularly much better. Then why do they capitalise on the S? And yes, I did cite Hitler's head propagandist, and I cited this particular text because it wasn't propaganda. It was his own diary and none of which would reach the public until the late 1940s if that. So your assertion that fascism and nazi ideology were not the same is based only on your rejection of fascist movements having racial or antisemetic policies, yet another TIK talking point? The problem is, fascism historically has necessitated both antisemetism and racism. Notice how your quotes specifically point out not that racism didn't exist, or even that it wasn't enforced on a state level violently. In fact, your quotes make explicit note of antisemetism in the fascist italian government. The problem is that you're comparing it to the genocidal antisemetism and racism of the nazis, which is just the absolute worse end of the spectrum, but not the only end. Italy's government had policies and social pushes against jewish people for years before they allied themselves with hitler, and attacked other italian and slavic racial identities even before then. The italian government not sharing "*genocidal* traits" or not killing people en masse as a result of their race or ethnicity does not mean that they weren't antisemetic, they in fact clearly were and to a far larger degree than most latent antisemetism in the modern day. You assert that a systematic push put in place for years that ended up with "Italian Jews [suffering] innumerable indignities and material losses was actually "little antisemetism." What Jewish people faced in fascist italy could easily be compared to the undeniable racist policies of Jim Crow america, They were restricted in their ability to practice their faith, where they could go, what businesses they could use and even run, and so on. This is undeniably government based antisemitism, just not as violent as the Nazis. How can you assert that antisemitism was not at the core of fascist ideology when your own example was a blatantly antisemitic nation? Like, what do you define antisemitism as where you need to be openly genocidal to fit the definition? Allying with Hitler absolutely pushed his antisemitism to the final genocidal notch, but it did not create said antisemitism. So yet again, you use the contents of a book written anonymously that you only assert to without proof as "evidence" for your claim that the openly far right defender of private piperty... didn't reject socialism. Have you considered what he defined syndicalism as? In any case, I'm showing that he proved support of private property not through Rhetoric but actions, so his definition of the term doesn't actually need apply. And I already quoted from sources relating to both the uprooting of trade unions and the ideological link between fascism and Nazism that you simply rejected in favor of another non sequitur argument. Nazism and fascism are not "completely different," not have you provided any evidence to this assertion. What you have provided on the other hand is proof of inherent antisemitism and racism to fascism, so the real question is how you think fascist italy doesn't fit those terms? I would say it's pretty dam relevant given it's his judgement you're basing your statements off of, so perhaps not the most sound. And how does your average shareholder not fit the exact same definition? Customers exert far more control over business than shareholders in most cases, after all it it the customers that determine the practices and profit of the business. Customers, by your definition, are a public of people, a Publix that exert total control over a business. What this tells me is that in between what you call private and what you call public there is no difference. Both are private, as they have always been, desire your hatred of private capitalist companies like YouTube. Wow, such amazing unexplained historical facts! Get back to me however when you can address the undeniàlinks between nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, profit, and religion. I suppose this will take a while for you to get to. Calling you inept is a perfect answer actually, as it perfectly predicted your next "argument!" - . A single potential emperor doesn't disprove an objective political trend, and give the power of other European states "of his own volition" is in doubt. -there is actually the whole reason of a coalition having to form in the first place, and the fact that you staying this means you admit to political force being impsrted. - having conflicting interests doesn't disprove the ability to have interests in common, which we've already established that they did according to historical record. -"nobody," besides the people that actively sperated it and enforced said separation I guess. So, quite a few people actually. And what makes you think otherwise? Even nationalist movements that start in a desire for independence often become movements of superiority when said independence is achieved and pushed further. This is an observable political and historical trend, on what basis do you deny it?
    1
  1922.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  How embarrassing for you TIK fanatics to assume that one could watch the video and yet see through his rhetoric and base one's statements off of his otherwise disparate thoughts and actions. Yes! Shareholders, private individuals financing a private company. Never said he was wearing all red, though, I just correctly pointed out that he is wearing red. As we've been over, debate rages on and on about what can be private property, some say you can voluntarily sell yourself into slavery, others say that intellectual property is private property. Nobody wears all red, so no, support of private property does not necessitate total support for all aspects of private property. Income of the boss will always be greater than income of the worker, as we've been over. Oh wow, how amazing. You ignore the quote in question as well as another provided quote, and you do so with the excuse that... you googled it. Well here I was with a book source (Martin Blatt, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty. Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.)) But I suppose since you googled it, you're the real expert! And as we've been over, markets to do necessitate capitalism. Property is an unnatural system enforced by violence. On what right do you claim that pen? Only your word? Try reading his statements in "Right Wing Populism." You know, the small pamphlet where he stated his support for David Duke, said things such as "5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" or "Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals." or that he thought these things would "Defend Family Values?" Never heard of that? In reality, Rothbard utterly discarded the teachings of individualist anarchists, and replaced only the most basic of readings with his own interpretations. Individualist Anarchists called for markets, for competition, for possession... and he warped this to be capitalism, domination, and private property. And you haven't heard of Mises... interesting praise of the nazis? I didn't, though. I included all that needed to be included to show the basis of your argument and what you stated in the past, and nothing more than necessary. He created the cult of personality and put in place the policies that would lead to this. So your assertion here is that when they rejected socialism, what they meant was only a single party, and not the whole of socialism that they reject on a basic values basis, and spoke out openly against for years? Alright, makes total perfect sense. Oh wait, no, it really doesn't at all given the fascist rejection of socialism. It isn't, though. Your quotes provided do nothing to prove your assertion of "little antisemetism," and quite openly show the opposite is true, and that Italy was an antisemetic country at its base. Mussolini's racist and antisemetic statements go back further than that, but the question now is why do you think one must have put in place antisemetic policies first thing in their reign? Hell, Mussolini didn't even put in place his idea economic system in the beginning, why would he have instantly lessened his public support by introducing racial policies that the majority of the italians disagreed with? Having a jewish friend, or a jewish mistress in this case, doesn't disproven antisemetism. The simple fact is that these policies were core to antisemetism, and while Mussolini's bigotry was based on nations and not race for the beginning of his rule, he ideologically pivoted to racism without even a bit of ideological resistance, and the only reason he hadn't done so sooner is because it was not advantageous to the riling up of his party. Slavic, like Irish, was at one time viewed as a different race from white. Try again. Given that parties are rarely cohesive and that propaganda is common, again one must ask why you are unwilling to provide his actual statements Oh, amazing! "probably," what a stellar and well supported argument. So why are you so unwilling to cite his actual beliefs, and not what you think he "probably" believed? In reality, like all fascists, Mosley saw the average person as one that could not rule themselves, but needed rule by others. That is the basis of authoritarianism, after all. So on what basis then do you presume that he wanted workers to remain equal in their ownership of business, and not state or private forces to lead and dominate those "inferiors" who were made to be led and dominated? Probably isn't a citation, nor an answer. Advocating for statist protection of private property, abolishing the income tax, proposing a purge of communists and socialists, ect. Then, here's a wild thought, you could try actually reading the source in question? Just a suggestion. Oh, so you finally doubt the idea that he was a segregationist? How telling. And again, if you disagree policy wise in one area, what makes you trust him in any other areas? I guess you've not heard of a boycott then. You know, an organized move to coerce business to appeal to their demands by the customers by refusing to buy products. Shareholders, individually, have less ownership than most basic consumers. But that would be socialism/communism/fascism/marxism for you to suggest!! So you're just going to utterly ignore my counters and ask instead to go back to an old talking point? Amazing, why am I not surprised, your speciality is thinly veiled deflection. - Not really, given the influence of other european powers over the territories, and the individual battles the territories fought in favor of unification divorced from prussia. - Great, you will however have to point out how that doesn't in any way disprove your previous statements, i'm sure that won't be hard at all for you? - Given that you use the word "cucked" I highly doubt you have any level of experience with international policies, especially as they existed historically in centuries passed. - Can you not read? We've been over this. Because the majority of said countries never had the push to do so. If there was benefit in claiming superiority over said countries of their past domination they would have absolutely taken action against them, the final state of nationalism. Most of these also are false, such as "polish over the russian," which is plainly disproven by even a cursory glance at modern polish politics. The fact that no incentive to remain nationalistic existed, doesn't disprove the historical trend of nationalism.
    1
  1923.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  'I would recommend then you watching his video on Amazon UK's choice to stop selling copies of Hitler's book, and see what he called Amazon in the comments, the description, and the video itself. Where is this supposed evidence to the contrary? To you maybe, but you're an ideologue. I prefer the words of economists who happily point out the private industry in question. Which is another non sequitur, and an admittance you can't respond to the point. Nobody supports all possible examples of private property. Supporting private property in some cases but not others is still supporting private property. Oh ok, so you have your own position in the debates, therefore all other positions are rendered invalid? Amazing, thank you for proving you yourself are wearing blue socks, and thus according to your logic, don't support private property at all. I'm sure that's a surprise for you. No, it really doesn't. A boss must make more. "Oh, you have a book source? Well sorry, I have a random website with a line on it, so I must be right!" When you learn how to actually cite material, and deal with the fact that sometimes said material contradicts your narrative, I would try again. But you're not going to do that, are you? Given that you have previously and vocally stated that you think voluntary association and cooperation is a statist system? Markets do not necessitate capitalism, as we've been over, which is why Benjamin Tucker was a self-proclaimed socialist, that looked down on profit, usury, and banking as systems that were deeply corrupt and had no basis in an anarchist society. "all our multi-millionaires and millionaires, all our predatory capitalists owe their ill-gotten wealth to monopoly and the plunder and ruthless exploitation licensed by monopoly" You really didn't though, not the full thing. ...And then he pointed out that he thought libertarians would do better to ally with their authoritarian rightist brothers, and abandon support of non-family values, as according to him, said values were only being suppressed by the state and taking the state out of it would mean a return to traditional values. In any case, trying to explain the context of the piece the quotes were found in isn't a refutation of the quotes, and on that front you really don't have much at all to offer, huh? Rothbard went authoritarian. Sorry. Yeah, sorry, looking at an anticapitalist and applying capitalism to their beliefs is warping them. Sorry I guess? In reality what he stated was not ""socialism and fascism aren't good, fascism does seem less not good than socialism, so if a gun was on my head, I would pick fascism." In fact, no mention of a forced decision, or a gun to his head, was ever made, so that is a total fabrication. In reality what he stated was that fascism was an ally on the side of the maintenance of property, and that the effort of fascists to repel and repress socialists was not only commendable, but worthy of eternal praise. His qualifier though is that he does not believe in fascist because it only suppresses through violence, whereas he supports suppression through idealogical extermination. Good thing that was what I included, and the part excluded was a redundant clause. The vast, vast majority of cults of personality devolve towards dictatorships or attempts at them, this is a historical fact. And how is an authoritarian control of a government, with all the power being placed in the hands of a single man who would pass said power down through a family, not ripe for monarchy? I have, and your lack of argumentation is more proof you have no counter. By not pointing it out and instead asserting something that can be seen to not have any basis in the reality of fascist italy? Again, you have yet to address why the time specification makes sense. This is blatant defense of fascists and has no basis in reality. Because he desired political support, and he eventually did kick them out. One might by this logic call hitler a Strasserite, because he allowed them into his party... until he didn't. Do you see the problem with asserting that a politician looking for public support means more than that? Nope, this is blatant revisionism not reflected in reality, slavic people weren't considered white. Ah, I see you left out some key terms here. Let's put your unexplained quotes into context, why don't we? "The answers to these questions are becoming ever more clear as the experiment in socialism proceeds. To begin with, the real motive of the British workers in giving their support to a Socialist party was to get rid of the capitalist “boss-class” and thus escape from exploitation. Bitter is their disappointment to find that they have merely exchanged masters. In place of individual “bosses” who were, at least, susceptible to the threat of strikes, they have now one universal “boss” against whom a strike is rapidly becoming regarded as at the least an unpatriotic, if not treasonable, action. Far from getting rid of a privileged “boss-class” of owners, they now find themselves saddled with an army of black-coated, pinstripe-trousered, bureaucrats, many of whom are quartered in the very country houses from which the former “capitalist” owners have been ejected. Does this involve any progress for the workers? Many are beginning to doubt it. Nationalization has placed any real control over the conditions of their industry far further beyond their reach than in the “bad old days” when they could often bring effective pressure to bear upon bad employers by strike action. Now grievances have to pass through a cumbersome bureaucratic machine where each department attempts to shelve responsibility for decisions from one clerk to another. Hence the ridiculous “stint” dispute in Durham which could have been settled in a fraction of the time under private ownership without involving dozens of other pits and wasting hundreds of thousands of tons of coal." So you believe that he defined syndicalism one way... because you found a quote of his explaining something else? That's an odd point to try to make. "Syndicalism stands for Workers' Control of Industry. The term "worker" covers managers, technicians and operatives, these expressions indicating functions and not social position. It is from the ranks of these workers that chairmen, directors and other executives will be elected by the Assemblies, as against, under capitalism, by the shareholders." This describe technocracy more than socialism. > "A return to syndical methods of combating capitalism offers new hope of emancipating the British workers and preserving their hard won liberties." this quote, quite literally, says nothing about equal ownership of business. Do you have any actual proof for that assertion? And as we've been over, being "inconsistent" doesn't mean not supporting private property. Monarchists have abolished an income tax for their own reason (self reliance) and his rejection of socialism and leftism as a whole is plain. It seems a type of socialism wasn't his goal. "Let us go back in history and realize that the real tragedy for the industrial worker was the loss of his tools, in medieval times he began as an apprentice, learned his craft and became in due course a journeyman possessing his own tools, travelling as a free man through the length and breadth of not only his own country but often of the whole of Europe. Wherever he went he was in a position to exercise his craft and maintain himself, until he had acquired sufficient experience to settle down himself as a master-craftsman employing his own apprentices and journeymen. The next step was to take his place as one of the burgesses ruling his own walled town defying the robber barons of the countryside, with every possibility of becoming the burgomaster of a community of craftsmen, such as formed the Hanscatic League and other groups of the free cities of Europe." I very, very much doubt this assertion of yours. Well all you had to do was ask, one simply needs to read his article on Dubar Highschool, a segregated school he claims was better off in private segregation, to see these points. And those disagreements need to have rationale, so on what basis do you refute only one of these interwoven opinions of his on these topics? A vote or push by shareholders to do something, by this logic, are simply incentives. They might not even succedd, the average shareholder has a very small stake after all. Amazing "argument" And then I pointed out how your examples, things like money, fame, religion, ect, were all still a result of nationalistic policy and were largely a result of nationalism in the country in question. Your response to this was.... quite literally, as expected, nothing. - The multiple independence wars of both italy and germany, the push to reunify the italian kingdom, ect - So you can't actually do what I asked of you, wonderful! I'm really not surprised, though. - Explain how you think "cucked" is appropriate language, and how you think a single war cuts off all ties between nations? - Sure, let's start with Austrian, who fought in one of the italian independence wars. As in, there were multiple. According to whom? You gave an example of countries that let go of their nationalism while still claiming they followed nationalism. Then you might want to look closer, at the absolute reactionary, bordering fascist policies that have taken hold from a lifetime of soviet resentment.
    1
  1924.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  P1 I understand that he got annoyed that neo-nazis will have to get their manifestos from less convenient places, but the simple fact is TIK is willing to call private corporations, including amazon, Marxist. If you still doubt this, despite my citation of a video you evidently haven't watched, feel free to leave a comment asking him Ah, you're still in your echo chamber. My apologies. No, economists are happy to admit to the private nature of these companies, which is why said capitalist economists and their supporters are so keen on defending them. Not really, no. First off, your attempted divide is false, there are plenty of people who defend the use of things like public roads because they feel that even though private roads are private property, they are inefficient and should be replaced. Mosley saw the internationally inclined private industries in a similar way, as private, but inefficient and better replaced by another system... one still counting them as private property. It isn't a false equivalence to compare two people who only support private property in choice situations. According to you, the person who has a stake in the debate in question. I didn't ask for your position, but you providing it only further proves my point, blue socks. Not really at all but go off I guess, amazing """"arguments""""" as always. Ah, another unfounded citation! Do you have any evidence that the author attributed the quote elsewhere? I mean, your only source is yet another website and not the book in question, so I can see how you're incapable of doing even the most basic fact check, hence your denial of the statements of Mises, Rothbard, ect, as well as your refusal to acknowledge other quotes of Tucker that qualify his use of the term private property. Wow, you like statism??? socialist!!! Sorry, what does "markets to do" mean to you? Does that sound like a coherent response, or a typo corrected by a phone that's being typed on? If I had said "markets do necessitate capitalism" I could see your confusion, but given that even before your quoted statements I had been saying markets do not necessitate capitalism, you might want to brush up on this conversation. ...You mean it was a quote, cited by Yarros, in a book about Benjamin Tucker? Oh, come on, I knew you were prone to first-page googling, but this is quite sad. "Philosophical anarchism was an American phenomenon propounded by Benjamin R. Thucker of New Bedford, Massachusetts, who was influenced by Proudhon's What Is Property? He founded the journal Liberty in 1882 and continued to edit it for nearly thirty years. He was a pacifist and advocated an absence of all compulsion even in government. From American associates he came to advocate extreme individualism, holding that all coercion was immoral. The four major monopolies which he attacked were land, money and banking, trade, patents and copyright. " [ Yarros, V. (1936). Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, and Eclipse. American Journal of Sociology ] Yes yes we know, the pen is magically yours because you threw some slips of paper at a worker. What an amazing system. ...did you just unironically say "Right Unity?" Are you a fucking jreg fan? "He doesn't say anything on family values, other than the things he said on family values, which show a support of traditional values." He was laying down a program that he agreed with, and that he thought was a necessity for the pushing of libertarianism in the future, hence why he argued for each of these points through a libertarian lens. Thank you for admitting that his views were warped, and not reflected by Rothbard and others. Hm. One quote of a full chapter. I wonder what you're leaving out? Oh, right. "For the majority of its public and secret supporters and admirers, however, its appeal consists precisely in the violence of its methods. Now it cannot be denied that the only way one can offer effective resistance to violent assaults is by violence. Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. No liberal has ever called this into question." "This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. " "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. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error." So, in other words, what I said earlier. "fascism was an ally on the side of the maintenance of property, and that the effort of fascists to repel and repress socialists was not only commendable, but worthy of eternal praise. His qualifier though is that he does not believe in fascist because it only suppresses through violence, whereas he supports suppression through ideological extermination." Where is this loaded gun you mentioned, though? According to you, the person pissed I only quoted the statements that mattered. Because the cult of personality was built up not just around him, but as soon as possible around his family. This doesn't always lead to hereditary dictatorships, but it is always a great possibility it will if the system in question allows for it, which it undoubtedly did in this case. Perhaps he could have gleaned this potential future from his own actions, hm? ...as I already have time and time again, to which you reply "no" and attempt to run away from the argument at hand? How about the times when you cited quotes proclaiming the deeply antisemetic and segregationist policies of fascist italy, which you said weren't antisemetic to any major degree? I mean hell, you can't even admit to the historical basis of racism in the nation, and now you're claiming that an initial push for support means the same thing as anti-antisemetism? Because these policies were the natural result of fascism, and all Mussolini needed was a situation in which they were advantageous to implement. It's funny how you keep going back to arguments I already addressed, quoted, and cited. How am I even to convince you when you don't even believe in the races he discriminated against? Perhaps we should look at Mussolini's own statements, hm? "I have been a racist since 1921. I don't know how they can think I'm imitating Hitler" "We must give Italians a sense of race."" Right. Which I add historical context to by showing that major political pushes including demographics one might not be fond of are far from indicative of actual views or potential policy relating to said groups. And yet he was antisemetic before trying to appeal to Hitler, saying before 1938 "anti-Semitism is inevitable wherever there is exaggerated Semitic visibility, interference, and arrogance. The excessive J*w gives rise to the anti-J*w" (Censored for youtube) Italians were not considered the same race as slavs by italians, and the work of an American doesn't much change that. Slavs were seen as workers for "j*wish plots" and were often cited as such in the same breath as calling them "social-democratic, masonic Jewish internationalists," (Italian Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period, 1918-1940) Mussolini himself saying ""The danger of seeing the Jugo-Slavians settle along the whole Adriatic shore had caused a bringing together in Rome of the cream of our unhappy regions. Students, professors, workmen, citizens—representative men—were entreating the ministers and the professional politicians"."
    1
  1925.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  P2 I am well aware I used a different pamphlet, I used it specifically because it was another pamphlet that you cited, that contradicted your definition. Are you now going to claim your own citation is untrustworthy? Ok so you literally don't know what technocracy is. So yet again - rather than use his definitions, such as the ones I pointed out contradict your claims, you choose to project modern definitions onto his intentions. I will ask once again, where did he advocate for equal control over the workplace? Where did he advocate for these workers to be decided by democratic elections? Someone can easily support A, B and C but not the rest of the alphabet, though. He was, as he will be remembered historically. Again, you make a claim not supported by a single one of your previous citations. He didn't support a system of equal union ownership over the means of production, he supported a system of private ownership by workers in the fields mentioned. He did not support what is known as syndicalism, instead supporting a technocratic-corporatism (libertarian meaning) Hell, he himself said that private property would remain, saying "private property in land will persist" only qualified by the addition of land reform, as well as saying "The small shopkeeper shall be favored over chain stores," saying nationalization is going "too far," and so on. Does that sound like support for socialism? amazing ""argument"" ...so in other words, he defended a segregated system as being better for the students, because it was not forced by the government to actually integrate non-segregated students. The very fact that Dunbar was forced to integrate people is his criticism. So i'll ask again, how does this actually disprove my claim? In fact you quite handily prove my statement while doing your best to assert anything otherwise to protect your segregationist. The average shareholder has a few votes cast in millions, if they are even involved. The actions of a boycott are more likely to impact company actions than shareholder's votes. No, not really. And this again. I never said anything of the sort, nor did I bring up Cecil Rhodes at all. What this is called, just to educate you, is a strawman argument. You are taking historical figures that I previously explained and qualified once you brought them up, and then ignore this, claiming I "implied" something with no evidence of said claim. - A single italian state doesn't disprove several wars, and the germans were directly repressed by people like Klemens von Metternich from uniting. - You failed to point out the relation to the argument. - Still not at all appropriate "terminology," and your citation of the urban dictionary of all things only goes to further prove that. In fact, this is an ongoing trend I see from you that has started to solidify my usage of the world child to describe you. "Right Unity?" "Cuck?" "Cope?" These are terms used by teenagers on twitter or reddit with too much free time and not enough responsibility. Would I be wrong in pointing out that you most likely fit that definition? And again, i'll point out the entirely unaddressed fact that the existence of a single war doesn't much change the fact that the countries in question could very easily have dealings. Yes, it was an embarrassing war for russia, but that doesn't change the interwoven nature of politics leading up to the first world war, during it, and after the fact. As we've been over. - An italian state... as in... perhaps there were multiple? Yes, that would actually check out, given that they were trying to reunite and become independent! Wow, you learn something every day. Or for you, a few years too late. I'm sorry, but that's not the definition of nationalism. Even according to your cited definition, "advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people," the opinions of an already independent people are not nationalist. Is your average american a hardcore nationalist because they see no reason to live under british rule? No, no they have not. Continuing efforts against other countries control may be nationalist, yes, but an already idependent people aren't by default nationalists. If it took you this long to even consider the possibility that the polish government is doing everything possible to use communism and the old people and ethnicities of the USSR to spread political fervor, we have a serious problem.
    1
  1926. ​ @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "Um actually i've arbitrarily decided you're wrong, no I don't care about your citation, i'm just going to dismiss your point." Amazing "arguments" as always there, buddy. And by amazing... well you know what I mean. Capitalist economists, you know, the ones who defend the actions and existence of said private corporations? ...According to you. In reality, economically, Mosley planned on making private property more efficient for his nation. That is, by definition, a support of private property. Again, roads, intellectual property, we've been over this. I have argued that you're wearing blue socks though, and so have plenty of capitalists. On what authority do you declare yourself to not be doing so? Ah, so you're going back to the non argument of asserting my support for the LTV. ...So a quote was posted. As in, not made up, but written. Do you think that writing a quote down means you're the first to come up with it? Frankly, the lengths you go to in order to avoid reading the books in question is kind of absurd. It's ok, dude, you can admit that Tucker, a lifelong anti-capitalist, was an anticapitalist. Rather than doing so, however, you're choosing to redefine the term around his life, and redefine his life around the term. But that doesn't matter at any rate, as we all know, you and reality are like oil and water trying to blend. "The fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour.... And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege ...every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers... What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury... It wants to deprive capital of its reward" You. You said that. Quite openly and proudly, even. And as we've been over, I don't much care about your judgement, given your concrete lack of it. Ah yes, because attacking the pillars of capitalism, and that which capitalists advocate for the most, is capitalism. And as we've been over, "an"cap is a basic contradiction of terms. Because said system determines ownership not by work, but by exchange of valueless paper. Why not simply use the term he did, and talk about the paleolibertarian agenda. Do I get those bonus points now? You assert that he doesn't support the traditional values he writes about, and yet in his actual writing he can see when describing this program that returns to traditional things, he always describes them in terms like "We must..." "The only sound alternative," "The public schools must allow prayer," ect. What he is doing here is not stating that these positions can hypothetically align with libertarianism, he is actively arguing for them, saying that they must be done, saying that they are the only rational or effective methods. For example, one can see this with his claim on public school prayer. He doesn't just say the allowing of this is possible to be promoted by libertarian figures, he advocates for it, and he says that "we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment." Not a "we could," a "we must." As for his warping of the teachings of individualist anarchist, to imply that "he did the most to make individualist anarchism make sense" is downright insulting, and shows me only that you have no respect for actual individualist anarchism, as Rothbards system fulfills neither of those words. Possession and private property do not fit together in the same theories of property, non-capitalist, non-usury markets such as those advocated by individualist anarchists do not fall in line with any theory of capitalist markets, which coerce trade and labor through the threat of starvation if one does not work directly within a hierarchical system. Competition without capitalism doesn't make sense when viewed through capitalist lenses. All you're telling me is that you value capitalism, and thus, you reject anarchism, just like Rothbard does. Rothbard states that fascism is on the side of private property in this quote, in that it has "won the war" on the "question of property" for the moment. He also says that liberals have no issue with the violence posed by fascism, and never have. Have you read the quote? Good thing what I left out didn't matter. So you don't have a rebuttal. Right. And I did that, but as we've been over, it is hard for you to let go of a point that you've lost. Hell, you can't even admit slavs were seen as a different race by the italians at the time, jesus. Actually, not only do those quotes come from a well-respected historical account of Mussolini as a person, but they also reflect him before 1938, and many were in fact stated years before 1938, as we've been over. I'm sorry, this entire time you've asserted it was in 1938 that Mussolini began implementing racial policies and rhetoric, and now you're just ignoring that and saying that actually, 1936 is the date in question? Why then would he bring a racial aspect into it? Why would he blame a people, an ethnicity, and not the government or ruling force guiding them? Why would he and his people jump so easily to attempting to stereotype a people as greedy, as conspiring, as the tools of other conspirers, when Mussolini's problem was one of policies? And then, rather than promote a form of socialism, a system he believed failed the workers, he promoted one of private property and state autarky, as we've been over. Simply taking a rejection of socialism and claiming it only rejects one type of socialism isn't an argument, nor is it true. First off - A word's etymology is not the same thing as its definition. Second, do you think workers aren't people? Your analogy did not pertain to the situation, so I amended it. The Juche concept of Suryong teaches that there must always be a supreme leader in change of the country, from a family of supreme leaders. This was a concept devised by Kim Il-Sung, and one that was taught to Kim Jong-Il while his father was still alive. I notice how you stop quoting someone when bringing up elections. Almost as if... he didn't support worker elections or equal worker control, but rather a system where choice workers were given control of private property in the state's interest. Technocratic Corporatism, yes. It sounds like support of socialism to you, a person that openly proclaims that a group of friends going out for brunch is an invading state, invading the local Denny's-state of course! And again, your only argument here is that his rejection of socialism isn't actually a rejection of socialism... and yet you don't provide what he actually does advocate for. Advocating for a system of private property is not socialism. I don't think I can expect any less from you by now. The nearby ghetto... as in the segregated one? And again, I think you need to brush up on your terminology, integration was achieved at this school, which is the policy that Sowell is criticizing. He, and you it seems, simply opposed the fact that the school was integrating what you felt were the wrong people, and that it's better to remain segregated but exclusive, than desegregated and inclusive. So... you agree with Sowell. Great. Both are equally binding, and the consumer has more power over the actions of a company than said company's average shareholder. No, not really at all. In the statement in question I was referring to Leopold, not Rhodes, which I further explained both in this and future responses. Also, the notion that Leopold II didn't have a cult of personality surrounding him is nonsense, not only because the man was a literal monarch, but because the result of said cult has led to his crimes being denied even to this day. "After the independence of Congo, in 1960, the old dismissive or minimising discourse about the atrocities under Leopold II was never explicitly repudiated. The personality cult surrounding the king, which branded the monarch a ‘genius’, ensured that he enjoyed exceptional popularity, especially in palace circles, just as the idealised image of Belgian Congo that was forged by the propaganda of the time continued to be cherished. The army, which had historically always sympathised with the royal household, adopted this attitude as well. Likewise, the same attitude reigned among a section of the diplomats, who continued for decades to deny everything on the international scene. And finally, a lot of former colonialists who had practised their professions competently and with dedication in the Congo during the 1950s, have also contributed towards a positive image of colonialism, which they continue to defend to this day." - Guy Vanthemsche, Professor of History. -Both the Wartburg Rally of 1817 and the Hambach Festival of 1832 were explicit political showcases of a desire to unify, if disorganized at the time. -Asserting it doesn't make it true. -Oh amazing, a few more words you don't know the definition of! Cope as you used it is a colloquial term, not a psychological one, and simply trying to spit out some fallacies without reasoning isn't an argument. And yes, as we've been over, you need to take an introductory course in any sort of pre-WW1 political atmosphere. It isn't just Americans, though. Europeans show this tendency better than many Americans in some cases. I mean, we all know what the unification nationalism of Germany led to... I had hope you would have understood the basics of debate by now, but that was an overestimation on my part.
    1
  1927.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  P1 The simple fact is, i've recognized the fact that there is no convincing you. When you lose a point, rather than admit it, you let it quietly fade away and address every other point in question. Remember your assertions on slavic racism? Funny how you haven't addressed any counters. In any case, the evidence has been provided, but evidence will never appease a cultist like you. You asserted that said economists, capitalist economists, who make careers out of the defense of major private corporations, that you call public, don't actually do that. Do you have any evidence for this claim? It's not my logic, though. It's his. He felt that the purpose of private property was to help his people, and if it didn't do that, or if it was inefficient, it should be redirected. The gardener is not opposed to gardening just because they weed, after all. The color red was representative of support for private property, do try to keep your examples straight. In any case, your deflection of "no capitalist has argued I am wearing blue socks since the 2000s" is particularly funny to me, A. Because it is not true, and the debates in question are ongoing, but B. because it doesn't even matter, the very existence of a debate means that to some, you are wearing blue socks, and thus by your own logic, don't support private property. In any case, nice attempt to pin an opinion you don't like on me, but I don't believe in wearing red at all, and i'm explaining a debate to you, not supporting the points. That's an assertion you'll have a hard time proving. Ah, yet another assertion! I think you'll find it equally taxing to prove that this quote originally came from Heywood. In any case, your further deflection of "All your other quote proves was that he was against wage labour" is again humorous, for a few reasons. First and foremost being that wage labor is a necessary component of capitalism, and opposing one means opposing the other, but second off, the quote doesn't even limit itself to wage labor, instead denying the very basis of capitalism. Communism at the time had authoritarian connotations, unlike the modern definition, do stop trying to project definitions onto the past. Ah yes, the nazis you're totally arguing with and absolutely not reinforcing their points. I'm sure that's happened. I really shouldn't. "No capitalist??" I'm sorry, but that's simply false, the notion of regulation and taxation has been core to capitalism since its founding, and a central baking system as well as protectionist trade policies were among the first acts of aspiring capitalist nations. And whatever it takes to get you to admit anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. Because it's paper. The only value it has is that backed by nothing but mutual agreement to pretend as though it represents something valuable, which in turn is only spread by statist institutions. And the issue with your "common means of exchange" is that it allows for one to trade labor for non-labor, and not compensate the many involved in the labor being traded for. Your term is inaccurate though, and entirely juvenile. And what is "libertarian" about allowing the government to force religion onto students? How, further, does this not also disprove your notion that he was not advocating for these policies, but simply saying they should be advocated for? I'm well aware you and all capitalists reject anarchism, but its good to hear that at least you admit it. In any case, again, you are warping the views of another through a capitalist lens. Tucker and other individualist/social anarchists had different definitions for private property and possession, Tucker again speaking against forms of what you'd call private property on a consistent basis while rejecting the notion of wage labor. I quite literally already cited this, you are responding to my explanation of said citation. Not an argument, yet again. I quite literally cited, by name, a policy of Juche ideology instituted within the lifetime of Kim Il-sung, and you have no rebuttal to it. Not an argument, yet again. The words of close friends, family, and lovers has often been one of the most valuable resources in determining how political figures think and act when not actively monitoring their words, pushing propaganda, or attempting to appeal to political groups. While it is right to question all sources for their validity, this one has already undergone that, and been found valid. It is not his mistress, but Mussolini himself, who said that he was racist since 1921, and what reason would she have to lie about that? And oh gee, I wonder why I focus on Mussolini when talking about Italian Fascism, one of the founders of the ideology and the head of the state. Real head scratcher. I actually already cited a statement popular at the time that proves the same thing, though. Do keep up. The first and only time you've brought up the date 1936 was when I pointed out that your assertion of the racist rhetoric and policy existing only past 1938 was false. At this point, in 1936, the first vestiges of ally ship between the two nations had appeared, but there was no reason for Mussolini to change his views as to accommodate the nazis, and thus, no reason for those statements to be a result of the nazis. He really wasn't, nor was it directed at the right place for your assertion.
    1
  1928.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  P2 Already have. In his work "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked an Answered," in only the first 20 points one can find several references to the preservation of private property, including "...private property in land will persist," "The small shopkeeper shall be favored over chain stores," and "Hospitals will be... not nationalized. That would be going too far." Yes, the lack of worker elections, just like Mosley's ideology, which openly proclaimed that only governmental elections would be held, and that if a fascist lost, another fascist could just be chosen. Those elite/technical experts... are people, and workers. It didn't, though, as we've been over. ...You have been defining monarchy as hereditary dictatorship this entire time, in explicitly those terms. What a goalpost shift, how amazing. Ah yes, a system where a choice amount of technical experts can choose someone to represent them. Furthermore, the ability to control who is your boss is not equivalent to collective control over the means of production, or socialism, as we've been over in the past. "Self-government of Industry Syndicalism is practical business. It means the self-government of industry on the lines of the “working parties” which were so effective a means of increasing pro-duction during the war. It means the abandonment of the mere illusion of political control through corrupt, power-crazed delegates in favour of the effective reality of industrial control through direct contact with the facts of occupational problems. Syndicalism is a reality which is in large measure already achieved through working class action to curb capitalist exploitation. Socialism remains a theory without effective result, unless it be carried to that point of Communist slate tyranny which the real British workers abhor. " So again, rejection of workplace democracy in favor of workplace parties developed around private industries and led by technical experts. Where's the workplace democracy, again? Exactly, see above, the quotation proving you wrong. And as we've been over, private corporations nor groups of individuals are states. And you're right here, I can always expect so much worse from you. He is opposing one type of inclusive integration while advocating for an exclusive type of supposed "integration." The corporation is under a legal obligation to make profit and pay its expenses, which it cannot do if its profit is being slashed by a boycott. No, not at all frankly. I'm sorry, do you think all cults of personality are christian? Do you not see that the very existence of a base of individuals that readily deny his crimes and profess to his superiority is, by definition, a cult of personality? By your definition, I hope you know, Stalin could not have been considered to have a cult of personality, hence his lack of a "holy ghost" in his narrative. -Another goalpost shift. My point was proven, an effort for unification existed before the time you specified, and it was repressed by the austrian. These two events, minor as they were, were not direct targets. -Citation previously given. -When you asserted that I could not "cope" with supposed citation you have yet to provide, criticizing terminology used in no way is a red herring but a semantics argument, and ad hominem arguments are arguments from insults, not arguments with insults thrown in. And simply saying "no you!" cannot disprove your embarrassing lack of knowledge on the historical topics in question. Far too many, and it seems none of them are positive. I can point again to the nationalist movements of ex-USSR countries and those nearby. Ah yes, I'm the one lying about polish politics, a talking point you have only now brought up after being soundly disproven on them previously. In general, I must say your use of deflections, ad hominem arguments, arguments through fallacy, and straight up denialism utterly ahistorical. It is not my goal at this point to convince you, as you are far beyond logic, but to soundly disprove your arguments and convince anyone who might come through this thread in the future. Since there is no way I can get through a denialist like yourself, (as you are a denialist, a denialist of basic political geography, a denialist of modern economics, a denialist of the history and ideological goals of fascism, a denialist of imperialism and nationalism, a denialist of the statements of Mises, Rothbard, Mosley, Tucker, ect, a denialist of WW1 and pre-WW1 European politics and so on) I am fine with letting you go and spending my time better either living life or debating someone with more ability than a brick wall.
    1
  1929. @Rick Vis ...ok, so rather than do actual research, you're paraphrasing from wikipedia. Not surprised. He didn't leave the labour party because they disagreed with those policies, he left because his push for those policies was routinely shut down and his political career as a labour member was going nowhere. Mosley's problem was that the policies of the left were too internationalist, too focused on conflicts of class to focus on conflicts of nation. So, he proposed a system of corporatist technocracy, with highly traditionalist and reactionary social views - Mosley's fascism. In any case, his meaning of corporatism aligns with the modern one, as he had no desire to have a society run with organizations "subordinate to the state," in fact he openly declared that nationalization went too far in many cases, and that private business should be allowed to exist in national competition. Your definition of corporatism contradicts your summary of it, which makes me think you're just parroting from multiple sources, or sections of the same source. Their goal was to have the workers, the employers, and the state work together for the benefit of the nation, not just fuse the workers and their employers into organizations subservient under the state. Finally, it's worth pointing out that the policies he left the labour party for were not the exact same policies he pushed for as a fascist, his run with the New Party and the study of Mussolini's movement among others changed his advocacy on many things.
    1
  1930. @Rick Vis The reason the New Party had support was not because of a following of Mosley, as his political campaign was most famed for just ending, and him moving on. Mosley didn't even support the nationalization of key industries, in the cases of things like healthcare he openly said that nationalization would be going too far. His goal, rather, was to reorganize private business to support the nation as a whole. Again, it's important to note that they were supposed to support the nation, not necessarily the state. And I understand that the modern and historical definitions of corporatism are different, but Mosley's policies more easily fit the former than the latter, given his support of competition and private business backed by the nation and state. Fascism is an ideology not of the historical meaning of corporatism, even though they claim otherwise, but of the modern definition, as no fascist state has actually created their version of "corporations" with political control, but the vast majority have benefitted and served the interests of massive private corporations that were already in existence in the liberal democracies that usually preceded fascist takeovers. In any case, fascists don't call for collective control, and they simply want to unite the workers with the employers, which in practice means forcing the people to adhere to the desires of said employers. "Now it is true that became more and more radical and nationalist as time went on, but fact is that he left the labour party because it was to capitalist, so yes could say because it was internationalist since capitalism is also internationalist but in the end his reasoning to leave the party had to do with economic policy." He left the Labour party not out of any dissatisfaction with private property, but solely because of the Labour party's support of internationalist policies. In any case, the economic policies that he held and pushed as a program that got his political career in the Labour party ended was not the same economic program that he found himself pushing when he was an open fascist, nor do economic programs define fascism.
    1
  1931.  @aladdin4d  "While an employee's labor can profit a boss more than they are paid the idea it must always be so is utterly ridiculous. Added value that can lead to profit can come from a multitude of sources and circumstances other than just employee labor." How is that basic economic concept "ridiculous?" If I hire someone, I expect them to make me profit, and if they cannot, they are not worth hiring. For example, if I hire a baker, and they make me around $20 an hour from their baked goods being sold, I need to pay them less than that $20, or i'm not turning a profit. In the overwhelming majority of cases, if the expenses of employing people outweigh the benefits they bring, some people are let go. Of course, rarely is it as cut-and-dry as "X makes me $20, I pay him $15," but then you are only handling teams of people and laborers, along with other expenses associated with their labor. So I ask you now, you reference other sources that added value and or profit can come from, that is not tied to labor. What sources, where?
    1
  1932.  @aladdin4d  No, by basic I quite literally mean that this is a basic economic concept taught to any first year business student. Profit it income, with expenses taken away. Try harder. Ingredients need labor. High quality ingredients require not only the labor of the person who made them, and the people who are selling them, but also the labor of my direct employees, who made me money, enough money that I can actually afford to invest in better ingredients. Furthermore, your ingredients can be as poor or as perfect as you'd like, it doesn't matter without the labor of someone who works to actually put them together. Supposedly "identical" labor (that isn't how bakeries work) doesn't change the fact that labor is necessary, and you must still pay them less than they make you, even in the transactions that led to you getting better ingredients. Not to mention, of course, other factors with your example, such as: untrained bakers might not know how to handle different ingredients, taste is subjective, and oh yeah, it still all comes down to labor. The bakery down the street might be using different ingredients, but they're still only profiting because they hired someone to put those ingredients together, and are paying that person less than they make the business. And again, this is still literally reliant on baker's labor. You can have the best, most perfect ingredients and recipe in the world, it doesn't matter if you don't have anyone to bake it. Then it's just a bunch of produce and a piece of paper. So no, not independent of a baker's labor. Location, again, doesn't matter if you literally don't have any baked goods to sell. And of course, if you profit less because of your location, you are more likely to hire less help, pay for less labor. "The value added by your brand will be completely independent of a baker's labor" is one of the silliest things i've ever heard. I hate to break it to you, again, but you could have the biggest, fanciest, most perfect sign hanging in every building for miles to come, but you're not going to make a cent from it if you don't actually have baked goods to sell. Are you seeing a trend here yet? None of these factors are independent of labor. Your examples have two core problems. The first is that all of the things you mention don't by themselves create or ruin profit, but do so with the addition of labor, and are accounted for in business. If you have a horrible location, you're just going to be less likely to hire more people you don't strictly need. However, you could be in the best location on earth and still fail if you don't have a single worker to actually create your product. Your second main issue is just focusing on one baker, when i explicitly pointed out that in real life it is far more complicated than that. The "host of other factors" you're talking about are all the result of labor. Good location? Means more laborers doing different, more expensive jobs. Advertisers? Laborers, figuring out the best way to advertise for you. You see the point? You would most likely have a whole host of people working for you, an expense, but you wouldn't have them hired if the actions they preformed were not worth more than you give them in turn. Profit is income minus expense. Labor gives you income. Laborers are an expense.
    1
  1933.  @aladdin4d  But those two things do, quite literally, equal eachother. Profit must always be gotten if not strived for, and profit can only be gotten if the labor of the employee benefits the boss more than the employee is paid. This is just blatant deflection And yes, the same concepts do apply, meaning that the person profiting from the labor used to get said ingredients must be paying their employees less than they are making from their work. OK, thank you for admitting you've never worked at a bakery. Working with freeze-dried cherry mush (bad ingredients) is very different from working with fresh, farm picked whole cherries (good ingredient.) not equivalent labor. Oh, sorry, what was "my example?" You mean the one I instantly, in that same response, qualified with the very thing you're trying to deflect from? It still isn't how baking works, champ. If one bakery uses premade dough and the other makes it from scratch, that same loaf has now costed each business very different amounts of labor. And I hate to break it to you, but insults don't actually refute my point. Yes, they're only profiting because they hired someone to do the labor in question. That's why the vast, vast majority of profitable business do go out and hire people, because they pay said people less than said people make the boss, and so the boss profits. Not ridiculous, not ignorant, not childish. Just basic economics that you are unable to grasp. ...thank you for yet again proving my point exactly, without realizing it. Yes actually, you do still need to hire people in today's world, but now you're just talking about the labor of machines. And guess what - the same rules apply. The upkeep of the machines (expenses) must be less than the amount the machines make the owner (income.)
    1
  1934.  @aladdin4d  Not sure why you feel this is worth two comments when the first alone was enough to convince me of your ignorance. Again, insults aren't arguments. You can assert that I don't know what i'm talking about all you want, but you've yet to show even a basic understanding of how profit is gained. Saying "absolutely false" does not actually make an objective fact false in any way. Just thought you should know. Furthermore, you quite literally prove my point with your little McDonald's analogy here. McDonald's only profits because there are people working to make burgers. While they can license away a property and allow individual business owners to also make a profit, again, the only reason either of the two parties is actually doing this, and are hiring workers, is because said workers are paid less than what they make their bosses. The things you mentioned can't create profit by themselves, they can only modify the profit gained from labor. In your example, McDonalds pays the worker exactly nothing, in exchange for some of the profit, while the franchisee pays the worker an amount less than the worker makes the franchisee. In both of these cases, the owner makes more than they pay the laborer, especially so for the McDonalds itself, which doesn't have to pay out at all. The statement "The McDonald's brand and recipe for a trademarked burger generates more profit for them independent of their labor expense" is false, as one could open a McDonalds and have access to the trademarked recipe and advertising of McDonalds, but it doesn't matter if they don't have anyone to make and sell the burgers themselves. Advertising and brand recognition do not make profit, they modify the profit made from the labor of workers, which must always be paid less than what they make the boss. Also, we've gone over how automated labor literally proves you wrong. I haven't been "using it the entire time," though, I gave one minor example, and then in the same response pointed out how real life is far more compicated. It's very hypocritical of you to deflect from this fact and focus on the one introductory baker example, and then blame me for the focus on the only example you're addressing. Says the person who is openly and proudly being extremely disingenuous. I hate to break it to you, but locations are only "good" for business if one profits from said locations, which usually means a generally richer populace, which means laborers doing different, more expensive and high paying jobs. What's hard to understand there? And i'm sorry, what? Do you think that the owners of the businesses come up with and run the ads themselves, with no help? Labor, objectively, is your source of income. The labor of others. The fact that you don't know even the basics of profit is exactly why you have no qualifications nor reasoning to continue participating this conversation, which is so clearly far beyond your understanding.
    1
  1935.  @aladdin4d  Gotta love accusing me of deflecting while you quite literally refuse to respond :) No matter how many times you attempt to deny it, without a single reason or even argument as to why you do so, those thing are objectively equivalent. The fact that you can only muster up insults in response is just further proof of that. Perhaps you should stop spreading ridiculous, ignorant, and childish beliefs? Perhaps you should stop complaining about deflections, strawman arguments, and irrelevant arguments, when it's all this response you've given me consists of? Just a friendly piece of advise. In any case, yes, machines do labor. And machines are just as much capital as the workers themselves are. Of course you don't actually provide reasoning for your claim otherwise. Only someone who doesn't know what they are talking about would make the constant and unending mistakes you have. Try a basic economic education next time?
    1
  1936.  @aladdin4d  Gotta love accusing me of deflecting while you quite literally refuse to respond :) No matter how many times you attempt to deny it, without a single reason or even argument as to why you do so, those thing are objectively equivalent. The fact that you can only muster up insults in response is just further proof of that. Perhaps you should stop spreading ridiculous, ignorant, and childish beliefs? Perhaps you should stop complaining about deflections, strawman arguments, and irrelevant arguments, when it's all this response you've given me consists of? Just a friendly piece of advise. In any case, yes, machines do labor. And machines are just as much capital as the workers themselves are. Of course you don't actually provide reasoning for your claim otherwise. Only someone who doesn't know what they are talking about would make the constant and unending mistakes you have. Try a basic economic education next time?
    1
  1937.  @aladdin4d  Responding to what? You didn't actually address a single one of my points that I wrote. You have nothing but insults, and not even the spine to admit it. They are objectively equivalent, and your inability to respond or refute that proves it even further. As we've been over previously, you're ridiculously, ignorantly, and childishly ignoring the fact that all of your "other inputs" fundamentally rely on labor, and have no value without the labor of workers. Those factors are modifiers, and none can do what you claim they do, that is, generate profit wholly by themselves. You can't go on, because everything you've said is already long refuted, and your only attempted response is reasserting disproven statements and insulting me. I'm sorry you're so removed from reality.
    1
  1938.  @aladdin4d  "You didn't make any points. Rhetoric is no substitute for reality." Sorry child, but you denying the points that disprove you isn't the same thing as refuting them. Thanks for admitting you can't do that. "If and when I insult you, you'll know it. You've been doing it for days now, in the most ridiculous, childish, and ignorant ways possible. You spray insults instead of points because you have nothing else to respond with. Trying to insult me isn't "objective fact." Pointing out your ridiculous, ignorant, and childish responses is though. Hell, you don't even understand the labor theory of value or profit enough to actually define your terms. "That's a meme, not an objective fact. " Another statement of yours long disproven, and yet restated here as you have no other "arguments" to make. "Confession through projection, perhaps?" No, just an accurate assessment of your fanatic ignorance. You are, objectively, the one reciting a child's version of theories refuted and discarded long ago, and you're now claiming these are facts. When I easily pointed out this ignorance and ahistoricism you readily engage with, what was your response? Oh right... you didn't have one. Only a complete and utter child would do something so absurdly ignorant. And so, you did.
    1
  1939.  @aladdin4d  Well I had quite a few paragraphs of original, but you declined to address it, so I guess this'll have to do, hm?
    1
  1940.  @aladdin4d  "You spew cherry picked parts of outdated, disproven rhetoric." Another quick lesson for you - assertions aren't the same things as facts. No matter how many times you accuse me of "spewing cherry picked parts of disproven rhetoric," it still remains false, and your lack of proof or reasoning for your claim only further proves that. You've been refuted for over a century now, and the problem is, you don't even know what you're arguing against. You still have nothing but the same ridiculous, ignorant and childish insults, never any arguments. You've somehow convinced yourself somewhere along the way that i'm arguing for the Labor Theory of Value, clearly showing not only your lack of understanding of my points, but of the LTV itself. What i've showed you is the basic rules of profit - income minus expense. Labor gives income. Laborers are an expense. This isn't the Labor Theory of Value, it's what any first year economics student is taught on day one. Here's a tip - stop pretending objective facts have anything to do with economic theories, and arguing against the theory, rather than the fact. That's called a strawman argument. Oh, and one more for good measure. Stop making such a fool of yourself, it's embarrassing. But hey, at this point I don't think anyone can stop you. "It was your statement, not mine, and it is quite literally a Picard meme." It wasn't an actual response, yes. Like the rest of your statements, it was a deflection from your strawman arguments. Arguments, of course, being a generous reading of your responses to me.
    1
  1941.  @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
  1942.  @therealfriday13th  But they aren't, they aren't socialists. I'm sorry that you don't like that they're right wing anti-socialists like you, but that you don't like them doesn't magically make them not a part of your religion. As you said, I'd make an analogy about Christianity, but then I remember just how much difference an iota can make. The main difference between you idiots and the early warring christian sects was at least they all recognized that they worshipped Jesus. Child, they still aren't socialist. I get that you despise basic logic, but the existence of some groups that disagree on small things yet belong to the same broader movement does not necessitate that all disagreements are the result of broader movements. The nazis, like you, were anti-socialists, and the fact that you claim to not like them doesn't make them any less a part of your religion. What you're trying to do is like claiming that christians and atheists are both the same because they disagree, and then calling them both sects of Christianity. I'm sorry that you cannot recognize the commonalities you share with the nazis, namely, an extreme revulsion towards socialism from a right wing perspective.
    1
  1943.  @GrasshopperKelly  I have yet to see a single USSR or communist flag pfp.
    1
  1944.  @GrasshopperKelly  I've literally been here for over a year and the most I can say i've seen is a demsoc flag and several ironic stalin pfps from antisocialists.
    1
  1945.  @GrasshopperKelly  alright then indeed
    1
  1946.  @-MattMcCauley-  I'm sorry that your hateful, destructive ideas needed to be exposed to reality, but no matter how hard you deny it or apologize for it, the crimes of the right aren't going away. TIK, like you, despises facts, arguments, and logic, hence the simple reality that he is unable to deny the fact that the nazis are right wing anti-socialists. I mean hell, in order to make your argument you have to lie about the usage of historical labels, such as by claiming that "international socialist" is a self-applied label that describes socialists who organize around economic class, despite the fact that the concept and label of "international socialism" came about explicitly from right wingers asserting that extreme conservatism (nazism) was actually just socialism, and that the distinction of "national vs international" explains why the nazis are so extremely opposed to everything socialists stand for. Furthermore, organization around social ownership and economic class describes literally all socialism. To make your argument, you've taken socialism, redefined it so that it appears to be only a small part of itself, and then decided to lump in conservatism under this huge, vague label you've created, a label you then have the audacity to claim was self-applied. You redefined socialism to include conservatism and then claimed that socialists liked being known as a subgroup of their movement.
    1
  1947.  @-MattMcCauley-  Yes, it is clear you have not watched the video, and furthermore, clear you have not spent s single second researching this subject in any way that might counter your apologist narrative. I'm sorry that the label "far right anti-socialist" is accurately applied, often self-applied, by nazis and fascists, even if they as other right wingers are individuals you claim to condemn. I'm sorry you're upset that labels are accurately applied, but your denialism will not change history.
    1
  1948. ​ @-MattMcCauley-  No, child. See, the problem is that the individuals had made a case, and a rather convincing one that relies on actual historical evidence rather than the redefinition and association fallacy of TIK's argument. However, since you are well aware that you have neither the ability nor evidence to accurately address these arguments, you decide to hatefully, ignorantly, accuse them of ignorance, and simply move on rather than address their points. Of course they, as well as I, have watched the videos, and offered clear rebuttals of his points. TIK may claim to have "addressed" them to dismiss these rebuttals, but most often the rebuttals themselves focus on his failure to adequately address these claims and rebuke them in any meaningful way. They of course know his arguments, but since he believes that he has disproven their points simply because he's made assertions on the subject matter, he (and you) tend to dismiss them out of hand. Of course, if we're talking about people who are emotion-driven rather than reason/rationality driven, we must turn to you and TIK, both of whom fit the qualification you laid forth (being ignorant/dismissive of opposing arguments) among other qualifiers. TIK, of course, utterly rejects factual evidence whenever it doesn't support his position (which is quite frequent) and twists the evidence he does accept, by attempting to redefine terms, discredit proven data, or by asserting the existence of some sort of conspiracy. His arguments are made with ideology, not facts, and the few facts that actually back up his core position most often do not support his auxiliary arguments or claims. His arguments deny facts, and utterly dismiss the notions of logic and reason, hence his emotional, ideological, and conspiratorial approach to debate. He cites plenty of sources, but neglects to mention that the majority of those that support his position are not historians but right wing think tanks and ideologues, and that the historians that he does cite openly refute his assertions in the very work he cites, which he attempts to get around through the redefinition of terms and conspiratorial insulting of academia, despite his arguments supposedly being based in it. I'm not sure how his proudly published manifesto is supposed to help his claims here? He doesn't "go into detail" into these issues so much as he makes assertions, and often either deflects to another unrelated subject or uses loosely correlated concepts and absurdly removed historical tidbits to string together a narrative that conflicts with his own assertions and actions. He puts great attention on defining the terms "socialist," "nazi," "marxist," "fascist," and so on precisely because he realizes how baseless his arguments are. If one were to critically examine them, which many do, they find them extremely lacking and that they fall apart instantly, so he spends time weaving together an esoteric tale of unrelated assertions as a protective layer for his fundamentally incorrect definitions. I'll remind you, your very choice of words betrays your ignorance. Child, your assertions aren't backed up by fact. First of all, in the modern world, we see those who call the most for state violence or the threat thereof in controlling citizenry comes, again, primarily from the right, from conservatives who are, lie the conservatives before them, turning against international capitalism. Of course, socialism is not defined as state control of the means of production, and it is certainly not defined by the vague threat or potential future ability of the state to impact the means of production, hence socialists generally not advocating for either of those things as socialism. You've attempted to define socialism in a way that any state is considered socialist, but actual socialists are written out of their own ideology. Not that much of that matters in this case anyways, given that the nazis didn't even fit your definition of socialism, and still remain closer ideologically to conservatives, historical and contemporary, than to socialists. In any case, the problems with your assertion are numerous. You attempt to create a strawman of socialists, ignoring that a. socialists are not defined in the way you assert and b. the majority of the people taking issue with TIK's ideological revisionism are not socialists but conservatives, liberals, capitalists who oppose the erasing of history. These people are upset because you're trying to deny the past. Of course, to apply the word socialist to the nazis would not be accurate, and to call them "other socialists" even less so, given that the nazis were proud right wing anti-socialists, who made this known. They certainly didn't "Self apply" the term socialist, and not in an accurate way, given hitler's attempted distancing from the term, and redefinition when he couldn't do that, as well as the nazi ideology itself organizing around race, nation, and other conservative principles. What is perhaps more disconcerting is that, in your effort to attack socialists, you have defended the nazis, trying to minimize their crimes by only naming the six million jewish citizens, and in the process choosing to ignore the 4-7 million non-jewish citizens that were murdered, or the millions of soldiers and citizens who were sent off to die or politically repressed and shot when they stepped out of line. The nazi regime, in its short few years, purposefully killed upwards of 15 million people, and led to the deaths of 80 million more. One decade, one country, over 100 million. And yet, in an effort to attack socialists, you've managed to deny the vast majority of the deaths cased by nazis. What is your reasoning? Well, you wish to compare the nazis to "self described international socialists," who by the way, were staunch nationalists (the literal definition of nationalist socialists) and yet unsurprisingly differed immensely from the far right anti-socialist "National Socialist" groups. In any case, you wish to compare the two, for whatever reason, and in doing so you have decided to take a historically false number (which counts nazi prison guards and falling birth rates as "deaths," makes numerous mathematical errors and has been denounced by the majority of its own authors) to attempt to minimize the crimes of the nazis. You're trying to compare tens of countries spread over a century to a single right wing regime that lasted a decade, and yet its the right wing nazis that show themselves as the true evil, the true destructive force. How many hundreds of millions would they have killed if they had the resources and longevity of the communists? To get a hint at that, perhaps we should look at their fellow right wingers, the imperialists, the monarchists, the conservatives, and not the hundreds of millions of deaths they each proudly claim. Now of course, none of this is even touching the fact that "International Socialists" aren't a distinct group of socialists and that all socialism organizes itself around economic class and social ownership, from long before the days of marx, but evidently you're not aware of this basic reality, as well as the simple fact that despite your attempted dualism, socialists generally don't get upset when they're calle socialists. They certainly didn't "Self describe" as international socialists, given that the title was literally invented by right wing denialists to make the claims you're failing to make now, and does not describe the definition you attempt to force upon it. You have literally constructed an "Argument" of lies and false generalizations, some of them you felt the need to highlight, when any research would prove your misconceptions wrong instantly. Like, no child, those titles were not "Self applied," you artificially applied them after coming up with ahistorical 'definitions' for the terms in question that would help push your ideology. In any case, the fact that you want to dismiss reality without cause doesn't make your ideological messiah here any less incorrect. I'm sorry that the title of "Far right anti-socialist" is being accurately applied to other right wing anti-socialists, ei Nazis, but your shame there is hardly surprising. The modern right has based so much of its activity and rhetoric off of the nazis, and now that the comparisons are inevitable, they're finally coming to terms with their past. In any case, the fact that you and TIK are wrong, and evidently find examinations of the past of the right to be emotionally distressing, does not make you any less incorrect, nor does it excuse your apologia, and your clear hatred of the fact. Your last sentence is particularly ironic. You, child, subscribe to evil ideas that throughout history have resulted in the brutal deaths of millions of innocents. Not even just your particular ideology, but your denialism of history, and apologia for the nazis. You, child, are the one that cannot emotionally handle those that attempt to expose you to reality, so you dismiss their arguments and hide behind someone you see as an authority figure, who you hope will do the work of thinking for you. I'm sorry your narrative is so fragile, and i'm sorry it leads you to apologizing for the very figures you claim to condemn. But you have no excuse. Take ownership for your past, and hate to break it to you, if your emotions are upset when faced with the simple reality that you and TIK's emotional denialist nonsense is objectively incorrect - tough shit.
    1
  1949.  @NostalgicGamerRickOShay  No, child. The right, especially the modern right, wants hierarchy, and tyranny, just like the nazis they love.
    1
  1950.  @NostalgicGamerRickOShay  proving my point amazingly.
    1
  1951. I would agree in part, there were some socialistic elements, but I would also say it's no form of socialism, and that there's more to it than just socialism and capitalism combined. Traditionalism, social darwinism, even monarchism, ect.
    1
  1952.  @fanta4897  That's fair. However, I would personally say that a lot of this categorization can already be seen,, mostly in their rhetoric, and especially connections to other figures. The Italian fascists, for example, used the aid of religious conservatives to try to give their empire any sort of validity. The Austrian fascists did it somewhat similarly, but used religion as a weapon to de-credit the German fascists. The Italian fascists also had a history of appealing to, and working with, figures like Julius Evola, the founder of modern traditionalism, while the German fascists learned far more from the teachings of Spengler. I thin a good sort of categorization of it then would be Umberto Eco's definition of fascism in his essay "Ur-Fascism," because he points out that yes, many of the leaders didn't know what they were talking about, and there were huge ideological fractures between fascists, even between people and their most diehard supporters. I would say with nazi ideology, we're starting to understand it's ins and outs, but it still seems so radically different from other political ideologies, and I think that poses a unique challenge. But that's just my viewpoint on it, and I can find some agreement with yours.
    1
  1953. uh, no
    1
  1954. not really.
    1
  1955.  @KeroZimerman  He fails to actually define socialist, and works of a semantic point that makes next to no sense.
    1
  1956. I love how you cannot even fathom that you might be wrong about socialism, and so you blame everyone else.
    1
  1957.  @Cloud_Seeker  *capitalists.
    1
  1958.  @jonathanstevey1748  I'm sorry, you are aware that right wing anti-socialism produced hitler, correct?
    1
  1959.  @jonathanstevey1748  No, child. Capitalists.
    1
  1960.  @jonathanstevey1748  Genocide denial isn't a good look. Right wing ideology has ended the lives of billions of people, in failure and malice, and produced the most evil people to date, notably in hitler, mussolini, hirohito, and so on. Denying the crimes of the nazis is all you have left, isn't it? It's pathetic what lengths you fascist supporters have to go to deny your past. The right has seemingly produced nothing but evil, and the only thing the right can do to deny this is deny themselves.
    1
  1961.  @jonathanstevey1748  yes, you already copy-pasted this into a different thread, and I effortlessly debunked it. Why no response? Afraid of the proven fact that fascism is a right wing anti-socialist ideology?
    1
  1962.  @jonathanstevey1748  It's funny how even with a copy-paste screed of nonsense, you utterly fail to make your point. No, child. Fascism, by its very definition and history, is antithetical to the left. It's right wing, through and through. Fascism is not only antithetical to the left, but antithetical to socialism, even according to your citation and own quoted dictionary definition. There's a reason the right loves fascism so much, and that's because it takes as primary motivation a desire to end socialism. Fascists killed socialists by the millions, destroyed socialist's policies and allies, and worked with conservatives and capitalists through it all, but you claim this is just "socialists killing other socialists?" So a conservative shooting a liberal is just "liberals killing liberals?" Fascism is not a form of "national syndicalism," mussolini specified this in the Doctrine of Fascism. "National Syndicalism" as a movement arose as a result of left wing economic views being mixed with right wing social views, and the coming movement to synthesize the two produced many other movements, National Syndicalism being one. However, fascism itself has little in common with National Syndicalist movements. The space the two ideologies do share, is that the acceptance of right wing social views in National Syndicalism, eventually led its adherents to accept right wing economic views, which was one common path to fascism. I hate to break it to you, but Fascism isn't a "sorelian" ideology, nor was Sorel a "national syndicalist." Sorel was favored in his early life by open conservatives for being opposed to both Marx and the current liberal order, but soon rejected the right wing nationalists who went on to form national syndicalism, while advocating communism. He didn't believe in "traditional values," he believed marxism was ineffective and political violence was a necessary instrument, which is about all he had in common with fascists. Neither Sorel or Marx believed in Hegelianism, what? Marx took certain concepts that Hegel theorized on, like dialectics, and applied them to areas that Hegel had never intended them to be applied to. There's a difference between vague inspiration and open support of an ideology. And, I'm sorry, what have you "gotten out of the way" exactly? You made a bunch of vague, unsupported statements and then refused to argue for the actual assertions you made. You only continue doing that here. To say the only difference between fascists and communists/socialists is nationalism vs globalism is, frankly, hilarious. Fascists call for a dictatorship to enforce right wing social and economic views, and enrich the private market while they repress the people. Socialism calls for social ownership, under systems from democratic to stateless, and exists all across the national to international spectrum. We know what nationalist communists looked like, from the Black Panthers to parts of the USSR themselves, and unsurprisingly, they still had nothing in common with right wing fascists. Hitler didn't just go after "the commies," he went after all ideologies of the left and of liberalism that he could, he attacked not only socialists and their organization but murdered the supporters of socialism and those that socialists protect, he disbanded labor organizations, made them illegal, and purged his own party of socialists. Oh, and again, all while working with and politically elevating open conservatives and capitalists. As a nationalist, he didn't want socialists to report to him, he wanted them dead. Funny you mention the Doctrine of Fascism, and Mussolini, especially given how both disprove your point. It must be noted, however, that your quote already does nothing to back up your assertion. In this quote, we see Mussolini claiming that Fascism is an ideology of freedom and the individual, so long as the individual is in line with the interests of the nation. Now, what about this is any different from any modern conservative nationalist, that cries for freedom until someone starts burning flags? This quote doesn't even speak of economics. Are you just trying to assert that "totalitarianism = socialism?" We'll get to that, but for now, some quotes you've decided to leave out. "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). "'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist 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). Seems he was open about fascism's anti-socialism, and right wing nature. Now, how about his economy? "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 "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation... State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient" - Benito Mussolini And so on. Hm, really seems like fascism has nothing in common with socialism. On to your next quote.
    1
  1963.  @jonathanstevey1748  Once again, I'm not sure why you quote this passage, as it entirely contradicts your assertion. Hitler is openly questioned on the fact that his party platform directly contradicts all previous and ongoing socialist movements, which disproves your notion that his ideology could be defined as socialism in his own time period. Hitler's response to this is lumping all of those previous and ongoing movements, marxist or not, into the label "Marxism," and asserting that this is not socialism. True "socialism," according to hitler, is an ideology that supports private property, that supports right wing nationalism, that allows for individual wealth. Hitler even openly admits that he might have called the party the "Liberal Party," the liberal party of the Weimar republic being an openly right wing capitalist institution. Hitler, after all, openly opposed the inclusion of "Socialist" in the party name. You've quoted hitler denying your point, and you refuse to explain how this supports the idea that he was left wing or socialistic. But hey, let's add insult to injury and look at more quotes, both from him and about him. "...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 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). 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 At this point Hitler turned to his neighbour Amann and said: 'What right have these people to demand a share in property or even in the administration? Herr Amann, would you permit your typist to have any voice in your affairs? 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." "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" "‘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.’ - Strasser, Hitler and I ""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."" - Hitler
    1
  1964.  @jonathanstevey1748  And so on. You get the picture yet? Historians and Hitler alike, showing his open distaste of socialism and the left, and in his own words, praise of the right. We could even look at the parties that voted for the enabling act: -The German National People's Party was 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) Notice a pattern? All right-wingers and all conservatives. And now, for your utterly failed attempt at defining socialism, which includes citing the definition... and then ignoring it. Socialism, simply put, 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." Now, as we've been over, Hitler was rather open about his distaste towards community control, praising instead private individuals in control of the means of production. "Community control" is synonymous with "Social control," both being control by the community as a whole, and both of which hitler despised. I'm not sure you know what a command economy is. A command economy is one in which a government, any government right or left, orders the economy and industry to produce something. Top-down instructions. A socialist economy can be a command economy, but only if the ruler in place is totally representative of the will of the community as a whole. A socialist economy is defined as one in which the means of production are socially owned. Now, child, regulated/owned/controlled by the community doesn't mean government control. Do you understand how silly your assertion is? You literally say that a community can control through government, so therefore community control is always state control and the two are synonymous. This, of course, is not true. The community can own the means of production as a whole, in different groups, subservient to one leader, on an equal playing field, without a state at all, even. So, no, even by your own definition and logic, socialism is not government controlled economy. "Usually" is not "Always." Marx is funny to bring up here, given that he was open about his notion that socialism is best put into practice without a state at all. He didn't call for an economy under the state, but an economy without the state. Socialism is social control, not state control. You're asserting that socialism is as old as civilization. Of course, this is all moot given that the fascists didn't even desire state ownership, but rather, private ownership. Literally none of your citations support your point. So, no, fascism is not a form of socialism. Funny how the video you linked proves my point exactly, with comments full of people defending fascism. How ironic, hm? Didn't check for that did you. And again you seem to not know the basics of the history of Sorelianism. Sorel, again, didn't create National Syndicalism. He theorized on a number of things, namely the failure of marxism and the need for political violence, which fascists took inspiration from. However, National Syndicalism was formed when french conservatives attempted to synthesize their anti-democratic impulses and the anti-democratic impulses of other groups. When this was happening, Sorel rejected it, and advocated for communism and works along the lines of Proudhon. National Syndicalism isn't Sorelianism, nor are they commonly known as the same thing. Sorel didn't call for "classical tradition," in fact, most of his criticism was focused on the failure of traditionalism and liberalism alike in running an economy. Those that advocated for traditionalism were, again, the french conservatives that attempted to use syndicalism to gain power and support from the masses, while openly attempting to reject the actual ideology of syndicalism, that being socialism through unions. And again, Marx didn't call for a state controlled economy, he called for the abolition of the state.
    1
  1965.  @jonathanstevey1748  Your quotes here, as deflectionary as they are, also don't support your point. Sorel starts by praising Lenin, and shows his support for the very things that, as I've cited, Mussolini opposed. However, as we've been over, Mussolini's past is complicated. Shortly after he was expelled from the socialist party, as in, around the time or after many of the quotes praising his work had been stated, he began to move away from socialism, again, in his own words. Sorel, in his life, openly rejected fascism and nationalism as contrary to his ideology, after trying to stabilize the synthesis that had already formed. In any case, you can see in your own quote here that Mussolini praises Sorel not for his economic or social views, as in the things that define socialism, but rather for his views on the necessity of violent organization (revolutionary tactics) that Sorel was famous for having concretely theorized on, something that inspired conservatives as well as the emerging fascist groups. The key bit being that none of this proves that fascism has any connection with socialism, nor even that fascists held favorable views of socialists or vice versa. Sorel compliments Mussolini before Mussolini rejects the vast majority of his work, Mussolini compliments Sorel not on economics or ideology but on organization. After all, in Mussolini's own words he isn't a socialist, and in fact he praised Sorel for allowing for an anti-socialist revolution with his work. Sorry you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. So, what have we learned? Fascists despised the left, despised socialists, openly identified with the right and worked with/praised/were supported by right wingers, all while purging and repressing the left. They fit neither the definition of socialism nor left wing and they were very aware of this fact. You attempted to disprove this, but in the process only cited evidence of it. I, on the other hand, am more than happy to give proof when needed. "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." So no, child, fascism isn't a form of socialism, by any definition, in any true telling of history, and they knew it. Fascism is a form of far right anti-socialism.
    1
  1966.  @jonathanstevey1748  So you aren't even able to come up with your own arguments, you just copy-paste something? What will you do now that it's been effortlessly debunked? "I can't refute it?" Child, you refuted it in your own response. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? I now you doubt I refuted it, because being honest with yourself might lead to you understanding how horrifically ignorant you have been on these matters. You have nothing but insults, and saying "nuh uh' isn't an argument. Noting that historians have found centuries of evidence to disprove your claims isn't an "appeal to authority fallacy." Stay on topic, kid. You're getting schooled, remember?
    1
  1967.  @randomnerd9088  Oh god, you really are just an uneducated reactionary.
    1
  1968.  @randomnerd9088  The nazis, and fascists generally existed as a blatant and open denial of the views of marx. Your definition of socialism is so broad, you define it as simply the power of the moral group over the immoral group. Not only is this false (morality doesn't have anything to do with it) and would constitute a different ideology anyway (changing key terms and ey groups with different goals changes the ideology) your definition is so broad that it would include capitalism.
    1
  1969.  @randomnerd9088  Intersectionalism, Bolshevism, Maoism, Unionism, or anti-colonial unionism are all ideas, philosophies, and movements designed to strive for equality though. "anarcho" capitalism is a contradiction in terms, but they and libertarians don't argue for equality, they argue for an unregulated inequality of wealth and power. And what stops me from saying "much as the fascists see the nation, the capitalist sees the owners?"
    1
  1970.  @randomnerd9088  Free healthcare is a policy that exists under capitalist countries. nazi rhetoric is the only part of nazi history that has a basis in socialism or marxism. In terms of ideology, nazism incorporates socialism and marxism only in that it utterly rejects it. right vs left is hierarchy vs the destruction of hierarchy, and this is why "an"caps, libertarians, ect are right wing. Nazi ideology is anti-socialist at its core.
    1
  1971. No, i'm sorry, but that is not the case. In no way, shape, or form could hitler be considered a socialist, and this video is a testament to how far you have to twist that definition of "socialist" for the argument to even be made (and failed) in the first place.
    1
  1972.  @colb715  Well, first off, because that isn't quite true is it? He didn't have full control of the means of production in the hands of the state. Second off, that isn't even socialism, socialism is when the workers have full control, not a dictator. And the name means nothing, he was a notorious liar.
    1
  1973. Or, perhaps, you are just ignorant of the numerous attempts to define the political philosophy because you want to blame everything on leftists.
    1
  1974.  @sslave7815  Again, you an relinquish ownership and managing of something for a time and profit from that. But that isn't the definition of private property. Private property is, again, determined by if that property is managed by you but used by someone else and you are the sole profiteer, or not. Yes, you can sell a toothbrush, but then you do not own it. You can rent it out, but then you do not manage it. Are you seeing the connections yes? Sure, people can do a whole host of things with property that they claim as theirs, but that doesn't stop it from fitting into distinct classifications. And something doesn't need to actually be successful private property to be private, the point is that the goal is always to employ others, and then use the product of their work to fund the business, only paying back to those people a small amount of the actual money that they helped you to make. Private property.
    1
  1975.  @sslave7815  Those are literally where the terms come from though, economic professors and experts that need to make the distinction. And I don't see why it's odd either, there is a fundamental difference. One has existed since the start of humanity, the other, for only a few hundred years in any perpetuity. Because when a worker uses a hammer, they are the sole owner and operator. You can claim to technically own it, but they are the one actually using and profiting from it. A hammer can, in certain rare circumstances, be private property, but in reality nobody rents out hammers and demands a return on that rent that comes from the profit of a person's project.
    1
  1976.  @sslave7815  Adam Smith, Keynes, and Alfred Marshall, and so on. Again, it really isn't something that is at all uncommon, given the sense it makes. Some small cases of pre-private property existed, nothing like what exits today worldwide, at all You literally have to be a means of production to fit that definition, what are you talking about? The very definition of private property rests on its production, and what is done with the profits from said production. Do you see how that doesn't make any sense to try to refute? Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but economics are weird and specific. The nature of private property is something long discussed and the definition must reflect its material reality.
    1
  1977.  @sslave7815  All classification is objective, the problem is whether or not you decide to factor it into your analysis. If you disagree with the distinction between personal and private you are free to ignore it, but it will continue existing, and that won't stop. The distinction is well known, with arguments for and against it stretching back centuries now. Furthermore, you assert that none of the named figures dealt in this distinction, a claim made without evidence of course. And I don't just "believe," it is a well known fact that the writings of Adam Smith contributed immensely to the formation of a personal/private distinction, as well as the theorizing on the labor theory of value. You call it a "leftist idea," not once considering that you may be very wrong. Capitalists already preach that the individual should be separated, alienated from their own production. The private and personal distinction is a clear one that shows a distinct difference in means and maintenance, and you trying to turn it into some conspiracy doesn't change that. Removing the "right" to private property, one enforced by the state with violence, does nothing to take away the ability of an individual to produce things, and then distribute or trade them. You advocate that an individual should give up their means of production in favor of a rich few, who claim to have a right to the labor of others. Social ownership is far from vague or abstract, and in no way destroys competition or the market, for the love of god educate yourself. What about workplace democracy stops a business from producing goods that others need? And the whole point of the market isn't "competition," it's trade.
    1
  1978.  @sslave7815  Nope, it is objective, and well studied/well researched. The definitions exists outside of leftist or marxist ways of thought as I have previously proven, nor would your assertion do anything to disprove its objective existence. The definition of private has been provided. You can't rebut it. I'm not cherrypicking anything, i'm proving you wrong by giving you statements and areas of study of a person you evidently have never read or studied. Owners don't own the material either, and owners only claim ownership because they believe it is a right. Workers don't even own the product of their labor, they own wages that are paid based on a smaller amount than they make the company. The state is the only thing that enforces that "right," if it was so natural the state wouldn't have to protect it so violently, but here it is, doing exactly that. There is no right to another person's labor, something a "right" to provide property intrinsically requires. You do, quite literally, advocate for exactly that. You advocate for individuals to give up their property to people who have no right to claim it. Capitalists claim the labor of others for their own profit, and hand back wages which do not represent the labor of a worker. And what are you talking about? Collective ownership and social ownership are synonymous, and neither of them imply private property in the slightest, instead openly refuting those notions. I've already explained social ownership, it's pretty damn simple. Workplace democracy is the cornerstone of marketplace social ownership, and society is not an abstraction, it is an observable reality. The individuals, the collective, the world around us is the society. It doesn't make sense to you because you don't understand what a society is - people.
    1
  1979.  @sslave7815  Because I gave you the proof you asked for, and you have yet to actually come up with a coherent or complete counter argument? I gave you evidence, you give me nothing. The definition is correct and is agreed upon by more than socialists, I gave you the proof you asked for to prove you wrong, and you are just denying it by saying i'm wrong without providing any proof. Owners own things because they claim they do, money has no intrinsic transitive property that allows people to claim the labor of so many others, unlike what you seem to believe. I'm not a believer in the labor theory of value, unlike Adam Smith who we have touched upon previously. The problem is, you simply don't understand the economic concepts in discussion. You assert that the reason people are paid so little is down to "supply and demand," which is false. Not only is the concept that any old person can preform a job false, it's absurd. In any case, even if there was little to no supply and endless demand, the workers still would not make as much as they make the company. That has nothing to do with supply and demand, you don't understand the subject in question. Yes, the state is quite literally violently enforcing the right to live. There are other ways to avoid murder, of course, but how is it ridiculous to point out that the state acts with violence, and that most rights only exist because a state defends it? Nope, workers are being stolen from. How can they "consent" when they have no other choice but to sell their labor, or starve? That isn't voluntary. Those are, quite literally, synonyms. The definition of collective ownership is quite literally ownership by the collective, or community. Social ownership is "the appropriation of the surplus product produced by the means of production by a society or community as a whole," so yes, the same thing. If a group of workers own a factory and go on to continue to use said factory, they aren't capitalists, they aren't participating in private ownership. I explained that all though, time and time again. Society is an objective, observable thing, which in the economic sense is synonymous with the collective/community as a whole, as i've already said. I gave you your answer, you didn't understand it. Quit wriggling away and deal with that fact.
    1
  1980.  @sslave7815  Jesus, your ignorance only gets more profound, huh? I gave you exactly the evidence you asked for, the names of several non-leftist economists that studied and used those distinctions. You call that, and me reminding you of that, a deflection. Can you prove that those are exclusive to socialists, as you have previously asserted? Can you stop avoiding answers? And this... god, this is genuinely one of the most economically ignorant statements i've ever heard. First off, not a socialist. Second off, you literally assert that the most successful business... is one making a loss. Let me explain this to you - under capitalism, you as a worker are paid a wage. You might work 1 hour to make a cake. The cake is sold for $40, meanwhile, you are paid $15 an hour. So, that's $25 missing. Some of that goes to cover the costs of electricity, cleaning, other workers, ect... but not all of it. Some of it goes into the owner's hands, and that is profit. The $15 is what the employee makes, the $40 is what they make the employer.No matter what, if a company wants to make a private profit, the number given to the employee must always be less than what they make the employer. Even if the employee is paid $15 million, because supply is minimal and demand is maximal, the boss must still make more. If, as you suppose, the employee's value skyrocketed, and they "exceed the value they actually create," that would be like an employee earning $40 an hour, and only making the company $15 with their labor. That means that employing that person is now a loss, not a profit, and they'd be fired. Do you get it now? Again, basic economics. You literally think that supply and demand can cause a person to be paid more money than their employer has. You fail to understand basic economics. I am an anarchist personally, but the point I made was simply that the state enforces many things through violence. Collective ownership, in no way, is the same as private ownership. If you genuinely believe that, than according to you, socialists are actually capitalists. Collective ownership is defined as " the ownership of means of production by all members of a group for the benefit of all its members." NOT just any random small group controlling the rest. As we've been over, to privately own something like a factory means to put one or multiple people in charge of others that have no or little power over the company, and profit from their labor. A collectively owned factory is one in which every worker directly owns the product of their labor, and it isn't being siphoned off to another disconnected group. Collective doesn't mean "a group," it means the group as a whole, in this case, being everyone who works under said company. Collective ownership and social ownership are synonymous. This might be a language thing, but collective ownership isn't when any group owns something, it's when the whole group owns it. For example, your example "if a giant transcontinental company is owned by a small collective of people, do this people stop being capitalists?" is not collective ownership. That company is owned by a small group of private individuals and organizations. If it was collectively owned, it would be owned by every employee. You've finally realized that market economies don't need private property, but you've tried to redefine private property to include socialism. And again, i've already answered that question. I don't know why I bother to answer your nonsense in depth, you obviously aren't paying attention, learning, or even responding to my statements. You are asking me for the "vessel" or the "organ" through which society would exert ownership, and as i've said before, it can happen a number of ways. People can own their means of production directly with workplace democracy, they could own the means of production on a community wide basis, they could go through unions or representative democracies to pass policies to benefit their interests, and so on. There are hundreds of ways to manage it, but one specific way is, again, for each individual enterprise to be collectively owned. Also, state ownership is different from social/collective ownership because while the latter can go through the former, not all of the former is the latter. I think the problem is that you don't understand my responses, and thus, assert that my responses aren't answering your questions, rather than you just not getting my rational responses right away.
    1
  1981. he also thinks corporations are socialist, mate.
    1
  1982.  @JT-rc4ng  that's literally not even close to true. The Nazis hated socialists, and they took nothing from the ideology. They worked with the Capitalist classes far more than any Socialist movements, sided with conservatives frequently, and hated any form of worker control. Your own response shows you have no idea what Socialism even means, because the systems you describe wouldn't even be Socialist in the first place.
    1
  1983.  @jackstarr4726  the problem of course being that you like to invent new meanings for old words and act as if that's at all acceptable.
    1
  1984.  @jackstarr4726  ah, the problem there being that you have decided to redefine Socialism to fit your narrative
    1
  1985. IT's largely because they were centrists economically, and right wing socially.
    1
  1986.  @grieverff8ff9  and it can be dismissed in much the same way, with nothing but an ideological agenda
    1
  1987.  @grieverff8ff9  well it seems that those attitudes are a bit more common today than either of us would like
    1
  1988.  @grieverff8ff9  aaaand that's what I call an ideological lens put before reality. Come on man, that just isn't true.
    1
  1989.  @grieverff8ff9  not only is that not true, it's just an utter assertion That's the problem, you hear about one subject or event and try to factor it into this broad conspiracy, but it doesn't work. Post modernism, today, is just a buzzword ideologically motivated people try to use to discount anything they don't like
    1
  1990.  @grieverff8ff9  yes, you saying "you can clearly see" something is totally evidence. Great job mate.
    1
  1991.  @grieverff8ff9  ok, again, saying something is very clear does not make that true
    1
  1992.  @grieverff8ff9  ...which is another ideological piece through a lense
    1
  1993.  @grieverff8ff9  my argument is that accusing everything you don't like of being "infested by postmodernism" and your only proof is a broad assertion and a link to a book that (supposedly) represents the ideology, then you are arguing from an ideological lens
    1
  1994.  @grieverff8ff9  How could I have? You just linked it, and I've never come upon it when researching postmodernism. The title alone is a misnomer. In any case, I have my own area of expertise. Going to, and eventually teaching at, local colleges and universities, and not once running into any sort of pervasive culture of postmodernism.
    1
  1995.  @grieverff8ff9  I didn't dismiss it, I questioned the actual relevance of it, especially considering the title and fact that I had never come across it. And yes, I'm aware, "government bad, free market good." That isn't ideological at all. I very much doubt that. I've been all over the country, and never seen any of this. Which is why i'm so willing to "dismiss" it, because it doesn't jive with reality as i've been privy to.
    1
  1996.  @grieverff8ff9  I cannot make a judgement, nor do I seek to dismiss it. But you shouldn't base an entire argument off of a single work, with no real reason for me to to mind of it. And yes, I am aware those are different things, but they always end up the same way. Ideology tends to bias people, even in ways that they themselves may not realize until later.
    1
  1997.  @grieverff8ff9  All of those things, critical race theory, gender studies, womens studies... they have nothing to do with postmodernism. As a person who attended a few individual sessions of a gender studies class, to see what all the fuss was about, it's literally just people talking about history and the nature of societal perception. Same with the others, history and a way to view it/things to focus on. These ideas are not here to tear down society, they are here to help us better understand society so we don't make the mistakes of the past. I really see no issue with that at all. And yes, again, I know they are different. But when a person is speaking through their ideological lens you must acknowledge that bias, no matter how big or small, because it does exist, Ignoring it, or worse denying it, only sets you up to have that denial be pointed out in the future. Ideological is not bad, but it is ideological, and must be recognized as such.
    1
  1998.  @soundaddiktion2006  I very much doubt that, considering the vast amount of historical evidence to the contrary.
    1
  1999.  @soundaddiktion2006  Actually, a large portion are not academic and historical. Looking through them, a large portion are opinion pieces on other pieces of literature, that he neglected to cite. Hm. That, and he cites... youtubers. And in case, for which issue, hm? You just busted in here and seem to think that saying "but you're wrong" is a valid counter augment.
    1
  2000.  @soundaddiktion2006  good thing that wasn't the thing I was referencing, but now that you point it out, yes TIK does attach his opinion to even those sources rather than read them skeptically and objectively.
    1
  2001.  @soundaddiktion2006  Mate, you've got to be joking, right? Do you really write this and then post it without thinking twice? Or hell, even once? There are so many issues with your lackluster thinking that it's hard to even point it all out. First off - why the hell would you ever, ever take hitler on his word. The man was literally best known for being a massive liar, master orator, and convincing propagandist. Look at his actual actions, not the things he said to quell a stressed populace or get him elected. Second off, there is a hell of a lot more economic systems than just capitalism and socialism. You implying that Hitler must be a socialist because... you don't think he sounds like a capitalism... is terribly ignorant. All you can do is make those assumptions, alongside your own silly insults. That's the problem with the people who watch, and heaven forbid agree with this video, they have zero critical thinking skills. What you're doing is not being objective, it's trying to be correct even when you objectively are not. All you have done is prove he does not agree with your version of capitalism, or rather, you don't think he did. That's the best evidence, and argument, you've brought to the table. You, and the audience of this video, hell even TIK himself either refuse to correctly define your terms, or knowingly redefine them. So you're either ignorant, and you don't know capitalism and socialism when they are described to you, or you are being malicious and purposefully lying and redefining terms for the benefit of your ahistorical argument. You're right, it's not an argument of opinion. Anyone who says hitler was a socialist was objectively wrong, unless you want to play semantic tricks and redefine well known terms that don't fit your argument. Just as an experiment - define socialism for me. Then capitalism. Let's see how far off you can get. And trust me, i've seen it go way off.
    1
  2002.  @soundaddiktion2006  Ah, mate. I asked for your definition, because the one you gave and the one he gave me personally are very different. Again, probably should have looked into that before you started to act like an idiot mate. And hey, you were closer than TIK was! However, socialism is not "state" control of the means of production, it has always been social control. The people have to have control and influence over the land, even if indirect, for it to be socialism. Just state ownership doesn't count, because some of the first socialists didn't even want a state, and spent their lives fighting against absolute monarchies, a system in which the state actually did own everything. But hey, you were close. However, you don't even follow your own definition it seems. Mate, regulation on a capitalist market is not socialism. That's just regulated capitalism. Your example is just that. Plenty of capitalist countries have similar, or even more expansive price control policies, and people are all too happy to remind you that they're capitalist. Hell, you might want to look into other countries at the same time during WW2. No one tries to call them socialist, because they're not idiots, but they had stronger control over industry and markets. So let me say again, 1. Socialism is not state control. It has never been state control, and hell most of the first socialists didn't even want a state. 2. Even in that case, a definition must be absolute. A country isn't socialist because it regulates capitalism lie what you described, it's just a regulated capitalist system. Hell, the policy you described is about as far from socialism as it can get. Did they give the farmers direct, democratic control of the lands they worked on? And I'm aware that he likes defining his terms, but clearly, he's been misleading you that whole time. When I talked with him, he simply defined socialism as "any system with hierarchy" (no, i'm not joking) and capitalism as "the perfect individual." That's why I need to help you guys with your definitions, because actually knowing them to you is being "willfully ignorant."
    1
  2003.  @VeaFlea  We literally are, mate. No major US politicians are actually calling for the dismantling of capitalism, most are calling for the dismantling of the failed or dangerous parts of our american system, like how we run prisons, and replace them with something that still works within capitalism. The vast majority of violent extremists are on the right, hell they've committed 76% of all violent terror in the past decade. Google doesn't silence conservatives, it props them up and allows them to speak while conservatives act like whiny snowflakes and pretend to be "silenced" to get more views. So yes, it looks like I was right. We are living through a red scare, because morons like you have to lie as much as you did to pretend otherwise.
    1
  2004.  @VeaFlea  "yikes" yeah ok bud. And you can pass that judgement why?
    1
  2005.  @VeaFlea  Nope, not really. It's people getting their views and actions actually held against them, no just swept under the rug.
    1
  2006.  @VeaFlea  Mate, you realize being able to protest products and affiliations is literally the definition of free speech, right? That's how dumb your movement is, you're literally saying using free speech is the same as calling someone out for wrongthink.
    1
  2007.  @VeaFlea  Yeah, so in other words you have to lie about a group of people you know nothing about in order to restrict their speech. I take it you would prefer if people weren't allowed to voice their opinions on the president, or weren't allowed to criticize or disagree with others?
    1
  2008.  @VeaFlea  So what do you propose? Silencing those who use their speech?
    1
  2009.  @VeaFlea  it's your level, though. And you've stopped beyond it.
    1
  2010.  @grieverff8ff9  postmodernism has literally nothing to do with Marxism or Socialism. Its just another buzzword people use to talk about those they don't like. Which is the real redefining of words happening here.
    1
  2011.  @theonlydjtopcat  that's not marxism, but ok.
    1
  2012.  @TheImperatorKnight  That's... one way to put it. Not a very nuanced way, of course.
    1
  2013.  @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 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
  2014.  @Thombene77  cry harder
    1
  2015.  @Thombene77  A I aid, cry harder. Evidently you need to wok something out.
    1
  2016.  @Thombene77  Free yourself from your zealotry and cultism, one day you'll understand basic reality.
    1
  2017.  @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
  2018.  @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
  2019.  @Zero41sv  Your perspective is not immaculate, and your observations are not universal. Holding any stock in horseshoe theory is always a red flag.
    1
  2020.  @Zero41sv  If you honestly assume that all sides of the political spectrum, with all their differences, remain the same simply because they are not in the middle, I cannot help you. But sure, fine. Discourse is useless anyways, I guess. Have a nice weekend.
    1
  2021.  @wtice4632  Switching the labels doesn't do anything, simply put, the idea that one side is collectivist and one is individualist, and that horseshoe theory holds any merit, is nonsense
    1
  2022.  @Blackninjafox13  Yeah, but the reason they're "forced" to do that isn't because school teachers want to push some narrative, but because while children are growing up they often don't know what they want to do with their lives until later. Even if they never go into math, it is useful to have a baseline knowledge of mathematics, and there are plenty of people that have changed their minds or decided their career based on classes they initially saw as useless or that they didn't like, myself included. And pointing out the link between the private and the public in terms of college doesn't really go against that. For one, I think generally we can agree that a better educated population is a better thing all around. Even if said education is not useful for the majority of people, there will always be a sizeable amount that do make very good uses for it. Because of this, the government incentivizing college education isn't the problem, the problem is the government taking money from private business, those being the colleges in question, to push government policy that will further profit the colleges. The problem is not one of the government alone, but the colleges using the government and the government using the colleges in turn. This, in actuality, is the reason that so many government officials go into private corporations later, and why so many private corporations put in place government officials to dictate the policy and regulation surrounding their industry. It isn't because these officials want to push an idea of state supremacy, they just want individually to profit, and a lifetime of lobby money and guaranteed job is a good way to do that. However, none of this addresses my statement, that being that often the public education system, as in not private universities, are influenced and managed by private corporations. And again, this is an assumption. In reality, the only classes in school that ask students to mindlessly repeat back facts are classes dealing with objective facts with no room for debate or nuance, such as basic physics, or mathematics. Even then, teachers individually often encourage things like new or personalized equation solutions, for example. In fact, funnily enough, the main reason that teachers in other, more contentious fields (English, History, my fields) ask students to simply memorize and repeat is because companies like College Board require a certain number of texts to be read, events to be covered, projects to be done, ect, for their standardized testing, the scores of these tests determining the teacher's employment. I know this is anecdotal, but you would not believe the amount of times i've heard a coworker go on a tirade against College Board restricting or changing their curriculum. In any case, while I agree that the nature of grading is one that is flawed and should be subject to much criticism, the actual knowledge imparted is the important part. As for this, i'll address it to ways. One being that it isn't entirely true, the other being that it doesn't matter. So, first off, the notion that every person (lottery winner, inheritance receiver, ect) that gets a substantial amount of money, will then waste it, isn't very accurate. While it is true that these people are on the whole most likely worse financial planners than one who planned out and created that fortune, that doesn't mean all will just squander it. First off, a lot of this money is in saving accounts, property or investments, things that very well might accrue money by themselves, without you having to touch them at all. Now this person doesn't just have a fortune, they have a growing fortune at their disposal. Furthermore, one could pretty easily hire a financial planner, or some form of expert to help you manage and reinvest these funds. You yourself aren't adding value to the world, you're hiring someone with money someone else made to make you more money. As for the second approach - why would it matter if they squander it all quickly? Why do they still get a right to use those funds to surpass the work of hardworking individuals, and to push their financial or political goals? In any case, I disagree with the notion that the only way a monopoly can be formed is through government, but what stops the private companies in question... from appealing to the government with their money? And most of those on the top of society actually stand by far the least to be impacted by their opinions. This person could spend thousands if not millions of dollars pushing for political points that hurt them and their community, but they have the funds to move elsewhere, the savings to keep going, the connections to rebuild, and so on. You say that "if everyone has the same voting power some people have way more risk than others," but how is that not the same case with money? The rich have far less risk to begin with, but they can and often do "vote" for policies that are a net negative for other people (such as the enforcing of virtual monopolies) that only benefit them. I think it's pretty apparent really that if you all have the same vote, it's much more likely that the outcome of a decision reflects the people in question, rather than having a system where one person from halfway around the country has the finances to be able to singlehandedly determine your local policy. Furthermore, in terms of these people "benefitting their community," who is the community in question? Your local community? Your nation? What? I mean, the story of 21st Century Labor is one of lowering costs and outsourcing labor to cheaper countries. While it is true that one way to gain profit is to offer a better product or service to benefit your community, it is also true that this is not the only way. Profit is income minus expenses, so you can either profit by increasing your income... or lowering your expenses. And it turns out, in a 1st world country of high expectations, it is far easier to to the latter than the former. So no, these types don't really benefit their community. And taking care of demand doesn't really equate to any sort of societal benefit. The thing is, you argue from the position that the power of financial inequality is a good one, because it incentivizes societal improvement for personal gain. I like the notion of societal impact, and I think it can be incentivized through personal gain. However, what is also true is that the modern system does not reflect that. Think of it this way - we have created a worldwide system where the goal is always profit. This started with good intentions, but the thing is, the good intentions were always framed as a byproduct of the profit, not the goal, even though the goal always was a system that would best improve society. Well, for a while now, people have been finding ways to cheat the system, to knock out the ladder under themselves, to profit without a major or even in cases present push for societal gain. They've subverted the middle man and gone full steam ahead with profit. While markets and government do have their own problems, many of them which are the same, they are also intertwined in rejecting their duty, one to benefit the consumer, one to benefit the citizen. Instead, they benefit eachother. This is not a system of societal improvement. In any case, don't worry about going long, as you can see I didn't keep it short myself. I like civil conversation and I like to hear new ideas, and yours aren't ones i've discussed in quite a bit. So please, I look forward to your response, and let me know if there's anything you felt i've missed, or was wrong on.
    1
  2023.  @Blackninjafox13  Oh, absolutely! I could do that at some point, probably later today, i'd be happy to in fact. I'm not a big discord person but i'd be happy to try And it certainly would save some time in terms of responses.
    1
  2024.  @Blackninjafox13  Oh yeah, absolutely! Sorry if that takes a while, trying to work out some job transition stuff, but i'll be there or there!
    1
  2025.  @Blackninjafox13  alright, see you there!
    1
  2026.  @Blackninjafox13  Alright, looks like some things need to be addressed here as well... Your assertion that wealth inequality isn't a problem is just that, an assertion. A more right leaning one, at that. I could criticize this assertion, such as by pointing out, say, that in your "system with very little to no regulation" there actually is something prohibiting social mobility, that being... the other people in said system, attempting to climb up or down the ladder, competition not cooperation. In any case, I do just want to point out that despite calling fascism "leftist" and hitler "socialist," you helpfully provide a case study to point out their right wing rhetoric and beliefs. You say you fall into the libertarian branch, great. You say that people have a right to outcompete others, and be rewarded according to their skill or performance, and that it's a problem when groups or individuals are rewarded more for lesser performance or skill. This is a case of right wing ideology - the justification of hierarchies of competition and authority. The nazis, authoritarian rightists, believed that races have natural superiority over others, and a right to "outcompete" (I.E. exterminate and colonize the lands of) said "inferior" races. They believed that these "lesser" people were awarded unjustly with their lands, culture, and government, and that the true "master race" should be able to dominate the other ones. What's important to note here is that i'm not trying to call you a nazi or compare you to one, i'm simply pointing out that opinion towards hierarchy (the thing that determines right and left) remains consistent among the nazis and their right wing brethren, albeit with different labels. You support hierarchies of competence, they supported hierarchies of "racial competence" based on genetic traits and eugenics crack "Science." And a simple nitpick, but biologically this isn't true. In prides of lions, the strongest male lion eats first, regardless of work, followed by the rest of the males, and then the females. The reason for this is not because "they were responsible for getting the food," that implies a purposeful concept of "fairness" in the lions that is entirely human and not in the animal kingdom. The reason the males eat first... is because they're the ones expending the most energy by going out and hunting. They are allowed to eat first because if they are well fed, they can make sure the rest of the pride is well fed. Mutual, not competitive. In any case, this is another example of right wing rhetoric, that is, framing hierarchy as something that is natural and inevitable. The nazis simple claimed this of racial hierarchy. And finally, the reason I chose to respond to this. Yes, nazi germany was fascist. This is something TIK disagrees with you on, so i'm not sure why you cite him for your other claims when you clearly don't trust his statements. In any case, no, fascism does not come from a leftist ideology. Fascism was quite literally created out of a rejection of socialism. Fascism is an ideology in large part created by Mussolini, who rejected socialism, and attempted to appeal to the socialists with another system, one that denied the communal or worker control of a socialist system, but instead sought a class-colaborationist corporatist economy, using a heavy rhetorical push towards national and racial identity. The video we're discussing under is one in which TIK has to openly admit that the sources he cites contradict his claim. I'm sorry, but fascism is not leftist, and hitler was not a socialist. You admit that right wing authoritarianism exists, you say so earlier in this thread, and yet you deny some of the most well known right wing authoritarians. What does right wing authoritarianism mean to you?
    1
  2027.  @MadsterV  But that was quite literally a primary reason he was against leftism. I know, his "reasoning" was absurd, much like the modern right wingers that follow in his footsteps.
    1
  2028.  @mitscientifica1569  But they weren't right wing, a key component of fascism.
    1
  2029.  @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 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
  2030.  @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
  2031.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  2032.  @mitscientifica1569  Why do you keep lying about Orwell, a man who openly proclaimed nazism to be a right wing conservative anti-socialist ideology born of capitalism? Why do you keep including him quoting others as his own views, and ignoring his actual quotes? He made it clear that "National Socialism" was no form of socialism, so why do you continue to attempt to invoke his name in order to feed your lies?
    1
  2033.  @MadsterV  I agree, you started with absurd premises and reached absurd conclusions. You do for some reason seem to think that Hitler's rhetoric and conspiracies were 100% accurate and reflected reality? Odd. He was against leftism, he despised it, openly said the left would lead to the end of his civilization. He hated bankers because he thought they were a part of the same conspiracy that was pushing socialism/communism/marxism and funding the soviet union, a conspiracy theory that modern antisemites still use. He didn't nationalize banks, nor we he a socialist, as we've been over. And sorry, even modern right wingers carry in hitler's footsteps here. I mean in far more than one way but in this specific way especially. Accusing billionaires, private corporations and rich investors/bankers of being socialist, leftist, or otherwise anti-conservative is a right wing staple. I'm sorry you can't deal with the basic reality of hitler's far right anti-socialism.
    1
  2034.  @MadsterV  I mean yeah, you've kept us there a while. I have to wonder why you consider all calling out hypocrisy as a "no you" style argument. All you can really do is restate the same opinions of yours over and over again, never once listening to facts. As per usual, we have next to no response to the actual points raised. Rather, you put forward: - Deflections from the points raised - False accusations of fallacy: Hitler despised leftists, which included the soviets, but also included socialist movements and parties in his own country, as well as anarchists, unionists, even progressive social democrats. He saw them as all parts of the same conspiracy, one he said funded the soviet union primarily but sewed discontent and chaos in his own country as well. They weren't a "competing branch of socialism" as hitler was a far right anti-socialist - Again, false nonsense: You've brought up "leftist bankers" all by yourself with no priming from me, and when I point out that the nazis treated bankers in much the same way that the modern right treats bankers and other groups of "financial influence" for the same reasons, you call this a goalpost shift. - And I agree, he didn't. I mean, you even admit so yourself. The real sad part is you don't know what you're talking about. You openly admit you can't even remember the facts you're trying to cite. Do you see how that's a problem? Of course they were later put back in private hands, which openly goes against your claim of nationalization, which you now appear to be abandoning in favor of a claim of party influence, a clear goalpost shift. In any case, privatization into the hands of a person with a particular ideology is still privatization, as we've been over. You participating in much the same conspiracy is proving my point. This isn't really at all reflective of modern china, but again, even a 1 to 1 correlation would prove that they did not put in place a socialist system. The "party members" in china for example are often the wealthy individuals themselves, who are free to profit and utterly rule their property, which isn't socialist at all. I don't think you at all know the definition of socialism. In Hitler's country, the party was not in control of everything which would make it not even socialist according to your definition. And i'm sorry that you feel that a random paragraph of insults and assertions counts as some debunking, but in reality, that isn't how it works. I mean, you don't see the irony in claiming I don't research what I say, despite not sentences earlier saying you don't remember the names of the bans you're claiming to know about? So yes, i'd say given our previous conversations which you wholeheartedly ran away from, it's safe to say you're wrong about everything and even know it, and cannot stand the fact that even TIK has to admit the details and citations in his video easily prove him wrong. As we've been over, and as your lack of factual information has shown... hitler wasn't a socialist.
    1
  2035.  @MadsterV  Again, I have to wonder why you only ever end up listening to and believing specific parts of nazi rhetoric. Not even the whole of the rhetoric, and not analyses of the reality of his reign, but cherry picked rhetoric. For example, you utterly ignore when hitler says ‘Of course I should leave it alone... Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?" in response to questions of potential nationalization, or when he says "[Our ideology], 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.” or “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 even "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 so on. One could even question the words of his party members, such as Robert Ley's economic goal "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory – that is, the employer... Only the employer can decide." in line with hitler's wishes. Why do you assume a random letter is more valid that speeches to top party officials, or statements of ideological definition?
    1
  2036.  @MadsterV  So we've established that: - You don't know what socialism is. - You think Hitler's conspiracies were rational and based in reality - You participate in many of these conspiracies of "leftist infiltration/control" yourself - You don't know the definition of socialism - You know very little if anything about the modern political and economic landscape of china - You know very little if anything about the history of nazi ideology - You cannot stand the fact that hitler wasn't a socialist. See, I can go back and forward with you for days, giving you historical citations and proving you wrong at every turn. In fact, I already have, and you ran away after constructing a strawman argument you tried to blame on me, and then dismissed out of hand. But why would I bother? You've already proudly showcased your ignorance. My point is long proven, hitler wasn't a socialist. And let's go over just a few reasons why, reasons anyone can see without even having to dig into the specifics of nazi history. They are dead and gone and cannot correct your misinformation themselves... but we can see what their modern descendants are doing, actions you can't so easily deny. 1. Who is waving the modern swastika? An easy question, but a telling one. In the modern day, though far rarer, there are still those that proudly identify with nazi ideology. Where do they march? Who do they support? Who are they defended by? Well, the right, of course. The right has openly hosted nazi rallies, marches carrying nazi flags and shouting their slogans, events defended or denied by people that hold much the same opinions and even defended them before they went horribly wrong and the bigotry showed out in the open. We have a clear case of modern neo-nazis supporting the right, and in the few cases they don't, doing so only to back off and criticize those people and groups from an even further right point. This isn't even new, those relations with the right were how nazis took power in the first place. Unless you're arguing for the existence of "right wing socialism," that is more loved by conservatives than socialists, calling nazis socialists is absurd. 2. Where did the nazis go? We can quite literally trace the trajectory of nazis after the war, where they ended up, what they did, who they influenced. We can look, for example, at people like Wickliffe Draper, an american nazi supporter, who founded a conservative magazine that still exists to this day, a magazine also supported and contributed to by people such as Corrado Gini, head of a eugenics group in fascist italy, and Otmar Frierr von Verschuer, a nazi and mentor to Mengele himself. This publication, carrying on their legacy, continued on to found the majority of contributors to the conservative eugenics book known as "The Bell Curve," which is taken as fact by the modern conservative movement, and is the basis of modern conservative race relations. Even in the modern day, people in this magazine like Donald Swann were found with nazi iconography and to be praising them in private. This is just one connection of so many, and yet it wouldn't exist if your assertion is true. 3. Who sounds like the nazis today? The nazi ideology was one of conspiracies regarding leftist subversion of culture and tradition, of a hatred of equality, of right wing populism. If a person said "these damn cultural marxists are ruining our traditional values," what would you assume them to be, socialist or conservative? If a person said equality was unnatural and that the pursuit of it leads to societal ruin, do they sound more left or right? Are you getting the point yet? These are just three points of so, so many, and each of them individually prove you wrong. Do you see how that is a bit of a problem for your denialist narrative?
    1
  2037.  @MadsterV  But I have, many times over. I'm sorry you're so insecure in your arguments that you feel the need to deny that basic fact. I've singlehandedly presented the inherent fault in your "arguments." If I was just pretending to have arguments, you could easily prove every single one of my statements wrong. As of yet, you've only deflected or even openly admitted I was right. I'm sorry you can't handle that fact. Hitler was a far right anti-socialist, and you have no rebuttals to my points so you pretend they don't exist. run away, denialist. Evidently you don't have any actual counters to the reality I have shown you.
    1
  2038.  @MadsterV  So if hitler was a socialist, and you love the far right anti-socialist political descendants of hitler and his policies as you've shown, are you a socialist? OR are you willing to admit that i've easily proven your denialist nonsense wrong, with citations and reality you refuse to admit to? Why do you wish to excuse the crimes of your far right anti-socialist inspiration? I just find it funny that even after faced with the reality of "National Socialist" political views and association you just keep on with the same rubbish.
    1
  2039.  @MadsterV  Except you have yet to actually quote me saying anything about leftist bankers. So what exactly are you mocking? Do you just think repetition is more important than actually proving your claims? I've proven you wrong, the simple problem is you're utterly unwilling to even attempt to prove your claims, much less render them failed arguments. Again, restating the same things don't make them true. China does not fit the definition of communism. Ah, so you're falling into yet another rhetorical trap, doing your best to ignore the economic definitions in question. I don't think you know what socialization means. Let me help you: (from a previous response of mine) "First off, "socialize" means two things. One, to instill social values, and two, two transfer property into social hands. The first obviously hitler participated in, but then again, so does everyone, that doesn't have much to do with economic theory. The second though is what makes your statement into absolute nonsense. You are asserting that the "marxist" goal is to socialize the proletariat, and that hitler's goal was the "socialize the german race." You're asserting that hitler wanted to put the german race... into social hands? That he wanted his people to be owned by his people, and not the state or private forces? That is what the word "socialize" means in economic terminology. To privatize is to make into private property, to nationalize is to make into state property, and to socialize is to make into socially owned property, socially owned property being defined as property owned by the community/collective/workers as a whole. Think about it, what you're saying is the literal equivalent of "This person wanted to 'privatize' the gender" or something. It makes no actual academic or economic sense to use terms relating to property relations to describe individual identity. So no, hitler didn't want to put "the race" into their own hands, nor did he want to socialize his means of production as socialists desire. Hitler did desire to instill values into his people and to create a system where even private individuals worked for his benefit, but that has nothing to do with social ownership. While Marx did talk about "Socialization," he did so to mean something slightly different, that being the process by which labor is increasingly centralized as mass industry overtakes individual enterprise. He said that the means of production were already socialized, that is, socially/collectively operated, but not socially owned, which Marx saw as a contradiction. So, he advocated for the working class to adopt much the same principle relating to themselves, as in, work together, centralize their organization and political advocacy, and eventually work towards a system in which the means of production is both socially controlled and operated. He called this, the socialization of property relations, socialism. Nothing about the "socialization of race" fits hitler's beliefs, or marxist/non-marxist definitions of the term in philosophy or economics. That is, unless you're actually saying he wanted the people to own themselves, or he wanted the people to work together, rejecting bureaucratic authority." So no, he didn't socialize banks, unless you're suggesting he put the banks into the hands of the people, including his victims. So no, he didn't socialize factories, unless you're suggesting the workers of germany directly owned the means of production. So no, he didn't socialize human beings, as such a thing is economically impossible. And since we're talking about hitler quotes, why didn't you respond to these? "For example, you utterly ignore when hitler says ‘Of course I should leave it alone... Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?" in response to questions of potential nationalization, or when he says "[Our ideology], 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.” or “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 even "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 so on. One could even question the words of his party members, such as Robert Ley's economic goal "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory – that is, the employer... Only the employer can decide." in line with hitler's wishes. Why do you assume a random letter is more valid that speeches to top party officials, or statements of ideological definition?" So yes, his statements were anti-socialist, and as we've been over, you don't know what socialism is. He, like modern right wing populists, will say anything to get elected and then deny it when it's all over. You've been buying into his rhetoric the whole time son, are you proud? Socialization isn't synonymous with state control, hitler didn't advocate or participate in socialization, and socialism isn't state control. So yeah, yet another easy dunk on your denialist nonsense. Hitler, like you, wasn't a socialist.
    1
  2040.  @MadsterV  It's hard to "sidestep" something that you just made up and that I effortlessly disproved the first time you asserted it. Thank you for admitting, in your own words, "I've actually quoted the names of 3 banks privatized by Hitler." Thank you for admitting he didn't nationalize banks. And of course, listing more private banks... further proves my (our, now?) point. I don't thin you realize that though. So yes, three is more than enough to debunk your lies quite easily, as i've done time and time again.
    1
  2041.  @MadsterV  Summary since I know you can't read any argument over a sentence We have established further: - You have lied about my bringing up "leftist bankers," and have refused to substantiate said claim - You have continually ignored the basis of the conspiracies and social views in question, instead attempting to portray an absurdity and write it, and all subsequent arguments, off simply because you don't agree with it. - You think Hitler's conspiracies we're apparently all based in reality - You think his opposition to leftism was actually just opposition to one group of leftists, ignoring his hatred of all other groups of leftists and his rejection of core parts of leftism as an ideology and movement. - You have lied about me "backing out" of a claim I already proved. - You don't know anything about the modern economic climate of china and are unwilling to prove your point beyond saying "this is true" over and over again. - You do not understand the definition of economic socialization - You take hitler on his word, but only when you think he helps to spread your narrative, and ignore all other quotation. - Hitler didn't socialize banks - Hitler certainly didn't socialize factories - And hitler didn't socialize people, ie, he wasn't an anarchist - Hitler, like you, was an anti-socialist. - You still don't know the meaning of socialism - Hitler was far right and anti-socialist. - Your quote doesn't even show socialist economic goals - You admitted hitler privatized banks - You lied about the amount of citation I provided Oh, and most importantly. * - You leave the vast majority of my previous statements unanswered and unrebutted, which is a clear sign that you don't actually have a rebuttal.*
    1
  2042.  @MadsterV  Even shorter! Hitler wasn't a socialist. A simple fact that fills you with rage, but one you know you can't prove wrong :)
    1
  2043.  @HiddenOcelot  Which is exactly why i never claimed he was a capitalist, and why claiming he was a socialist is so absurd. He promoted a private, state backed economy. Not socialism or capitalism, but he also let the private market reign in control more than he let the state did. Public or state control was never a goal of hitler, again, he said it was inefficient and would tear down germany industry. Which is why he largely left the private market be.
    1
  2044.  @HiddenOcelot  By providing military contracts that guaranteed profit, and then allowing companies to compete for the person who would get to fulfill it. They also, of course, promoted social darwinism, so how could they not promote competition among business, among individuals, and within politics? It is the basis of their ideology.
    1
  2045.  @HiddenOcelot  Nope, he thought certain aspects of capitalism were bad, jewish, conspiratorial, ect However, these were only small aspects. For example, while he openly condemned international markets and social democracy, the idea of generating profit, of owning business privately, was one he was in favor of. And you continue to assert that "they set wages, they set production, they set resources, they set EVERYTHING" which, as we've been over, is false. Your problem is that you can't accept that often times, businesses were really free to do as they pleased, competing openly, and often with no threat from the nazis. Your assertions are not based in reality. The state was a backing force to capital, but capital ruled the economy of nazi germany with no equal, and trying to obscure that fact won't work. Also, fun fact, all private property is at the whim of the state, welcome to capitalism.
    1
  2046.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I agree, TIK is in dire need of citations.
    1
  2047.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Why does it annoy you so much that I made it through the entire video, when you couldn't?
    1
  2048.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Why would it? Why does collective ownership, which existed before even the modern conception of a state or nation-state, require that which was born long after it?
    1
  2049.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So you can admit you were wrong. Good!
    1
  2050.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  TIK uses sources that contradict his core claim, and openly, yes! And why would a lie about the political bases, associations, and goals of the nazis not embolden those who wish to follow in their footsteps?
    1
  2051. ​ @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Not to very many in this comment section it seems, who can only bring themselves to hate hitler because they lie about him, denying their similarities.
    1
  2052.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  And provided.
    1
  2053.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  And in fact, it has been used to describe anarchists in most parts of the world since :)
    1
  2054.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  the fact that he has you convinced that these books came to the conclusion of "capitalism" is worrying. And no, it's not ok to cite a source in good faith, act as though said cited source proves your claim, and then admit otherwise.
    1
  2055.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  How right wing similarities with the nazis run rampant?
    1
  2056.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  The british had, for example, their Common Land, before monarchs at first regulated, and then all but removed the system. Nomadic tribes and early agricultural societies followed much the same rules. For more in depth sources, the books Mutual Aid, (Kropotkin) Anarchism: A Historical Introduction, (Woodcock) On Race, Violence, and So-Called Primitive Accumulation, (Singh) The Earth Shall Weep: A history of native America, (Wilson) ect.
    1
  2057.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  False, it is used to describe all anarchists, until the word was recently taken over within the USA by capitalists, who by definition cannot be anarchists.
    1
  2058.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  No, you haven't. You parroted TIK's talking points on works you have no interest reading or understanding. After all, in nazi germany, collective ownership was never desired, and never put in place. So, in short, no, it isn't ok to claim you're citing a source when said source itself proves you wrong, and you attempt to hide that from others by redefining words.
    1
  2059.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Right wing. Political right. Hierarchy defenders and all that.
    1
  2060.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  ...alright, apparently according to you the state was actually a few thousand years old than all historians say! No, in actuality it was communally owned territory that was only "governed" by mutual agreement and voluntary association, and more often than not the actions of one would not harm another and thus they happened with no interference. However, as you haven't read a single source on the subject, you "presumed" governance. Your false assumptions aren't a point, and it is a simple fact that you are wrong.
    1
  2061.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  150 years? Sorry, when was the 1960s/70s 150 years ago?
    1
  2062.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I'm sorry, what exactly does a policy relating to the subdivision, restructuring, and hereditary ownership of farms have to do with collective ownership? How is a state-directed wartime business, far from uncommon in times of strife and mass-mobilization, collectively owned? How is an organization intended to remove power from unionists and workers, as in the collective, and concentrate said power in the hands of private and public individuals, collective ownership? Wait, I think I get it. You've managed to either fool yourself, or be fooled, into thinking collective ownership isn't actually ownership by the collective of people.
    1
  2063.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Given that you spend all day spewing right wing talking points? I'll doubt that.
    1
  2064.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Then the harmed individual would protect their rights. Pretty simple, how does that require a state?
    1
  2065.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Given that the word "libertarian" only came to be associated with capitalism in the 60s and 70s from Rothbard's movement, and he admits as much himself, you should really do more research
    1
  2066.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So... you don't know what "collectively" means. As I just said! Thank you for proving my point, and furthermore, proving that collective ownership was not a reality or goal of the regime. Why would it not have? The nazi ideology was one of war, and it built up for war since the moment it took power. Ah yes, nothing private about... including private business owners in the workings of the "union." Nothing at all private about taking power away from workers and giving it to private individuals. "State control is community control," the rallying cry of right wing extremists who prefer their easy political mantras to actual fact. State control is not community control, as the community... has no control. If you are willing to change the community to mean a small subsection of people, well sorry, capitalism is state control
    1
  2067.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Sadly, in reality, people are more than willing to reject that notion.
    1
  2068.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  ...oh, child. You... you haven't been listening, have you? Anarchists, as in anti-capitalists, have been using the term for a while, yes. This includes individualist anarchists, who were again, anti-capitalist. The term only came to be used by capitalists in the 1960s at earliest.
    1
  2069.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Those did exist without a state, yes. After all, without state force, who can stop you from walking away?
    1
  2070.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  You mean paraphrasing your favorite political youtuber that tells you what you want to hear, I know. The simple fact is, collective ownership was neither a reality or goal of the regime. You haven't much addressed that. And counter to whatever your holocaust denialist buddies say, his alliances and actions point far more to the fact that he would rather subjugate the world than let his enemies live in peace. I agree, you need citation. And again, if we change the definition of community control to any type of ownership by an organization, the vast majority of private property and capitalism becomes collective ownership.
    1
  2071.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  ...alright. jesus.
    1
  2072.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Lysander Spooner, the self-described socialist that said profit was immoral? Oh, wait, you didn't know that at all, did you?
    1
  2073.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I agree, you statists had a nice try there, trying to redefine the terms in question. But we had a territory, and a community. That's about all. why do you hate statelessness?
    1
  2074.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Now child, I know you hate the truth, but it is painfully apparent that you are incapable of individual thought. I'm sorry that you think repeating talking points over and over makes them true. Hitler apparently now opposed imperialism and the expropriation of oppression? If he only cared about one specific area, why did he murder, not deport? Citation needed, but none will be found for your denialism. And of course they were, in fact, the goal of the DAF was openly to refute the left, marxism, socialism, and the like. After all, that's why it is so often pointed out by people like Shirer in the Rise and Fall of The Third Reich that the DAF was run by private businessmen. Why does the truth make you lash out so much? Why do you assume that private individuals care about "cost efficiency" when they're profiting? Oh wait, I know. You don't know the definition of private either. And to say "corporations are not capitalistic," you deny all of economic history. I'm sorry child, but capitalist is a system of statism. It is, at its core, one aligned with forceful use of power. And corporations are private.
    1
  2075.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  They weren't "governed" by mutual agreement though, which is why I didn't say that, and i'm sorry that you feel the need to make up lies to make up for the fact that your statism was disproven. Simply put, we have no form of government here. No central power, no forceful authority being pushed, no laws, no governing. I want you to understand now just how deep the hole you've dug yourself is. You define a voluntary, mutual agreement, with the ability to leave at any time, and no force being imparted on any party involved, no central governance, and no state, as a system of "government here, and is therefore a state." No, child. It wasn't a system of government to begin with, as with your definition, statelessness is impossible because apparently voluntary agreements form a "State." At least you admit how absurd your position is here. No form of government, no state. If mutual, forceless voluntaryism isn't stateless, child, what is?
    1
  2076.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So, let's get this straight. A man who spent his life preaching about the evils of profit tried to live under a system he fundamentally disagreed with... and you say this changes his ideology. And given that "libertarians" force people into capitalism...
    1
  2077.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  >youtube. com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA So you admit that you have no argument to counter your constant failure to provide meaningful points? > Ironic you call me a child even though I was born 134 years ago ... Oh ok, so you're most likely a troll. Amazing. Now, I know you hate any sort of reasoning, but even you have to understand how absurd your statement is. Why do you find it unlikely that the man dedicated to constant expansion and militarization would not then go on to militarize and oppress further nations? There's no need to even expand his official empire to them, simply treat those conquests as hubs of "inferior" labor and resource extraction to pay back to the places the "Civilized" people lived. It was, after all, the lack of colonization that in part pushed public opinion towards both world wars in germany. And your quote only proves that he wanted to kill them... because he wanted them dead. It does not answer my question, if he only wanted a single, exclusive area, why not simply deport those he disliked? Your quote proves that deportation was not his goal, which means that he was not in favor of those he disliked simply living elsewhere. > Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P281. thank you for proving to me exactly what I stated from the beginning - you have not read these sources, you only parrot those whose content you consume endlessly. Truly, sadly, mindless parroting. > Given that you analogized the Holodomor as a "punch on the soldier" Exactly, one must apply Sargon's Law to TIK and his adherents, and one usually then finds that they who are so prone to accuse others of holocaust denialism, and holocaust minimalism (as you did in this very response) are often the most guilty of it themselves. After all, the only way to ideologically undermine the holocaust is to admit that the ideology behind the holocaust was one that believed in hierarchy, in authority, in traditionalism, in pushes against progress and in favor of the entrenchment of power in society. To deny the nazi's right wing, anti-socialist ideology is to deny the reason of the holocaust, and deny the holocaust in extension. >After all, that's why it is so often pointed out by people like Shirer in the Rise and Fall of The Third Reich that the DAF was run by private businessmen. > It's all very well and good saying that the DAF were run by private businessmen and giving a source for it... Shirer's book here is a well known one, still circulated in academic circles, and no real reason to revise the information or conclusions of the book has been found. If you have a genuine criticism of the book, bring it here, because if not you have no justification to dismiss it because of the source's age. And again, well known, foundational text... that you have not read. The only citations you can even give are from TIK, or things TIK cited. >"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." I always love these tactics because I can just as easily say the same in turn. You're accusing me of lashing out in response to the truth? Well, that's more likely to apply to you instead. >Because you can make profits bigger than 0 This doesn't answer my question, though. If the "union" you're working for has already abolished the right to collective bargaining, benefitted the private owners running it, and received contracts of guaranteed profit. So again, why would I bother with trying to make this process "more efficient," when i'm just being paid more to do the job I was already doing? >Anyway, of an individual or small group. In other words, not public. Again, could just as easily apply to you, and in fact, it does. From the beginning of the economic term private property, it has never been used to only designate "small groups" and individuals. After all, even ancient romans had private businesses with multiple owners, levels of management, and so on. You only seek to redefine private because you don't enjoy the fact that the definition allows things you don't ideologically agree with. > "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." >A system based on private property rights has a system that violates private property rights at the core? Fascinating. Not really no, it's the historical norm. After all, private property can only be enforced en masse by a strong and violent state. > No, they have territories, a community (shareholders), and a government (Board of directors). They are states and therefore are not private. Families have territories, a community, (family members) and a government. (parents) Every family is thus its own state and therefore not private. In fact, a small business owned by one person has territory, a community, (employees) and a government. (the dictatorship of one owner) Therefore, individually owned businesses are not private. So, I hate to break this to you, your definition is false. A corporation is a capitalist invention, living under a capitalist state. > You said ... I hate to break it to you, child, but me using your words back at you to mock your arguments is not me using them. A government is defined as "the governing body of a nation, state, or community." A governing body is defined as "a group that manages or controls the activities of country, region, or organization." So, where is this body? There are individuals, on equal ground, making deals that do not manage or control the activities of others, who can step away at any time. Citing TIK doesn't change this - there is no form of government here. > "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." >In actuality, it was a communally owned territory that was governed by mutual agreement and voluntary association. This is like saying a party was "governed" by a desire to be polite. Technically a correct usage of the term, and yet, no government. It was a territory, that had no central body of organization, no force, and was not governed by anything, but merely existed in full knowledge of individual rights. You say they are "governed" by these rights. Can a right be a dictator, child? > "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." >I wasn't including "no central governance, and no state," so you are proving Sargon's Law when you are calling me a liar. Just because an agreement is voluntary doesn't mean it can't conduct the affairs of the communally owned territory. Is everyone a government, then? If your definition of statism is any organization, well then, your definition has no place in genuine labelling. A central government was not described, as well as no state being described. A state is defined as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government," government being "the governing body of a nation, state, or community," governing being "having authority to conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state, organization, or people." And that's where we run into the problem - there is no authority described in this relationshi;. authority is "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience." Nobody had the ability to order anyone but themselves, as individuals. Nobody had power to make decisions for others, or enforce obedience. >"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." > Not an argument. Not a rebuttal. I'm seeing some patterns here. > Why can't they? Because a government and a state necessitate the use of authority, and authority does not exist in equal, voluntary, and peaceful relations. > "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." you get the point. > States can exist under voluntaryism, they just can't use force to fund themselves. Here is an example of statelessness: no community/no government. Again, states necessitate the use of authority, and authority cannot be voluntary. If a general only has command over his troops if they let him, and they can leave at any time, he has no authority over them. According to you, a community is any organization of peoples. Therefore, even the most stateless of beliefs, to you, are stateless. Your "stateless" system is one where any and all interactions, dealings, or trades are prohibited, i'm guessing by some sort of higher authority, hm? How "stateless.." >No, he spoke out against wage slavery. If profits were to be made through self-employment, he would be fine with that. He quite literally said in his ideal, agrarian individualist society, that profit or usury would fade away by the very fact that they hold no value. Let's also not forget that you would consider him a statist. > Makes him a hypocrite. Ah yes, living in a system you hate makes you a hypocrite, not just a person with hopes. > Citation needed. Google the Chicago Boys and get back to me.
    1
  2078. ​ @thefrenchareharlequins2743  P1 - sorry for them being out of order, youtube made me revise P1. > Why should I have to make a counterargument against something that wasn't even an argument? Because there was an argument - you just refuse to engage with it in good faith, which is an ongoing trend i've seen from you. >"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." "Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead." >youtube .com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA Again - no argument from you. >Because he didn't want his Aryans to get malaria and other tropical diseases. One, he was not opposed to health pushes to avoiding those and similar diseases. Two, there are more climates than just "tropical" outside of the area you claim he wanted, and three, why would he then not just do what every other imperialist nation had done, and turn them into resource-extracting puppet states? > And how are you going to get these hubs of "inferior" "labor" to work? You need Aryans to force them to. History shows us that you can very, very easily force people to work against their own culture and community with the right incentives. Again, puppet states were common in imperialism. You don't need Aryans there when you can simply hire the locals to do it themselves. > It wasn't in H*tler's mind, his main concern was destroying the Soviet Union and exploiting the resources there. Do you think h*tler appeared out of the void and his supporters showed up with him? He gained support off of the back of an angry and violent population, spurned after colonial failure, the last world war, and so on. > Indeed, it's almost as H*tler didn't want to give the [redacted] Conspiracy™ a base to operate out of and that is why we wanted to just to the root of the "problem". ...Which is exactly my point. Why would he want to allow the people he claimed were his racial enemies any sort of safe haven? Why would he want the, say, american or african j*wish community to be spared, to attack him later? > Irrelevant and untrue since if I was parroting, I would have said it was Page 307 because that is the page that TIK cites because he uses the Jaico Publishing House version. I use the greatwar .nl version, and it indeed does turn out that H*tler said that quote, albeit on a different page. But why am I telling you all this? You just want to have your little strut around the chessboard, since your kneejerk reaction to citations being provided is crying "parroting!" Ah, so I struck a nerve. Yeah, sorry, parroting the points of others who go on deranged rants and proudly base their entire argument off of a partisan desire to "hurt" the "opposing side" of politics is never a good move, especially when said points surround a historical debate. as in, a debate of facts and objectivity, not the spins and warps you continue to attempt. The funny part is, the majority of your "citations..." have quite literally been TIK videos, including the one we are commenting on. > youtube .com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA Well yes, if you respond to a single sentence of a larger argument, you're unlikely to find the whole argument. >H*tler wasn't a Stalinist. Nope! He believed in hierarchy, traditionalism, authority, supremacy, ect. > Whatever the hell that is. youtube .com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA >*anti-Marxist. Anti-socialist. After all, it was basic socialist moral structure that the nazis opposed first. > Other than the fact that it is 70 years old and our understanding of the Third Reich has changed in the past 70 years. Newton's Laws of Motion were first publicized in the late 1600s, and yet only minor additions have been made. Old doesn't mean wrong. > Not dismissing it, just saying it is probably less credible since we have found better archival information in the past 70 years. "Probably" isn't an argument. If you can point out a piece of information it got wrong, or a criticism of the work using the modern information, go ahead. If not, you have no right to claim things about the work's reliability. > Ad hominem, and still waiting for the names of the private businessmen who were infiltrating the DAF, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on when you speak about people having not read sources, and parroting content they obsessively watch That isn't what Ad Hominem means, and child, I hope you know that there were quite literally thousands of businesses in germany at the time (again, explained in the book, or really any overview of the german economy) and that giving names makes no sense, it would be like asking for all the names of dead nazi soldiers to prove that a war happened. You don't have a single rebuttal, do you? . > Ah, but I am not an ideologue, am I? You are, though. "Someone who espouses a particular ideology, particularly a political one." That fits you just as much as me, child. > Not to the extent that standards for piecework pay have been lowered so it is easier to get paid and measuring performance of trains using stopwatches was stopped because the workers didn't like it [Source: Most Valuable Asset of the Reich, page 16-17] This doesn't address my point, though. Minor corrections being made to workplace practices doesn't suddenly reinstate a right to collective bargaining - if the private owning members of the DAF disagreed with a policy, they absolutely had the right to stop workers from striking, protesting, or pushing for change. > Including names such as...? "Oh, you think people died in WW2? Tell me all of their names." > I had a contract with the British government where I got a guaranteed profit. It's called a salary. If anything, this proves that these businessmen were actually public, because they got their profit from the state. I hate to break it to you, but a government contract doesn't make a company public. The government hires private contractors all the time, even from single-person businesses, to do work for them. And just like back then, these contracts can be refused. Doesn't make them not private. > I am a private individual. You are an ideologue in denial, yes. > How is "private property" relevant to the definition of private? Because the addition of "property" turns it from a social to an economic term. For example, public property and "the public" are different things, that is, unless you think "public gathering" means state owned gathering. > It could have only been privus, not private since private as a term didn't exist back then if they were owned by members of the same family, since the Romans considered the family to be the basic unit of society and not the individual. If there were individuals owning the property from more than one family, it would not be privus. A word not existing does not mean that said action or process didn't exist, and it is plainly apparent that private property was well and alive in the time of the ancient romans. And, as we've been over, all business of any size or power have layers of management and ownership. Does this make them public, their own states? Does it? > Let's see you do better. Hey, at least you admit it. >Where was I making a judgment, and how am I an ideologue? You made a judgement of me, calling me an ideologue and accusing me of said behavior, and you fit the definition of ideologue. Simple! > Roof Koreans are inclined to disagree. As we all know, a small group of people in a single historical event that were eventually saved by the state actually protect private property for the whole of the country. > Depends if they are landed or not. Moving on. Territory is defined as "an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state." The ruler or state being the family. > Families are private and are therefore not the state. In the "roman" times you bring up, families were the basic unit of society. Since families have undergone few reforms since the 400s, they are still private. They are such a basic, private unit of society that they were given a whole article in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16. Any grouping above family is public, such as gentes, phratry, or civitas. So families are private... because they are private. That is your entire argument, that a civilization that's been dead for centuries had a different social view of families, and so they're private. "families have undergone few reforms" isn't true, but it is hilarious to me that you just keep repeating "they're private" without any actual argumentation. They fit your definition of a state. Also, how big is a "family?" Does my extended family count? Are they a state too? Child, i'm sorry, but the statement "any grouping above family is public" is false, but also has no basis in your previously established definitions.
    1
  2079.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  P2 >The employees are not the community. They are trading labour for whatever the contract specifies. By this logic, the states of Europe is part of the United States because they trade with the United States. Therefore, individually owned businesses are not private. A community is defined as "a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common." People "trading their labor" doesn't change this. They all have the characteristic of their employment to a certain private business in common, they are a collective. And yes, by your logic, there is no such thing as a single defined state or nation, as each is simply a part of larger states and nations, eventually going up to the world being a state, with the territory (earth) community (humanity) a government. (world leaders) > It's from the OED, so let's see if you can define a word better than the writers of the principal historical dictionary of the English language. Actually, the interpretation you have is from TIK, But go ahead, why don't you go up and tell " the writers of the principal historical dictionary of the English language" that actually, your local neighborhood is its own state. > I hate to break it to you, moron, but those were your arguments. They weren't, though. I explicitly mocked your wording time and time again, and you seemed not to pick up on that. > No, a government is defined as the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office. Govern is defined as conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority. This is what happens when you use Yankee dictionaries like Merriam-Webster's. One, this doesn't change my point, that involuntary authority (inseparable words) is a necessity of states and governments. Two, I love how you admit that there are dictionaries that quite openly disagree with your conclusions, but as they are "yankee," you fee the need to dismiss them on the spot. totally a rational response... > I was citing you, idiot. Insulting me doesn't change the facts, child :) > By the way, I was copying you when I made this statement. youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA But seriously, its amazing how you just skip around the point that it is entirely grammatically correct to say that someone is governed by an idea. > Other than the mutual agreement and voluntary association. We have an organisation [sic] here, and therefore, a government. First off, neither of those things necessitate organization in the first place. Secondly, as we've been over, organization is not a government. Lacking authority, remember? > Yes, this is the governing principle of every liberal state. Is the principle a state too? Is an idea "public" to you? Everything else seems to be for you, at any rate. > Where was I making a judgment, and how am I an ideologue? You made a judgement of me, calling me an ideologue and accusing me of said behavior, and you fit the definition of ideologue. Simple! > They govern their own body. So I am a state then. There is the territory, the physical space I take up. The community, my cells working through fellowship with other cells and sentience, and the government, my mind. Is every individual a state? > Not my definition, it's the OED's. Again, not OED's, but yours and TIKs. But hey, go up and ask if your body is its own state. I'm sure, according to you, they'd agree! >Other than the mutual agreements and the voluntary association. But that isn't a state, or government, even given your own definitions. No authority could be found. > Other than the communally owned territory with mutual agreements and the voluntary association. So again, not a government, as government by nature requires authority, authority that cannot be found in this agreement. > You are using Yankee definitions again, the government is "The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office." I honestly love how you get so annoyed at my cited definitions and then provide definitions that say the exact same thing, but slightly rephrased. It's a wonder. > So these voluntary agreements had no teeth, therefore the "fact" that the property was communally owned had no teeth, and therefore you are bringing up irrelevant points? Thanks for finally admitting this, we can move on now. Child, I know you really want to run away from your lost argument here, but not so fast. Of course the voluntary agreement was not enforced by involuntary authority/punishment. The property was communally owned, not through a process of governance, punishment or laws (what you call "teeth") but through voluntary agreement. The fact that there was no authority or force behind this community owned property is not irrelevant, rather, it is the sole important factor - and because of this factor, we can say without a doubt that no state or government was involved. Thank you for finally admitting this. > Where was I making a judgment, and how am I an ideologue? You made a judgement of me, calling me an ideologue and accusing me of said behavior, and you fit the definition of ideologue. Simple! > I am also seeing some patterns here, you make a slew of insults, I tell you it is not an argument and you say "wHy ArE yOu NoT rEsPonDiNg To My pOiNts????////?/?" Stupid git. Sheesh, I guess someone's a bit cranky today. I respond to your points, you get annoyed a pick a single sentence out of context to say "not an argument." I tell you that you avoided the argument, and you respond with a slew of insults. >And if you consent to authority, it is voluntary. We've been over this - "Voluntary Authority" is an oxymoron. > Can be if you agree to it. If you agree to it, the person has no actual authority over you. > By that logic, Scotland is independent because it can vote to leave at any time. That actually has nothing to with "my logic." Let me rephrase the example you refused to respond to - a while ago, I was at a friend's house, and their child was pretending to be a police officer. They pretended, then, to arrest me, and take me to jail. They had no authority over me, I could leave or disobey at any time, but I listened to them. In relationships where one person is listening to another, but they can disobey or leave at any time, that other person holds no authority over them. > Citation needed. "Any grouping above family is public, such as gentes, phratry, or civitas." > And even to me, the floor is made of floor. youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA Feel like i'm going to get some mileage out of this video. >No, it's when there are no communally owned territories. So you would use state force against those who create stateless community territories? Or did you forget that your definition of communities and communally owned property means that all private property is now community owned? That all voluntary association, trade, and organization is also a "State" to you > Just making a statement of fact. youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA I'm waiting for your rebuttal to the fact that your system would require state force to exist. > Citation needed that he thought there would be no income minus expense in his individualist society. Ok, so basic definitions are a bit beyond you. You do realize that the "expenses" of profit would line up with the "income" under his anarchist, anti-capitalist society, right? ""All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."" "A Letter to Grover Cleveland, on His False Inaugural Address, the Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and the Consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People," p. 148 > It was more than that, he was actively participating in the system. Like you are? I mean, here you are saying that youtube is a state, yet you actively participate in the site. If you work, you most likely work for something you would consider a state as well. > Prove that they believed in not hurting people or taking their stuff. Given they worked for a dictator, the deck is stacked against you. Libertarian ideology is literally based on hurting people to protect "their" property, either in the moment of attack or against innocents for the sole reason of potential anti-capitalist views, as well as taking their stuff, that being the product of the labor their employees do. Simply put, the Chicago Boys were libertarians, who pushed for a libertarian economy still praised by libertarians to this day, who were educated in a libertarian economics school and taught directly by some of the most influential modern figures of the american libertarian movement.
    1
  2080.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  > A complete misunderstanding of libertarianism along with a theory of value 100 years out of date. Yep, smells like it can only go in one direction. Ah, so you don't understand the modern and historical roots and parts of the libertarian ideology, you deny the origin of the term, and now you accuse random people of harboring ideological bias simply because they can quite easily correct your ahistorical talking points? Oh, come now, I thought you would have known a bit better than that. It is clear you me that you are a far rightist, and thus you have a vested interest in denying the historical fact of the nazi's far right anti-socialism. Your assumption is that I would call the nazis capitalist then, despite the fact that said assumption was explicitly contradicted by my response to you. You describe a system of capitalism when describing your ideology, but i'm not surprised you aren't too prone to using that label given your and TIK's constant redefinition of the terms in question. But great job, yet again, trying to minimalize the horrific crimes of the nazi regime, which you seek to whataboutize and skip over as much as possible, and oh boy, I wonder what that is. By the way, the "great job" is sarcastic, it is actually incredibly disgusting to try to legitimize holocaust minimization as you do. It's funny how me being here and being as of now not disproven doesn't give you cause to consider that you might be in the wrong, rather, you write me off as a :lost cause: because i'm actually willing to engage you and disprove your argument, showing a higher competency in history, definitions and economics than I think you can deal with. You insult me because you know that your arguments hold no weight. Oh, and this is another piece of proof that you're an ideologue, by the way. When one is truly open minded, and attuned to the facts of the debate, facing an opponent they know they can't disprove may cause them to take a moment to reflect, and consider if they are in the right. An ideologue like yourself on the other hand takes you being right as a given, and assumes all that provide significant resistance to this notion are lost causes. Take care. See you around ;)
    1
  2081.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Besides the hierarchies of wealth, property, and capital. Unless you want to put an upper limit on how much one is able to earn with that property you want defended? And you just keep coming back for more...
    1
  2082.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So literally the only reason you don't think you count as being far right is because you believe in undeniable hierarchies of social and economic power... but just say that those hierarchies aren't hierarchies?
    1
  2083.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "um actually the accumulation of wealth and associated power isn't hierarchy because I agree with it" is certainly a take.
    1
  2084.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Ah yes, because that totally addresses the hierarchy in question.
    1
  2085.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I'm sorry, but that it false, and nonsensical. Wealth being relative doesn't change it being hierarchical, in fact, the fact that wealth has different amounts of associated power in different contexts and societies lends directly to its hierarchy.
    1
  2086. ​ @thefrenchareharlequins2743  That's a lot of "therefores" that do not logically follow from the preceding statement. Hierarchy being relative in different places does not mean said hierarchy doesn't exist. Not having a universal standard of hierarchy does not disprove the fact that an accumulation of wealth allows for an accumulation of power. There is, of course hierarchy, even if said hierarchy is not universally the same, it still exists. The value of currency changes place to place, and yet, currency exists :)
    1
  2087.  @labotimy  ah yes, the large amount of "progressive gangs" in the US. In reality, the right has shown itself to consistently and unendingly be the bigger threat, especially on the issue of mass shootings and domestic terorrism.
    1
  2088.  @labotimy  Good thing you aren't then. Oh wait, you're too ideologically brainwashed to see anyone who proves you wrong as anything but a big bad scary "Marxist!!!"
    1
  2089.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Again, lots of "therefores," not any actual reasoning behind them. The accumulation of power has nothing to do with state-printed money, as even in societies and economies without a single state-backed currency, having greater buying power and having a greater ability to make money is a hierarchy. Owning a factory, for example, and making double the wages of my richest worker, is a clear example of "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." The intertwining of two hierarchies doesn't negate the first. The hierarchy here is not based on state-printed money, one could have not a piece of paper currency to their name and still be immensely powerful and wealthy, and above others on a hierarchy. Having large amounts of physical money is not necessary for wealth, and having lots of wealth doesn't mean you have a lot of state backed currency. However, this does nothing to disprove the fact that wealth is "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." Those statuses and authorities being ownership, wealth-making ability, purchasing power, ect.
    1
  2090.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  It does mean that, though. Your ability to buy basic goods, to promote to me trade or job opportunities from your position of wealth and prosperity, is a clear hierarchy. Again, the definition of hierarchy is "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." The fact that people can misuse or let go of that authority and status through silly decisions doesn't change the fundamental fact of wealth being a hierarchy.
    1
  2091.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  1. Ok so you are apparently unaware of what an example is. 2. Um, no. Ok, first off, "Interesting how this is seemingly the only hierarchy that is contingent on where you are?" I'm sorry, what? Hierarchies are more often this way than not. For example, you would say the US President is a hierarchical figure, above the average citizen, right? And yet if they lived without the help of the US in some random country that didn't know who they were, that hierarchy is dismantled and they have none of that power. Same with hierarchies of influence, having powerful backers or criminal connections in one area does not mean you have them in an other. A french monarch is powerless in australia and so on, so i'm utterly baffled why you seem to think that relationships to authority and status changing depending on your area is uncommon, as it is natural for hierarchies to change position given different factors.. And yes, if you derive your wealth from one type of currency, and you go to an area that does not accept that currency, your position on the hierarchy is significantly lowered. Again - wealth is absolutely "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.""
    1
  2092.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I mean, yes, someone with a government position in America would very likely have zero governmental power in Cuba, Chile, Mexico, ect. Because all hierarchies by their nature are based on the context of the person's surrounding, their connections, hell, themselves to begin with. Care to respond to the rest of what I said, ever?
    1
  2093.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  "at some points in history" isn't now, though. At those points in history they would be higher up a hierarchy, yeah
    1
  2094.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Amazing "response." Hypothetical hierarchies of the future are not hierarchies, the actual actions are. If you make use of a river to get rich, you are higher up the hierarchy than one who did not have that opportunity. No dump having more trash though gives it any more authority or status, and no language being spoken gives said language hierarchy, though the ability to speak a useful language for gaining power and connections does put one above a hierarchy. You are unable to prove your initial assertion, that wealth is a hierarchy, so you now try to downplay hierarchy all together. Sad.
    1
  2095.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  >But you see, having more rubbish implies it is more important than other ones, and therefore has more status. Not really, it could simply be the most continent or cheap area to get to, to dump trash in. What authority comes from that? Plus a dump is not a system or organization, it's a location. >That was your assertion, can you not read? *isn't, my bad, sometimes I make mistakes, something you're not unfamiliar with given your assertion that wealth isn't a hierarchy. > No, just finding it a bit ridiculous that anything and everything can be a hierarchy. Not "anything and everything." a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.
    1
  2096. ​ @thefrenchareharlequins2743  > So it has more status as a location to dump rubbish. Oh yeah, a dump is part of the waste management system. Ah, so a part of a system not a system itself, but a part of a system. And how does more people dumping there mean more status? > Sometimes? Far less than you, yes. >So by your definition, how is an abundance of valuable possessions or money a hierarchy? Because wealth, and the accumulation and associated connections/power, gives one more status or authority, by allowing them to purchase property, offer jobs to others, ect. Wealth is "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."
    1
  2097.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  >It is in better standing as a dumping ground, How so? It could literally just be closer by or more convinient. And again, it is not a system or organization. >Prove it. You made the assertion that wealth wasn't a hierarchy. As this is false, this was a mistake. > Oh come on, now we are going back to my "having more rubbish implies it is more important than other ones, and therefore has more status" reductio ad absurdum. No actually, we aren't. Your refusal to engage with a point i've brought to your attention and deflection back to a previously addressed point of yours tells me that you cannot address the points I have brought up. > No, it's an "abundance of valuable possessions or money" Which is by definition "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority," as abundance or possession and money necessitates there to be a non-abundance, or the ability to not have wealth, which places one at a lower position on the hierarchy by their lack of possessions and money, which lead to a lack of power, influence, standing, authority, ect. Wealth is a hierarchy, as your definition points out.
    1
  2098.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  >It is a waste disposal system. So a single dump is the entire waste disposal system? It just appears there? >Your best argument for wealth being the hierarchy is the zero sum fallacy? Give me a break. Oh wow, what an amazing assertion! i'm sure you'll back that up with any reasoning, and that you didn't just say it as a deflection... oh wait. > Well I am sorry to hear that. So you really will find any example to avoid engaging with facts you don't like huh.
    1
  2099.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  >Nope, only that it is further up on the hierarchy than other waste disposal sites. And again, how? How does a dump being used more give it more status or authority? How is a single dumb an entire waste disposal system? > You said something to the effect of "the fact there is abundance also implies there is non-abundance" which is zero sum thinking, and a fallacy in economics. abundance is defined as a "a very large quantity of something." "Very large" is a subjective unit of measurement, which is only defined by being larger than something considered not-large, or small. Abundance is only defined by there being such a thing to compare it to as a non-abundance. Otherwise, $9 could be considered an abundance of money as there is nothing to compare it to. You really know very little about economics, don't you? > That last bit had nothing to do with the fact that it is ridiculous to claim wealth is a hierarchy, but oh well. Oh, so you're going back to your absurd notion that wealth, "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority," isn't hierarchical? A claim you previously abandoned?
    1
  2100.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  > It is in better standing to be used as a receptacle for waste. For the third time, no, it could simply just be nearby or convenient, and it isn't a system > Large just means of great size, so I don't know why you are bringing up comparisons and such. Great size is only defined by small size to counter it, if there was no variance, "large" would have no meaning. > And anyway, how does having an abundance of valuable possessions mean that you are of a greater status than someone else, since value is subjective? Value being subjective doesn't change the fact that given the context you might be further up on a hierarchy. For example, one might not value a $100 bill in another country, but they may value it in america, subjective value. However, while in america, that $100 absolutely puts you in greater status than one with $0, and affords you greater access to authority of ownership, property, connections, ect.
    1
  2101.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743   @General Alan Cunningham   @General Alan Cunningham  Again, the dump itself is not a system. It is one part, a location, of a bigger system, the east disposal system that you keep deflecting to. And said dump bring closer or more convenient doesn't make it have more status or authority, hell it could be hated, inefficient, and run down, and still be convenient. Thank you for proving my point. "Considerably above average" implies an average, as well as that average necessitating a below average. Similarly, the extent of something implies, again, a comparison. And ah, we're back to the point where you attempt to deflect through allusions to another argument you lost, rather than actually addressing points I brought forwards! Tell me, how is wealth, a system of disparate values that allows for the gain or loss of status or authority in regards to profit, connections, purchasing power, profit, property ownership, ect, is not a system, and is not a system of hierarchy with differing amounts of status and authority? Your attempted pre-rebuttal if this is absurd, doubly so because you thing up the dollar when we've already discussed that value and hierarchy do not necessitate currency. So, I have a factory. Another person does not. I am furthet up a hierarchy than them, multiple hierarchies in fact, wealth, property ownership, ability to employ and thus impart status and authority on others, ability to form connections and trade which further your own authority and status, ect. am I not further up hierarchically than them?
    1
  2102.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  But it doesn't have greater standing, as we've been over, and it bring a part of the system and not a system itself does not fit the definition of hierarchy. And the very definition of the phrase "above average" proves that there must by necessity be an average to compare to, and if that average has numbers that are above it, there must also be numbers below it, to average out. Which, again, is what I've been saying this whole time. But those things do directly have to do with an abundance of valuable possessions, as I pointed out. Having an abundance of valuable items like property, money, ect by necessity increases both your status, as in reputation, connections, potential dealings, fame, and so on, as well as increasing your authority, over property, employees, the market, potential buyers and sellers, and so on. Wealth is directly a system of hierarchy, and your lack of reasoning in your denial of this tells me that you don't have a counter
    1
  2103.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  But it isn't. You refuse to actually explain how convenience = status/authority, and you refuse to acknowledge that a dump is not the entire wast management system . Are you denying that above-averages by necessity need below-averages, and that "averages imply below and above average values" and "averages by necessity must have below and above average values" are the same phrase, as the implication us always true? I notice you completely dodged your denial of basic concepts such as averages to sneak in an insult. In any case, I find it endlessly funny that you can't even address my points, and you even admitted wealth is a hierarchy in the past, and get you continue to make increasingly absurd claims out of your lost pride Having an abundance of valuable property necessitates having authority and status I've those that do not have an abundance of property. As I've explained what, five times, with no rebuttal from you?
    1
  2104.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Great, at least you can admit that a landfill isn't the whole system, and thus cannot be a hierarchy, as it is not a system. And again, I've already explained how convenience =/= status/ authority, and thus that cannot be hierarchy. And again, asserting random things about an argument you are entirely unable to disprove only proved to me further that you really have no way of arguing with points I deliver, which I imagine at this point you've internally accepted as true, you're just unwilling to admit that yet. And when a point is delivered over and over again, rephrased time and time again, and proven with examples time and time again, and is faced only with vapid pointless insults and quips, backed up only by a reassertion of your statement without any proof to it, it is not me that's the problem here, but you. Even though you know you have no counter to the reality I've exposed to you, for whatever reason you are unwilling to admit so openly. Perhaps come up with an actual counter, instead of just baselessly asserting "non sequitor" and deflecting from the system that's been pointed out to you time and time again? Just a thought :)
    1
  2105.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  And unsurprisingly, just "saying" something I have pointed out is false numerous times, without you amending your statement or rebutting mine, doesn't make it true. Again, a landfill isn't a system, and claiming convenience = authority/status is a non sequitur. You have been deflecting from having to actually respond to my arguments, and there's no convincing an ideologue like you. Please explain how it is, when i've literally explained this exact relationship numerous times to you, with zero rebuttal or response from you. 1 - Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions 2 - The ownership of these possessions, such as money, property, or tradeable goods, represents greater status, as in it represents a person having more "relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something," as well as them having more authority, as in authority over property, other people through employment or other dealings, ect. Hell, the very phrasing "abundance,' as we've been over, necessitates a lack of abundance, which presents a clear system of hierarchy (a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority) between the those with and those without wealth. As i've explained, and you've failed to respond to.
    1
  2106.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  But we aren't talking about the entire system, but the one landfill, which is what your actual example was. And again, how does convenience = status? Said landfill might be horrible and hated, but if its closer, it might still be used. And great, another non-argument. Not surprised. 1. This necessitates hierarchy, authority and status. 2. Saying "no" without any given reasoning is not a response. There is a system in the definition, in that wealth, the accumulation of wealth, and the types of status and authority surrounding wealth are "a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized framework or method." we've been over this, and status and authority are a natural part of said system. Saying "all sorts of mental gymnastics" is yet another non-answer.
    1
  2107.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So are we talking about the waste disposal system as a whole, or sticking with your original assertion of a single dump/landfill? Because you seem to have abandoned that line of argumentation, so I can only assume that you agree your original statement, "Some dumps have more litter than others? Hierarchy." is based on a poorly made strawman that you have been unable to back up. Again, being convenient is one factor, it could be managed horribly, be incredibly pollution heavy and unorganized, ect. The landfill does not have more status just because it is convenient, and the landfill in question is not a system. Being closer to a user does not give it greater standing, in fact it might be despised. While it may be more convenient, other factors may necessitate it not having any sort of superior standing. More non sequiturs. Good thing I didn't say anything like that, though. What I did ask is why you can't answer objective facts you can't agree with? You moved the goalposts, I stayed on topic. When pressed on issues you know you can't even come up with your usual pathetic arguments for, such as you not understanding how averages are calculated, you simply accuse me of "non arguments" and "moving the goalposts" without reasoning or explanation to avoid the topic. After all, every time I actually ask how i'm doing what you assert... well, you have nothing to say. Given that you've also abandoned several tracks of conversation because you've been proven wrong, the reality of your bad faith engagement is plain to see. 1. The "abundance of valuable possessions" necessitates status, as in the greater status of "valuable possessions," authority, as in authority over the possessions as you own them, and thus, hierarchy, as wealth is a system that necessitates rankings and variations of both status and authority. 2. "...and the only way to wrangle a system out of it is to do all sorts of mental gymnastics." This and the preceding assertions were simple denials (simple "no"s) of my points, as in, they were statements that just denied my points with no reasoning or evidence. And i'm sorry, how do you think one gets "an abundance of valuable possessions or money?" Do you think they are born with it fused to their souls... or could it be that they accumulated (gather together or acquire an increasing number or quantity of) said wealth, and that all wealth is gained this way? Oh, it's the second option. Got it.
    1
  2108.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Nope, unless you want to concede that your original assertion saying that single dump having more trash making it more hierarchical was objectively false, we aren't talking about the entire system. And again, convenience doesn't equal status, and your admittance of this really only goes to prove my point there. So thanks. As I said - implies and necessitates mean the exact same thing here. That isn't moving the goalposts at all, and I explained this days ago. The nature of a child implies a biological father... and also necessitates a biological father. You really don't have a single point. 1. So in other words, "no I don't like that you pointed out how both status (value, ect) and authority (ownership, ect) are present in this definition, so i'll deflect again." Those are factors within the very definition, not even covering what the definition necessitates. 2. Again, simply asserting this when I have objectively proved otherwise is a painfully obvious deflection attempt.
    1
  2109.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  We've been talking about a single dump... that is, unless you concede that your original assertion was false :) Implies and necessitates can mean the same thing. Child implies father. to "strongly suggest the truth" of something doesn't mean it isn't true. 1. So yet another non-answer, with no actual hint of a rebuttal or reasoning as to calling everything that proves you wrong "mental gymnastics." I'll take this as a W. 2. Take me proving you unabashedly and without question wrong a W after you dodged the question? Odd response. I told you "again, simply asserting this when I have objectively proved otherwise is a painfully obvious deflection attempt," after having previously rebutted your unexplained and unproven assertion of "outside factors" when said factors proving wealth is a hierarchy were found within the definition. Here is one such case of me correcting you there, that you never replied to or rebutted in any substantia way, besises a basic denial and deflection, as always. " "...and the only way to wrangle a system out of it is to do all sorts of mental gymnastics." This and the preceding assertions were simple denials (simple "no"s) of my points, as in, they were statements that just denied my points with no reasoning or evidence. And i'm sorry, how do you think one gets "an abundance of valuable possessions or money?" Do you think they are born with it fused to their souls... or could it be that they accumulated (gather together or acquire an increasing number or quantity of) said wealth, and that all wealth is gained this way? Oh, it's the second option. Got it."
    1
  2110.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So you concede that your entire original assertion on a single dump was false, as in you admit the entire base of this argument is with me being right? Thank you. Child implies father, even if a father is not seen or found instantly. Implies can mean necessitate. Thank you for another W. 1. You didn't prove anything, you just said that I was "doing mental gymnastics," which just isn't an argument. So yes, I am going to take a W when my interlocutor stops providing arguments. 2. Ok this is hilarious. You just said "you are doing mental gymnastics, and it is really funny watching you rationalise wealth being a hierarchy." as an """""argument"""" and yet i''m the one not providing arguments? What happened in actuality is that I provided arguments, you didn't rebut them and provided a non-answer asserting the same thing, and then referred back to a previous argument I made that you have yet to address. So yes, you stopped providing arguments, so I take the W. In other words, given your lack of a rebuttal, and my ability to refer back to arguments you have yet to rebut, by your own argument this is a W for me. Thank you!
    1
  2111.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Saying "no it isn't" isn't a response. I have proved that wealth is a hierarchy, and I have proven your initial assertion (Some dumps have more litter than others? Hierarchy.) false. Do you concede that the quoted statement is false? Implies means "strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated)." The existence of a father in this case is strongly suggested, as it is objectively true. I provided arguments to you time and time again, and your response was to reassert a previous addressed statement with no amendments and move on. You aren't providing any arguments. So another W for me.
    1
  2112.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I agree. You should stop pretending otherwise, then. A father, in this case, is suggested (stated or expressed indirectly) as they are not present in the current moment. They are implied, as well as necessitated. Basic english. Citation being this entire thread and your bad faith """"""arguments""""" throughout.
    1
  2113.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Your original assertion was a single dump. You conceded that this assertion was false. Nope, suggesting doesn't imply that something doesn't exist. You didn't "call out" anything though, you just used every excuse you could think of to dodge my points. Yes, this is bad faith.
    1
  2114.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Because you conceded your original statement, the start of this argument, was false. Putting into consideration at no point implies that the thing being put forward does not or could not exist. Dodging my points by accusing me of unsubstantiated logical fallacies is though.
    1
  2115.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  It was the start of the discussion on this landfill. Singular. Not an argument, thanks for the W And, yet again, accusing someone of something with no basis or explanation isn't an argument, and the insult thrown in only proves it. Thanks for the W.
    1
  2116.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Because you conceded the original statement was objectively wrong. You didn't give an argument. And that's another insult, only further proving that i've been right all along.
    1
  2117.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Yes, we have. Do you concede that original statement was false? Thank you. Not an argument, another W Condescension and implied inferiority are insults, or "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse."
    1
  2118.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  So you don't even understand the argument. Again, not an argument. You accused me of a logical fallacy you didn't understand, with no proof to the accusation. When I pointed this out, you had no response. You appear to not care about your insults at this point.
    1
  2119.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Yet another non argument not backed up by reality. See the above statements. For the very reasons we've been debating about for, oh, four days now? Five? Would you like me to copy paste to you one of my answers to this from days ago you've still yet to respond to? The funny thing is, the vast majority of "an"caps admit wealth is a hierarchy. They just think its a justified one. It does, after all, fit all the definitional points of a hierarchy, despite what you, the guy that hasn't passed third grade math, thinks.
    1
  2120.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743   @General Alan Cunningham  Sorry, that isn't an argument. See the previous statement you want to ignore "Um actually you didn't disprove me in the way I wanted so you admit I'm right" Here you go - It isn't a non sequitur. I've never said anything to the contrary. This is a fact you can't deny or even address. Thank you for admitting you are wrong. You're objectively worse than either of those options. Sorry?
    1
  2121.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  It isn't though. Not an argument. A re-assertion of a disproven point doesn't change anything. Amazing comeback as always, general.
    1
  2122.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Not an argument See above Again, not an argument and see above.
    1
  2123.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Reassertion of nonsense doesn't change it. See above. Reassertion of nonsense doesn't change it and see above.
    1
  2124.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  It is, though. Reassertion of nonsense doesn't change it. See above.
    1
  2125.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Amazing nonargument. Thanks for the W.
    1
  2126.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I have, time and time again.
    1
  2127.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  that isn't an argument
    1
  2128.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Not an argument though, thanks for the W
    1
  2129.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  I'm sure you think so, sadly for you this is not backed by reality.
    1
  2130.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  *isn't. It isn't.
    1
  2131.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Sorry, that's false.
    1
  2132.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  It isn't. Sorry I guess.
    1
  2133.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  The amazing thing is, this conversation is no more productive than our other ones. It isn't.
    1
  2134.  @Yruke  I always love when some random person comes into the middle of a debate already abandoned by the person I am addressing and does their best to insult me, rather than argue. I have presented facts, and the person you defend doesn't even know the definition of the words average. Rather, they cannot admit when they're wrong, so they choose to look like a clown, and deny the facts shown to them. Open your eyes to what actually happened here. Educate yourself.
    1
  2135.  @dgray3771  You mean restrictions on immigrants and noncitizens while the white citizens were encouraged to own firearms, like modern right wingers call for? You mean workplaces where unions were abolished and private owners reigned supreme, like right wingers call for? Animal rights have nothing to do with right or left, nor did hitler care about them. You mean monuments to right wing dictators, like right wingers call for? You mean privately owned factories, like right wingers call for? You mean a state-backed nuclear family value, like right wingers call for? You mean a hatred of abortion and its outlawing for citizens, like right wingers call for? So yes, you've named your ignorance, ad I appear to be more familiar than you. Evidently, you don't, and evidently you find yourself coming into conflict with the holocaust survivors that point towards the right, the home of nazism, to point out the similarities. I'm sorry you feel the need to attempt to rewrite history, but that's no way to make an argument. Hitler was no socialist.
    1
  2136.  @dreisiglps2451  Sorry, is that supposed to be a "refutation?" That's TIK coping with a loss lol. " Thanks for your additional comment Aiden, really helping me out there. Loving the insults as usual. Perhaps you could spice them up a bit, because you keep using the same old ones and I'm getting a bit bored of them. Instead of "balding", why not call me "ugly"? That's a bit different! And never have I admitted that you're right. Keep telling yourself that though, if it makes you feel better about yourself" Where's the refutation to a single fact I brought up? Oh... there isn't one.
    1
  2137.  @damianbylightning6823  But that really isn't an "early obsession of the left," most modern antisemetism traces its roots back directly to the actions of conservative christians or even the church itself, that rejected jewish people's ability to live as a free citizen in the society in question, that created the conspiracy theories we still hear today, and that manifested quite openly in the works of other figures of the far right, like hitler. Seriously, I know you hate the left, but how do you even make a claim with a straight face? The simple fact is, you protect your ahistorical delusion by attempting to construct a reality that has nothing in common with our own. Where, for example, is the "anti-science" on the left? Why do you assume that all of the "contemporary left," a huge group you refuse to define, is based on or limits itself to Rousseau or Epicurus? Why do you project your own misunderstanding and constant fallacious misuse of marxism on random people? I've seen no evidence that anything you name, or anything that actually defines the modern left, has anything to do with old-fashioned tribal belonging, self-interest, religious experience, literal-mindedness, cultural stuff, and a will to believe that someone or something can be in charge of the chaos. It seems, as expected, you're just making things up. Child, one day you'll learn that you can't just make things up. What right wing ideas comprise marxism? Why do you create and then attempt to tear down some concept of "french socialism," which is utterly asserted only by you, and furthermore, why can you not provide evidence of your "reactionary/genocidal" claims and why can you not prove any connection with the ideologies you try to link them to? I know you have no answer. No, Marxism is on the left, your concept of "french socialism" is undefined, and you have no backing to your fallacy claim. There are concrete policies, goals, and movements that tie the left as a whole together, and pit the right against it. Claiming that's just random chance without proof or argumentation isn't a good argument.
    1
  2138.  @damianbylightning6823  Of course, that wasn't your original claim, but this new claim as well is wholly incorrect. The left did not invent the modern form of antisemetism, nor did they invent any historical form. The psychotic form of antisemetism that the nazis held in such high regard was one already being pushed by the right for decades, and the supposedly apolitical though deeply conservative church before that. Antisemetism has nothing to do with "french socialism and russian anarchism," nor are the latter forms of the former. The logic of Proudhon leads to the abolition of state society. What you mean is the bigotry of Proudhon, and you somehow try to imply that he pioneered or created said bigotry, when again, it had been spread by conservatives for decades if not centuries prior. Leftists don't approve of any liberal ideas, the two are antithetical to eachother, and the mass industrial genocide of individuals or races had existed as a notion among the conservative right for decades, and they were only attempting to grab the power to actually act it out, something hitler was sadly successful with. G B Shaw had nothing to do with the holocaust, in fact he openly called out and utterly disagreed with antisemetism, the very ideological core of the holocaust. Utilitarianism is usually adopted by capitalists, not socialists, and again though G B Shaw called for the right of the state to remove certain populations, it had nothing to do with the antisemetism of the right, nor was it the first time that someone had espoused these ideas, again it was already a whispering on the right. You can pretend that a collection of random individual bigots means more than that, but of course, you are wrong. Unlike you, we morally and mentally normal folk are free to examine their basis and impact, and though we find antisemites and eugenicism on the left and right of the time, we find the left being the first to reject these views, and the right being the first to entirely dive into them, being the creators of the concepts after all. It was right wing antisemetism, nationalism, and eugenicism that drove the nazis. They, like many on the right to this day, called for supposedly "ethical" mass murder and mass imprisonment. I doubt you would find much on mass murder in the writings of an anarchist, but you don't seem to understand that. You continue on with your Epicurus assertion, no proof given of course, and ignore my questioning you to actually provide evidence or reasoning for your claims. Right wing liberal ideas are just about the only liberal ideas, as liberalism (capitalism) is without a single doubt a right wing ideology. The only person here pretending this has to do with ancient greece is, sadly, you. I know you're confused, but you just need to actually study and understand these concepts. There are always concepts, groupings, and classifications that make sense, and you trying to jumble it up further does nothing to change that.
    1
  2139.  @israeldidnineeleven5619  I mean yeah he was anti-socialist.
    1
  2140.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  2141.  Chuck Sneed  ok?
    1
  2142.  @keefymckeefface8330  Nah, MIT there misquoted orwell. He was actually quite adamant on hitler's anti-socialism.
    1
  2143.  @dreisiglps2451  the problem there being that I already addressed all of the sad antisemitic nonsense you spread, and you have yet to rebut the simple fact that "national socialism" is a form of conservatism
    1
  2144.  @dreisiglps2451  you can't get over your problem with comparing modern,, moderate conservatives and historical, radical conservatives, and deciding that since they're not the exact same thy just be totally different. In sorry you need to lie about conservatives to "prove" your point
    1
  2145.  @dreisiglps2451  Again, I already have researched them, and i've done far more research than simply watching the youtube videos of people who already agree with me. Please for once actually check out the primary and secondary sources of individuals like Orwell and ex-members of the nazi party who point out the conservatism of the movement. And I did.
    1
  2146.  @dreisiglps2451  Again, I already have, that exists in our previous conversation. collective is a group of individuals, individual is a single human, collectivism is any philosophy that preaches collective good, individualism one that praises individual, socialism is social ownership, capitalism is private ownership, free market depends if you're referencing a capitalist market or not, totalitarianism refers to a government's social capability not necessarily economic, communal ownership is the same as social ownership, individual ownership is not necessarily private, and centralism is a term with no meaning.
    1
  2147.  @dreisiglps2451  Again, i've already watched those videos. Why not look at the primary sources for: 1. George Orwell's "What is Fascism"? 2. Public vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism & Capitalism 3. Fascism DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism
    1
  2148.  @dreisiglps2451  Sure. The right is defined as nationalistic, keen to authority, believes in inherent inequalities between people and traditionalism. That fits hitler and mussolini to a tee.
    1
  2149.  @dreisiglps2451  But there are. I mean, the first self labelled conservatives were open monarchists
    1
  2150.  @dreisiglps2451  That's not what I was referencing, I was referencing your reading of modern conservative views.
    1
  2151.  @dreisiglps2451  I've seen those sources before, let me offer more. "This book is not concerned with the so-called 'mainstream right,' such as conservatives and liberals/libertarians, but only with those on the right who are 'anti-system,' defined here as hostile to liberal democracy. This is what I call the far right, which is itself divided into two broader subgroups. The extreme right rejects the essence of democracy, that is, popular sovereignty and majority rule. The most infamous example of the extreme right is fascism, which brought to power German Führer Adolf Hitler and Italian Duce Benito Mussolini, and was responsible for the most destructive war in world history. The radical right accepts the essence of democracy, but opposes fundamental elements of liberal democracy, most notably minority rights, rule of law, and separation of powers. Both subgroups oppose the postwar liberal democratic consensus, but in fundamentally different ways. While the extreme right is revolutionary, the radical right is more reformist. In essence, the radical right trusts the power of the people, the extreme right does not" (Cas Mudde "The Far Right Today" 2019 digital: p. 6). “It is thus worth stressing that, in academic analysis and properly researched journalism, ‘populism’, or more precisely ‘the populist radical right’, is generally used to designate an illiberal but democratic and non-revolutionary form of politics driven by widespread (hence ‘popular’) mistrust of ruling political and economic elites, both domestic and international. This mistrust is compounded by concerns about the impact on national identity and sovereignty of globalizing forces such as multiculturalism, international trade, the export of manufacturing jobs, and mass immigration” (Roger Griffin "Fascism" 2018 digital: p. 95). Radical conservatism is the term I used, it's just conservatism taken to a non-moderate degree, not an official term.
    1
  2152.  @dreisiglps2451  I did. And I understand that it's a rarity, likely because the videos themselves are long and the definitions are varying and difficult to come accross, but yes, I did, and I hope with that vote of confidence you can take a bit more time to consider what i'm saying and see if your own research finds similar results, which I would imagine it very well might.
    1
  2153.  @dreisiglps2451  Sure, we'll just have to see what you come out of the other end with then.
    1
  2154.  @dreisiglps2451  Yes, I suppose that's it. We'll see.
    1
  2155.  @dreisiglps2451  Oh no i'm very aware! I don't so much care about the continuation of this conversation as much as I do about the individuals within, if I never hear from yo after this that's alright and I wish you the best of luck!
    1
  2156.  @dreisiglps2451  Ah, that. Well in all honestly I have been working on a far more comprehensive piece of writing to specifically address TIK's video which I plan to put out at some point, but I have attempted to reach TIK with some of my criticisms, and it doesn't end well. For example, I once spent an hour or two writing a few paragraphs responding to several of his claims regarding racial policy in fascist italy, only to be met with him ignoring my response, and instead replying to another person in the thread, calling me and another person antisemetic. His reasoning was that we disagreed with him, so he called us marxists, and then asserted that all marxists must be antisemetic. And when a jewish person came into the thread to talk about his misuse of that accusation, he stopped responding. I had talked to him a few times before, left a few cordial and then increasingly annoyed posts after he kept blowing me off or insulting me, and that was a bit of a last straw. After that, I stopped really trying to reach out to him directly, because he seems deeply invested in the version of history he portrays. I can't blame him, ideological biases do exist and sometimes when you're being told you are wrong by so many people, you just retreat and lash out, like I think he did. In any case, I absolutely thank you for the offer, but I fear that contacting him directly is not a good spending of time for either of us, and many of the points I've made to you have been blown off by him in the past. I would ask instead that you feel free to continue researching, and if you meet another person who seems to have their own arguments feel free to lay my points on them to see their response! That's why i'm here, after all. So no, thank you for the offer, but I think it's better to abstain from that.
    1
  2157.  @dreisiglps2451  Er, in short, TIK has made numerous direct responses to me and has urged others to do their best not to engage with me after a series of insults levelled in my direction, so I fear directly contacting him wouldn't lead to a good faith discussion or refutation as you desire. So, thank you, but no thank you. I do hope you understand.
    1
  2158.  @dreisiglps2451  yep, no problem. Best to you.
    1
  2159. @Hellig Usvart Thank you for utterly disqualifying your fanatic opinion in one sentence. Does it bother you, that you have to lie so much? That you project the actions of the right onto the left, that you make baseless accusations you have no interest in proving?
    1
  2160. @Hellig Usvart erhm, sorry champ but that's not true. In the real world (you should join us here one day) the right has the longest history of violence and the greatest amount of wanton death and torture to it's name, a tradition that continues into the modern day. I'm sorry you feel the need to call anyone who points out this basic reality to you a "socialist," but that has no bearing on the facts.
    1
  2161. @Hellig Usvart come on child, this is silly. In sorry your fanaticism takes precedent over actual factual information in your mind, but the real world does not reflect your religious fervor and indoctrinated conspiracy. Come back to reality.
    1
  2162. @Hellig Usvart I'm not sure you understand how percentages work, nor am I sure you know the basics of the right history, in which it had the left beat by several orders of magnitude relating to those two things. Perhaps you should stop lying? Just a thought
    1
  2163. @Hellig Usvart Oh, child. Your denialism truly knows no bounds. Why are you such a staunch apologist to the crimes of the worst ideology mankind has ever devised?
    1
  2164. @Hellig Usvart Child, the very fact that you are willing to ignore centuries of behavior that dwarfs Lysenko's. His ideological fervor almost seems inherited from you, given the right has done the exact thing be did, so many times and with much worse results, split up over hundreds of years of your deadly ideology spreading. I understand you hate the soviets, and good criticism can be made of them, but child, the right is unparalleled when it comes to the causation of pure human suffering.
    1
  2165. @Hellig Usvart It's funny, i've attempted multiple times to post explicit lists of the crimes of the right, but apparently they're too bad for even youtube to keep up. Child, do you really need me to explain the mass murders, mass invasions of lives, nations, and bodies,, destructions of entire civilizations and expulsion of entire peoples that the right carries as a proud legacy of its ideology? You truly think that the "gulag" is the worst human invention, need I remind you about what happened to prisoners of war under the axis powers? Of the thousands of years of starvation, repression, burnings, tortures, and hate that has defined your ideology? I'm sorry that you feel the need to deny history, but as previously noted, it doesn't change history itself. I know you hate to admit that the warfare and torture that defines your ideology is worse than anything the modern day could ever cook up, but if you truly need something that does more than "hold a candle" to your random assertions, we can turn to the heroes of the modern right, the nazis, the very people you attempt to defend to this minute.
    1
  2166. @Hellig Usvart Child, you need to stop running from the facts. You can insult me all you want, but your fantasies of murder only tell me far more about you than what I think you meant to reveal.
    1
  2167. @Hellig Usvart Child, you need to stop it with the random assertions, and stay on topic. Your insults aren't arguments, nor are they points worthy of any attention, no matter how much you crave it. Child, i've only labelled the right as the right, you seem to be the one that's willing to shift around labels all you want, all to serve your sad denialist narrative. Why can't you just tell the truth? It isn't that hard. I had to break it to you but I don't much care about your opinion of me, as you've rejected logic and reasonable discussion of historical fact long ago, and it seems me calling you out has only cemented that simple fact in stone. Everything you have written is false, and has been proven so, despite your anger at that fact. The nazis are the very people you are attempting to make excuses for, their victims the ones you want to erase or hide or minimize in any way you feel you can. How is that paying respect to them? How is your denialism helping to make sure they never have to suffer again? You can assert all you want, but child, proof is required for assertions, proof you have so far been unwilling to provide, which sure says a lot about you. I hate to break it to you but threatening to murder or torture me for imagined deflections shows exactly how violent the right is, they physically cannot handle the fact that their ideology is responsible for the vast amount of death and atrocity that it is, so they threaten and harm all those that attempt to show the world their crimes. Why do you keep deflecting? You're free to run away among unfounded assertions, but the world can see your lies, child.
    1
  2168. @Hellig Usvart Child, please do attempt to stop lying, it doesn't help your cause. I suppose you listing out graphic methods of torture you wish to enact upon me is not a threat in your mind, but in the real world it is. Perhaps let go of the sociopathic violence? Child, running away from your own history isn't a good look, especially when you embody it so much.
    1
  2169. @Hellig Usvart Child, I already have, and in doing so have done more work than you ever will and have done a fair bit of your own job for you in this case. I'm sorry you feel that reality is dishonest, but unlike you I have no need for the lies of ideological fanaticism. Why do you keep projecting your cult of hatred, terror, and pain onto me?
    1
  2170. @Hellig Usvart "Easy to understand" like the mantra of a cult is "easy to understand." Simple, repeatable, but false. You are not a communist, and yet each of the things you have outlined are the inventions of the right, and the proud children of your movement. I would say threats of torture are "something to fear," but that's just me, someone with no hint of your sociopathy. You claim that the left is the movement of violence and death, while openly celebrating when violence and death are inflicted on random people that prove you wrong. Do you not see the hypocrisy? I'm sorry you feel the need to preach to me about morality from on top of your pile of hundreds of millions of dead people, growing by the day, but your fanaticism has no place in reality. You refuse to even think about the massive list of right wing atrocities that I continue to repeat, that you cannot hope to silence or match with your own assertions. Feel free to tell lies more loudly, but as long as you do, I will call out your denialism and hatred, and the field of corpses that you've grown your movement out of. Child, you are threatening me, because you're a right winger, and inflicting violence and pain on those who dare oppose you, in action, thought, or your own imagination, as you have no other options. I'm sorry that you feel the need to deny the history of your ideology, but unlike you, I would never wish the horrors you wish upon others, that you act upon others, be directed to you in turn. Nobody deserves the right.
    1
  2171. @Hellig Usvart Child, your cultish fanaticism may be "obvious" to you, much as the existence of the devil was "obvious" to those fanatic religious murderers that you draw inspiration from, but that does not make your hatred and fanaticism justified.
    1
  2172. @Hellig Usvart Child, I already have. I've called out your lies, because each thing you have written has been nearly wholly or entirely fabricated to aid your denial of hundreds of millions of deaths, and as you have presented no evidence to the contrary, even you admit this. You have utterly rejected the historical record in service of your hatred of innocence, whereas I have strived to protect it against your violent rage. Your points are about as false as they get, and though they may be "obvious" to an indoctrinated cultist like yourself, who is unwilling to gaze upon reality, in the real world, there is nothing "obvious" about your false assertions. You can tell that your arguments have no basis in reality, because when I call you out, you have no rebuttal. All you have managed to do is pathetically run away and stick your head in the sand, trying to protect your propaganda-rotted mentality. Stop projecting, child.
    1
  2173. @Hellig Usvart Child, there is no mirror. You've taped a picture of a demon to a post and are trying to tell everyone that they're looking through a mirror. I've simply pointed out your own cultish adherence to your failed ideology, and in doing so appear to have angered to. I'm sorry you have so many years of practice in telling people that you desire for them to be tortured, but that's only to be expected with right wingers, i'm afraid. I'm sorry that you feel propaganda is more important than reality, but that's your problem, and in your cultish fervor there's little I can do to stop you.
    1
  2174. @Hellig Usvart Love how your entire argument centers around "Here's what I think you say and do, and that's why I don't like you." Child, child, your fantasies don't impact reality. Your insults kinda have to be true to stick, don't you think?
    1
  2175. @Hellig Usvart Love how at this point you've openly admitted that you don't care about historical fact, you're here to "trigger" someone by... just saying things, I guess? Child, what are you even talking about? "narcissists?" "Cancel culture?" Are you trying to complain about cancel culture? Child, if you need to vent about people not liking your views, go to a friend or therapist. It's not my job to tell you that the big mean cancel culture that's hiding under your bed is very real and scary or whatever else you want to hear. Thank you for admitting that your ideology has no basis in reality, and that your sad assertions stem from your own insecurities. Oh, child. You're so brainwashed that you, from inside your cage, pretend to be free? that's perhaps the saddest thing i've seen yet. Perhaps one day you'll be able to admit the obvious.
    1
  2176. @Hellig Usvart "I don't have an ideology." Genuinely one of the funniest things i've seen you say so far.
    1
  2177. @Hellig Usvart "I don't have an ideology." Now, child, where did you get this line from? Peterson? Some other conservative commentator, that wishes so desperately to deny their ideology so they aren't laughed out of every room they enter? No, child, you have an ideology, and that ideology rules your life, and it is why you have engaged with the ideological fanaticism that you have.
    1
  2178. @Hellig Usvart Lmao, "both marxism and fascism." Thank you for pointing out your fanatic devotion to ideology.
    1
  2179. @Hellig Usvart child, i'm sorry that you dislike rejecting fascism, the basis of the modern right, but it isn't a good look.
    1
  2180. @Hellig Usvart It doesn't take much rationality at all to realize how horrific fascism is, and how horrible equating it with historical analysis is, but apparently you somehow think they're not only equal, but one and the same. i'm sorry that you think random assertions are evidence, and i'm sorrier still that you cannot bring yourself to denounce fascism, but this continually fails to be at all my problem. Communism, to you, is a buzzword to describe all things and people you do not personally like or agree with, and so you throw it around completely randomly. And i'm sorry that you're annoyed at me pointing out your religious fanaticism that is clear in your ideology. why are you deflecting from your previous assertions and threats, btw?
    1
  2181. @Hellig Usvart You belong, in every aspect, to the right, and it appears you're unable to think beyond their talking points.
    1
  2182. @Hellig Usvart Isn't it funny then, that unlike leftists, you cannot bring yourself to reject fascism?
    1
  2183. @Hellig Usvart Child, child, you do realize it is your ideological movement that shouts the praise of fascism, right?
    1
  2184. @Hellig Usvart Rejecting fascism has near-zero exactly one hundred percent overlap with leftist politics, and that has always been the case. The right on the other hand, has never been able to denounce it, because fascism is at its core an extension of the right, and its natural conclusion.
    1
  2185. @Hellig Usvart Child, this is sad. You genuinely need to make up conspiracies to get over the fact that you can't bring yourself to condemn fascism.
    1
  2186. @Hellig Usvart Child, is the right "non/insufficiently Left?" Is that all that defines them? Come on child, at least try here, your false assertions are just getting sad at this point.
    1
  2187. @Hellig Usvart Let me clue you in on a little fact. Fascists love to pretend that everyone's being called a fascist, because it makes people calling them out more likely to be dismissed.
    1
  2188. @Hellig Usvart Child, why would I do that? You made up a strawman and then got triggered when I didn't argue for it. Isn't that incredibly sad? I happen to think so.
    1
  2189. @Hellig Usvart Odd how you still can't say a single bad thing against fascism?
    1
  2190. @Hellig Usvart Child, simply put, you need to stop making things up. Why should I argue for or against your strawmen, rather than just rejecting them as concoctions of your own mind?
    1
  2191. @Hellig Usvart I'm sorry, child, what? How are those "me?"
    1
  2192. @Hellig Usvart The Holocaust was you. The Death Camp was you. The Native American Genocide was you. The centuries of monarchist repression were you. The millions dead at the hands of capitalism, fascism, and imperialism are you Every one of the modern victims of right wing terrorism are you. Every one of the tens of millions sent into pointless imperialist wars was you. Every hospital bombed, child shot, mother beaten, is you. The greatest crimes against humanity are all you. And you want to deflect using the small game, when your regimes do worse by orders of magnitude. Grow up, ideologue.
    1
  2193. @Hellig Usvart But you haven't. All you've done is pledge your support of fascism, and deny its evils, or attempt to minimize them to whatever degree you feel. Child, you back the fascists in all but name, and still cannot condemn them. I'm sorry for being more educated than you? Not my problem.
    1
  2194. @Hellig Usvart According to? Anyone? Oh wait, no, just you. Funny how i've said nothing even about those subjects, and yet since i'm not a fascist, I must support them yes? Right. Stop supporting genocide.
    1
  2195. @Hellig Usvart Or, get this, you're arguing against a sad strawman since you can't address my actual statements. The right... is the right. Not whatever group you want to paint them as can you even understand that not everyone sees the world as black and white as you do, and that not supporting the genocides you enthusiastically defend doesn't make one the most authoritarian most left wing person around?
    1
  2196. @Hellig Usvart Child, i'm literally a "non-communist." Do you see your sad narrative falling down around you? Pathetic.
    1
  2197. @Hellig Usvart Your entire argument just revolves around saying "You're this. This is bad. You are bad" without proving a single one of the clauses.
    1
  2198.  @OUTERPANGEA  child, come now, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point, making this too easy for me
    1
  2199.  @OUTERPANGEA  Ah yes, the "L" of.... easily calling you out. It's ok dude, I get it, i'd be embarrassed if I was you too.
    1
  2200.  @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
  2201.  @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
  2202.  @AverageAlien  Awww, are you crying at being proven wrong? How sad. Cope harder.
    1
  2203.  @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
  2204.  @AverageAlien  Child, i'm still not a socialist. Isn't it funny how i'm the only one that can actually provide argumentation of the two of us? What a cope on your part.
    1
  2205.  @AverageAlien  I agree, your constant denialism is deeply indicative of your inability to deal with the simple reality, that reality being your sad little denialist narrative and evil ideology exposed
    1
  2206.  @AverageAlien  Hm, using the same arguments as the nazis to say you aren't an nazi? Very odd assertion.
    1
  2207.  @trystdodge6177  what?
    1
  2208.  @trystdodge6177  yuh huh have fun with that dude. Vapid nonsense is always so fulfulling.
    1
  2209.  @trystdodge6177  what utter lack of substance
    1
  2210.  @trystdodge6177  mhm sure bud
    1
  2211.  @trystdodge6177  wow you're really dedicated to this bit huh
    1
  2212.  @trystdodge6177  ...what?
    1
  2213.  @ILikeMilk-es5ii  It's not "my definition," I literally cited the foremost source of political and economic definitions in the modern day. And the soviet union reduced economic hierarchy, though there were points, like the NEP and Stalin's social decrees, which instituted right wing policy, either for a later goal or to be later abolished and reversed.
    1
  2214.  @petrsalavec6541  hate to break it to you but false equivalencies only help one side here dude.
    1
  2215.  @petrsalavec6541  And yet, that isn't true. I'm not advocating for which one is "better," but many people here are arguing which one is worse. This is a discussion of history, not ideology. In any case, I call people children because, like it or not, they act like children, denying facts and refusing good faith arguments in favor of ideology and insults. If they don't like it, they're free to act more cordial in turn, though I doubt that. The problem is, reading through this thread, you can see that I do denounce the crimes of different regimes and their respective ideologies. The problem with you people is that I do not do so without nuance and in the same terms. I obviously denounce and condemn the holocaust, the night of the long knives, and the many other crimes of the nazi parties, as well as historical genocide, oppression, and slavery the world over as a result of the need to profit and to exploit people for personal success. I also denounce many of the failed policies of those who attempted communism, and their own respective crimes. I do not, however, assert that state-mandated ethnic cleansing is the same, and should be condemned with the same vigor, as failed economic policy.
    1
  2216.  @unclebuck134  I'm still waiting for the refutation...
    1
  2217.  @unclebuck134  A "refutation" implies more than you just quoting someone's opinion, but hey, let me even refute that for you, since you seem to not even understand what you quoted. The right not liking their history is not an excuse to erase it. The assumption that "the right is merely the opponents of the left" is one long disproven. Political "sides" are not just defined by ideological trends, but by concrete historians and political links. The right does share particular principles and agendas beyond anti-leftism, and more from that, come from similar sources. "Free-Market Libertarians" were known for advocating for monarchy over democracy, while also instituting/praising military dictatorships. Theocracy is a core belief of modern conservatism, which libertarians also associate with. Are you seeing the problems already? I could do the same with the left, how can you claim that anarchism, marxism-leninism, and social democracy all belong to the same side? Well... they do. While your "source" does not define the left entirely incorrectly, it gets far more incorrect than not. According to "Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations," the left is defined by "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is defined by "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism." So, it's not wrong to say that the left attempts to reduce economic or social inequalities, but it is wrong to say that they only do so through government action. We see even in the modern day the left campaigning against government action to leave some things unregulated. In any case, like it or not, there is a "common vision" between the libertarians and "military juntas." I mean, one only has to go as far as Pinochet, an open military dictator that was guided by "free-market libertarians," and is still praised by them to this day. The right shares the common view that hierarchy is natural, and must be increased or preserved. Even ignoring that, most right wing military dictatorships exist solely to combat democratically elected leftists, to liberalize/privatize the economy, or to just stop the spread of leftism in their country. Claiming that they have no common ideological viewpoints is silly, given that they still work together to achieve those common viewpoints to this day. The right has a definition, like it or not.
    1
  2218.  @unclebuck134  This is, again, just false. While other fascist nations such as Mussolini's were not openly bigoted in the beginning, they did enact strict policy based on nationality and race, which would later solidify into the antisemetic policy that fascism became partially known for. The assertion that this was some big ideological shift for the fascists in question, though, is false - Mussolini himself stated his adherence to racist ideology for much of his political career, and noted its intersection with nationalism. Their move to hold off putting these views into law until it was politically beneficial to do so is far more a product of convenience, rather than actual ideological beliefs. The nazis ran on their bigotry, but the italian fascists ran on hiding it, getting as many supporters as possible before throwing them under the bus. But, even ignoring that, the notion that the nazis were unique for their racism is just false, every major fascist movement, from their founding to this day, has had an explicitly racial component to their ideology, even if it is less important than nationality to some. And what distinguished fascist movements from communist movements was... well, everything. Sure, if you dug deep enough I'm sure you could find one or two general political similarities, but those similarities tend to be so vague that they apply to whole swathes of political ideologies. In any case, the comparison is false, communists were temporarily committed to socialized ownership through the government, whereas fascists encouraged private property and attempted to get the private owners on their side through political and economic incentives. The notion that the only difference between them was "nationalism vs internationalism" is quite silly. Also, the closest the USSR got to the nazis would not be Stalin's economy, but the NEP... an openly admitted non-socialist economy.
    1
  2219.  @unclebuck134  I can see your author here is trying to do the "internationalist vs nationalist" thing here again, which is a real shame given how easily that argument falls apart. As stated previously, in practice and ideology, the two were concretely different in more ways than can be named. In any case, the example cited here is extremely misleading - communists generally did not all suddenly decide that military force against the nazis was justified just because they attacked the Soviet Union. Most had already condemned the nazis, and those who didn't want military conflict tended to advocate so with the explicit advocacy of the US in admitting refugees and so on. I'm sure some changed their mind, but the notion that so many did it is just false. This paragraph also ignores the specific fascist meaning of the term "nation." "Nation" does not literally refer to the current arrangement of borders in fascist countries, it refers to a people, an ideology, and a culture all in one. These are why so many fascists engaged in outwards campaigns of invasion, not because they were secret internationalists, but because again, they viewed nations in which their people, culture, or ideology was present, as their own nations. Any place a nazi could be found, was a part of germany. As for them ignoring this when it came to allies of theirs, again, fascism had an unmistakable aspect of political opportunism. They had strongly held convictions, yes, but if something were to benefit their goals while going against said conventions, they tended to go for it. Hence, him not instantly invading a political ally. And I'm afraid that this is a non-sequitur. One can certainly criticize the ways in which the USSR's government put Russian interests first and foremost, but asserting that this makes their ideology not only foundationally nationalist, but that it warrants comparison to the Tsar, is a bit of a reach. There's a difference between an unrepresentative government and a literal colonizing empire that doesn't even care to address your interests.
    1
  2220.  @unclebuck134  Again, this is a pure non-sequitur. The author asserted that the USSR maintained russian national interests and that the nazis ignored them when it was politically expedient, and even taking these at face value without pointing out the inaccuracies, this does nothing to prove that they're even similar in these small ways, much less that they are ideologically linked. I suppose the author realized that actually proving something of that nature would be impossible, so they chose to just assert it instead and hope you wouldn't notice. In any case, the supposed "similarities" that show they are closer or more similar to the left is quite silly. The "items on the agendas," in the case of the nazis (the citation he's attempting to make) were a part of the 25 Point Plan, a plan created by hitler to compromise with the leftist element of his party, long before he was even elected. This plan also included an expansion of voting rights, freedom of religion, and a removal of propaganda from schools. Hitler privately disagreed with these policies, especially the ones relating to taxation and government control, and when he had the first political opportunities, he murdered the people actually pushing for these policies. There is no way to interpret those views as his own. Aserting that the nazis held more similarities with the left than the right is also funny, given that the nazis only got into power because conservative parties conspired with them to do so, given that the nazis ideology directly comes from the conservatives before them and is still upheld by many conservatives to this day, that they openly named themselves as right with, that they sided with openly conservative industrialists, that they privatized swathes of previously public property, namely in the areas of healthcare/welfare, and so on. Your author has to take the stated goals of a group that was purged long before hitler got into power, rather than just looking at his actual policies. In any case, the further assertion that changing the education system is a "part of the ideology of the left" is quite silly, given that conservatives are doing the exact same things today that the nazis did, erasing queer people and racial minorities from history, promoting nationalistic, biased education, and so on. There is far more similarity between these totalitarians’ agendas and those of the right than with the agendas of most leftists or liberals. The notion that the right opposes government action against companies that they disagree with, as well as that they don't want to change the education system to reflect nationalistic propaganda, and so on, is simply silly. Attempting to deny this part of conservative ideology is impossible, especially today, when they're openly campaigning on it again. And yes, as with most political terminology, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have shifted in meaning quite a bit, but this is something the left has been aware of and has been openly combatting for decades. Friedman was a "conservative" in social views, as well as some view relating to the government, and was generally an economic "liberal." (Let it be noted that it's hilarious how the author describes Friedman holding the same positions he just claimed were inherent to the left) There is a problem with people conflating "liberal" and "progressive," but to say that this discounts the long history of conservative ideology as a right wing, generally authoritarian force, is just ahistorical.
    1
  2221.  @unclebuck134  No you won't, bud. You'll run away because your nonsense has no basis in actual history.
    1
  2222.  @unclebuck134  Er, no. You cited a man's opinions, which rely on a fundamental attempt to rewrite history, which I have presented refutations and evidence to disprove. You haven't even explained how this man does anything close to refute me, because you simply cannot, that would require leaving your echo chamber. You feel the need to assert that i've been "bested" rather than proving so, because you're painfully aware of the reality that you cannot do so, which you're running away from. The ego does protect itself, and if you had bothered to admit that you have no argument, you might have proven that assertion wrong.
    1
  2223.  @unclebuck134  ' This is another case where the author is (purposefully?) mixing up terminology. When people note the way in which Hayek conserves the status quo, like most conservatives, they aren't asserting that he literally desires whatever policies are in place at the current moment. That's why conservatives rail against new policy so much, after all. No, they're noting the way that he supports the same social, economic, and governmental assumptions and trends that underscore the modern era. Hayek's ideal economy, despite being different from the world he lived in, was just a refining of the same assumptions that justified that world, rather than questioning them, and expanding our understanding of economics. In any case, to assert that Hayek's ideas are somehow completely separate from the rest of the right is quite silly. Sure, he may have been separate from certain groups of the right, as everyone does not hold the total ideology of their "side," but the historical and ideological connections are undeniable. One could note his praise of Pinochet, the ways in which he strongly preferred private autocracies to democracies, and so on. Sure, not everyone on the right agrees with these, but to pretend that they aren't common ideas on the right, that much of the right rallies behind and has a historical trend of upholding, would be ahistorical. And this is just false. "Conservative" doesn't just refer to any case where a person wants to conserve all policy. While it has had a number of meanings, specifically in America where it's gone from meaning "constitutionalist" to "libertarian" and so on, it has always had a core set of policies and assumptions tied to it. "Conservatism" comes from Monarchism, and the absolute monarchs before them. It has always carried the notions of the importance of "traditional values," and the naturality of hierarchy. This is why conservative parties never attempt to "preserve," so much as they attempt to "change back." The Conservative parties of Weimar Germany, for example, were among the first to attempt to overthrow it, and eventually succeeded with the help of the nazis. People calling those opposing the end of the USSR "conservatives" were a) few and far between and b) would do so as a political smear, not an honest descriptor of ideology. In any case, there Are clear commonalities of specifics when it comes to different conservatives, from Buckley to Burke, from Hayek to Hitler. Like the left, there are different groups with different interpretations of the core tenets, but there's a clear spectrum of conservatism, all of which is built upon the same core foundation.
    1
  2224.  @unclebuck134  I'm getting slightly tired of noting this, but again, this is just false. If we actually note the stated goals and core assumptions of the left, we note that groups such as the nazis and fascists repudiate them utterly, and in fact, expressed open contempt for them. Even your author noted that the left was defined by a push towards equality, and yet nazis proudly declared "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!" Tell me, does that sound more like the left, or like the proudly anti-equality right, who declare that differences between groups, especially in the private sector, is simply natural? The means through which this author attempts to dumb down ideology into two groups are simply absurd. Attempting to define ideology not by what they want, who they work with, or what they do, but by how they do it, is absurd. It's even more absurd to couch it in the rhetoric of "individuals make decisions individually" and "decisions are made collectively by surrogates for society at large." Even ignoring the fact that these groups would be composed entirely of different ideologies with no historical connection that despise eachother, these terms are incredibly vague. Could you not easily argue that under capitalism, decisions in things like supply and demand are made by the "market" at large, not just by individuals deciding how much they personally need something or are willing to pay for it? In market economies, the entire market is held up by a social and economic collective of people, all of which individually contribute much like a democracy, voting with their dollars. The consequences for those vast, social group choices may trickle down to the individual, but they do not just effect that individual. Resources are not allocated in the economy because a single person wants something, they are allocated because a vast amount of people want something, and that grouping that represents the supposed "General will" defines the economy. This paragraph attempts to conflate the overton window with general ideological labels. True, Capitalism has not always been a moderate notion, but that does not change it from being an ideology that fundamentally rejects leftism, and that lines up far better with conservative values of hierarchy and inequality than the values of the left. It's worth noting that even here, though, a large amount of the advocacy for a more decentralized economy did comes from those that we would call leftists even today, and moreso, that leftists who we openly know as such proudly learned from this movement. The change from monarchism to capitalism was one of moderate conservatives/libertarians, who aligned with progressives and leftists, against extreme, authoritarian conservatives, that believed that hierarchy was not just as a result of individual action, but as a result of god-chosen superiors and inferiors. The ideological connections there are evident, especially when considering that the founders of conservatism were themselves Monarchists, but that was also in the context of a progressive economic movement that would build upon itself, though of course, these more moderate conservatives had already found their ideology to stick to.
    1
  2225.  @unclebuck134  This is another case in which the author mangles terminology. Language was not formed by individuals, but by a collective of people, who normalized terms among themselves, and cemented them through norms. This is why the distinction between collective and individual is so vague, and in reality, is mostly meaningless. It is, however, worth mentioning that capitalism is far more prone to being directed by "elites," those with vast networks of social and political capital, than language ever really could be. Though capitalism does as a whole lean far more towards collective decision making, it is undeniable that there are a few who absolutely can take control of the collective, through various means, and nudge them towards certain conclusions. Yet another example of the uselessness of the arbitrary distinction between individualism and collectivism - individuals make up a collective. It's also worth noting, that, similarly, cases of total "elite prescription" are also not as cut and dry as you might like. Even under authoritarian governments, policies are rarely implemented that do not form, or reach, a group which supports them. Even top-down policy itself tends to come from popular needs and wants, much more so in the modern age. The evolution of society necessitates means through which to take those experiences to a higher level.
    1
  2226.  @unclebuck134  And here we're back to the right proudly proclaiming that "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!" In any case, it must be noted the ways in which your source represents clear hypocrisy. In one sentence, it argues against elite prescription, and says that society and economies naturally evolve in the context of a collective's trends. In the next, it advocates for a system in which elite individuals hold total power, and says that collective decision making is something that is harmful, that it undercuts the individual and that it's entirely opposed to the natural order of society. Hell, the line "Systemic processes which tap vastly more knowledge and experience from vastly more people, often including traditions evolved from the experiences of successive generations, are deemed more reliable than the intellect of the intellectuals." could be considered to be both left and right - the right relying on the market over the individual, the left relying on the worker rather than the owner. The true problem comes up when the author asserts that the view he names here is "the vision of the left." "The left" does not as a whole call for "surrogate decision-making," either politically or socially. In fact, the vast majority, from anarchists to socialists, call for a system in which the supposedly justified surrogate decision-making of owners and the owning class are questioned, and replaced in favor of the natural evolution of the social, political, and economic collective. Even those that do advocate for more central power structures do so with the goal of representing the collective, not just the view of one intellectual. The right, conversely, constantly praises surrogate decision-making by "elite" individuals. See, their adherence to certain political figures, like Trump or Pinochet, or hell, the way in which they constantly defend capitalist owners like Elon Musk. Again, the author is making odd generalizations which attempt to conflate "the left" with "totalitarianism," while ignoring that his assertions are inaccurate for most of the left, and extremely accurate for most of the right. The vision he states is not the one held in common on the political left, nor is it found in all totalitarianism. And again, we see a clear case of hypocrisy. Previously, he praised collective decision making in language and the market, yet here he proclaims it's an agent of the left. He apparently thinks that dictatorships are more similar to collective decision making, than the assumption that elite individuals should take control. Asserting that "collective decision-making" is somehow comparable to top down decision making is quite an odd assertion. Like it or not, a dictatorship is a case of "individual decision making," even more than capitalism is, one might note. There is no "commonality of purposes," as you can tell through the author's constant deflection and inability to prove his assertions. Again, i'll repeat - the author is asserting that surrogate individual decision making, and collective decision making (opposites) are the same, and follow a common trend on the left... despite himself previously praising/advocating for them. Like, even this line - "A commonality of purpose in society is central to collective decision-making, whether expressed in town-meeting democracy or totalitarian dictatorship..." should tell you how absurd this view is.
    1
  2227.  @unclebuck134  Once again - incorrect. The supposedly "free market" has never managed to exist in any concrete, stable form, without government intervention. Further, the natural result of the free market seems to be states which are explicitly willing to intervene to protect it, and people who are willing to do so to protect their assumptions. Within capitalism, there is of course a commonality of purpose. It's odd how here he claims that individuals making groups is good, but those groups existing, and attempting to advocate for the views of the individuals who made them, now makes them leftists. In any case, as we've been over, capitalism contains the commonality of purpose in consumerism, in labor, in the protection of the market. That is why they push for this society wide commonality of purpose, which is more often than not imposed by surrogate decision makers such as politicians or economic "elite," who push for these things due to their collective notion of "what's good for the market." The parallels are obvious to all but ideologues. We've been over the ways in which your conception of the state differs from fascists conception of the state, but it's worth mentioning that Mussolini operated under the same assumptions on inequality and hierarchy that the capitalists do, with the added assertion that this does not just apply to individuals or classes, but to nationalities, which must themselves "compete" for the best possible outcome. The Italians were the "inviduals," and they made their decisions led by individuals, such as Mussolini, for the "individual" experience of the race.
    1
  2228.  @unclebuck134  Odd that you cite a proud right wing view as the "views" of the left.
    1
  2229.  @unclebuck134  Ohhh, so this is the part where you cherry pick examples to declare that proud, self proclaimed right wingers were secretly leftists, because you don't like how much you agree with them.
    1
  2230.  @unclebuck134  Oh, so this is the part where the author resorts to a rant of disparate, unrelated quotes and assertions, in order to spread a narrative, likely to distract from their previous assertions which cannot stand on their own merit. And, of course, these assertions and quotes are, themselves, ahistorical. For example, Rousseau is a self-proclaimed inspiration for much of conservative politics, and further, his views against the "common people" here are vastly misstated, and prove nothing but the author's own bias. Asserting that Godwin and Condorcet would be found on the modern political left is flawed, but it is worth pointing out that both strongly advocated for a world in which the needs and wants of the worker were few, and most were provided. I'm not sure how you can even believe this nonsense, but “The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing” does not mean "they only matter if I like them," it was an economic statement, referring to the fact that the working class was defined by its opposition to outside influence, and that if that opposition ceased, so would the boundaries of the class itself. Shaw was a figure that held openly right wing views, and constantly made plays which pointed out the supposed ideal in which capitalists could overcome class distinction through labor. A random young soldier doesn't really say much about the "left," does it? Even you must question why the author included this section - one which makes random, unprovoked attacks against a number of historical figures, each of which is pulled from context, all to create a greater narrative. You don't find it at all odd that this supposed fact based refutation so quickly devolved to insult-slinging? Again, asserting that the concept of a "master race" belongs to the left is entirely ahistorical. Hell, the most popular adherents of the concept openly admitted their right wing ideology. Comparing a party of people meant to represent the broader population, and an inherent, unchosen group of people who are the only ones worthy of respect as humans, is absurd. Further, are you about to assert that the right has not made similar claims that assert that decision making should be held by a political elite, from the modern right wing parties to the old absolute monarchs?
    1
  2231.  @unclebuck134  As for this assertion regarding Du Bois, I'm afraid it's utterly unfounded. See, when one attempts to research these supposed quotes, all they find is the numerous cases of DuBois proudly criticizing the nazis, explicitly noting how their antisemetism was so similar to the racism he spent his whole life campaigning against, and talking about the similar folks who perpetuate both. Now, I understand that Sowell, a known segregationist, would not like this comparison, but it isn't license to make stuff up. Interesting is that, in trying to find the source for the quote, all one finds is that the "citation" is simply to another, explicitly ideological book - not DuBois' work. Odd. Now, upon looking into these secondarily cited source, I found that the quote in question... was not cited. At all. Oh, quotes and tidbits before and after were cited, and I poured through those for information, but nothing. The quote appears to be made up, and the assertions surrounding the quote equally so, given they are not cited or backed up. In fact, the only cited information I could find was that DuBois had used a Swastika... in the context of criticizing the nazis. Now, it's worth mentioning that later in his life, DuBois moved away from the left, and began criticizing socialists openly. He did have words of praise for his view of nazi germany, but you'll notice that these are all based on things that are not true - he said, for example, that they were not discriminatory. Now, DuBois' decline is well known, as was his later-in-life attempts to go against the grain, but using him to assert that the nazis were secretly popular among the left is absurd, given DuBois' own unpopularity at this time, and manufacturing a quote to prove this narrative is silly. He didn't see them as a part of the political left, plainly. In any case, why is it that your source is so willing to ignore those who proudly painted the nazis as political rightists? You, know, like the nazis, their conservative/capitalist allies, conservative figures like Churchill who praised them ("Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world.... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism.") or conservatives like evola, who were proud members of their parties. I can point out thousands of people, from Orwell ("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.") to Mussolini ("It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.") proudly pointing out the right wing nature of fascism. The fact that you have to cherry pick a single example of a controversial historical figure, and still have to rely on fake quotes, is so telling.
    1
  2232.  @unclebuck134  Again, "later lumped in with the right" implies these groups didn't already identify themselves as right wing, in word, ideology, or action. They didn't espouse "some version of the vision of the left," they openly relied on right wing parties, ideologies, and movements. Hell, advocacy for the "Volk" was a longstanding conservative movement that Hitler emulated in full. There are plenty of people who are on the left who have had horrible views, or done horrible things, and that doesn't make them right wing - yet here, the author declares that all people who the left dislikes must be secret leftists themselves. To assert this, one has to ignore the vast majority of the history of the right, which it seems the author here is very willing to do. For example, Father Coughlin wasn't "banished to the right" because he was an antisemite, something that leftists sadly have been (though, I will admit, far less so than the conservatives that founded it) he was called right wing because he spent his whole career railing on socialism, communism, and internationalism. He supported FDR for a while, likely because of the man's more isolationist social outlook, but strongly criticized him later specifically because FDR did not implement the policies he advocated for, and in fact, the policies he actually did implement were strongly criticized by Coughlin. Hell, most of the man's political efforts later in life were trying to take voters away from FDR so a Republican could be elected. He was praised because he praised FDR, I'm not sure if you know how politics work, but sadly people of differing ideologies tend to accept eachother's support when it's beneficial.
    1
  2233.  @unclebuck134  It... really wasn't. Oh sure, there were a few examples of this happening, but it was overwhelmingly the unpopular view at the time. Fascism, as a political experiment, was continuous. Some noted their reactionary politics, while others fixated on their populist propaganda. The truth about the inner workings of the regime didn't come out until after the war. In any case, leftists did not compare "kindred experiments" such as fascism, communism, and the new deal. Calling these "kindred experiments" itself is absurd. The communists and fascists were in open arms against eachother, and despite some figures comparing the two, these comparisons quickly fell flat and did not represent a popular position. FDR had openly opposed socialism before, and in fact ran on a position wholly counter to socialism, which numerous socialists explicitly criticized him for. These comparisons were not "later rejected," they had rarely happened to begin with, and especially as the ideology of fascism was laid bare, the few that had attempted to do so, noted the falsehood of such assertions. These were not "changes," nor were they arbitrary. Many of these statements and facts were known well before the war, and the left had no need to "distance" themselves from groups that openly admitted to being right wing. The supposed "similarities" your author notes did not exist beyond vague allusions to them in propaganda, which were swiftly abandoned when the group in question got into power. The underlying assumptions and conclusions of the nazis, the fascists, were near entirely in line with the conservatives who got them into positions of power. There's no need to "...verbally transfer these embarrassments to their political opponents," when the opponents in question were already well aware of their connection to these "embarrassments." Your author here is trying to assert some conspiracy to change the terms, but the only movement relating to that has been a movement of the right to change the terms in their favor, to assert that their failures, their embarrassments, are actually the fault of their political enemies, and they assume that by distancing themselves from their past, that they are free to advocate the same ideas in the modern day, without being rightfully compared to right wing individuals who did the same thing in the past, to disastrous effect. And yet again we have a case where the author attempts to knowingly deny not even the actions, but the goals and rhetoric of the right, to pin it on the left. Are they seriously willing to assert that the right does not make "...presumptions of their own vastly greater knowledge and wisdom than that of ordinary people?" The right has attempted explicitly to counter democracy, many of the cited right wing figures even in this book note that these people believed that those that rose to the top were inherently more knowledgeable and talented than ordinary people, and the right to this day looks towards those media, economic, political and social leaders as truly superior sentiments. They're also more than happy to use this to advocate for greater authoritarianism and repression of their political enemies, and those views have directly led to terrorism, violent failed policy, and in the past, even genocide, as the rightists Hitler and Mussolini proudly show. These leaders had, fundamentally, conservative visions of man. That they were fundamentally unequal, and that said inequality was natural and justified.
    1
  2234.  @unclebuck134  So, to summarize, since I'm well aware you won't read any of that. Your source attempted to lie about what left and right meant, tried to lie about the history of the fascists and the nazis, tried to lie about the history of communists, tried to lie about the views of the fascists and how they line up plainly with the views of the right, tried to lie about the history and definitions of conservatism, tried to redefine the left and right, tried to assert that what the ideologies actually want doesn't matter and instead how they get what they want is more important, using vague nonsensical terminology for even that, tried to lie about the actual economic reality of capitalism, tried to hypocritically flip-flop between notions of collective decision making being good or bad, tried to assert that conservatives supported the collective but didn't support the collective, tried to assert that something not inherent or unique to the left was both of those thing while ignoring it on the right, tried to assert that a dictatorship was "collective decision making" and actually the same thing as democracy, tried to lie about the nature of the state in capitalism, tried to lie about the commonalities/differences in human organization, tried to call conservatives left wing, tried to lie about several quotes and historical figures, tried to project right wing ideology onto the left without even justification, fabricated quotes and only cited sources that similarly fabricated quotes, asserted to a nonsense conspiracy that ignores even the statements of the nazis in their own times, lied more about historical figures, lied about the history of fascism, socialism, and communism and their various disagreements, tried to distance the right from other ideologies on the right, and again projected ideological movements and tendencies of the right onto the left. And they were wrong.
    1
  2235. Kid you make up claims that are utterly unsubstantiated by evidence and in the process, use nazi rhetoric to deny nazi association. Do you see the problem?
    1
  2236. ​ @redfalcongamer1422  Lmao, your self-confident lack of education is painfully telling. I'm sorry your fanatic ideology was so easily stomped. You literally hate that capitalism is capitalism, don't you? I'm sorry, but from every response of yours that i've read, i've had to conclude with the simple fact that not only are you completely ignorant of the basic definitions of the terms in question, you are aware of this, and painfully self conscious of this fact. Attempting to rewrite definitions just because you don't agree with them is low. Do you know what those words mean? Socialism, Capitalism, Public, Private, State, Nation, Corporation, Community, etc? I'm sorry, but you just don't. You appear to think that capitalism, the entire history of capitalism and capitalist thinkers, doesn't count simply because it doesn't fit a "definition" that requires a fundamental dismissing of the entire english language in order to justify. If you actually knew what those terms meant, and TIK's assertions actually lined up with the dictionary definition, you wouldn't have to jump through so many loops, and ignore so many centuries of linguistic development, to justify them. If you actually knew how those terms were defined, what they actually meant, then you would stop pushing your ideological drivel in the face of factual information. You assert, counter to the actual definition of capitalism, that redundancies like "State Capitalism" and "Corporate Capitalism" are " incoherent and meaningless oxymorons," without providing any evidence of course, because none exists. State Capitalism is an ideology that is not only "coherent," but fits under the umbrella of capitalism, and defines much of modern capitalist development. "Corporate Capitalism" is a redundancy, we just call that "capitalism." The idea that capitalism is for anything other than big business, is literally definitionally impossible. "No true capitalism" isn't an argument. If you somehow think TIK is remotely correct, you couldn't possibly know what a single one of those terms meant. There is, by definition, no way to agree with TIK here and have any understanding of basic economics. If you were to engage in actual study rather than listening to youtube ideologues all day, you might know that. What TIK is saying is about as far from "self evident" as you can get, given that it falls apart the second any pressure is put on his fanatic theories. What TIK is saying isn't just incorrect, but painfully so, and I'm sorry you can't saying that. You're literally suggesting that TIK knows better than the entire field of linguistics, and in calling marx a "liar... who didn't know what words mean," you're asserting that TIK understands definitions better than the people who first used, and defined, terms. I'm sorry you don't know the basics. Funny how you're willing to rely on the authority of the dictionary one second, but the second the people who actually study the history of these ideologies, countries, and linguistic changes have something to say, you feel entitled to dismiss them out of hand. Kid, who do you think is writing the dictionaries? Who doesn't "actually know what words mean," the person who studied the concept for longer than you've been alive, or you, and overconfident kid? I'm sorry that you, and your company, don't even (or don't want to)understand the terms you are using, and i'm sorry you feel entitled to redefine terms in order to engage in association fallacies. "Not what some educated person claims they mean," you say, and yet your only source for these claims is a supposedly "Educated" person who goes against every source they cite. So, what does the dictionary actually say about these terms? "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." - Oxford Languages Dictionary. Tell me, does that not count as what the dictionaries say? Or are you going to claim, like TIK, that any group of individuals owning something is "public ownership," which means that everything from conservatives to most libertarians would not be considered socialists, by your definition? Isn't it funny how TIK has to redefine the word "public" to effectively describe all of history, a way nobody uses it, and yet you still assume this can be found in a dictionary? Face it, kid. You're the one redefining languages. You're the one trying to ignore or twist the dictionary. Like it or not, "persistent" isn't a word used to describe definitions. Definitions constantly change, and are nearly entirely tied to simply public perception, not some noble notion of an unbroke linguistic change. Dictionaries don't decide definitions, they record them. TIK needs to go back to the foundation of words we use today, which were created in times before any of these concepts were truly formed, because looking at modern definitions does not support his point. I mean, let's be real for a second, at least. He's not just going back before the modern day, which would itself be a problem. He's going back to before the language you and I are speaking. "Private property" as it's used today is a largely modern term, the roots of which range back from "to rob" to "being in front." This is true of our entire language. You can take a few root terms and see the few remaining connections, but basing modern definitions, and worse rewriting history and prominent economic theory, around going back in time to project a modern view onto historical terms is as ahistorical as it gets. But a few closing remarks. Essentially, your arguments and "definitions" are reliant on association fallacies. You're attempting to call upon the common understanding of terms, and justifying it with your niche understanding of definitions. When you accuse someone of being a "socialists," and say that socialism is defined by public ownership, you're attempting to conflate them with open socialists. People aren't aware that, by your definition of "public ownership," most of them are socialists as well. The term "socialist" becomes essentially useless, because it doesn't just describe those who actually followed the ideology of socialism, but also their enemies, those apathetic, ect. "Socialism" becomes a term that describes Burke just as much as it describes Pinochet, just as well as it describes Marx, and so on. You're calling people "socialist" because when the title is heard, people think of actual socialists, when what you're actually saying is "a person who thinks that ownership by any group larger than a family should happen." It's like shouting "Fire" but then saying, "Oh, when I say fire, I really meant anything warm, including popcorn. Sorry for interrupting your movie!" It becomes useless, and you want that, because your goal is not to meaningfully connect these figures to socialism, but to lump them all under one label while knowing that people will hear the term "socialist" and not bother to understand your distinct usage of it. Not even to mention that your definition of "public ownership" means that two families working a farm together and amazon are the same thing. Two groups sharing a building now make that building just as much of a state as the USA. Those who actually believe in socialism, those who preached it historically, are drowned out by proud capitalists and conservatives alike, now "Socialists." So, they'll find a new name to describe what they Actually advocate for. The reason your definitions aren't popular is because they're useless, and they draw no distinction between a community garden and a dictatorship. You're attempting to lump in non-socialists with socialism, but in doing so you make the accusation of "socialism" worthless, because one can be a "Socialist" and agree on every point with the vast majority of modern capitalists. You even say that an aspect of "public ownership" is anything that's a "part of the larger order of society," aka all modern industry. It's evident that you do this purposefully to some extent, so you can condemn private entities like corporations, who you have somehow decided become public simply because they are traded publicly. The one thing I question is if you're aware of the actual ramifications of this. Why would anyone feel shame at being called a "Socialist," under this definition, if "socialism" describes the most powerful and wealthy modern countries? How can you claim "socialism" is a failure, if every economy to ever succeed has been "socialist?" Why would accusing historical figures of socialism matter, if their greatest opposition was socialist, if the greatest liberators and anarchists and pacifists are just as if not more "socialist?" Even you see the bounds of your association fallacy, you want to accuse people of socialism so they think of an old USSR politician, not realizing that your definition of socialism doesn't end at the USSR. That, is why I pointed out earlier that your definitions are self-evidently incorrect. When language lacks nuance, nuance is invented. If two things exist under the same label (fruit, for example) people are going to find new terms (apple, orange, grape, ect) to describe specifics. Calling people socialist, by your definition, is like saying someone reminds you of the taste of fruit. It's vague, meaningless, could be everything from a complement to an insult. It's cognitive dissonance, really. You're thinking "socialist" in the typical, correct meaning, but justifying it in your niche, incorrect way. Thinking "sour" but saying "fruit." In any case, i've said what I need to say. Your definitions... are nonsensical. And I hope, having realized that, you'll join me in "socialism."
    1
  2237. nah, I watched it. Hitler wasn't a socialist.
    1
  2238.  @robertruiz3131  nah, I just like debating this to be honest
    1
  2239.  @crimson6952  literally yes
    1
  2240.  @CoronisAdair  Because conservatives don't want that. They don't want that in the modern day, they haven't wanted that historically, and they still try to fool everyone into supporting their nonsense. How does one jump from authoritarianist rightism to authoritarianist rightism? It isn't. So yes, the nazis were to the right of conservatives. Hopefully I made it make more sense to you. Conservatives are moderate rightists, who still respect and push for authority, nazis are racist, extremist rightists, who push for even more authority. Saying the nazis were leftists is objectively false.
    1
  2241.  @CoronisAdair  I'm sorry, I don't care about your personal experience, I care about cold hard facts. And the simple fact is, conservatism isn't at all less government intervention, conservatives are fine with advocating for more and more government in fact. Authoritarianism goes hand in hand with conservatism, that's why conservatives in both the modern day and the past constantly advocate for it. Trying to "no true conservatives" this one doesn't actually change their ideology. And i'm glad that you can recognize the fundamental flaws of conservative ideology, but you seem to be believing that your ideology represents some "true conservatism," opposed to both the definition and history of conservative ideology. And sorry, this is false. In fact, the only thing you manage to get right is the fact that Mussolini was kicked out of a socialist party for right wing stances. With this rejection, Mussolini abandoned socialism and openly proclaimed that his ideology was one of the right. "Collectivism based on nationalism" is a nonsense string of buzzwords. Mussolini did give power to the private corporations, yes, but he abolished trade unions and revoked any form of syndicalism. The fact that you don't know these basics is genuinely disappointing. Repeating arguments you don't understand doesn't make it true. Hitler's ideology was, fundamentally, one against a concern or care for the collective, but rather in favor of a domination of power. Hitler's ideology is anti-socialism based on race. Marxism is an analytical historical lens, not an economic system, but if you're referencing marxist-leninist socialism, the phrase "collectivism based on class" makes no sense. The MLs wanted to abolish class, not create a system that enforced it, unlike the nazis with race, and so on. You really think that creating a binary here works. Sorry, association fallacies aren't arguments. Marxist socialism and Fascist anti-socialism are fundamentally opposed and using a buzzword incorrectly doesn't change that. The phrase "fascist socialism" is an oxymoron, as fascism is a far right anti-socialist ideology, and your use of it proves you agree with those sentiments. Conservatism is just as if not more collectivist than socialism. No, actually, libertarians tend to be to the left of conservatives, and anarchists to the left of them, whereas fascists, technocrats, corporatists and monarchists are to the right of conservatives. Stop trying to deflect from the reality and past of your ideology. Own up to the truth, take some responsibility for once.
    1
  2242. ​ @CoronisAdair  P1 I'm sorry that you can't handle factual information about the authoritarianism you advocate for. "Sources? The closest historical reference I can think of is how the antebellum Democrats tried to manipulate the US Federal System to both prop up the Southern State's institutions of Slavery and try to prevent it from being a topic of political contention. " Conservatism is the reason we currently live in a police state, conservatism is the reason that the US government can so easily spy on its citizens, conservatism historically has been monarchism and absolute monarchism and nothing about that has any sort of rejection of authority or authoritarianism within it. The history of conservative views is filled with people trying to enforce them with force end violence, either on their own country or others. But these weren't "real conservatives" according to you, right? Again, take ownership child. "Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Che Guevera, Kim Il-sung, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro." I notice you don't list Hitler and Mussolini, because we both really know they were right wing. Good. In any case, listing a few people doesn't change the overall trend, a trend of centuries upon centuries of right wing empires and regimes that spanned the ocean in search of people to conquer and oppress. Oh, also, a point of education for you, "liberalism" means capitalism and does not describe any of the figures you just named. "Someone needs to go re-read some history, because they clearly have it wrong." And yet, you provide citation proving me right, thank you. The motion to stay in the war for purely nationalistic purposes is without a doubt a right wing one, and after Mussolini was kicked out he utterly rejected socialism. The assertion that he was a socialist until death is utterly unfounded. Simple internet search: https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Benito-Mussolini-expelled-from-the-Italian-Socialist-Party Heck, wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Expulsion_from_the_Italian_Socialist_Party "Again, you need to re-read some history. " Child, All unions were abolished, and replaced with organizations that were run by private owners that managed the workers with no ability to resist. Private corporations weren't abolished. Furthermore, private individuals believing in an ideology doesn't make them less private, nor is "government control" what is being described here, nor is, as we've been over, "collectivism" an economic system. "I'm equally disappointed that you're using false and outright made-up 'basics. Asserting that "the truth is a lie, actually, and you should be ashamed to tell the truth to me because I don't want to deal with it." really isn't a good look, pal. I'm sorry that you hate factual information and the authoritarian past of the right. "Remove 'anti' and this statement would be correct." So you think socialism can completely revoke collectivism? Interesting take there mate, but rather inconsistent with your past ones, I would check that out for a bit. Either that or admit you're wrong. "Yet the Maxist-Leninists constantly pitted class groups against one another to cement their power base." I hate to break it to you but the abolition of class does involve resistance to people who want to violently enforce class to the detriment of others. " Dekulakization (Russian: раскулачивание, raskulachivanie; Ukrainian: розкуркулення, rozkurkulennia) was the Soviet campaign of political repressions, including arrests, deportations, or executions of millions of kulaks (prosperous peasants) and their families in the 1929–1932 period of the first five-year plan. To facilitate the expropriations of farmland, the Soviet government portrayed kulaks as class enemies of the USSR. " This was a practice in response to the destruction of metric tones of food and food production equipment. Was it unjustified? Yes. Was it an attempt to strike out against rich owners that fucked everyone else over? To a large degree, also yes. And I hate to break this to you, but it is a simple fact that some groups are actively being victimized by other groups. I know you don't want to deal with the economic realities of, say, pre-mao china but it was far from a perfect little libertarian capitalist utopia. Actually, the Kulak's mass destruction of agricultural product, land, and tools caused the famine, the response to the Kulaks had little to do with it. After all, murdering a farmer that burnt all their land and tools doesn't make them produce any more or less. "Again, remove 'anti' from the phrase 'Fascist anti-socialism' and you'd be correct." And i'm sorry, but this is blatantly untrue, and trying to assert the opposite over and over doesn't change that fact. Marxists and Fascists were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, fascism is a far right anti-socialist system that relies entirely on a fundamental rejection of leftist ideology or narrative in favor of the myths and traditionalism of the extreme right, as we can see to this day. The phrase "fascist socialist" is an oxymoron, anti-socialism is not a "flavor" of socialism. George Orwell also recogized that the nazis weren't socialists but great job citing a figure you know nothing about. It was Lenin, not marx, who proposed the idea of a strong vanguard state, and Orwell's "Animal Farm" literally focuses on a rejection of marxism. The fascists had no desire to "use socialism." (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.") Hitler's system was anti-socialist, as was his rhetoric. Also, it's hilarious that the only commonality you can find between them was "they both thought one group was good and one was bad." Like, if "proclaiming that one part of society was victimizing the other" makes you a socialist, or inspired by socialism, then the modern conservatives who claim to be victimized as a result of "liberal media," "big tech," "liberal elites," "marxist academia" and so on are just as socialist as hitler. "Again, you're either deeply misinformed, deliberately trolling, or have little contact with reality. " I notice you don't actually refute the statement, instead deflecting to a random case of authoritarianism elsewhere. Child, what else is nationalism but collectivist? Patriotism? Religion? And so on. "Again, this statement has little to no contact with reality. " Stating it doesn't make it true, and in fact, you stating it seems to correlate with things being false.
    1
  2243.  @CoronisAdair  P2 Libertarians do disagree with conservatives, yes, which often puts them to the left of conservatives. Libertarians are often far more open to progressive social values and tolerance, as opposed to the collectivist hatred of conservatives. Conservatives, on the other hand, are primarily defined by their social views, views on gay people, minorities, marriage, ect, and want to enforce these views via a government that, supposedly, protects their identity and culture. Sounds familiar, I know. Fascists are just another flavor of right wing anti-socialists, as has been proven. And yes? I'm sorry, do a bunch of cutthroat capitalists who rose to the top out of sheer competition and domination of the industry not represent the right to you, for whatever reason? That's quite sad. Yes, capitalists are right wing. And I hate to break it to you, monarchism has more of a historical legacy than a single country. Hundreds of years of right wing authoritarianism that, somehow, just don't exist in your mind. Note that the positions you state are often rebutted by the left, such as Marx's unabashedly pro-gun stances. And yes, again, "theocracies held together by clan affiliations" are representative of a purely right wing system, and it's no wonder that conservative politicians have praised even extreme middle eastern terrorists for, say, their opinion on abortion. And no, the line between capitalists and ant-capitalists is not really "blurred." While libertarian capitalists often have the right idea, they fail to recognize that the very forces of capital they defend are more often than not the precursor to a society dominated by a higher power that eventually comes to be known as the state. Anarchists, thus, do not hold this position. The simple fact is, capitalists, today, need to eliminate the dissenters via force, and make the application of any other ideologies completely illegal. And the simple fact is, asserting random things are authoritarian just because you do not understand them doesn't make it so. What is authoritarian about a method of historical analysis? "These are words that apply more to you than I." Throughout this entire argument, you have proven entirely unwilling or unable to cite your assertions. The few assertions you do cite, you do by linking random pages you pulled off the first page of google that disprove your point when actually read. It's entirely easy to rebut your nonsensical and ahistorical statements, which is why i've managed to do it. Again. Face it, "Authority vs Liberty" is not a rational measure of politics. Authority isn't just government, societal and economic authority exist, and trying then to graph them all onto one axis is silly. Capitalists, for example, want more economic authority over society. Conservatives want more cultural or social authority over society. Are they now left wing? On the opposite end, most socialist propose less social and economic authority, and many do not propose a state at all, anarchists being leftists and an offshoot of socialism after all. Collectivism is a nonsense term, and historically, the fascists have always aligned with the right far more than anything on the left. There's a reason it's only the right flying Hitler's flag today. Fascists want more right wing authority. They are right wing. Left vs Right is determined by hierarchy. Conservatives utterly reject the notions of freedom and liberty. They will do anything in their power to resist the freedom of individuals or groups to push against their old norms, they will lock down countries and form economic systems of near slavery in the supposed name of "freedom." You swallowed the koolaid, kid. Conservatives don't deeply suspect the government when it reaches too far, in fact they encourage it. They deeply hate when it reaches too far in the direction of anything remotely left wing. You'd think after the hundreds of millions dead as a result of right wing ideology that you'd have any sort of humility or self-reflection, but of course that is thinking far too highly of you, a textbook case of denialism. Fascism is right wing anti-socialism, by definition. Your definitions are biased, and have no consistency with reality or history. History shows this. Modern reality shows this. All you have are your right wing purist assertions that try to desperately to reject the nazis, while using their very rhetoric. Sad.
    1
  2244. ​ @CoronisAdair  P1 I agree, given your constant failure to deal in factual information, it is clear that you are either entirely fooled by propaganda, or a knowing liar. Did you actually read a single one of your own citations? No? Why am I not surprised in the slightest. Given that a third of your past posts "citation" was an internet forum where random people can answer with anything they want, I don't think you actually know what citation is. In any case, I find it funny how you cut off the quote early. I wonder how that paragraph ends... "He began to criticize the Italian Socialist Party and socialism itself for having failed to recognize the national problems that had led to the outbreak of the war." Oh, right. He had, through his nationalistic support of the war, criticized and gone against socialism itself. Hm. Let's see what else Mussolini's interventionist policies could have said about him. Let's see who else were the most important political supporters of the war. "The outbreak of the war had resulted in a surge of Italian nationalism and the war was supported by a variety of political factions. One of the most prominent and popular Italian nationalist supporters of the war was Gabriele d'Annunzio who promoted Italian irredentism and helped sway the Italian public to support intervention in the war.The Italian Liberal Party under the leadership of Paolo Boselli promoted intervention in the war on the side of the Allies and utilized the Società Dante Alighieri to promote Italian nationalism" Oh, so liberals and conservative nationalists. Odd allies for a "socialist" to make, but then again as your own source shows, his support of the war was an alignment with the right, and in doing so he recognized that he was opposing socialism, and so, he began to criticize socialism itself. So yes, the motion to stay in the war for purely nationalistic purposes is without a doubt a right wing one. Now let's see what those anti-socialist views and criticisms evolved into, in order to see where they started from. For example, we would expect that a left wing pro war person would go on to remain a left wing socialist, while someone who proposed intervention for right wing reasons would go on to go only further to the right, correct? And of course, it's his later actions and views we care about, as this is when he started to advocate fascism. So let's see. "After being ousted by the Italian Socialist Party for his support of Italian intervention, Mussolini made a radical transformation, ending his support for class conflict and joining in support of revolutionary nationalism transcending class lines.[9] He formed the interventionist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia and the Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista ("Revolutionary Fasces for International Action") in October 1914.[46] His nationalist support of intervention enabled him to raise funds from Ansaldo (an armaments firm) and other companies to create Il Popolo d'Italia..." "These basic political views and principles formed the basis of Mussolini's newly formed political movement, the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria in 1914, who called themselves Fascisti (Fascists).[58] At this time, the Fascists did not have an integrated set of policies and the movement was small, ineffective in its attempts to hold mass meetings, and was regularly harassed by government authorities and orthodox socialists.[59] Antagonism between the interventionists, including the Fascists, versus the anti-interventionist orthodox socialists resulted in violence between the Fascists and socialists. The opposition and attacks by the anti-interventionist revolutionary socialists against the Fascists and other interventionists were so violent that even democratic socialists who opposed the war such as Anna Kuliscioff said that the Italian Socialist Party had gone too far in a campaign of silencing the freedom of speech of supporters of the war. These early hostilities between the Fascists and the revolutionary socialists shaped Mussolini's conception of the nature of Fascism in its support of political violence." "The ideological basis for fascism came from a number of sources. Mussolini utilized works of Plato, Georges Sorel, Nietzsche, and the economic ideas of Vilfredo Pareto, to develop fascism. Mussolini admired Plato's The Republic, which he often read for inspiration.[68] The Republic expounded a number of ideas that fascism promoted, such as rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, protecting the class system and promoting class collaboration, rejection of egalitarianism, promoting the militarization of a nation by creating a class of warriors, demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the development of warriors and future rulers of the state.[69] Plato was an idealist, focused on achieving justice and morality, while Mussolini and fascism were realist, focused on achieving political goals" From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Expulsion_from_the_Italian_Socialist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Beginning_of_Fascism_and_service_in_World_War_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Formation_of_the_National_Fascist_Party In other words, the arguments you cited from him were mere propagandistic assertions. He attempted to appeal to socialists by arguing that inclusion into the war would be positive for socialists, but when rejected, openly showed that the basis of his arguments were one and the same as his criticisms to socialism, which would only grow in time and turn into a conflict with socialism so violent that even socialists opposed the worst of it. This is from Wikipedia, who conservatives try to call "left biased" to get around the fact that reality doesn't support their views. As you can see even from your own source, Mussolini's support of the war was without a doubt a right wing belief. The notion of interventionism in favor of a nation is one many capitalist presidents have used, and while you attempt to cite his statements (not views, but words) you ignore that the very things he calls reactionary, conservative, right wing and so on were the very facts that defined his regime later. Of course, none of this matters to you, because you would prefer to ignore his proud declarations of his right wing ideology. And of course, given that, we can't forget the very definition of fascism :) "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum."\ Wikipedia: Fascism. But i'm guessing since that definition shows a reality you don't like, it must be false leftist corporate propaganda, right? " In Italy under Mussolini, formally speaking, there were “trade unions”. However, they were state-run unions, i.e. instruments of the state. One therefore should not confuse these “unions” with genuine trade unions. " I hate to break it to you, but a random statement from a random person, ignoring the historical reality of the situation, isn't what we call a "citation." They are correct in pointing out that they were state backed non-unions, but the state backing in question is backing to the private sector. What you miss is the simple fact that the "State control" mentioned was the state repression of the workers, in favor of a state support of private owners who controlled the "unions." So no, pure state controlled unions did not exist. State backed "unions" made for the expressed purpose of reinforcing private power existed. And I love how you can't actually rebut the point, so you attempt to whataboutism with another random country you call socialist. I hate to break it, but if two countries implement anti-socialist policies, that doesn't make both socialist. Note that the very policies you attribute to the USSR were alive and well in, say, the USA at that time.
    1
  2245.  @CoronisAdair  P2 -apologies for the delay, I had posted them at the same time and yet YouTube refused to let the second part through In any case, your very source shows that the system described was a bandaid on the problem of capitalism, and still existed with the goal of reinforcing it. "The fascist regime in that period had been forced by the world crisis of capitalism to massively intervene in the running of the economy (which we explain elsewhere in The role of the State in the Italian economy in the 1930s and beyond); this was the beginning of the “corporatist” period of fascism, in which the regime in supporting the ailing capitalist economy required an instrument to control the workers. Thus the “unions” were in fact instruments of class collaboration, rather than class conflict." From: your same source (youtube doesn't let me post the link) Tell me, does a "regime supporting an ailing capitalist economy" sound like total state control, or even the pursuit of it? We can see more from other statements on the italian economy - "Mussolini appointed a classical liberal economist, Alberto De Stefani, originally a stalwart leader in the Center Party as Italy’s Minister of Finance,[6] who advanced economic liberalism, along with minor privatization. Before his dismissal in 1925, Stefani "simplified the tax code, cut taxes, curbed spending, liberalized trade restrictions and abolished rent controls", where the Italian economy grew more than 20 percent, and unemployment fell 77 percent, under his influence.[7]" "To proponents of the first view, Mussolini did have a clear economic agenda, both long and short-term, from the beginning of his rule. The government had two main objectives—to modernize the economy and to remedy the country's lack of strategic resources. Before the removal of Stefani, Mussolini's administration pushed the modern capitalistic sector in the service of the state, intervening directly as needed to create a collaboration between the industrialists, the workers and the state. The government moved toward resolving class conflicts in favour of corporatism. In the short term, the government worked to reform the widely abused tax system, dispose of inefficient state-owned industry, cut government costs and introduce tariffs to protect the new industries." "The multiparty coalition government undertook a low-key laissez-faire program—the tax system was restructured (February 1925 law, 23 June 1927 decree-law and so on), there were attempts to attract foreign investment and establish trade agreements and efforts were made to balance the budget and cut subsidies.[26] The 10% tax on capital invested in banking and industrial sectors was repealed while the tax on directors and administrators of anonymous companies (SA) was cut down by half. All foreign capital was exonerated of taxes while the luxury tax was also repealed.[27] Mussolini also opposed municipalization of enterprises.[27] The 19 April 1923 law transferred life insurance to private enterprise, repealing a 1912 law that created a State Institute for insurances, which had envisioned construction of state monopoly ten years later.[28] Furthermore, a 19 November 1922 decree suppressed the Commission on war profits while the 20 August 1923 law suppressed the inheritance tax inside the family circle.[27] There was a general emphasis on what has been called productivism—national economic growth as a means of social regeneration and wider assertion of national importance. Up until 1925, the country enjoyed modest growth, but structural weaknesses increased inflation and the currency slowly fell (1922 L90 to £1, 1925 G135 to £1). In 1925, there was a great increase in speculation and short runs against the lira. The levels of capital movement became so great the government attempted to intervene. De Stefani was sacked, his program side-tracked and the Fascist government became more involved in the economy in step with the increased security of their power. In 1925, the Italian state abandoned its monopoly on telephone infrastructure while the state production of matches was handed over to a private "Consortium of matches' productors".[28]" "The Pact of the Vidoni Palace in 1925 brought the fascist trade unions and major industries together, creating an agreement for the industrialists to only recognise certain unions and so marginalise the non-fascist and socialist trade unions. The Syndical Laws of 1926 (sometimes called the Rocco Laws after Alfredo Rocco) took this agreement a step further as in each industrial sector there could be only one trade union and employers organisation. Labour had previously been united under Edmondo Rossoni and his General Confederation of Fascist Syndical Corporations, giving him a substantial amount of power even after the syndical laws, causing both the industrialists and Mussolini himself to resent him. Thereby, he was dismissed in 1928 and Mussolini took over his position as well.[33]" "Employer syndicates had a considerable amount of power as well. Membership within these associations was compulsory and the leaders had the power to control and regulate production practices, distribution, expansion and other factors with their members. The controls generally favoured larger enterprises over small producers, who were dismayed that they had lost a significant amount of individual autonomy.[34]" "From 1927, these legal and structural changes led into the second phase, the corporative phase. The Labour Charter of 1927 confirmed the importance of private initiative in organising the economy while still reserving the right for state intervention, most notably in the supposedly complete fascist control of worker hiring... One consequence of the Council was the fact that trade unions held little to no representation whereas organized business, specifically organized industry (CGII), was able to gain a foothold over its competitors." So we can see the italian system was one where the state protected private business owners and made adherence to their views mandatory, and only took up any degree of "state ownership" during economic crisis that required it, which was not dissimilar to the capitalist policy being implemented at the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Fascist_Italy#Background The key to this statement being the "he claimed" and more specifically, the context of these economic policies, as well as the claim. That claim for example a. does not represent socialism, as we've been over socialism isn't state control, but b. was a statement made as a part of a propaganda speech in front of a roaring crowd. No economic data exists to back his assertion, aside from his own propaganda. As we've been over, his state was resoundingly in favor of private property. The other policies came only as a result of the economic failure of the great depression, which incentivized government control all over the world, even in decidedly non-socialist economies. However, his non-crisis policies show a complete trend of private support. And let's see what he himself said on his view of the economy: "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production. State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)" Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers. So in other words, corporatism, dirigisme, a private economy with the backing and support of the state that provides private incentives to guide and attract the private sector. Right wing to the fullest. From all of this, we see the undeniable nature of Mussolini's right wing fascism, and there are so many more quotes from him on his right wing views and the nature of his anti-socialist ideology I couldn't even include them for fear of youtube cutting off my comments. It says a lot that it's only through cherry picking and revisionism that you can make my point, while I have the whole of history backing me up. Since every assertion you have attempted to make is blatantly wrong and provably so, and you refuse to deal with the rest of the argument that you know you can't rebut, you admit to being wrong. Insulting me won't change the blatant denial of your authoritarian roots, and the modern right's ties to their fascist allies. I'm sorry that you're so entrenched in propaganda that you can stroll by paragraphs that prove you wrong in favor of a sentence that almost maybe makes you think you're right, if you take away half the words and all the context. The response to any further replies that post the pro-fascist nonsense that fascism was anything but the disgusting, hateful authoritarian conservative ideology that it was with only your ignorant assertions to back it, will be "Stop denying your past." Have a nice day, child!
    1
  2246. ​ @CoronisAdair  P1 Yeah, all forms of authoritarianism are bad, but historically the ones that are by far worst are those that lean into notions of radical right wing ideology, such as fascism, nazism, and general conservative authoritarianism. I hate to break it to you, but denial of the origin of these ideologies, denial of those who currently advocate them, and deflection onto a random third party, is a defense. Calling the nazis socialists is a form of denialism, and defense of the nazi party. What is simply true is that Fascism and Nazism are forms of far right anti-socialism, as objective historical fact shows. Your only evidence against this is the ahistorical ranting of an admittedly biased youtuber, who calls local businesses socialist states. And of course, to call the far right systems of fascism and nazism similar and morally equivalent to the ideology of MLK Jr is disgusting apologia. "Note that I lampshaded what a poor citation source wikipedia is because it tends to cater to closed-minded, bigoted leftists who refuse to see the gaping holes in their arguments in favor of the propaganda they've been spoon fed. " Yes, I know that you tried to cover the logical and historical holes in your "argument" by first attempting to deny the validity of sources you haven't even been given yet, ensuring that if you have to face the reality of far right anti-socialist fascism, you can simply dismiss it without analysis or argument. After all, in your mind those scary leftists are bigoted against fascists, and thus must all be liars, and their arguments are wrong because they don't agree with you. The fact that your points were disproven and you have no actual counter is hilarious, yes. It is even more hilarious that the very sources you linked so openly refuted your denialism. I suppose that's why you have yet to respond to the citations found within my last response. And why the only sources you give are uncited claims by right wing political think tanks, which i'm sure are more trustworthy than those silly bigoted leftists, who only cite opinions that agree with them... oh wait. First off, your inability to actually rebut the point is, yes, whataboutism. I hate to break it to you, but the USSR doing something doesn't make it not anti-socialist. In fact, as we can see from historical analysis at the time and later, constant commonalities were drawn between Stalin's society and the capitalism they claimed to repress. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." And of course, as before, the very sources you cite openly deny your pro-fascist historical denialism. For example - "By the middle of the 1930s, the Russian Communist Party--which still claimed to be a revolutionary socialist party of the working class--was mostly made up of managers, army commanders and state bureaucrats. " "Unsurprisingly, the Stalinist regime enforced gross inequality of the kind found in any capitalist society. Senior figures, like army marshals and high government officials, earned 100 times as much as the average worker (according to official Soviet figures). Beneath the red flags and inspiring songs, society under Stalin became dominated by workplace managers and military commanders, with their needs enforced by police: a mirror of Western capitalism. The leaders of this society called it "actually existing socialism" and promoted their interests through the sympathizing Communist parties around the world. Like any managers, they had much to fear from an international revolution." "FRANZ BORKENAU, an Austrian writer who traveled to Spain, wrote that there, Stalinism was not really part of the workers' movement: Rather, it was "the extreme right wing" of the Republican (liberal) coalition. The Stalinist parties' fear of independent working class organization meant that from the 1930s to the 1960s, they increasingly came to be known as right-wing political groups with nothing to offer radicals." From: https://socialistworker.org/2018/05/07/the-fraud-of-stalinism So, is a "mirror to capitalism" what you are calling fascism now? Interesting. And so on. Of course, these policies very much do line up with the capitalist right, sadly, as pointed out here. "Pro-business conservatives gained control of Congress in 1946, and in 1947 passed the Taft-Hartley Act, drafted by Senator Robert A. Taft. President Truman vetoed it but the Conservative coalition overrode the veto. The veto override had considerable Democratic support, including 106 out of 177 Democrats in the House, and 20 out of 42 Democrats in the Senate.[18] The law, which is still in effect, banned union contributions to political candidates, restricted the power of unions to call strikes that "threatened national security," and forced the expulsion of Communist union leaders (the Supreme Court found the anti-communist provision to be unconstitutional, and it is no longer in force). The unions campaigned vigorously for years to repeal the law but failed. During the late 1950s, the Landrum Griffin Act of 1959 passed in the wake of Congressional investigations of corruption and undemocratic internal politics in the Teamsters and other unions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#History "The Buford's most notorious incarnation followed a few months later when she was pressed into service as the "Soviet Ark" (or "Red Ark"). On December 21, 1919, she was used to deport 249 political radicals and other "undesirable" aliens, mostly members of the Union of Russian Workers, to the Russian SFSR. Also swept up were the fiery anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.[23] This occurred between the first and second Palmer Raids of the first "Red Scare" period in the U.S. After delivering her charges, the Buford returned to New York on February 22, 1920." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAT_Buford So yes, it seems near universally pointed out that the rejection of worker autonomy was an anti-socialist policy pushed by those that showed aspects of or complete allegiances to the right. 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." Stalin's economic system did not fit that definition, and of course, neither did Mussolini's private right wing system, which you refuse to understand. They repressed the workers because they were both aspects of anti-socialist ideology, simply different strains with different actions, reasons, and origins. Of course, your logic Golden Age and Red Scare America were "socialist authoritarians." Fascism is anti-socialism. And it must be pointed out how if you had actually read my citation, you very well might have understood how hilarious this citation of yours was. Looking back to my previous response, that you were too lazy to read of course, we can see a description of "Productivist" ideology that your source refers to. And, of course, the description points out the nature of Musolini's productivism as a rejection of socialism, not temporarily or with any plan of other policy down the line. Of course, your only citation to the opposite is literally a right wing pressure group that exists with the sole goal of pushing right wing ideology, and the "source" itself includes zero citations for its claims - mostly because they are false. How is an abolishing of trade unionism in favor of private production support of trade unionism? Well, simply put, they don't explain. In any case, it is clear that the system described is not socialist, per the definition. Let's go over his actual policy again. "Mussolini appointed a classical liberal economist, Alberto De Stefani, originally a stalwart leader in the Center Party as Italy’s Minister of Finance,[6] who advanced economic liberalism, along with minor privatization. Before his dismissal in 1925, Stefani "simplified the tax code, cut taxes, curbed spending, liberalized trade restrictions and abolished rent controls", where the Italian economy grew more than 20 percent, and unemployment fell 77 percent, under his influence.[7]" "To proponents of the first view, Mussolini did have a clear economic agenda, both long and short-term, from the beginning of his rule. The government had two main objectives—to modernize the economy and to remedy the country's lack of strategic resources. Before the removal of Stefani, Mussolini's administration pushed the modern capitalistic sector in the service of the state, intervening directly as needed to create a collaboration between the industrialists, the workers and the state. The government moved toward resolving class conflicts in favour of corporatism. In the short term, the government worked to reform the widely abused tax system, dispose of inefficient state-owned industry, cut government costs and introduce tariffs to protect the new industries." Cont..
    1
  2247.  @CoronisAdair  P2 Refer to the quotations provided above in my previous response, as all attempts to post them result in a removed comment by youtube. In any case, the private nature of fascist italy still goes not responded to by you, so i'll include some more quotes about fascism here. For [Giovanni] Gentile, history showed how the rise of secularism and individualism had destroyed faith and heroism. He saw fascism as the continuation of the struggle between the idealist spirit of [Giuseppe] Mazzini [an Italian nationalist, rejected the liberalism of the Enlightenment period, & an anti-Marxist] and the materialist scepticism of [Giovanni] Giolitti [a moderate liberal], the two souls of Italy" (Robert Eatwell "The Drive Towards Synthesis: Natural History" qtd in. "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" edited by Roger Griffin 1998 p. 192). On the eleventh of August 1918, he changed the subtitle of his paper from ‘A Socialist Daily’ to ‘A Daily of Combatants and Producers,’ and in inaugurating the change indicated the designation socialist was no longer descriptive of the ideas with which he identified. So many of the categories of what had been orthodox socialism, ‘class,’ ‘class struggle,’ ‘surplus value,’ and ‘economic determinism,’ had been either abandoned or so extensively revised that the term socialism no longer had cognitive significance” (A. James Gregor “The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism” p. 147). "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). "...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). Despite your assertions otherwise, we can see clearly that in no way was the state calling the shots, only backing private owners and employers who did. And what socialist dictatorship? We're talking about Mussolini, the self describe far right anti-socialist? In the case of trade unions, Lenin repressed trade unions in his push for a self described non socialist system called "State Capitalism." Mussolini abolished trade unions, replacing them with private employer organizations that were free to direct the workers with no resistance (about as far from nationalization as possible) and Hitler did similarly. OF course, they didn't nationalize trade unions, nor is the control of trade unions in favor of private production or other anti-socialist principles in accordance with any socialism or marxism at all. Marxism, of course, being a historical lens, but marx himself not calling for state ownership. And I must ask again, how is mandating private production socialist? Hitler and Mussolini were simply imitating the anti-socialist pushes of the west at the same time, who had consistently repressed labor associations, independent worker organizations, banned strikes, and so on. Again, I hate to break it to you, "citing" a cite with the goal of pushing the far right is simply ahistorical. The reality of the situation points out the deeply private nature of Fascist economics, such as have been previously cited, and ignored by you Fact is, fascist and nazi practices are clearly derived from the revolutionary and extreme conservatives that they came from, and your supposed similarities with the USSR are literally policies that the capitalist west also pushed. The simple fact is, your denialism does not change history. What part of their ideology was inspired by Marx? Was it the anti-statism? The social production? The notion of equality? No? Hm. He rejected any notion of socialism, instead enshrining private production as the pinnacle of his economy. Instead of following socialist ideology, he rejected it, and claimed to be helping the nation itself through that rejection. "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." Interesting... and let's not forget that in all of this, you still have yet to address the fact of your whataboutism. Again, Mussolini's anti-socialist policies were called out, and your response was to cite pages calling out Stalin's anti-socialist policies and from that you somehow leapt to the argument that Lenin had invented anti-unionism all by himself and that Fascist anti-unionism was somehow directly inspired by him, and that all anti-unionism is socialist. Do you see how absurd that is?
    1
  2248.  @CoronisAdair  P3 - Reposted to correctly reorder the responses. It is a simple fact that the fascist view of life, of rights, of humanity, and so on, is one that utterly rejects socialism. " 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!" Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future", by Gregor Strasser - (1926 June 15) "'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist 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). I hate to break it to you, but conservatives care little for the individual, nor do they care about the government interfering and enforcing the individual. They are fine with removing rights to abortion, to medical care, they are fine with repressing movements and strengthening a police to fire at unarmed protesters, they are fine with spending billions upon billions on wars that kill millions of individuals, all while demonizing those people at home. Conservatives are not individualists - they are authoritarians. Of course, your assertion of Hitler and Mussolini's supposed socialism is, yet again, simply false. They were right wing anti-socialists, and openly so, following the rejection of the individual that had long defined right wing views, from monarchism to fascism. They stand in contrast to leftists and socialists like Marx, Martin Luther King Jr, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Debs, and so on. To call fascists similar to and equivalent to the long line of abolitionist, feminist, anti-racist and pro labor socialists is apologia. Fascists are evil, yes, and authoritarianism is bad. But fascism, fundamentally, is a movement wholly opposed to the socialist notions of worker autonomy and individual control of production, as well as the equality and anti-hierarchical views that define socialism. Mussolini and Hitler were simply more right wing than Stalin, and to such the degree that they found themselves on the far right. Like the conservatives of history, and their modern defends today, they didn't promise any sort of utopia, but sought power for the sake of it, and support for the sake of their "nation." The question now remains, why do you attempt to call Mussolini and Hitler socialists, when the definition of socialism and description of their ideology shows quite the opposite? Why are the only sources you can find that at all back up your assertion right wing think tanks without citation, and not neutral historians? Well, simply put, because you're wrong. In Hitler's and Mussolini's time, they found support from the ostracized worker, yes, but also from the business owner, the corporate investor, the church, and so on. Other fascist economies did the same, like the Fatherland Front's Austria, which housed, employed, and inspired capitalist economist and "classical liberal" Mises, not to mention the very fact that the classical liberalism you praise was the economic notion of Mussolini's italy for a good time. And in the modern day we see much the same - fascists getting support from the occasional worker that thinks they can help, but more often, from capitalists, conservatives, traditionalists, and so on. There's a reason only the right flies swastikas. If I said to you the following notions, what would you assume the person leaned politically? "Modern culture is degenerate and failed, far inferior to the culture of our fathers and theirs before them, the modern state and academia is infested with marxists that deny their own history and rewrite the history of others." "Human beings are inherently unequal, and it is only natural for them to form hierarchies of competition and domination, the natural world is defined by the notion that only the strong survive." "There's nothing wrong with saying I love my nation, that my nation is superior, or '[their nation] First'" "Private property is ideal, in fact superior to all other systems but private companies often abuse their power to profit themselves and push cultural notions that run counter to our traditional values." "Immigrants are a drain on the economy, they refuse to assimilate and constantly deplete our resources and living space without ever giving back." "The workers of this country are being hurt by increasing [globalism/internationalism], and our country should be more self sufficient and productive for the benefit of its people." "Those reliant on the state are a drain of the economy, and public social programs should only exist for citizens, and only to make sure said citizens get back to working." "Abortion is murder, Marxists are evil people with a failed system, and the modern left is self destructive and unhealthy for society." And so on. Not direct quotes, but rephrasing of quotes, policies, and views held by fascists. All of them could be said by a modern conservative. And why is that? Well, conservatives hold roughly the same views, they are just far less extreme, and are not willing to be honest about the results of their policies. The simple fact of Fascism's right wing roots, ties, and modern supporters is self evident, and the question now remains why you deny it, the answer simply being that you can't deal with the reality of right wing ideology, and rather than set yourself apart by advocating for non-fascist policies, and calling out fascistic rhetoric on your side, you prefer to simply erase said rhetoric's fascist past. Conservatism is not libertarianism, nor is it individualism. Conservatism is the cultural notion that culture, society, and tradition need to be preserved, which often but not always comes along with capitalist economies, mixed with authoritarian measures of culture, societal freedom, and military. Conservatism can also be mixed with other ideologies and systems, for example, as your own source pointed out Stalin pushed openly conservative social rhetoric and mimicked the economic policies of then-conservative nations. Sure, he wasn't your average trump conservative, but it seems your claims that all of his views and actions represent socialism is false. But of course, in your eyes Stalin must be a pure radical progressive socialist... because you said so, I guess. In any case, Traditionalism, the social view of fascism, is just extreme conservatism. You have ignored the modern and historical meaning of conservatism, and the actions of those who belong to it, in order to push your "true conservatism" that represents only a small part of conservative beliefs. con·ser·va·tism /kənˈsərvədizəm/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation. "proponents of theological conservatism" 2. the holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas. "a party that espoused conservatism" - Oxford Languages Dictionary Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5][6] - Fascism, Wikipedia Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" - Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations (2d ed.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), p. 119. Fascists were, and are, far right. Sorry you have to deal with that fact.
    1
  2249.  @CoronisAdair  I hate to break it to you but reality will catch up with you no matter what, and i'm here to make sure of that, until it does. "No, pointing out that Hitler and Mussolini's ideology started with Marx and went batshit from there is not defending them. They were all vile and evil and deserve to be denounced." Equivocating the system of MLK Jr and the system of Hitler is, without a doubt, a defense of the latter, that is unless you're willing to claim that MLK was a genocidal monster. The simple truth is that Hitler and Mussolini's ideology started with a rejection of marx from a right wing perspective, and only further followed that path later. To deny that is to allow their modern supporters to go uncontested. As Tik points out in his video, they called themselves socialists." TIK points out that they used the word socialist, though when given an opportunity to define the term socialist, both used vastly different definitions than any political scientist or even socialist. The attempt to abuse rhetoric by rewriting words is not a new one. In any case, they did reject the principles of socialism and more than often the title itself, aligning themselves with the right and decrying the failures of socialism and the left. If you look at the historical documentation (without declaring that major businesses are actually socialist states by redefining socialism) the foundations of their ideology lie in a deeply traditionalist, right wing and conservative authoritarian rejection of the principles and ideas of Marx and Socialism. Mussolini fundamentally rejected the notions of socialism in favor of a national mythos he used to justify the very processes of capital marx criticized, and Hitler used an insane social conspiracy theory to justify his conservative power grab. If you can't accept that now, you never will, even as all the facts prove you wrong. As you said in the very beginning, it seems the only recourse is to agree to disagree, and hope you'll find the truth in time. We all grow up, after all.I hate to break it to you, but denial of the origin of these ideologies, denial of those who currently advocate them, and deflection onto a random third party, is a defense. Calling the nazis socialists is a form of denialism, and defense of the nazi party. "
    1
  2250.  @CoronisAdair  "Sorry, MLKJr may have had Socialist leanings, but Fascism was basically Socialism with a heavy Nationalistic Streak. Nazism was Socialism + Nationalism + a heavy dose of racism." Except, much like the modern conservative movement, Nazism was anti-socialism with a heavy focus on racism, anti-immigration, and nationalism. Fascism is an anti-socialist system, given your support of it. It's amazing how you continue to assert your pro-fascist denialism. How can you stand by your statements upon seeing reality? Or do you just cover your ears and ignore it? How do you even define socialism in order to call an ideology of systematic anti-socialism socialist? At a certain point, if you keep defining socialism in ways that no socialist describes their desires and political analysts describe socialism, you have t realize you have the wrong definition. MLK, the man embodied socialism, and his influences provide the bedrock of american socialist though in the modern day. What right do you have to claim that those who opposed socialism with every breath they took can be compared to a man who benefitted the world in such an amazing way in hopes of a future that went the exact opposite way right wing fascists wanted? No, nazism and fascism are not socialism, and your defense of the ahistorical, unsupported notion that they were is honestly sad, and reeks of voluntary ignorance. "Neither nationalism nor racism are 'right' in and of themselves. The CCP is highly nationalistic and quite blatantly racist for example." Again, we've been over your failure to define left and right, and constant resorting to whataboutism when the internal and external failures of your revisionism are pointed out. "California tried to eliminate the civil rights portion of its state constitution via referendum in the last election, and the news is full of universities trying to implement segregation." You mean california attempted to pas laws that would allow for an even racial playing field, which fascists openly opposed and currently are using to oppose the liberal capitalism of modern day California. Similarly, the organization of individuals into groups has no right to be compared to state mandated, violent and racist segregation. "Ami Horowitz released a series of interviews in 2016 where he interviewed college underclassmen, african-american city residents, and finally a self-proclaimed white supremecist. So you admit White Supremacists are capitalists? There's a start. In any case, these statements are easily debunked when given context. For example, the statements racists and anti-racists will often agree on are things like "Race matters." The difference of course being that anti-racists think race matters because racists exist and are making it matter to marginalized communities, while racists... are the racists in that scenario. Same thing with say, conservatives and modern china agreeing on many social principles. Add that to the fact that Horowitz literally makes money off of convincing conservatives that anyone but them is the "Real Racist," and we can see where your propaganda comes from. But of course, to you, actually opposing racism is the same as white supremacy, MLK was the same as hitler, and Fascism is the same as socialism. Up is down, left is right, and so on. Stop deflecting from your apologia and denialism. The more you do so, the more you prove my point of falling in line with fascistic rhetoric. See P3.
    1
  2251.  @CoronisAdair  "Again, how often have I stated that fascism and nazism are vile and evil? " You doing that is like me calling apples evil for being bright blue. I'm not really calling apples evil if there's no such thing as a bright blue apple, right? And if calling apples bright blue lets red apples slip by undetected, I am arguing to the benefit of actual apples. Replace all the right terms and you get the point. "You do realize the reason the Fascists/nazis and the socialists fought each other so hard was the same reason the Catholics and Protestants fought each other during the protestant reformation? Oh, and this is hilarious. Yes, child, the reason people fight is because they secretly agree, that's totally correct. Segregationists fought MLK because they were both secretly racist, the USA opposed the USSR because they were both secretly socialist, white is opposite to black because they're both secretly the same color, and so on. The fascists and socialists couldn't have fought because fascists were supported by explicit anti-socialists and put policies in place to murder socialists and outlaw socialists, no. They just fought because they secretly agree! "Both the Catholics and the Protestants thought 'their way was right' and 'god was on their side'. " You're right, both fascists and modern conservatives believe they represent the "true right," the best way to oppose the left and the best way to preserve tradition and culture, the best way to oppose immigration, the best way to oppose socialism, the best way to spread the fundamentally -socialist notions of natural, unsolvable hierarchy and so on. Really, the only reason they claim they disagree is because, deep down, they know they don't. You keep saying that but have no backing. What did marx do according to you? He founded a system of historical analysis, and he personally advocated for a stateless system with social ownership of the means of production. The fascists did not accept his historical analysis, instead agreeing with conservatives on collaborationism, and they didn't agree with stateless social ownership, or social ownership generally. Your "foundation in marx" nonsense is just a repeated talking point with no logic or substance behind it. So yes, they were anti-socialist. Hm, Hitler seemed to consistently accuse leftist and socialist movements of being a part of his concept of antisemetic conspiracy theories, and even referred to the left as a whole as an ideology controlled by those forces that would "lead us to complete destruction." It's almost like he fundamentally disagreed with leftism...
    1
  2252.  @CoronisAdair  "Do you realize the mountains of documentation that exist of Mussolini's core ideology being based in marxism?" Which documentation? The docments Mussolini wrote telling of his proud adherence to right wing ideology, and rejection of even the notion of the left? The documents showing hi anti-socialist economic practices? Come on, spit it out. Oh wait, you just mean the TIK videos and right wing think tanks that pretend that anything that isn't libertarian capitalism is marxist fascism. You also don't understand the right wing basis of collaborationism, and seem to think that focusing on any narrative makes one a socialist. TIK labelling business and human organization socialism is more than a "bit of a stretch," it's an absurd statement with literally zero backing. And the dictionary definition of socialism is: so·cial·ism /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ Learn to pronounce noun 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. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. But let's use your definition, for simplicity's sake. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done" Fascism doesn't fit definition 1, as we've been over, they had neither collective nor state control of the means of production and distribution. Saying "oodles and oodles" doesn't disprove citation which I have given time and time again. Definition 2a: Love seeing this argument. Well, I suppose if you can die, you were never alive because you could die at any time, right? No, sorry, the ability for property to be taken, either by an individual or the state, doesn't mean you don't own and operate it in the moment. Therefore, private property existed. Fascisms does not fit 2b either, as they did not control the means of production as a state, or by the state, rather leaving that to private producers, as we've been over. And it doesn't meet any of the definitions, which of course along with the definition you cited having issues, makes you have literally zero verifiable facts for your claim. After Mussolini got kicked out of the socialist party (for pushing right wing conservative views and criticizing the whole of socialism) as well as realizing his preference for right wing ideology and company, Mussolini openly rejected Marx's notions of equality, human individuality, social ownership or class dynamics, instead choosing to adopt collaborationist views. You continue to say this was based off marx, seemingly not understanding that class collaborationism is the textbook conservative view on class. And of course, the definition you cited has a problem, that being that state ownership isn't by itself socialist, and that there have been numerous cases of state control and general authoritarianism that blatantly go against socialism, as well as numerous cases of socialists going against state control. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. The thing is about socialism, you hating it doesn't make random other people into socialists. You can disagree with the far right anti-socialist ideology of fascism without trying to pretend it was socialist. Perhaps, if you want there to be less authoritarian socialist projects, you should stop advocating for policy that purges and destroys all those that can't fight back with the state, ie authoritarians. No, I don't think the ideology that desegregated the country, that won WW2, and that fought the right wing and hierarchical evils of nazism, fascism, slavery, and so on, needs to be fought against. I don't think a single one of those things is evil. I'm not a socialist and even I see that. And of course, here it is. You're a conservative that mirrors the rhetoric of fascists and doesn't even realize it. Of course, fascists said the same. They wanted to preserve tradition, to conserve culture, and to stop those evil leftists who would dare tear them down or question them. And yes, I unlike you am willing to provide an accurate and historical analysis of both socialism and fascism, unbothered by your notions of defending conservatism from their past. You are an anti-socialist first and foremost, and it shows. You don't care about what socialism is, what it has been historically, or even more important, the fact that you criticize it for the very things you push for, denying the individual and upholding the state. Apologia for fascists and deflection to socialists is all you have. If they weren't on your side, you wouldn't defend them so often. con·ser·va·tism /kənˈsərvədizəm/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation. Fascism is conservative.
    1
  2253.  @CoronisAdair  I'm not surprised. Your hatred of socialism takes precedence, before history, before rationality, before an understanding of what socialism is. You oppose socialism, we know. You think social ownership is evil, collectivist, and dehumanizing in favor of authoritarianism, despite socialism and socialist's history of opposing the evil, collectivist, and authoritarian dehumanizing conservative principles of their country. You claim to oppose fascism, despite standing side by side as proud self described conservatives with evil, collectivist, and dehumanizing authoritarians who want a dictator or strong, authoritarian leader. You claim to oppose nazism, despite ignoring its very origin and praising those that defend its evil, collectivist, and dehumanizing authority over the individual. I oppose conservatism. Conservatism is evil, collectivist, and dehumanizes the individual for the power and glory of The State, The Nation, The Race, ect (and usually ends up in dictatorial authority) The last three of the four listed ideologies, conservatism, fascism, and nazism, are fundamentally linked, and responsible for a tragic and undeniable mass loss of life through history. The denial of the individual in favor of nation, religion, authority, and the production machine of capital are what makes conservatism one of the most evil and disgusting collectivist ideologies. In any case, go ahead and oppose nazism and fascism for those reasons. Just stop pretending they're socialists.
    1
  2254. ​ @CoronisAdair  I'm sure that's the reason you have so little proof, sure. " Mussolini acknowledged Fascism’s socialist roots and influences. Among those whom he acknowledged as influencing Fascism were French Marxist Georges Sorel and French Revolutionary Unionist Hubert Lagardelle. ' We've been over this, both those figures had their own complicated past and Mussolini's inspiration for his fascism comes primarily from ex-socialists, not socialists. Have you read my previous responses yet? I'm guessing not. He praised those figures before his expulsion from the socialist party and his rejection of socialism, along with praising literal anarchists for the same reasons. We know well that he changed his opinions tremendously from those days, and that the basis of fascist ideology do not lie with those figures. Sorel, for example, he praised explicitly, according to your own source, on Sorel's notions of the necessity of political violence in resisting the current order. As in, an opinion those on the radical, non-fascist right also held and expressed through history. Yet again, we see Mussolini's supposed "socialist roots" are little more than occasional agreement with socialists on non-socialist issues. Sorel, after all, did not invent political violence. In fact, when we look at the inspirations for his actual economic theory and policy, we don't see socialists, but rather Vilfredo Pareto, a classical liberal economist that Mussolini admired in his youth, and helped to facilitate Mussolini's rejection of the left. AS we've been over, his social views were inspired by and furthered by the traditionalism of Evola, and so on. Again, when actually looking at the history of the matter we find barely the most surface level agreement with socialists, and deep ideological ties to the radical right. You ignore this, in favor of trying to find random leftists that "inspired" mussolini, despite ignoring what they actually inspired (usually surface level political action, opposition to modernity for different reasons, rhetoric) and what stage of his life he credited them in. In all cases, the second you dig a bit deeper, your claims shatter.
    1
  2255.  @CoronisAdair  Says the person who somehow thinks fascism is socialist. "No, they did not agree! Obviously! Fascists/Nazis and Leninists took Marx and each interpreted it differently to justify their own ends and to seize power for themselves." Except, as we've been over, that isn't true. Fascists and Nazis rejected Marx, they didn't modify him, and they didn't take any of his views or use his methodology for justifying them. You continue to assert otherwise, without actually being able to name Marx's contributions in your own words. Each was very different, the nazis far more similarly to the collectivism of the religious monarchs and extreme nationalists than any other system. That was the "similar power structure" they competed for. Weimar Germany's biggest failure was allowing conservative parties to coalesce and allow hitler to take dictatorial, undemocratic power, which was how he got elected in the first place, and how he filled his first cabinet. The very fact that the nazis had so many allies among the right even prior to their election should tell you a lot about the views they held, but I suppose that's a dose of reality you aren't quite ready for. And yes, the conservatives were wrong to do this. As we've been over, your analogy makes no sense. Do some people who agree on a lot fight? Yes. Does that mean every political fight is actually between two parties who secretly hold much the same views and origins? No. The fascists opposed socialists because they opposed socialism. If one wanted to use the Protestant Reform analogy more effectively, they could point out that Hitler occasionally made enemies among the old monarchists on the right for not holding their specific version of right wing views. And if all it takes to be a socialist is to desire political power, I suppose the vast majority of political leaders or just politicians in history were socialists then. Socialist Churchill, Socialist Reagan, ect.
    1
  2256.  @CoronisAdair  "Yes, Socialism has a great track record" Sadly, it has a track record far better than capitalism. "You oppose socialism, we know. You think social ownership is evil, collectivist, and dehumanizing in favor of authoritarianism, despite socialism and socialist's history of opposing the evil, collectivist, and authoritarian dehumanizing conservative principles of their country." I'm sure that a simple google search can bring up hundreds of conservative opinion pieces where they claim ever-increasing numbers dead to their ever-expanding definition of socialism, but that's not reality, that's ideological talking points. The short answer is that the number you gave has very little if any basis in reality, in fact the original "100 Million" number was written by a self admitted obsessed man, denounced by most of its authors and contributors, and existed as an explicitly antisemetic counter to a book written on the crimes of nazi germany. How do you justify the hundreds of millions dead at the hands of conservativism and the right and say it opposes evil? Will you tell me they weren't "real conservatives" for taking dictatorial authority to push their conservative views? How do you justify the death, the sorrow, the failure, the collapse that litters the very history of your ideology? And you can't bring yourself to look at your own history, and realize that your ahistorical assertions only exist to further justify the next round of pointless mass death, war, bigotry?
    1
  2257.  @CoronisAdair  A thought? Well that's a first for you. "So, pre-fascist Italy was a Constitutional Monarchy. In fact, the position that Mussolini held the entire time as a 'Dictator' was technically the Italian Prime Minister." Yes, he was a new type of right winger that openly rejected the major right wing ideology that held dominance before the first world war, that being monarchism, because he saw it as an inflated position with little true purpose. I hate to break it to you, but multiple types of right wingers exist, and while he took inspiration from monarchism, he did not have to advocate a monarch to be right wing. For example, we can say that Washington was relatively right wing, and yet he didn't advocate for another monarchist system, did he? He was right wing without disbanding legislature, eliminating voting, and making himself an authoritarian king, no? No, instead Mussolini created a new system, fascism, which held primary in its economic inspirations notions of corporatism, of right wing private industry, of markets and competition and domination that he justified with his right wing ideology. I do hope you realize that he felt the king had abandoned his traditionalist duties, right? You mean the guy who openly admitted the contents of his newspaper could not be called socialist, and abolished the ability for workers to organize according to labor, right? And yes, I agree, most traditionalist views seem contradictory and odd, but this is a general political trend of traditionalism, not some indication of ideological opposition. And again, hate to break it to you but the far right parties of germany were the reason hitler got elected, directly. They rejected monarchism and monarchs because they had proven ineffective and embarrassing after the failure that was Germany's defeat in WW1 Hitler's goal was not to appease the conservatives of the time, as many had been all too willing to accept the treaties they were forced into. That's why he proposed a new right wing system for the nation. Both were right wing, and while they drew inspiration from the monarchists, like right wingers before them they recognized that monarchism has fundamental flaws and was an inefficient system for the national powerhouses they wanted to create. They did all this in the name of traditionalism of course, a system that would maintain the traditions and goals of the reactionary right, in their "truest expression." These were not new positions, and this was not a push for a system removed from traditionalism and conservatism. And, as we've been over, they didn't nationalize the labor unions, they abolished them. And how does subjugating the worker to the whims of party individuals go against reactionary thought? Again, not true. They created organizations headed by private individuals that had total ability, without worker or socialist interference, to run their businesses as they pleased, and as Mussolini said himself, nationalization was only to occur if absolutely necessary, private rule was preferable. And again, this boils down to an explicit misunderstanding you have with traditionalism. Every traditionalist, through history, has in their own way rejected aspects of their nations past, has ignored traditions. This doesn't make them suddenly progressive, since their goal was still to appeal to tradition. This is the reason why conservatives of today and conservatives of 30 years ago are both conservatives, despite conserving different traditions and pieces of culture. So yes, on a spectrum of tradition or reform, they were on the far traditional side. I dare you to find an example of a single traditionalist that didn't attempt to rewrite or entirely falsify the past and traditions of their nation, much the same as modern conservatives do. It isn't a bug, it's a feature. Mussolini and Hitler operated with the explicit goal of a traditionalist societal view, and while that went against part of their country's actual history, we can see they didn't so much care about that as they did pushing right wing views, as is true of all traditionalists. The definition of traditionalist: "tra·di·tion·al·ist /trəˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)list/ Learn to pronounce noun an advocate of maintaining tradition, especially so as to resist change." They resisted the change that socialism, and even social democracy, hoisted on them. The nazis, for example, resisted the change of the Weimar Republic and its moral decadence, and to do so look back, further back than mere conservatives in the modern day. The notions that the nazis defended, notions of german competition, efficiency, innovation, and strength and domination, are fundamentally his view of "traditions." He saw the supposed battle between aryans and jewish people as a battle that happened throughout the ages, and he saw the supposed aryan traits of strength, nationalism, racial purity, ect, as traditions to be upheld. If that isn't enough, the very founder of modern radical traditionalism, Julius Evola, was not only a supporter of the nazi party, but a high ranking member, and was viewed as the "chief ideologue" of the post WW2 italian right. He was personally praised by Mussolini, and found much support in the nazis and radical conservatives, all the while pushing traditionalism. He was a self described "super fascist" that is promoted by neo-nazis to this day. What's reformist about having the head of traditionalism on your side? I'm amazed that you didn't know multiple right wingers can exist at once. Are you done pretending to oppose fascism? :)
    1
  2258.  @CoronisAdair  P1 Wait, you were trying to reply seriously before? Oh no... is that what you think is serious? so your answer is to tout out ideologues and pretend as though they are the same as historians? I take it you think that a source that says "well the actual findings aren't enough, we should add on millions we have no evidence for" is a good one? Oh, no. You're worse than I thought. There's a consistent problem with your "sources," they don't find evidence for them claims they want, and so they estimate, and you take the highest, most absurd estimation. You'd think a margin of error that spans over 40 million is rather large, but apparently according to you, that's sound reporting. You'd think a country backed by the US government that purged the communist parties of the nation would be attributed more to its backers than the ideology you claim it carries, but again, logic is missing in your worldview. I hate to break it to you, but your assertion goes beyond even the highest amount that any historians are willing to entertain. "Some authors posit that there is a communist death toll, whose death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them, ranging from lows of 10–20 million to highs over 100 million," What do the actual scholars of the subject say? "Estimates are criticized, especially those on the high-end of the spectrum, by other genocide scholars and scholars of communism for being inaccurate due to incomplete data, methodology, inflated by counting any excess death, ignoring lives saved by communist modernization, and the body-counting and grouping process itself ("generic communism"), and several chosen events (civil war or war-related deaths and famines, which should not be counted and are the bulk of the higher estimates, constituting the majority of deaths under communist regimes) which do not fit the most-accepted definition and category of mass killing (50,000 killings within five years), and are to be categorized as excess deaths or mass mortality events, not as mass killings under communist regimes." "The victims of communism narrative, as popularized by and named after the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, has become accepted scholarship, as part of the double genocide theory, in Eastern Europe and among anti-communists in general but is rejected by most Western European and other scholars. It is criticized by scholars as politically motivated, an oversimplification, and an example of Holocaust trivialization for equating the events with the Holocaust, positing a communist or red Holocaust." "Any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under communist regimes depends greatly on definitions, and the idea to group together different countries such as Afghanistan and Hungary has no adequate explanation.[38] During the Cold War era, some authors (Todd Culberston), dissidents (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), and anti-communists in general have attempted to make both country-specific and global estimates, although they were mostly unreliable and inflated, as shown by the 1990s and beyond. Scholars of communism have mainly focused on individual countries, and genocide scholars have attempted to provide a more global perspective, while maintaining that their goal is not reliability but establishing patterns.[37] Scholars of communism have debated on estimates for the Soviet Union, not for all communist regimes, an attempt which was popularized by the introduction to The Black Book of Communism and was controversial.[38] Among them, Soviet specialists Michael Ellman and J. Arch Getty have criticized the estimates for relying on émigre sources, hearsay, and rumor as evidence,[39] and cautioned that historians should instead utilize archive material.[40] Such scholars distinguish between historians who base their research on archive materials, and those whose estimates are based on witnesses evidence and other data that is unreliable.[41] Soviet specialist Stephen G. Wheatcroft says that historians relied on Solzhenitsyn to support their higher estimates but research in the state archives vindicated the lower estimates, while adding that the popular press has continued to include serious errors that should not be cited, or relied on, in academia.[42] Rummel was also another widely used and cited source[aa] but not reliable about estimates.[37]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes And that seems to continue to be a primary motivating factor in the push of inflated "death counts." "In 1997, Stéphane Courtois's introduction to The Black Book of Communism, an impactful yet controversial[38] work written about the history of communism in the 20th century,[51] gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed. The subtotals listed by Courtois added up to 94.36 million killed.[ae] Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, contributing authors to the book, criticized Courtois as obsessed with reaching a 100 million overall total.[52] In his foreword to the 1999 English edition, Martin Malia wrote that "a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume at between 85 million and 100 million."[af] Courtois' attempt to equate Nazism and communist regimes was controversial, and remains on the fringes, on both scientific and moral grounds.[53][ag]" "Another common criticism, as articulated by anthropologist and former European communist regimes specialist Kristen Ghodsee and other scholars, is that the body-counting reflects an anti-communist point of view and is mainly approached by anti-communist scholars, and is part of the popular "victims of communism" narrative,[64][65] with 100 million being the most common, popularly used estimate,[66][ap] which is used not only to discredit the communist movement but the whole political left.[67][aq] Anti-communist organizations seek to institutionalize the "victims of communism" narrative as a double genocide theory, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and those killed by communist regimes (class murder).[64][68] Alongside philosopher Scott Sehon, Ghodsee wrote that "quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed by communist regimes."[68] The same body-counting can be easily applied to other ideologies or systems, such as capitalism.[66][ar][68][as]" Interesting statements regarding your supposedly infallible estimates there. Not content to attempt to trivialize the crimes of fascism, you continue to deflect from your whataboutism that I pointed out after you tried to assert that anti-socialism is actually the same system as socialism. Again, you refer to "two different socialist systems," but we are talking about far right fascism. Except the problem is, this new attempt at whataboutism is purely a political one with little to no actual historical backing, as we've been over, and has the added benefit of promoting fascist apologia. I hate to break it to you, but capitalism is just as much an ideology of human innovation as feudalism is, and the few advancements we have made seem to be in spite of capitalism, not a cause of it. After all, what good can this genocidal ideology offer the world?
    1
  2259.  @CoronisAdair  P2 "Engel-Di Mauro 2021: "In this discussion I want to draw attention to the fact that, since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone, with liberal democratic varieties of capitalism contributing at least 56 million of those fatalities. This monstrous impact, unprecedented in the history of humanity, doubtless reaches hundreds of millions more deaths when the centuries of genocides and slavery systems are considered and when murders in the home, at work, in prisons, and in the streets (including by police) are counted as well. Because studies on the level of morbidity associated with capitalist relations are scarce and limited, war-related deaths provide an arguably less assailable set of figures to oppose anti-communist libels." "Overcoming amnesia, suppose we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers to the full story, not just the doctrinally acceptable half. We therefore conclude that in India the democratic capitalist "experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of the "colossal, wholly failed...experiment" of Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, tens of millions more since, in India alone. The "criminal indictment" of the "democratic capitalist experiment" becomes harsher still if we turn to its effects after the fall of Communism: millions of corpses in Russia, to take one case, as Russia followed the confident prescription of the World Bank that "Countries that liberalise rapidly and extensively turn around more quickly [than those that do not]," returning to something like what it had been before World War I, a picture familiar throughout the "third world." But "you can't make an omelette without broken eggs," as Stalin would have said. The indictment becomes far harsher if we consider these vast areas that remained under Western tutelage, yielding a truly "colossal" record of skeletons and "absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering" (Ryan). The indictment takes on further force when we add to the account the countries devastated by the direct assaults of Western power, and its clients, during the same years." - Noam Chomsky, "Counting the Bodies." "But the problem for the anti-communists is that their general premise can be used as the basis for an equally good argument against capitalism, an argument that the so-called losers of economic transition in eastern Europe would be quick to affirm. The US, a country based on a free-market capitalist ideology, has done many horrible things: the enslavement of millions of Africans, the genocidal eradication of the Native Americans, the brutal military actions taken to support pro-Western dictatorships, just to name a few. The British Empire likewise had a great deal of blood on its hands: we might merely mention the internment camps during the second Boer War and the Bengal famine. This is not mere 'whataboutism', because the same intermediate premise necessary to make their anti-communist argument now works against capitalism: ... ." Millions, hundreds of millions, have died. The reason? Capitalism. Using the very same logic, and the very same spans of time, we see socialism having far less deaths than capitalism. We also see self professed socialist nations industrializing and rising themselves up to well established capitalist nations, far faster than those nations first established themselves. But your whataboutism can't handle facts, can it? It only exists to deflect from the facts of the anti-socialist policies of the anti-socialist fascists and capitalists. Funny how your very first quote said that a huge amount of the people that global income went up for... were the chinese citizens, which I suppose, according to your reasoning here, are under a capitalist society now? Let's see what capitalism has actually done. "The capture of the surplus value produced by overexploited populations in the poorest regions of the world, via the global labor arbitrage instituted by multinational corporations, is leading to an unprecedented amassing of financial wealth at the center of the world economy and relative poverty in the periphery.8 Around $21 trillion of offshore funds are currently lodged in tax havens on islands mostly in the Caribbean, constituting “the fortified refuge of Big Finance.”9 Technologically driven monopolies resulting from the global-communications revolution, together with the rise to dominance of Wall Street-based financial capital geared to speculative asset creation, have further contributed to the riches of today’s “1 percent.” Forty-two billionaires now enjoy as much wealth as half the world’s population, while the three richest men in the United States—Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett—have more wealth than half the U.S. population.10 In every region of the world, inequality has increased sharply in recent decades.11 The gap in per capita income and wealth between the richest and poorest nations, which has been the dominant trend for centuries, is rapidly widening once again.12 More than 60 percent of the world’s employed population, some two billion people, now work in the impoverished informal sector, forming a massive global proletariat. The global reserve army of labor is some 70 percent larger than the active labor army of formally employed workers.13" "Despite the lowest unemployment rate in decades and solid economic growth, many Americans are on thin financial ice, Prosperity Now found. Minority households are particularly lagging on key measures such as income and wealth, the study found. Across the board, more than 1 in 10 American households fell behind in their bills in the last year, a signal that many are struggling with rising costs and stagnant incomes. " "The study also echoes previous research showing that large segments of the population lack financial stability. Four of 10 U.S. adults said they experienced at least one type of material hardship in 2017, an Urban Institute study found last year. " "That can put people in a tough spot if they miss even a single paycheck. Forty percent of households don't have enough in liquid savings -- such as cash or assets that can be quickly sold and converted into cash -- to replace their income at the poverty level for three months, Prosperity Now found. The federal poverty level threshold for a family of four is $25,750. " And I could go on for so, so long. The amount of social and economic crises caused by capitalism is so numerous I physically could not fit it in this thread. When the only way you can argue for capitalism is by citing China, you know your argument is dead in the water. Is capitalism the "most powerful tool for reducing global poverty and inequality?" Sure, just like feudalism was before it. And like those old tyrants, capitalist make sure they retain this title by violently suppressing any mass implementation of a system that does better. It seems, even per your own citation, that "pure" free market capitalism isn't the solution, as the most successful countries of economic growth are those with a strong hand in the economy, something you don't call capitalism. I hate to break it to you, but the reason North Korea and South Korea are so different is mainly due to NK's chief benefactor dying out, while SK's sugar daddy keeps sending exploitionist funds to maintain their failing system. The easiest way to compare and contrast the effects of capitalism vs socialism, is to see that capitalism killed in one country the same amount communism and socialism supposedly killed all over. And I know you'll do anything to call reality radicalization while openly pushing far right false assertions, but please, do try harder. I am no fan of the radical conservatives that make up the overwhelming amount of political violence and hate in the modern day. Call that radical if you want. In any case, one day you should try breaking out of your propaganda. The simple fact that you think Tim Pool, a guy who agrees with and defends the right on 99.9% of the issues he covers, and openly defends far right conspiracies, is somehow middle of the road, is deeply worrying. I suppose someone like Evola or Rand must then be run of the mill independents to you, no? Your perception of the world is so divorced from actual political center and reality that you think the notion of equality is radical, and an open and staunch conservative is middle of the road. Perhaps that's why you assert that fascists are left wing, not only because you agree with actual fascists but because if asked you would label everyone from churchill to hayek as radical socialists, far left of center, so out of whack is your view of left and right. If you're interested in breaking down the propaganda that fills your skull, try actual middle of the road sources, secular talk, contrapoints even, if they must be youtubers. Stop consuming such sensationalist nonsense and if you have to stay on youtube, go over to the side of long form analysis and honest fact checking, rather than easily debunked, right wing nonsense. Tim Pool, middle of the road... never have I heard a statement so deluded. Do you have any actual source for that claim, beyond your and his own assertion? Please, for the love of god, get out of your internet echo chamber and go into the real world.
    1
  2260.  @CoronisAdair  Amazing comeback, honestly as expected from your previous responses. I do have to wonder though why you had that link so easily available and on hand, though... Guessing you get a lot of use out of it?
    1
  2261.  @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
  2262.  @CoronisAdair  The fact that you are continually fooled by even the most easily refutable nonsense proves my point exactly. Yes, it's clear, clear you're wrong. Given your own continued lack of anything but ideological fanaticism, it's clear the only ones supporting this ahistorical revisionism are those that stand to gain from it, which is in this instance you. With your ideological blinders on tight, you'd prefer to listen to a thousand hours of a lie than a second of reality. Your ideological, borderline religious assertions are about as far from objective or factual as you can get. But thank you for admitting your insecurity in your points, by suggesting that anyone who questions them be locked up or forcefully drugged. It's almost as if you know what you're spewing is the opposite of objective established historical reality...
    1
  2263.  @phillip3495  I'm sorry, that's false. You mean that you believe he knows how to agree with you, in spite of logic or history. Fascism is the result of a right wing movement with the primary goal of opposing socialism and the left.
    1
  2264.  @1rtt1  "...they only use Anarchy to get Control." Oh ok, so you don't know what anarchism, an ideology that calls for a system of no rulers and a perpetual push against hierarchy, is. You seem to define anarchism as just basic political violence, taking literal the term anarchy, and not actually doing a single second of research on the actual beliefs of anarchists. And I don't care what you disagree with, it's a simple fact that monarchism is right wing, and yet, is not capitalist. Monarchism was quite literally the first labelled right wing ideology, it is not socialist by any means. Your definition of socialism is so all encompassing and artificially manufactures that it even captures the original anti-socialist conservative movements.
    1
  2265.  @1rtt1  So for those who still think the truth, that hitler wasn't a socialist, you offer the counter evidence of... a party name that hitler didn't choose, and in fact rejected at first, before attempting to redefine the terms found within. You offer nazi propaganda.
    1
  2266.  @1rtt1  But he wasn't. He used the government to privatize huge swathes of previously public land, to undercut the power of unions and the workers, and called socialist, communist, and leftists parties, systems, and individuals a conspiracy based in that very antisemetism. That isn't a socialistic government in the slightest.
    1
  2267.  @1rtt1  You don't seem to live in reality though, at least you don't show it in your rhetoric. The system you describe, for example, is a system upheld and ruled by the right, by capitalists who got rich and want to kick the ladder out from under themselves, and by politicians paid off by said capitalists. You call socialism a system of total state control, and the left a group of socialists, and yet you describe a system of private ownership, massive profit, and big business and still manage to blame socialists, how?? This has nothing to do with climate change regulations, if you want to know why money and politics are so intermingled you only have to look at the right, who through the Citizens United ruling, policies, and rhetoric, have defended money and corruption in politics for going on decades now. The right, the conservatives, the capitalists, obviously found in both parties but more so in the republican party, the cause of your concern. The cabinet of a conservative doesn't change that. And yes, you are mistaken. A small minority of democrats call themselves socialists and are silenced and stifled by the greater democratic and republican parties, no matter their popularity. Even though in most cases their policies more closely reflect social democracy than socialism, the rich establishment can't handle their existence, and you agree with said establishment. You aren't living in the real world. You're living in a paranoid delusion designed by the very rich and terminally political you claim to despise, where they always ask you to blame your fellow citizen, and never them. That is reality.
    1
  2268.  @twrecks6279  "don't get gaslit by these socialists" is a funny way to say "I know you were rebutted but don't listen to them because I think they're socialists for pointing out basic facts." Cope harder, dude. It's plain that you were easily and without question proven wrong, as was your buddy there, and ignoring that fact does nothing but make you look like a fool. Recognize the tyranny in your own ideology and move forward to combat it. Take some accountability, I dare you.
    1
  2269.  @twrecks6279  It strikes me that right wingers have been annoyed with the natural and intended results of their own policies, so they take to blaming whatever scapegoat they can dream up, be it migrants, socialists, jewish people, or some sort of imagined conspiracy between all of them. The right has pushed for, and defended, corruption and money from big business in politics constantly. There is no "socialist push on the left," the "left" of america has done all it can to bow to the right just to avoid this kind of scaremongering, which clearly doesn't work. You say the right wing is "Failing," and yet it has almost total control of the only two parties that matter in america. The pressure is going from the right, to the left, and the fact that you can't even define left proves this. It is the right, always has been the right, which pushes for big business. Why are you asking which idea I agree with more? I'm simply telling you, factually, that it is the result of right wing votes, right wing politicians, and right wing ideologies that the corrupt government/big business system exists, and it seems to be solely left wingers that advocate for an end to this corruption. "State Capitalism is Socialism" is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard. State Capitalism is the right wing dream, a system where the rich get rich and stay rich, where the strong dominate the weak in government and markets alike, often together, and where the free marketplace of currency changing hands has taken hold over even the public sector. You hate capitalism (government protecting large corporate domination) and you can't admit it. So no, in short, your absurd statements don't match with any objective reality.
    1
  2270.  @twrecks6279  ...says the person that, without reason, decided to confront me and others to push your unsubstantiated talking points. I think you want to gloss over the words because you know what you're pushing is wrong, but you need the rhetorical appeal. You see, if you call the products of capitalism "leftism," "communism," "fascism," "socialism," ect, you can distance yourself from the results of your ideology. People like you fund and benefit from, if not run, the corporations in question. What do you think those billionaires say to justify their existence? The same thing. They're just making their mark on the world, using their opportunities and god-given tools to provide for themselves and those they most care about. Do you not see how they are the result of your mindset? You call this "communism, socialism, fascism," despite the actual communists, socialists, fascists pushing for very different things. This isn't any of those systems pal, this is capitalism. All powerful corporations are the name of the game. It does matter what you call it, though. You oppose "socialists," not recognizing that it is socialists who seek to dismantle the very system you accuse them of making. You promote "capitalists," without realizing that it's the capitalists you're complaining about. Words. Matter. Those "powerful few" pay millions to spread your ideology around the world. What commonality do I have with you?
    1
  2271.  @twrecks6279  So we get to the crux of it. Aww, what happened to these people wanting to be the people that "crush you too?" Can't keep your story straight, can you? We're not talking about "my solution," we're talking about the predictable fact that when pressed, rather than reject what you call fascism, socialism, communism, ect (the results of capitalism) you embrace it. You defend the corrupt businessmen and the corrupt government that works with them because despite your best efforts to distance yourself, it is your ideology in question. What happened to opposing those folks? You defend those you claimed to hate only hours ago, and it shows plainly. Why do I even need one, hm?
    1
  2272.  @twrecks6279  Yeah I hate to break it to you but a large amount of these people have an absurd amount in crypto as well, dude. I'm not down for a civil discussion, that time has passed. I'm just pointing out the truth.
    1
  2273.  @twrecks6279  They don't have to be enemies, and often alliances between factions of either side are made. But that doesn't mean said classifications in the first place don't matter. Have a good one, and best of luck.
    1
  2274.  @twrecks6279  Again, civility is a value I hold when it is warranted, but your entrance into this conversation tells me that it is not, and thus, i have no interest in keeping up that pretense. Sorry, not sorry. My words are, still are, and always will be, there.
    1
  2275. @Rick Vis "Incorporated" is a funny way to say "abolished." The German Labor Front was an organization that rolled back workers accomplishments and abolished a right to collective bargaining, and they filled the top ranks of this this "union" not with employees, but their employers. How is a system that outlaws all unions and replaces them with a restrictive private-run body one that "incorporated" unions?
    1
  2276. @Rick Vis The employers deciding to improve the conditions of workers is some small ways while abolishing their ability to actually advocate for themselves is the definition of not only hindering, but abolishing unions, which is the subject of conversation. Any employer can choose to give their employees benefits or vacation,s, that doesn't mean they support unions. The reality was that the DAF's primary purpose was to smother unionism, by trying to placate the workers and minimize their power.
    1
  2277. @Rick Vis The DAF was an organization with little to no worker power that was organized and controlled in relation to private interests. No union hired the employer as well as the workers, and in reality, the DAF was no Union. It was an organization meant to break down unionism and destroy it, both through the literal abolishing of collective bargaining rights, and through attempts to placate the worker through mild workplace reform trust didn't hurt profits too much. The employees were a part of the DAF because there was nowhere else to go, the employers were a part because they had profit to gain from it.
    1
  2278.  @Scornfull  Not only are neither of those necessary for a country to exist (which just proves your agreeing with hitler) those were far from the only similarities between hitler and his conservative bretheren. Sorry to show you the truth.
    1
  2279.  @erejnion  That is... so hilariously false. Hell, one of the core rhetorical "appeals" of the KKK was in attempting to convince moderate voters that civil rights protestors were all far left socialists and communists.
    1
  2280.  @austindecker7643  Funny how "corporate fascism" and hitler's similar far right ideology have so much in common with modern conservatives... just a coincidence, I'm sure.
    1
  2281.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Ahhh, so you're just lying about the contents of the video to promote a long debunked lie. Does it make you angry, to learn that the nazis were proud anti-socialists?
    1
  2282.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Oh sure, they were "National Socialists," a term which Hitler openly noted had nothing to do with leftism or socialism, and one that openly promoted right wing notions such as traditionalism and privatization. I don't tie my worldview to a purely factual argument, and the fact that you do is telling. Sorry... they're going to keep not being socialists. Anything else?
    1
  2283.  @jonathanstevey1748  bud, I've already responded to this copy paste screed word for word, why are you so afraid of responding to my rebuttal? For those wondering, here is said rebuttal p1 It's funny how even with a copy-paste screed of nonsense, you utterly fail to make your point. No, child. Fascism, by its very definition and history, is antithetical to the left. It's right wing, through and through. Fascism is not only antithetical to the left, but antithetical to socialism, even according to your citation and own quoted dictionary definition. There's a reason the right loves fascism so much, and that's because it takes as primary motivation a desire to end socialism. Fascists killed socialists by the millions, destroyed socialist's policies and allies, and worked with conservatives and capitalists through it all, but you claim this is just "socialists killing other socialists?" So a conservative shooting a liberal is just "liberals killing liberals?" Fascism is not a form of "national syndicalism," mussolini specified this in the Doctrine of Fascism. "National Syndicalism" as a movement arose as a result of left wing economic views being mixed with right wing social views, and the coming movement to synthesize the two produced many other movements, National Syndicalism being one. However, fascism itself has little in common with National Syndicalist movements. The space the two ideologies do share, is that the acceptance of right wing social views in National Syndicalism, eventually led its adherents to accept right wing economic views, which was one common path to fascism. I hate to break it to you, but Fascism isn't a "sorelian" ideology, nor was Sorel a "national syndicalist." Sorel was favored in his early life by open conservatives for being opposed to both Marx and the current liberal order, but soon rejected the right wing nationalists who went on to form national syndicalism, while advocating communism. He didn't believe in "traditional values," he believed marxism was ineffective and political violence was a necessary instrument, which is about all he had in common with fascists. Neither Sorel or Marx believed in Hegelianism, what? Marx took certain concepts that Hegel theorized on, like dialectics, and applied them to areas that Hegel had never intended them to be applied to. There's a difference between vague inspiration and open support of an ideology. And, I'm sorry, what have you "gotten out of the way" exactly? You made a bunch of vague, unsupported statements and then refused to argue for the actual assertions you made. You only continue doing that here. To say the only difference between fascists and communists/socialists is nationalism vs globalism is, frankly, hilarious. Fascists call for a dictatorship to enforce right wing social and economic views, and enrich the private market while they repress the people. Socialism calls for social ownership, under systems from democratic to stateless, and exists all across the national to international spectrum. We know what nationalist communists looked like, from the Black Panthers to parts of the USSR themselves, and unsurprisingly, they still had nothing in common with right wing fascists. Hitler didn't just go after "the commies," he went after all ideologies of the left and of liberalism that he could, he attacked not only socialists and their organization but murdered the supporters of socialism and those that socialists protect, he disbanded labor organizations, made them illegal, and purged his own party of socialists. Oh, and again, all while working with and politically elevating open conservatives and capitalists. As a nationalist, he didn't want socialists to report to him, he wanted them dead. Funny you mention the Doctrine of Fascism, and Mussolini, especially given how both disprove your point. It must be noted, however, that your quote already does nothing to back up your assertion. In this quote, we see Mussolini claiming that Fascism is an ideology of freedom and the individual, so long as the individual is in line with the interests of the nation. Now, what about this is any different from any modern conservative nationalist, that cries for freedom until someone starts burning flags? This quote doesn't even speak of economics. Are you just trying to assert that "totalitarianism = socialism?" We'll get to that, but for now, some quotes you've decided to leave out. "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). "'It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the 'Right,’ a Fascist century.' So wrote Mussolini in his famous 1932 definition of fascism" (Roger Griffin "International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus" 1998 p. 1).
    1
  2284.  @auo2365  Alright, fair enough. I'll list down my points as concisely as possible, though I will warn you that a lot of my arguments and supporting information might be left out just so I can get the basics out to you, though i'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to. Hitler was not a socialist because: - He did not want the workers to have the means of production, which is a pre-marx socialist positon, and has always been socialist. - Socialism is not just state ownership - He was right wing, and allied/associated with the right far more than the left - his ideology was inspired by anti-socialists who wanted to redefine the word - he was a fascist, not a socialist - He pandered to big business over the workers, and even small business. And so on, but I think that's the big ones out of the way.
    1
  2285.  @TheImperatorKnight  Wait, so now even individuals are socialism?
    1
  2286.  @TheImperatorKnight  Yeah, i'm sorry, the simple fact is the video you are supposedly referencing, the one above, is utterly devoid of any sort of logic and reason. Rather, it's driven by fantaticism. Most of the sources you cite disagree with you, that is, the ones actually relating to the subject matter.
    1
  2287.  @IsaacPSmith  youtube continues to delete my response, as well as a link I keep posting to a screenshot of it, so if you want to see it it's at the imgur link ending with cdvt14A
    1
  2288.  @tsaoh5572  You... kind of prove my point. The point being that yes, they did come from entirely different places. First off, pre-Hitler "National Socialism" was not National Socialism as we know it. Yes, it did take some elements from the left, but that's ignoring the fact that A) Hitler was an outsider that used the NSDAP largely to ferment his own political ideology while remaining in constant opposition with it's members, and B) Most of the people that actually had a somewhat leftist perspective in the party were purged when hitler took control. So yes, the pre-hitler and anti-hitler did have some ties to socialism, though they still wouldn't really qualify under existing socialist labels. One final point - fusing together two ideologies, or more realistically, taking trace elements of both to construct a new ideology, would still qualify as very much coming from a different place. even considering the few leftist influences, we find many on the right, many more in fact. And yes, because generally i'm annoyed at having to repeat these points time and time again. That is my fault, yeah, for acting that way, but and I absolutely agree that constructive debate is key, but I so often do not get it in turn i've largely given up trying to lead with it in comment sections.
    1
  2289.  @osmosys808  Calling someone a bigot, and then trying to attack the system itself rather than the historical classification of it, is largely why your arguments fall flat. They don't address the subject matter, they're just meant to make you feel like you're correct.
    1
  2290.  @Glavenuss  I would disagree, but I see where you're coming from. The Nazis replaced "class" with "race" in the same way that capitalists replace "the masses" with "the deserving." You see the point? Feminism isn't still feminism if you replace women with men, and simply preferring one group over the other is something most ideologies do. Saying one could replace class with race and see similarities is silly. On top of that, it doesn't even really work. Hitler didn't care as much about race as he did about his perfect citizen. They weren't just Aryan, but fit, non-disabled, straight, compliant, ect. As for your analysis of Communism, Socialism, and Marxism... just no. "Taking control of the means of production" is not Marxism, Marxism is a form of historical analysis based off of materialistic dialectics. Marxian Socialism, if that's what you mean, would be a stateless system in which currency still existed, but in a very different way, and the MoP would be collectively owned. And arguing that Hitler was an opportunist is something I would agree with, but I very much do not think he would have transitioned to socialism "after the war," if his "war" even ended. First, remember that his war was not just against the literal countries he was fighting - to Hitler, it was also against the jewish people, the communists, the bolsheviks, on and on. And even if Germany was the sole nation left, they would continue fighting until those groups had been eliminated. In any case, I think your view of post-war hitler would be wrong. Hitler's ideology was built on supremacy, social darwinism, ect. Why would he abandon his entire moral outlook post war? Hitler, the same guy who built his country off of the idea that the strong must destroy the weak, lest they be dragged down by them... suddenly values equality, and community ownership? Not to mention his praise of and alliances with large business interests right before and during the war. No, his system likely wouldn't have been all that different - a market system in which the strong thrive, but with state oversight to make sure that nobody goes against the regime. In short, i'd say that while they did certainly have some trace similarities with socialists, their ideological differences were too vast, and their origins too separated, to be at all considered forms of eachother.
    1
  2291.  @Glavenuss  The problem being that his ideology was just as much a perversion of conservatism and capitalism as much as it was of socialism. Marx still cared about equality, his anti-semetic comments never held with them the desire to punish the Jewish but to remove religion, all religion, from the world which he felt inspired greed and whatnot, without harming the actual people. And your next statement is utterly absurd. You think he wanted equality... at all? Again, he encouraged competition and power struggle even among his own party, what do you think he would do to the market, to the people in his society? Yes, he wanted to better the conditions of a very small group, but A) that isn't equality, no more than saying "white people need civil rights" during the civil rights movement would be "equality," and B) he still didn't want equality, again, they despised the notion that even their own people were born equally. The point is, he didn't want a limited, "racial" socialism. He didn't want even his people to own the means of production, to retain some measure of equality. He wanted constant struggle and supremacy, and he would do anything to get it. He didn't just want socialism for the few, and again, he certainly did take a few ideas from socialism (mostly rhetoric) but he certainly didn't want to implement it in full, even for "his people." I'll leave off with a quote here from a top nazi official. "The spirit of our National Socialist idea has to overpower the spirit of liberalism and false democracy if there is to be a third Reich at all! 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!" - Gregor Strasser.
    1
  2292.  @osmosys808  I mean yeah, that's just kind of politics in general. Capitalists, in my experience, seem to operate with an air of superiority whenever possible. But then again, that just might be me, and i'm no marxist just so you know. In any case, my original point still stands.
    1
  2293. ​ @Glavenuss  Uh... No. First off, Hitler was not some demon that we can't understand, and framing him as such is dangerous. He was a human, a monstrous, bigoted, violent, irrational and genocidal human, but a human nonetheless. I hate to break it to you, but anyone can be a Nazi. Plenty of normal, happy, healthy people were. So we can't distance ourselves from those figures by claiming they, on a fundamental level, just weren't at all like "us normal folk." At the same time, your portrayal of his motivations is also flawed. Please, if you would, find for me a case, or a quote, in which Hitler praised any sort of equality, even the extremely narrow version you say he had. You can find hundreds of quotes on his desire to crush the weak, but I have not yet seen one where he talks about equality in an earnest sense. And uh... no. Most factories absolutely were not seized, and openly competed both with eachother and with international companies. While the "right" to private property was removed (the government could come in and take it) and the state did guide private businesses to an extent, usually through bribery, the existence of private property itself continued, and in ways thrived. The state was far from controlling all property, proportionally it impacted a whole lot less than other nations at the same time during the war. The workers didn't work for a state, they worked for the companies they were under, companies in open competition. In fact, commodity production only went down 6% when the Nazis took over. Seems they did a rather shoddy job of controlling everything. Your assertion that there was no competition is utterly unsubstantiated. You know Auschwitz? Yeah, different companies bid for the rights to make it. Hitler, both in public and in private talks and speeches, openly praised the private industry of Germany, and said that too much state intervention would destroy it. He abhorred a state-run economy. Obviously they weren't capitalists, but you do realize that not everything that isn't capitalism is derivative of socialism, or is totalitarian state-controlled economically, right? They only ended up seizing property en mass near the end of the war... like every other losing state tends to do. Of course the land they took remained in the Nazi party, but the part you're missing is that the Nazi party was also filled with the rich private individuals who benefited from the Nazi regime, and often would be sold back those pieces of property. There absolutely was a market, hell, the rights to Zyklon B had to be bought by the nazi party. There was no redistribution, and the massive state you're talking about simply didn't exist in the private sector. I don't know how you've come to your conclusions on the Nazis, but it very much doesn't seem to be from historical accounts and data from the time.
    1
  2294.  Jetstom Von Cleef  except it wasn't. Hitler never said that.
    1
  2295.  @ReckerFidelWOLF  uh, no
    1
  2296.  @crispyhoneybun1607  i mean yeah
    1
  2297.  @TheSilentpigs100  yeah, sorry, capitalism has killed more
    1
  2298.  JGW 97  not really
    1
  2299.  @ReckerFidelWOLF  yeah, i have. which is why the nazis were socialists in name only
    1
  2300.  @mccluresrevenge7734  glad we could agree.
    1
  2301.  @mccluresrevenge7734  Thank you.
    1
  2302.  @AmariFukui  that isn't socialism
    1
  2303.  @Xoruam  beut they didn't do those things, that's the problem
    1
  2304.  @robfl100  yes
    1
  2305.  @Xoruam  we have one definition, that's it
    1
  2306.  @KameradVonTurnip  From the tweets I personally saw, the subject was mainly on things more acceptable in the modern day than they have been, like racism in america, gender identity, things like that. If a teacher brought that up in an unprofessional context, such as not giving the full context of it being a nazi conspiracy theory, then they would be at fault. But teachers generally don't do that, even with subjects like the ones above, without proper framing. What I would worry about more are people like Peterson, who pushes a very similar theory and yet does not provide that context. I can't speak for everyone's college or university experience, obviously, but a teacher presenting what they're saying as their own opinion is the kind of correct framing you're looking for. That's far better than teaching opinion as fact, or trying to teach objectively but letting your biases control how you teach the subject matter. Knowing about those biases is good, and by the point you're in college you no longer see your teachers as figures of absolute authority, just people who generally know what they're talking about. And I do think I answered this, but calling it brainwashing, or propaganda, is just over the top.
    1
  2307.  @admontblanc  Good thing that nobody is doing that mate. This is what i'm talking about, all you have are silly insults not even based in reality. If teaching children factual information about their world is "turning them against their family" to you, I have no idea how insane you actually are. This isn't about values, or about the state, it's about literal factual information, and if that makes you sick then it's your job to figure out why you despise teaching children to think critically and question your cult. But please, keep talking about how i'm the one "polluting this debate" as you call me a cultish degenerate freak, when you refer to "my kind," ect. The only one who is polluting this discussion with ideology and mockery without a hint of facts or proof is you, and you have not yet raised one legitimate question. You and I both know that to be fact.
    1
  2308.  @KameradVonTurnip  More widely accepted today. As in, if you were to bring up the fact that it's normal to not only be attracted to the opposite sex in school around 20 years ago, you would reach massive backlash. Hell, for some reason it's still controversial today to have sex ed in school, or to teach evolution in school. The thing is, while it is factual, there are populations of people that are of course opposed to this. Which was the concern. It's funny, people bring up this "massive backlash" against videogames and media, but like... where? Yeah, people get pissed off online, but in the real world these movies and games still rake in billions a year. If the group that didn't care about, or was in favor of these things was somehow a minority, where is all this money coming from? Did everyone watch Wonderwoman 30+ times? How many times has Gillette, or Nike, gotten into controversies? Funnily enough, they're still active, and still pulling in more and more money each year.The media of america has never supported leftism, much less far leftism. The media is doing a 180 because they finally figured out they couldn't dull down a movement that was equally against them. Some random person talking about how everything to the left of Reagan is the equivalent of Stalin doesn't matter too much to me.,
    1
  2309.  @KameradVonTurnip  Again, the internet. Some dude with a couple thousand bot followers in no way represents the actual interests of the country. Again, I direct you to Gillette, Nike, Keurig, even the entire NFL. Organizations and brands that were supposed to be boycotted or something, yet only got a bunch of free advertising. I've noticed these controversies, and each time, they fizzle out, doing no substantial damage to any of the brands. Most people don't even remember them. Your examples actually don't have, well, anything to do with the topic, but even then not really. Star Trek, Star Wars, still making hundreds of millions a year, not only off of the movies, but the shows and the merchandise. TLoU2 still has a dedicated fanbase, but even then it's general failure has more to do with a dislike of the plot than any sort of the subjects being discussed. Not the best examples, overall.
    1
  2310.  @KameradVonTurnip  And yet, in the same franchise, they saw massive success among the smaller projects, that success that will be used to further create more films in the series. That's still hundreds of millions of dollars, and in a sense gives fans a scapegoat so that the next film that comes out with some other director will win their instant support. Disney, as a company, is still making so much money off of those products that the reduction is inconsequential. Even more important, those trolls are still not taken seriously, and have roundly failed on their own merit to actually do anything, or show that they have any form of popular support. Oh, that and this also doesn't have much to do with the topic, trolls hated it for their own reasons, and generally critics disliked it for other reasons.
    1
  2311.  @KameradVonTurnip  I was talking about the size of the forceful reaction people managed to bring up. And you know what? Everyone is angry at Abrams now. All they need to do is take the writer/director of the Mandalorian, or some other well-known film or franchise like The Joker or John Wick and that same fanbase is right back in their pockets.
    1
  2312.  @KameradVonTurnip  Did I say they didn't? I just said the general mob you seem to be conjuring up was a tiny part of the people that disliked it, which is why they're incredibly ineffective at most other things they try to cancel. People are going to be back to buying Goodyear in a month.
    1
  2313.  @KameradVonTurnip  You know that the movie was just disliked because it was bad, right? Not because your mob was out there protesting feminism or something. How many things have you guys tried to cancel, and failed utterly?
    1
  2314.  @deason2365  the nazis called themselves right wing, and said that they didn't adhere to any previous definition of socialism. Forget that bit?
    1
  2315.  @deason2365  *you're You literally can't even use the right form of one of the most basic and common words in the english language.
    1
  2316.  @deason2365  Nope. They literally said that they were a group that despised the left, that thought the left would cause chaos and destruction. Remind you of any modern groups?
    1
  2317.  @deason2365  1. You literally are right wing, it is a right wing and even far right wing myth that there is any "Bolshevik propaganda" still circulating, or an outbreak of "leftist professors." That was literally the excuse that hitler used to start burning books. And again, simply look it up. Why do I need to provide your education for you? Hitler himself said that the left corrupts, degenerates, and would lead to the end of civilization and order.
    1
  2318.  @deason2365  Its not a school essay, its a single word. And you have no right to criticize me when you can't even get that right. You don't have any points, so I went for what was actually in your response - a typo
    1
  2319.  @deason2365  You are right (not wright) wing because you have openly said you believe in right wing conspiracies and talking points. Right and left has nothing to do with buildings, and hasn't since the french revolution. Also, Germany *literally did have a similar system, and wouldn't you know it, the socialists and communists sat on the left of the room... and the nazis and monarchists on the right. And again, this is basic history, you should have learned this ages ago. Its on you to disprove it.
    1
  2320.  @deason2365  Again... you are calling a person that has put nothing but basic history forwards a far left conspiracy theorist, all while literally calling the american education system filled with bolsheviks. You know, the LITERAL EXCUSE THE NAZIS USED. Have a hint of self awareness, jesus. Not everyone who disagrees with your right wing BS is a socialist. The American "left" is practically nonexistent, and certainly on it is nothing close to socialism. And guess what? I don't give a shit about "ideological divide," the further I am away from the literal genocide-denying fascists the happier I am.
    1
  2321.  @deason2365  The term "grammar nazi" is your method of deflection, I know. And again, do you not see how your own words literally apply to your actions?
    1
  2322.  @deason2365  ...i'm sorry, did you think that either of those places and political goals were at all among the most influential parties of germany at the time, or are you throwing out random bullshit because I corrected you and showed you that left and right has nothing to do with seating arrangement?
    1
  2323.  @deason2365  Again - *you're As well as this, you're literally lying, you accused me of having nothing but actual bolshevik propaganda to back up the truth, which again, is the same excuse the nazis used to start burning books. Not a good look. There are no socialist preachers in america, hell, there are basically no socialists in america. The people you call socialists are moderates, and the more you and your buddies shift us right, the more radical the center appears. I've spoken with radicals. America is empty of them. There is no equivalent between "both sides" here
    1
  2324.  @deason2365  *you're and again, if your response has nothing but bad grammar, i'll address it. You still have yet to provide a point.
    1
  2325.  @deason2365  During this conversation. Your actions.
    1
  2326.  @deason2365  There is no indoctrination, kid. You're literally proving my point.
    1
  2327.  @deason2365  The problem is, guess what, it literally doesn't work. Debating clear bigots that don't care about the reality of their ideology has never worked, not historically. We didn't have a revolutionary debate to found america.
    1
  2328.  @deason2365  all those who have been duped into believing your brand of politics.
    1
  2329.  @deason2365  just admit you hate education and move on, its apparent.
    1
  2330.  @deason2365  No, you're adhering strong to your own tribe, claiming you represent sanity when you're more ideologically motivated than most of the people you claim to oppose. Admit it. Its literally true.
    1
  2331.  @deason2365  Never said anything like that, what I said (which you yourself just backed up) is that you hate education, because education doesn't conform to your ideology. Hell, here you are again, saying that all education you don't like must turn people into socialists (which we've been over, you don't know what a socialist is) and you think all education thus must be biased against socialism to be good. You are biased. Admit it.
    1
  2332.  @deason2365  Yes, literally hundreds of tribes check all those boxes and more. This is the problem, you legitimately don't understand the scope of politics outside of your life. And again proving you don't know what socialism is.
    1
  2333.  @deason2365  what do you mean "who?"
    1
  2334.  @deason2365  I can tell you aren't, don't worry.
    1
  2335.  @deason2365  Except, and get this - that's another literal lie! Again, you are spouting propaganda against an ideology you can't even define. That's hilarious
    1
  2336.  @deason2365  Yes, I pointe out how you want all education to be biased in favor of your ideology.
    1
  2337.  @deason2365  I agree, ideologues like you do tend to deflect and refuse to define basic terms... like you're doing
    1
  2338.  @deason2365  ...you see what you're doing? I proved you wrong and asked you to admit you were wrong, and now you're throwing a tantrum
    1
  2339. ​ @deason2365  I'm sorry, but that literally isn't true. The "100 million" number was long disproven in man different ways, it was even discredited by the first people who wrote it, and yet idealogues like you will keep repeating it. And why is that? Well, because your own ideology, the one you have been indoctrinated into thinking cares about your "personal liberty," has killed tens of millions more in less time, violated more human rights, and yet idiots like you will defend those genocides. Wake up.
    1
  2340.  @johnpollard744  Yeah, that isn't true though. China isn't fascist, and fascism and communism/socialism are polar opposites.
    1
  2341.  @mitscientifica1569  No, as they were not right wing, a key component of fascism :)
    1
  2342.  @lastfirst5863  Except... I did have something to say about that. I'm sorry you aren't willing to deal with the reality of history that quite easily disproves your nonsense. But you can't change facts, no matter how much you try.
    1
  2343.  @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
  2344.  @adtopkek4826  Hitler was a nazi, a type of fascist. Fascism is a far right, authoritarian ideology, that hitler belonged to a faction of. Hitler was not a socialist. Nazism is a type of fascism.
    1
  2345. ​ @adtopkek4826  I'm sorry, but your nonsense ranting has no basis in reality. Hitler wrote about his opposition to the economies and national basis of italian fascist, despite objectively finding himself advocating similar policy, using similar rhetoric, and coming from the same ideological inspirations and descendants. Hence, why he is classified as a fascist by historians of both him and fascism, and not at all as a socialist, as he was opposed to socialism. That man was about as far from a s*cialist as you can get. S*cialism is not based on some sort of theft and distribution (which is why you will not find that phrasing in any s*cialist theory from the time) but rather social ownership of the means of production. He didn't take from capitalists, as you asserted, but rather from random, unfortunate often poor jewish citizens, with the goal of enriching those very industrialists and capitalists that you claim he was stealing from, that he hated. Alongside that, he had no desire then to give that wealth to the german people as a whole, just his party. Free healthcare had already existed under the capitalist Weimar germany, hitler only modified this system to further privatize it and restrict it. Same with the education system, this time restricting it and using it for the sole purpose of propaganda, as modern conservatives do to this day. He didn't support any distribution of wealth to germans as a whole, nor does that define socialism, as we've been over, nor are you even describing socialism. He fed the funds he stole into the products of industrialism and capitalism, and benefitted many on the top of both of those systems. He had no desire for state control, and never enacted anything like what you describe. Similarly, he despised worker rights, and on top of throwing workers into concentration camps, he outlawed their ability to form unions or collectively bargain. He hated internationalism, but promoted what he called "productive capitalism," nationalistic processes of capital. What he actually hated and thought of as the root of all evil were jewish individuals, which he blamed for the left generally and the rise of socialism. He never advocated for the people as a whole to control the means of production, nor are the people equivalent to a state. IF he hated greedy capitalists so much, why did they help him and praise him so often? I very much doubt that you would get any positive reception at a socialist rally by repeating the words "We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order," as hitler proudly stated. You seem not to understand the distinction between propaganda and reality, further evidenced by your asserting that he was no different from occupy wall street (a movement led and primarily supported by capitalists) despite you agreeing with him more. He's about as far from a socialist as you can get, and actually studying his policies and listening to the very words he spoke leads to realization of the objective fact of Hitler's antisocialism, hence why the most acclaimed historians studying WW2, N*zism, and N*i Germany's economy are unanimous in reasserting the fact of his anti-socialism. The only people who assert the opposite are, surprise, right wingers who want to deny his past so they don't deal with rightful criticism when they praise or repeat his ideas. And no, socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian. If you're concerned about the stealing of wealth with government force and armed thugs, I would recommend looking at the systems you praise so much. The right has a long history of support in that regard.
    1
  2346.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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
  2347.  @mitscientifica1569  h, 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
  2348. I would disagree, generally I think the video could have defined the terms better, and the definition he uses kind of undercuts his whole point.
    1
  2349.  @gravygravyjosh  That isn't the definition of socialism, though.
    1
  2350.  @gravygravyjosh  That's nonsense. State control by some random dictator isn't socialism.
    1
  2351.  @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
  2352.  @RightTurnClyde  you mean the ones so thoroughly debunked?
    1
  2353.  @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
  2354.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  2355.  Hale Hardy  because that isn't the truth, like it or not
    1
  2356.  Hale Hardy  they are, bitch. deal
    1
  2357.  Hale Hardy  yes.
    1
  2358.  @Rhinopotamus  That's literally what TIK is doing.
    1
  2359.  Hale Hardy  I mean, he was also their literal head of propaganda, but I disagree. Some socialists did end up converting, but the vast amount converted from apolitical to nazis, or rather loosely affiliated to nazis. If I considered myself a socialist person, but not politician in pre-war germany, I would probably have joined up with the nazis for their rhetoric alone, despite the fact that they never delivered on most of their promises. And also, they considered most people they didn't like marxists mate, he was jewish ethnically so it's an easy way to point fingers at the nazi's broader conspiracy.
    1
  2360.  @soundaddiktion2006  oh well this is ironic, isn't it.
    1
  2361.  @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
  2362.  @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
  2363.  @StickNik  Problem is, his stated actions don't line up with the frankly laughable idea of a "race socialist" at all. The problem is that the idea of "race socialism" is antithetical to socialism, by definition. your problem is that you seem unwilling or unable to correctly use terms in a rational way. Socialists don't want to "control class," they want to abolish class and allow individuals to control the means of production socially. It's not just impossible, "race socialism" is a contradiction in terms, and it's impossible precisely because it means rejecting one half of the title in favor of the other. In any case, all of this is moot because hitler didn't believe in "race socialism." He didn't advocate for a system of social ownership of "the race," nor by "the race." We should have a problem calling him a "race socialist" because his stated beliefs and actions contradict that already oxymoronic term.
    1
  2364.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Ah right, because a single line ripped from context and blatantly contradicted in his own writing absolutely erases the objective economic reality of the country.
    1
  2365.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Oh god, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
    1
  2366.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Literally just listen to yourself. That farmland wasn't taken away "for the benefit of the community," it was taken from the community, for the benefit of private owners and hitler's military-industrial complex project, which itself was only supposedly for the benefit of a tiny part of "the community," which it obviously and purposefully failed at. To assert that his goals were at all altruistic is nothing but apologia. It wasn't socialism, by any definition. This is literally a case where land being used for the benefit of others is taken in order to benefit bourgeoise forces, and you're saying its the "same" as the literal opposite? Fitting that you bring up China, given that they too are proud in their rejection of socialism. There's a reason so many capitalist products have a tag with "Made in China" on it. In nazi germany private owners could join, or work with, the party for their own benefit, and why wouldn't they? TIK, as always, is incorrect. Hitler was open in his general distrust of the community and hatred for leftism, as well as his pride in private ownership. The economic system he implemented was never a transitory one, meant to build up to "full socialism." He wanted land and resources so he could specifically wage his ideological and ethnic war against socialism and the people he felt conspiratorially created it. You don't achieve "full socialism" by proudly moving in the exact opposite direction, even the soviets got that. And yeah, much like modern anti-socialists, Hitler believed that a group of leftist was secretly controlling education and key parts of the world government. It's sad, the right today still despises academia, education and historians, because they know that their narrative is fundamentally ahistorical, so they need to attack the sources of factual information rather than admitting their statements don't align with the information itself.
    1
  2367.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  The "strength through joy" program existed with the explicit purpose of placating workers and stopping them from going into open revolt without actually addressing what they were asking for. All of what you're talking about was vastly privatized. I'm not sure how you think a benefits program is "socialism" or what you think Thatcher's moronic economic illiteracy has to do with this.
    1
  2368.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  They had a totalitarian control over the people, not so much the private market. They didn't force owners to work for them, they bribed the owners, with power and money. The state was in direct (or indirect) control of very few industries and projects.
    1
  2369.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  She did nothing of the sort though, she ruined countless people's lives, saved them from nothing but a phantom, and advocated a thoroughly debunked economic ideology that only led to harm. There's a reason she's so widely hated.
    1
  2370.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Again, you're just making this up as you go along. Most of the companies they worked with had international presence, and many voluntarily came over to nazi germany to work with them, well after they established themselves. If they only worked with him because he was threatening them, why did so many voluntarily work with him? Again, you're making unfounded and absurd assertions. He didn't want to give them "more through socialism," he purged the socialists and despised the workers, he only wanted to give them the bare minimum so that they would retain some loyalty to his regime. They absolutely would have revolted without this, given some of the earlier pushback. Why do you keep trying to assert that mild, privatized programs are "socialism?"
    1
  2371.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Why would I "admit" something that's false?
    1
  2372.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Again, refer to my first comment. A single, out of context quote, that's contradicted in his own writings and plainly contradicted by his actual actions, means nothing. Furthermore, "state control of the means of production and the economy" isn't even socialism. The nazis had a mass movement of conservatism and privatization. The best "evidence" you have is a single line. Admit it, the nazis despised socialism.
    1
  2373.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Oh come off it champ, the dictionary is right there. "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."
    1
  2374.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  But they did. They locked socialists up, killed them by the hundreds, said that their ideology would lead to decay and degeneracy, that it was a tool of jewish people to destroy their "great nation." Goebbels frequently and proudly backed up the private owners and right wing of the nation. They despised who they saw as the creators of rightism. They worked with capitalists proudly, and drew their ideology in common with them. Funny, you're openly admitting to wholeheartedly believing TIK's attempted indoctrination. You just hate admitting that independent research will always prove that the nazi weren't socialists.
    1
  2375.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Er, no. That's from Oxford Languages dictionary. It's telling though that your first impulse is to find some reason to ignore facts, rather than doing anything to work with them once corrected.
    1
  2376.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  You keep saying that, yet refusing to deal with me rebutting it. Is it because you know you've been proven wrong?
    1
  2377.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  They never desired to implement "full socialism," nor did they give any indication otherwise. They privatized land, they empowered nobody but the private owning class. They didn't promise socialism, because they didn't want it. Giving out land to private owners isn't socialism. Sorry bud, they weren't socialists, they didn't implement a socialist system nor did they desire to.
    1
  2378.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  It just isn't, though. Giving small plots of land to private owners so they can work it for profit has nothing to do with socialism, by any definition. You really just love being ignorant, don't you?
    1
  2379.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  But he didn't. He put it in private hands. The actual workers had no say over the farms, the owners did, those owners more often than not working with the nazis for profit. The phrase "blood and soil" is meant to show a historical tie to the land they inhabit and ask for, not asserting they're literally made of soil. Hitler's privatization was not collectivism, by any definition. The nazis abolished unions, and replaced them with the Worker's Front, an organization with the stated goal of entrenching private power. Wages were not set by the state, but by private owners
    1
  2380.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, do you. Wanting a "collective through the aryan race" not only isn't what he wanted or did, but it isn't the definition of socialism. The definition specifically states community as a whole, not just parts of the community you like. A policy incentivizing children has nothing to do with socialism. So nazi ideology, which isn't socialism, was not proposed or enacted with the purpose of any socialistic ideology or country in mind.
    1
  2381.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Then you're proudly admitting your own ignorance, given that the history of right wing totalitarianism is centuries long, and why they Keep pushing for it to this day. Taking money or property from others to benefit others isn't "socialism," that literally describes the actions of every capitalist and conservative government in history. The nazis weren't socialists, which anyone can learn easily through actually reading his own words and actions. Socialism is by definition about collective control, and socialism is incompatible with big business of any sort, as those are private, right wing entities. California is literally one of the biggest capitalist economies in the world, with a GDP greater than several nations. Capitalism makes it near impossible for small businesses to survive, that's the nature of private competition. The right (monarchism, technocracy, fascism, capitalism, ect) despise the little guy. The greatest example of socialism in the modern day is literally small business co-ops which outperform their capitalist rivals. You've decided to define capitalism you don't like as socialism. Thatcher destroyed her economy and country, her policies led to the deaths of hundreds if not thousands, and her every memorial will eternally be a ign of graffiti and disrespect, so widely is she despised.
    1
  2382.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  bud, the democrats are open and proud capitalists. This is the problem, you've decided to call every policy you don't like socialism or Marxism with zero understanding of the term in question. Capitalism is what destroys small business in favor of giant capitalist mega corporations. Capitalism encourages these mega corporations to shut down their opposition at any cost, because it benefits them to do so. This is your ideology, take ownership. Marxism destroys big business. Socialism isn't capitalism. Stop with the talking points and do a second of actual research on the subject, it would help you so much.
    1
  2383.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  huh, funny that you feel the need to lie. Is it because you know your narrative had already been debunked?
    1
  2384.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  bud, American capitalists funded the Nazi military
    1
  2385.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  there was no "socialist Germany" during the war. There was, however, far right anti socialist Nazi Germany. America, during the war, passed massive regulation efforts in order to succeed and keep their economy afloat. The "free market" was put on hold. Meanwhile, American capitalists like ford and IBM proudly and voluntarily worked with the Nazis in order to increase their production. The American capitalists kept the Nazis economy going. You're right, the German workers couldn't negotiate or control their own wages, which is as far from socialism as you can get. Their wages weren't set by the state, but rather by the private owners, through the German Labor Front, an organization with the explicit goal of helping private owners control their workers. The far right Nazis didn't control the means of production or distribution, not did they own industry directly. Rather, they proudly privatized industry, and worked with private owners against the socialists. Sorry bud, these are all facts.
    1
  2386.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  But they weren't socialists, and again, you're blaming socialists for the actions and views of capitalists. Democrats are capitalists. The nazis weren't socialists, dude.
    1
  2387.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  I'm sorry, are you ignoring the history of conservatism and authoritarianism on the right? You truly have no excuse to be this ignorant.
    1
  2388.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  I'm sorry you conservatives (mussolini, hitler, thatcher, ect) hate reality. "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 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."" - Hitler "There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; 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 “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” " - Hitler So, no. The means of production and distribution were not controlled by the state, nor was industry owned by it, nor is that the definition of socialism. The nazi didn't want to impose full (or any) socialism because they were openly ideologically opposed to it. The nazis encouraged the private industry to have more control over the workers, allowed them to produce what they wanted in the quantity they wanted. So they were "Failed socialists" in that they "failed socialism" by not being socialists. Your lies always fail.
    1
  2389.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Why would they have to distance themselves from something that people didn't even start pushing until years after hitler was dead?
    1
  2390.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Bud, historians are rewarded for being right, so it's no wonder that you want to deny the truth they tell. They have no need to "Distance themselves" from your narrative, given that your narrative has no basis in reality, and was not even spread until relatively recently. The nazis were not socialists. Hitler literally said "death to marxism," why do you feel the need to lie? The conservative party went against democracy to get hitler into power, for the nationalistic, right wing goal of imperial border expansion. The nazi's education system is near identical to that posed by modern conservatives, including the censoring of minority history and queer people. "Critical Race Theory" is explicitly an academic and educated critique of modern and historical racism, which explains why nazis/conservatives hate it so much. The modern nazis also call crt "Race Marxism." But please, keep proving my point.
    1
  2391.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Lmao, what the fuck are you talking about? These statements were made during the war, or in the direct span before it after he was already in power.
    1
  2392.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  No, bud. They despised socialism and international capitalism, which they thought were conspiracies made up by jewish people, just like modern conservatives
    1
  2393.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  It's telling that, despite your denial, the nazis still agree with you. Not socialists - you.
    1
  2394.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  you mean what conservatives love doing
    1
  2395.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  er, no. They didn't want to enforce socialism. They wanted to enforce far right conservative Nazi ideology, which despised socialism more than you. They never said that they would change this anti socialist system after the war You're just projecting your own views and failures onto others, it's quite sad. Nazi ideology is anti-socialist.
    1
  2396.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  er, no. The only people denying the Holocaust are far right conservatives
    1
  2397.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Are you attempting to say that if you tell the truth about the Nazis, the Holocaust didn't happen? There are literal holocaust victims that wrote about the far right ideology of Hitler. If you deny the Nazis far right anti-socialism, you deny the basis of his antisemitism, and the horrific crimes he committed in its name. If you call the nazis socialists, and deny their true ideology, you must devalue, deny, and apologize for their crimes. The Nazis were never socialists.
    1
  2398.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  But they weren't, bud. I've shown you irrefutable proof that they weren't socialists, and what do you do? Ignore it. You have yet to prove that the nazis were anything but far right anti-socialists, and you've utterly abandoned trying to do so.
    1
  2399.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  No, bud, the nazis were like you, right wing anti-socialists, which is why you agree with them so much. "Lefties" were victims of the holocaust that right wingers enacted. It's the right that denies the holocaust. The nazis didn't have socialism for anybody to distance themselves from
    1
  2400.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  No, bud. Goebbles was a proud supporter and member of the far right nazi party. Hitler used conservatism to get into power. Please stop lying.
    1
  2401.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Bud, saying "jews are capitalist" is literally antisemetism. It feeds into the antisemetic myth that jewish people own capital at disproportionate rates, that they're all greedy and money-obsessed. In trying to deny hitler's past, you've accidentally shown that you agree with the antisemetic statements that he used to justify the holocaust.
    1
  2402.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  No, Jewish people hold all sorts of political ideology, and most of the first victims of hitler were jewish socialists and communists that he had killed. Even in the modern day, most jewish people lean left, which is probably because of their horrible treatment at the hands of far rightists like the nazis. The nazis hated socialism, but accepted capitalism, because it helped them. They never wanted any sort of socialism after the war, just more private domination.
    1
  2403.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  But you didn't. You just said they did, over and over, and ignored all evidence to the contrary. They never desired socialism, nor did they enforce it, nor is it possible to enforce a left wing ideology like socialism using a right wing ideology like fascism. All evidence points to the fact that they did not control the means of production and distribution. Your only evidence otherwise is a single quote from hitler, ripped from context, said years before he got into power. Propaganda. You've proven that the nazis are right wing... because you agree with them.
    1
  2404.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Er... no, it doesn't. Are you forgetting that the vast majority of antisemetism comes from conservatives Christians? Two people can be bigoted without agreeing with eachother on everything.
    1
  2405.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Er, no. The history of socialism is one filled with contributions from jewish leftists. Socialists fight anti-semetism. The nazis were right wing bigots, that hated socialists and jewish people alike.
    1
  2406.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  No, you're probably thinking about the hundreds of years of conservative Christians that created modern antisemetism.
    1
  2407.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Yes, the Mises Institute is a known liar on the subject, as they consider privatization to be "price controls." Did you know that Mises himself worked proudly for a fascist party, and praised the nazis for killing so many socialists? Are you surprised he's trying to distance himself from the truth?
    1
  2408.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Bud, we literally have conservatives shooting up places and talking about jewish conspiracies while praising hitler. That is anti-semetism. Sure, there are a small few on the left who are bigoted, but antisemetism is a proudly right wing invention.
    1
  2409.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Why is it then that all the nazis were proud anti-socialist right wingers?
    1
  2410.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  But they were far right, they admitted it themselves. They weren't socialists, they despised socialists in all possible ways, wanted socialists killed for their ideology. The neonazis are honest about nazi ideology, which is why they're honest about being right wing anti-socialists. Why do you deny this fact?
    1
  2411.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  You can't be far right (fascist) and far left (socialist) at the same time.
    1
  2412.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Bud, you don't even need a state to have socialism. What are you even on about? Do you feel that confident in your lies? The nazis weren't socialists, as previously proven, they did not control the means of production/distribution and in fact had no desire to. You keep saying otherwise, but you never attempt to prove it.
    1
  2413.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  I mean it definitionally can't be, fascism is a right wing ideology.
    1
  2414.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  You got a source for that? You think that disproves what they actually did while in power?
    1
  2415.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Ah, another uncited quote. Perhaps you'd like some actual information on their ideology? "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
    1
  2416.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  Shame then he wasn't a socialist. "‘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.’
    1
  2417.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  You'll find him using the word "socialist."
    1
  2418.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Bud, apparently you're only 45 minutes into the video, aka, not even at the part that he thinks is the most important and is filled with the most historical arguments. Now, either you're blinded by devotion, or you haven't watched past those points, as my criticisms are spot on. Essentially, you want to lie about TIKs arguments because you are unable to back them up as they actually stand. You are either ignorant or a.liar, as TIKs nonsense isnt going to get any better with a denialist attitude like yours. TIK was making arguments that have been repeatedly and easily debunked. Simple. Apparently proving you wrong is just not understanding? Hm.
    1
  2419.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Bud, even TIK admits that his sources contradict his claim. did you even watch the video?
    1
  2420.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  But I did, that's the problem. No matter how many facts I bring, you'll deny them all. You think reality is a "narrative" which you feel that the words of an ideologue can refute. Sorry, like it or not, you can't debunk the truth, and throwing sources that disagree with you doesn't change that.
    1
  2421.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Oh, and you figured this out before he even got to the part of the video focused on history? Face it, dude. You got called out. Every fact I bring up is reinforced by TIK's own citations. The fact that even when prompted you have zero ability to create an argument around your assertions tells me all I need to hear. No matter how many times you say history was "shut down," my points stand strong, your insults are already defeated. Look, I'm sorry your nonsense has been specifically debunked and refuted, but perhaps you'd like to try gain?
    1
  2422.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Look, I truly am sorry that you don't like that the nazis were proud right wing anti-socialists. But it isn't going to go away. Ideologues like TIK can redefine terms and deny history all they like, and you can mindlessly support them, but the nazis are going to keep marching with the right, and the right are going to keep emulating the nazis. No amount of youtube propaganda will change that. Please, try thinking for yourself. For your own sake.
    1
  2423.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Uh. Yes. Oh, bud, you really don't even know what my argument is, or what capitalism is. Come on, I know nazi apologists like you are ignorant, but you'd think you'd at least know the basics. Why do you hate the fact that we both agree on, that the nazis weren't socialists?
    1
  2424.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  silence, eh? Don't like being proven wrong?
    1
  2425.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Look, dude, I truly am sorry. You clearly have hitched your wagon to a cultish ideology that has no regard for reality, but I can't help you if you don't work with me. Again, I'll remind you - Even TIK talks at length about the fact that his sources disagree with him, that a plethora of information exists proving that hitler was the far right anti-socialist we all know him as. He blamed conspiracy. You're going a step further. I'm sorry that you think that being ideologically opposed to socialism in every way (far more than you) makes one an "extremely proud socialist, but that opinion is not worth consideration. I'm truly sorry that you have to deal with the nazis being extremely proud anti-socialists. Truly.
    1
  2426.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Would you care to quote me supposedly "admitting" this blatant, apologist falsehood? Or is this another one in a long line of lies?
    1
  2427.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  What is factually correct? Certainly not the denialist myth that the nazis were somehow socialists. It really is odd how, when pressed with the facts, all you can do is repeat your nonsense, over and over again, as if lying more will make it more true. You still can't get over the nazis marching with the right today, can you?
    1
  2428.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Again, you keep responding with insults, rather than factual information. Why is that? I'm sorry you hate that the nazis agreed with you, but you can't change that by blaming their victims for their ideology.
    1
  2429.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Well, me being supposedly incorrect would be something for you to respond to, but you seem unable to do that with any amount of substance. Tell me, if anyone "with a basic understanding of economics and politics" agrees with you, why does TIK need to argue that the reason they don't agree with you is due to widespread indoctrination? It just sounds like you haven't watched the video. In any case, it's a plain fact that the nazis weren't socialists. The fact that you think that only marxists believe otherwise is particularly funny when one considers a) the sources of this video believe otherwise, and b) the nazis themselves know otherwise. The nazis and hitler were far right anti-socialists, and anyone who has done any amount of independent research agrees. Calling them "proud socialists," and further claiming that they were open about this, is just a claim you won't be able to substantiate. Sorry, bud. You can't cry away the truth. Why do you apologize for the nazis?
    1
  2430.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  Oh I agree, they openly despised "jewish" socialism, at least now you're getting closer.
    1
  2431.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  "It is also not my problem that you deny the holocaust." Buddy, what the fuck are you on about? You're the one trying to convince modern holocaust deniers that proudly support the right that they're somehow socialists in disguise. People like you actively embolden holocaust denial, and you're projecting your apologia onto me?
    1
  2432.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  I'm sorry you've somehow been deluded into ignoring TIK's sources, which clearly point out that the nazis despised the notion of total, or even majority state control, and ran a private economy. I'm further sorry that you feel that capitalists literally proudly aligning themselves with the nazis somehow makes them socialists. It's not my fault that you attempt to minimize the crimes of the nazis and deny their ideological reasoning, further emboldening modern holocaust denial. It's not my fault that you're doing the same thing as the nazis, making up nonsense conspiracy theories and calling random people marxist. It's not my fault you need to make up absurd claims like "It is not my problem that you think all of the nazis were Jews" to justify your proud antisemetism, and your odd inclination to act as though being Jewish is an essentially bad thing. Look, I've tried to educate you on basic economics, something you're evidently unaware of, and you ran. Why is that?
    1
  2433.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  If you were able to prove a single one of your statements, you would have done so by now. If you were able to rebut me, even once, you already would have. But you can't. The nazis were never socialists, and like it or not, they will always march with the right. Nothing you ever say, no matter how delusional you are, will change that fact.
    1
  2434.  @johnnyrocketfingers4926  look, like it or not, your holy book here simply doesn't support your points, and the actual historians and economists are clear in the Nazis open anti socialism. But you don't like that, so like many of their crimes, you deny it. like it or not, the Nazis march with the right. So either the right are secret socialists... Or you're lying.
    1
  2435.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  oh, so in other words, you haven't proven me wrong once - you just love the conservative Nazis too much to admit it
    1
  2436.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  No, you've just said you've proved me wrong loads of times, after doing no such thing and in fact running away because I so conclusively debunked all of your denialist, apologist arguments. You've never proven me wrong. You are, objectively, wrong. The nazis we're never socialists. They despised all socialism, all allies and common ideologies to socialism, and did all they could to distance themselves to the left. They made clear their plans to spread their deeply conservative, right wing traditionalist private ideology elsewhere, which they only failed in because we stopped them, which I'm sure you're still disappointed by. They never wanted to spread socialism. They certainly didn't succeed in spreading it to "Austria," which of course you are well aware of, despite your denialist claims. They put the means of production and distribution in private hands and did all they could to keep them there, enshrine the power of private owners in their society. You call me a pigeon playing chess because you literally can't handle the fact that the pigeon in this equation is you. You made a silly claim, I disproved it, you ran away and now just repeat the same old bullshit for hours on end. You lost the game, so you shat on it and tossed it away. Stop lying. Come to reality.
    1
  2437.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  oh but he wasn't, as I've shown so many times before, which you simply refuse to listen to. Why would I know something thats false? You've given me no such thing, all you've given me are random assertions that are at best backed up by out of context quotes from decades before the Nazi regime. The third Reich always put private owners first and foremost. And no, bud, taxes aren't socialism, most systems with taxes are capitalist. Capitalism isn't stateless, in fact it's impossible on a stateless society. How are you this consistently wrong
    1
  2438.  @justvoteconservativedontth6812  as I said, you're a pigeon who shit on the board when you lost. It's easy to find quotes from Goebbels showing the far right nature of his ideology. The police aren't socialist, every capitalist and conservative country and economy ever has had, and advocated for, police. Conservatives still are by far the biggest advocates for police it there. The Nazis having a police force is just another tie of theirs to the conservative right. They weren't socialists, bud. Come on, at least lose with grace.
    1
  2439.  @MadsterV  I mean, I literally didn't? Are you asking where monarchies are in the west? Need I introduce you to the concept of europe, the very founder of the west? But hey, nice deflection attempt. Sad it didn't work for you.
    1
  2440.  @MadsterV  given that the only "line of thought" to mention that is yours, who brought it up out of nowhere to deflect from your numerous failed arguments, I do agree it's time for you to give it a rest, get help, and see reality. You're now trying to blame me for "leftist bankers," and I can only assume you either didn't understand my statements or feel the need to construct a strawman in a final effort to run away. I mean, when your argument required the amounts of lies and insults you've presented, I think it's time to stop. In sorry you can't get over yourself, and the fanatic ideology that forms the core of your ahistorical argument. You've been proven wrong time and time again, it's plain to see from you now running away, and trying to project your failings onto me is certainly a humorous, though failed attempt to salvage your pride. Ad I said last time, you are free to run away, claim victory in your deluded mind. I will remain in the land of ratio skirt and reality, alongside all those that read this conversation. I'll be waiting for the day you grow up and join us. Your denialism is sad, but not unexpected. Eventually, people like you just can't be reached by logic and reason. You don't want to be correct, you want your ideology to be proven superior. It's sad, yes, but one day you all grow out of it. This trend in denialism is alarming, bit it too will die out.
    1
  2441. ​ @lordjaraxxus5418  That... isn't true though. You're right that our definition of the relative moderate left and right has changed, but that doesn't mean left and right itself has changed. A conservative might be to the left of a monarchist, but they're still always going to be on the objective right of the whole political spectrum. We may change who we consider to the right and left of eachother, but the existence of an objective measure is always there. Furthermore, the actual basis of the left and right haven't actually changed that much, just evolved with the times. And yes, many issues like abolitionism, gay rights, civil rights and all that have changed in their popular appeal, but your assertion on the "left" of the 1930s is false. You're conflating the left with the democratic party, when in reality, the democratic party of the time was a southern conservative party, for the most part. Back then, parties were less important to ideology than location, which is why nothern republicans tended to vote left with northern democrats, and southern democrats voted right with southern republicans. It just so happened that most republicans were in the north, and so the republicans were labelled generally a left wing party, and the democrats in the south, labelled generally right wing. Both parties at that time were undoubtedly racist, and both had KKK connections, but the KKK as an organization has always been tied to explicitly right wing conservative movements. Again, you're conflating a simplistic history of the democratic party, which itself has shifted from left to right and back again, with the left of america. So no, the left wing party at the time didn't require KKK approval before getting into office in the vast majority of cases, in fact they were largely the victims of the KKK. It's worth pointing out that the left resoundingly supported the republican party until things began to split with FDR. Also, moderates generally aren't labelled on the extreme, it's more like a general societal political extreme has labelled extremists to be moderates, and as that changes the true lens of their policy is uncovered.
    1
  2442.  @lordjaraxxus5418  At this point I don't think words can get through to you. Genuinely, how do you not see what I'm talking about? He doesn't bash the left because the right isn't worth bashing, he pretends the right does next to nothing so he can bash the left. We can discuss major gun rallies and the political violence associated with them, we can discuss the nationwide fight over abortion rights that has culminated in several near-totalitarian policies in multiple states, as well as other issues like trans healthcare treated much the same way, we can discuss the rhetorical choices in which the right systematically attempts to undercut fact checkers and news organizations in favor of pushing money into industries they support and so on. I'm no democrat but to pretend that the right aren't doing anything is silly, the very things Tim Pool "reports" on are all things that the right are actively taking stances against and often mobilizing against. And these are only your examples, I could go on and on about other things we didn't even mention that are objectively worth reporting on with the right, and I believe are worth a fair bit of journalistic criticism that Tim Pool either doesn't touch or wholeheartedly defends. He has shown time and time again to side against reality with the right, and how is that moderate? The reason he gives the impression that the mainstream right isn't doing enough to combat the left is an effort to further radicalize and call to action the right. Your very views on this matter prove that much. So again, how is what you're saying at all true?
    1
  2443.  @MadsterV  But you didn't quote him at all, and those quotes were literally before the party collapsed. Do you ever do any fact checking???
    1
  2444.  @MadsterV  My man you would rather create some massive conspiracy theory than just admit that you haven't even checked the dates. Literally everything you say is wrong. Like the very fact that you keep your ideology and continue to try to spread it even when you've been disproven so many times and been caught in so many lies... jesus fuck you ideologues are sad. I've done the work and proven you wrong so many times, and at the end you just run off and try to start an argument with someone else. Have you tried abandoning your ideological biases and just... looking at the history.
    1
  2445.  @MadsterV  Oh boy, did you realize that your hatred of an ideology isn't an actual argument, and you got caught in a lie? Orwell quite literally never called hitler's ideology, or fascism generally, a form of socialism. The fact that you had to make up a quote proves that, and the fact that you didn't realize that every single quote I gave was from Orwell years before the party collapsed only cements that fact in stone. He didn't say "both things," you made one up, likely repeating from memory a conservative commentator that told you what to think. When I showed you objective facts, you deflect to... CNN anchors. Truly NPC behavior. My man, calling people socialists to excuse your absurd conspiracies isn't actually an argument. "Ummm... he was just lying! Because he's a socialist! I have no proof... but he was a socialist! This is very rational!" There was no "judgement mistake," he was clear on his position from the beginning. And again, your entire argument revolves around "socialism means bad therefore no more argument needed," which is especially odd given that hitler was a far right anti-socialist like yourself. The car was created of course, and the private owners got paid, but none of "the people" got it. In fact, the only reason the project existed was to keep workers complacent and pumped full with propaganda, so they wouldn't turn to unionism or socialism and reject nazi ideology. He pushed it because he wanted to remove worker's desire to organize, it's quite literally a classic conservative position that conservative politicians had done even before hitler. That was, quite literally, the stated intention. But i'm sure you'll deny that. And what the heck are you talking about? Please at least attempt to remain slightly rational throughout your response. This is just sad, you keep trying to argue your points and failing, but not once learning from your mistakes. Er, no. The "Workers Party" was a concept quickly changed under his regime, and of course as we've been over, he purged those that added "socialist" to the title of the party. I'm sorry you feel the need to twist and deny reality to suit your narrative, but this is sad.
    1
  2446.  @MadsterV  Aaaand yet more assertions that are, of course, utterly unsubstantiated. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that those quotes were from years before any collapse, and that this "swing" you mention is utter fiction. You don't.
    1
  2447.  @MadsterV  Child, I invite you to actually read my responses for once. I've never agreed with your denialism.
    1
  2448.  @MadsterV  Yes, his regime utterly abandoned any pretense of a workers party as soon as possible. You really need to start actually reading my responses, this is getting pathetic at this point. He purged those he disagreed with ideologically as soon as he could. Meanwhile, those who actually got him in power (conservative party leaders) were defended and elevated under his regime. Apparently to you, as we've been over, "bad=socialist" so any sort of authoritarianism or political opportunism... must be socialism. Check history books ever maybe?
    1
  2449.  @MadsterV  Lmao i love how I effortlessly disprove every single one of your assertions and your only response is... to repeat them again. Sorry kid, but repeating a falsehood time and time again while failing to address the rebuttals of said falsehood doesn't make it true. Hitler wasn't a socialist, fact. You have yet to even address my arguments, you just keep denying history with the same old talking points.
    1
  2450.  @MadsterV  Lmao, kid, you made an assertion, one you literally cannot back up. How is "he never said that" some dreadful socialist conspiracy? You're unwilling to actually cite your assertions, so the only conclusion to be found is that he literally didn't say it. Is this what you do whenever you're called out? "Oh did you know that Obama said the earth is flat? What's that you say, he didn't?? That's just what a socialist communist marxist nazi would say!! They said things never happened all the time!!" Like on some level you have to understand how absurd your assertions are. The things you see with your own eyes, you say? Then... show these eyes some proof. Oh, wait, you can't. You just have a childish "of course you'd say that."
    1
  2451.  @MadsterV  Dude, grow up. Your entire argument here stems not from any sort of historical fact, but from a fanatic adherence to anti-socialism. I'm not a socialist, I argue with socialists, but to blind yourself to the facts just because you hate an ideology so much is absolutely disgusting. I'm not a socialist, I don't deny history, I'm trying to correct you and you aren't taking facts for an answer. Literally, we're talking about history here, why are you talking about socialists "growing up" when you have yet to do so yourself? Why do you just continue to make random assertions that you aren't interested in proving? But your arguments literally revolve around the concept of "bad=socialist." Failed policy? Must be socialism. Propaganda? Socialism. Things you disagree with, generally? Socialism, of course. Oh, it's all well and good to claim that people are bad and not socialist, but what happens when you examine their regimes and find so many similarities to those you randomly label "socialist?" Methinks your standards are quite fluid. In any case, you need to stop shutting your eyes to my rebuttals of hitler's supposed "socialism." Literally all of these points you have asserted previously, and all of them I have rebutted, rebuttals you have failed to even attempt to contest. And yet you repeat them back with the fanatic zealotry of a religious worshipper, always the same talking points, always sliding past the rebuttals. The man reinforced the power of private industry and the only "expropriations" were a extremely rare exception to the norm that was viewed as a necessary evil and went right back into private hands, he "blamed the bankers" in words only and yet in actions allowed them to profit and retain their wealth, especially when considering most already backed him, the "people's car" that was wholly inspired by the anti-socialist laws of the founder of german conservatism Otto Von Bismarck, a supposed 'victim attitude' has nothing to do with socialism, his interviews and speeches regularly showed his revulsion towards the left and hatred of socialism, propaganda (again) has nothing intrinsically to do with socialism, and by god we've been over this, the party name was opposed by hitler and he purged those that pushed it. All of these are already long debunked, and yet you keep fanatically repeating them, ignoring all refutations. How can you claim to care about history or logic when you can't even respond to an argument? I hate to break it to you but his nationalism, like all other aspects of his ideology, had nothing to do with socialism. Oh sure, his nationalism wasn't the only thing that made him a right wing anti-socialist, but it sure was one of the things. It was the "national socialist party" because there once existed an anti-hitlerite faction that chose that name. Wonder what happened to them? Right. In any case, the left/right dimension literally defines this argument, unless you're willing to argue that right wing socialism exists. History isn't "narrow views," nor are your strawmen of my arguments at all accurate. As of now, I am the only person that's actually been willing to cite history. You, on the other hand, have consistently displayed a lack of ability to cite your claims, and even more of a lack of willingness to respond to argumentation. I have given you facts, and you have ignored them, and kept asserting falsehoods. Stop denying history, champ. Hitler, taking objective history into account, according to logical observation and recorded facts, sweeping aside your denialist assertions, under no definition was a socialist, much less a "full blown" one, whatever that means. Stop. Denying. History.
    1
  2452.  @MadsterV  Child, I do hope you realize that attempting to accuse me of the same things i've shown you doing isn't actually an argument. I've addressed every single one of your claims, and have given you multiple opportunities to respond to my rebuttals. Is there a reason you decline to do that? Could it be that you know hitler was less of a socialist than you?
    1
  2453.  @MadsterV  "Now you're just ignoring the full blown socialist behavior... you just "nope" and then call me a denialist somehow (among a ton of other insults, because you don't really have an argument, just insults and ignoring reality)" Child, every single supposedly "socialist" point you listed in this response has been individually addressed and debunked several ways, including in my last response to you. I have never just "noped," I have been more than happy to provide my argumentation, something you appear incapable of. Do you have any evidence I don't have an argument? I would be happy to cite my arguments that you have yet to respond to. "Aaaand yet more assertions that are, of course, utterly unsubstantiated. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that those quotes were from years before any collapse, and that this "swing" you mention is utter fiction. You don't. He purged those he disagreed with ideologically as soon as he could. Meanwhile, those who actually got him in power (conservative party leaders) were defended and elevated under his regime. Literally all of these points you have asserted previously, and all of them I have rebutted, rebuttals you have failed to even attempt to contest. And yet you repeat them back with the fanatic zealotry of a religious worshipper, always the same talking points, always sliding past the rebuttals. The man reinforced the power of private industry and the only "expropriations" were a extremely rare exception to the norm that was viewed as a necessary evil and went right back into private hands, he "blamed the bankers" in words only and yet in actions allowed them to profit and retain their wealth, especially when considering most already backed him, the "people's car" that was wholly inspired by the anti-socialist laws of the founder of german conservatism Otto Von Bismarck, a supposed 'victim attitude' has nothing to do with socialism, his interviews and speeches regularly showed his revulsion towards the left and hatred of socialism, propaganda (again) has nothing intrinsically to do with socialism, and by god we've been over this, the party name was opposed by hitler and he purged those that pushed it. All of these are already long debunked, and yet you keep fanatically repeating them, ignoring all refutations. How can you claim to care about history or logic when you can't even respond to an argument? I hate to break it to you but his nationalism, like all other aspects of his ideology, had nothing to do with socialism. Oh sure, his nationalism wasn't the only thing that made him a right wing anti-socialist, but it sure was one of the things. It was the "national socialist party" because there once existed an anti-hitlerite faction that chose that name. Wonder what happened to them? Right." And so on. In your most recent reply, not one of these arguments is responded to, and as I noted in my previous comment, your only "argument" is just to repeat talking points i've already addressed. Why then do you pretend I have not presented an argument? Is it because you don't want to actually rebut it? Is it because you know you can't?
    1
  2454.  @MadsterV  Child, this is pathetic. Is it that hard for you to actually address my arguments? You're just giving me the win. And yes, as we've been over, when he joined the party they abandoned any sort of pretense of a workers party. Hitler's ideology never had a "workers party" phase, as when his ideology was introduced to the party, it replaced and did away with any notion of a workers party. Amazing how you can quite literally agree with me that Hitler never ran or agreed with a worker's party but still refuse to actually just say it out loud. The hitlerite ideology was never of "the workers party formally," please stop denying known history. And you have yet to actually rebut the fact that hitler was not a socialist. And again, child, you are the only one who has been ignoring arguments, I quite literally respond to you multiple times, line by line. The problem is you claim I "do not address" your arguments, when I can literally quote myself addressing them. Literally every single one of these has already been addressed by me, and I actually have proof. From my last response: ". The man reinforced the power of private industry and the only "expropriations" were a extremely rare exception to the norm that was viewed as a necessary evil and went right back into private hands, he "blamed the bankers" in words only and yet in actions allowed them to profit and retain their wealth, especially when considering most already backed him, the "people's car" that was wholly inspired by the anti-socialist laws of the founder of german conservatism Otto Von Bismarck, a supposed 'victim attitude' has nothing to do with socialism, his interviews and speeches regularly showed his revulsion towards the left and hatred of socialism, propaganda (again) has nothing intrinsically to do with socialism, and by god we've been over this, the party name was opposed by hitler and he purged those that pushed it. " This is your next response, and in it, you ignore all of those points and rebuttals and just go back to asserting the same old nonsense. Do you not see the problem with that? Do you not see the problem with the fact that only I have attempted to make argumentation and use historical fact, whereas you have reasserted nonsense and neglected to respond to criticism? So, let's go through this one more time, despite the fact that your lie, " you do not address," has been proven false. I have addressed his supposed "nationalization," by pointing out that his regime put more previously-public property into private hands than they ever nationalized, and the vast majority of said "nationalizations" were put back into private hands. I have addressed his rhetorical strategy, but your assertion here is absurd, even for you. "The pandering to the people" is socialist now? What? I do hope you understand that populism exists on the left and right, and I do hope you understand that you're calling Donald Trump a socialist. I have already addressed the "propaganda arm of the government," by again pointing out that the vast majority of countries from American to monarchist france use government propaganda, does that make them socialist? Same with "looming famine," like I sure do hope you realize that famine has existed as long as there have been people to starve, correct? And for all these "multiple accounts of others," you continually refuse to cite them, whereas I am happy to make clear his constant rejection of the left and socialism, as well as his praise of the right, which was noted by many inside and outside of the party. There was no "socialism" to speak of. For every one of your points, you can find rebuttals spanning back to the start of this conversation that as of now, are utterly unaddressed. I call you a denialist, alongside my arguments, because you have proven yourself to be a denialist. You accuse me of having only insults and "ignoring reality," no arguments, and yet are wholly incapable of presenting proof for your claims and responding to mine. I have to wonder if you even watched the video, because you continually assert that it's amazing and addresses all of these points, and yet you yourself have no idea how to rebut me. By just repeating "hitler was a socialist" you are literally engaging in a "lol nope" argument. I have continually rebutted this claim, and you have offered no counter. You have yet to even give a single shred of evidence, whereas I have given plentiful evidence that you have happily turned a blind eye to. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you can't even come up with an argument? The simple fact is, hitler was not a socialist, and unless you actually come up with a rebuttal to the facts I have given you, this remains uncontested. I'm sorry you feel the need to reject it with fanatic zeal, ignoring the arguments and evidence for the sole gain of your ideology, but that isn't how this works. Hitler wasn't a socialist. Feel free to actually try to prove me wrong.
    1
  2455.  @MadsterV  "Anyhoo. Hitler was a socialist and you can't accept it with all of the evidence you're turning a blind eye to (lol nope is not an argument). You haven't even looked it up, goebbels would be so proud." Child, your entire argument is a "lol nope," and unlike you I can actually prove it. You have yet to present evidence, specifically declining to cite your supposed quotes time and time again, whereas I have happily cited quotes that you didn't even bother to check the timeframe of. I can literally quote myself in previous replies debunking every single one of your points, if you keep on like this I won't even need to write new responses, just copy-paste the old ones, since you're not actually addressing any of my rebuttals. Your entire argument is an attempted "no you!" but you forgot that I can actually cite evidence that your claims about me aren't true, whereas you can do nothing of the sort. Even after you showcase a distinct lack of ability to address my citation and argumentation, you still have the nerve to claim i'm the one not addressing anything? As I said previously, in order to claim that i've "Turned a blind eye" to the evidence, you actually have to have presented evidence. All you've given are the same few reworded claims, which I have rebutted each time. All you're proving is that you don't actually have an argument, how can you claim I haven't "looked it up" as some sort of insult when you're clearly floundering here, unable to actually make a coherent rebuttal? How am I the one that is uneducated on this topic? No, hitler was not a socialist, and your fanatic adherence towards resisting replying to my rebuttals is the very definition of "lol nope." Would Goebbels not be proud of you? "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." And before you start trying to "you're rubber i'm glue" this again, remember I can actually cite my claims, cite myself making arguments. You, on the other hand, have not. So no, hitler wasn't a socialist. Thanks for your time.
    1
  2456.  @MadsterV  Amazing. Even after all that, you are physically incapable of even a single rebuttal. You claim that you've addressed everything i've said, and yet cannot provide any proof. Why am I not surprised? Why do you keep on with your denialism of hitler's ant-socialist ideology? The very fact that you call me a socialist proves my point exactly, you call everyone you disagree with a socialist. You just proved me right yet again.
    1
  2457.  @MadsterV  But it isn't "One dimensional thoughts," you're just annoyed i'm not sticking to your strawman argument. There is no "socialism" in the far right anti-socialist nazi party, as we've been over, and as you've been unable to rebut. Are you still stuck on the name point? We've been over that? They were right wing not just because they were nationalist anti-socialists, though of course that's one big reason. I insult you, alongside my arguments, because I feel like it. Is that a problem? I feel i'm well within my right to show you how silly you're being, after proving it of course. At least I actually present arguments, unlike you, who just ignores it. Child, I can literally quote my arguments back to you, and you still deny them. You haven't actually addressed a single thing i've said though, which is why I quoted my previous response back at you, since you failed to actually reply to a single one of my points. If you're interested in actually proving me wrong, provide quotation of yourself addressing my points, and provide proof that I never rebutted or replied to those points, exactly. You can't, can you? I don't just go "nope, doesn't exist," I am literally asking you for proof, and you are unable to provide it. I do want your rebuttals, and if they're so plentiful, you would have no problem copy-pasting them here with a link to the comment they were first made in, right? But you can't do that, can you? You've provided nothing but schoolyard insults and blatant denialism, which I have easily rebutted. I've presented you with arguments, and if they were so easy to disprove, you would have done so, but you can't. I have brought you facts and history, and I have to continue repeating the same basic facts because you keep ignoring them. You have proven yourself incapable of research, remember the Orwell quotes? And yet you try to project this onto me. And then you go ahead and call me a socialist, just to prove my point exactly. You literally only call people socialists because you claim to dislike them, you don't need any actual evidence, you just say it over and over and hope it sticks. You just can't handle the fact that i've proved that hitler was about as far from a socialist as one can get, and that your only arguments rely on propaganda, not factual history.
    1
  2458.  @MadsterV  Child, a "lol nope" argument here is worthless. How are my statements not of value? I provide historical figures, quotations, comparisons, statements and actions, policies and inspiration, and so on. What do you do? You repeat the same disproven assertions, without even pausing to argue why you think they're true. I've refuted every one of your claims, I haven't "just denied they happened," I've pointed out what claims are based off of true information with your silly conclusions (socialism doesn't mean propaganda, for example) and pointed out what you have said that is false, and corrected it according to the actual historical record. (regarding supposed "nationalization," for example.) If your arguments were so easy to "look up" and prove, you'd be able to do so. Instead, you just continue repeating them, acting as though this constitutes an actual argument. Aneasy search will show the long standing historical record of nazi privatization, the nazi party benefitting and allying with private bankers and industrialists, and the means of production being under primarily private control, with hitler explicitly condemning any notion of a centrally controlled or planned economy, saying it went against his ideology. Again, all basic stuff that i've explained in detail, but your only response is worse and more lazy than "nope, never happened," you literally just ignore the arguments, claim they never happened, and continue asserting your points. You: "The sky is red." Me: "No, the sky is blue. Here's proof." You: "The sky is red. I can't believe you're denying this, Goebbels would be proud." And so on. Just repetition on top of repletion, no rebuttals, no claims, no nothing, I prove you wrong and you just go back to saying the same old things. I'm sorry you feel the need to lie about me, but that should conclusively prove how little your arguments align with reality. I'm not a socialist, child, and you calling me one just proves that you'll call anyone a socialist. And I think we've already discovered Goebbels support of your "Repletion makes truth" style of argumentation.
    1
  2459.  @MadsterV  Child, there is nobody denying history but you. Hitler was not a socialist, and i'm sorry your fanaticism has blinded you to this basic fact. Your entire argument is a "lol nope" attempt to ignore my rebuttals, which you know you are incapable of disproving. You can't even admit i've made arguments, because then you'd have to disprove them, something you aren't capable of doing.
    1
  2460.  @MadsterV  And yet another example of a comment you give with literally nothing of substance. Do you deny that there is no socialism on the far right? Or have you chosen to define socialism so broadly that it can exist left, right, and center? Come on, not too hard. You call a basic adherence to reality "one dimensional thought," without ever even attempting to argue why, much like your other comments. Go ahead, give some reasoning. I'm sorry you don't like the history and facts I have cited, and i'm sorry you've elected to ignore them in favor of personal attacks, but even you have to realize the irony. You, who cites nothing, argues nothing, proves nothing... accusing me of being blind to history or facts, and adhering to propaganda alone. Do you not see your clear projection?
    1
  2461.  @MadsterV  Child, you're just making this far too easy for me. What was it you said? "Lol nope isn't an argument?" Is that not the exact thing that you are trying to pull here? Not explaining your points, not backing up your assertions, only repeating them over and over again, and when faced with the undeniable proof of arguments against you, what is your response? "Those aren't arguments." No reasoning, no argumentation, no rebuttal. Literally just you saying "lol nope." Come on, is it that hard for you to admit how deeply entrenched in propaganda you are? These are arguments, which is why you know you can't address them, come on now child. You can't keep ignoring the truth forever, eventually even you have to realize the absurdity of your claims.
    1
  2462.  @MadsterV  Child, if socialists are willing to spread the basically observed reality that hitler wasn't a socialist, who am I to argue? If they stand in step with the liberals, conservatives, and hell, nazis who openly declare the nazi's anti-socialism, who am I to argue? The only denialist here is you. This is just further proof that you've never even attempted to read my arguments. Child, i've explicitly pointed out that I am not a socialist. Come now, is that hard for you to understand? Or will you label me a socialist anyway?
    1
  2463.  @MadsterV  hey, at least you admit it. Yes, you gave me the name of "privatized banks" as you said, though at the time you asserted that they were nationalized, which I quickly disproved with facts and argumentation, which you failed to rebut. When it was your turn to respond, what did you do? "lol nope" and ran to the next argument, only to repeat the cycle of disproven talking points later. Yes, you can look all of these up, but it doesn't matter how many of these basic search results I cite to you, it doesn't matter how many historians I cite, it doesn't matter how many basic economic facts I cite, you just won't listen. I agree, these banks were under private control when the nazis took power. Even you have to admit that, I see. And I've literally already addressed this, why do you feel the need to "lol nope" my rebuttals to your false claims? People believing in an ideology, and that ideology being represented by that government, does not make them literal extensions of the state. Do private businesses that support the republican party become state owned when a republican political they supported comes into office? Of course not, as i've already pointed out. Many private owners of industries supported the nazis... because the nazis supported private ownership. What was you response? "lol nope." I've literally pointed out that this "people's car" policy only served to benefit private owners, never actually made it to "the people," and was directly inspired by the anti-socialist laws passed by founder of german conservatism Bismarck, and both sets of policies further shared the desire to quash potential socialism or unionism early by appeasing the workers with propaganda and supposed public work projects. You responded to none of this. Just call my arguments "irrelevant and subjective" without even explaining why, and then run away. The problem is that you've made so many claims, and refused to substantiate a single one of them. For example, when you made a claim about Orwell, I cited quotes that went counter to your claim. You claimed further that Orwell changed his mind, that these quotes were from later when the party had collapsed, and I disproved that as well. You then quietly let the point drop because I had, as usual, proved you wrong. Is this not the very definition of a "lol nope" argument? Come on. You claim over and over that I deny history, and yet when I ask over and over that you actually provide history, provide evidence and argumentation for your claims beyond a basic, unsubstantiated repetition of the premise of your argument, you refuse to provide. Does that sound like what a defender of history would do? Refuse to actually defend history? I, as of yet, have only called you things that are absolutely true, and have backed up said claims with actual quotation and evidence. You've done nothing of the sort. There's a whole video you evidently haven't watched, and no evidence at all for your claims, certainly none put forwards by you since you've provided zero evidence since this conversation began. Hitler, like you, was a full blown anti-socialist. I am proud to be able to argue against your denialism, and proud to be able to provide evidence for my points. Your response, on the other hand, is one of shame, constantly running from the fact that you have no response to reality, besides burying your head in the sand, closing your eyes and ears to the world, and denying basic history. Hitler was no socialist, as you yourself have made abundantly clear. Thank you.
    1
  2464.  @MadsterV  Child, why do you continue to lie about my claims? If I had said such a thing, you'd be able to prove it, provide quotation of me. But you're not able to do that are you? I wonder why.
    1
  2465.  @MadsterV  Child, you just got caught lying about my argument, and showing your own illiteracy in the process. Will you apologize for lying? "Don't think I didn't notice your shift of stance without recognizing you were wrong." There literally was no shift in stance, you made up a position and then claimed I held it, and was surprised when I countered it. Here you make yet another baseless accusation, without providing evidence, and you will continue to fail to provide evidence for this claim. I haven't been wrong, i've never claimed that the party name changed before he was in the party, as obviously his ideology was the one that opposed a socialist party. I haven't been wrong, this entire time.
    1
  2466.  @MadsterV  But hitler wasn't a socialist, a fact you can't disprove, and a fact you can't rebut. I'm sorry reality hurts you so much, but i'm not going to stop just because you don't want to admit you're in the same political aisle as hitler.
    1
  2467.  @MadsterV  Child, this claim is literally a lie from you, which is why you present no evidence of it. As I've said previously, hitler changed the name of the party because he had no care for any sort of workers party, or appearing to be one. I hate to break it to you, but your illiteracy is not an argument. Reading back through my posts, the closest thing I could find to your absurd claim is this line: "Are you somehow under the impression that hitler's ideology was in the party before hitler?" Now, would you mind telling me how this line suggests the name change happened before hitler? It says literally the opposite, that when his ideology was introduced the party changed their name, under hitler. I was responding to you claiming that the "former" party (as in, before hitler) had anything to do with Hitler's ideology, by pointing out that Hitler changed the name of the party, and that obviously his ideology has nothing to do with a party that his ideology is not in yet. So, no, literally at no point have I suggested that the name change happened before hitler, i've pointed out that the name change happened under him, just as i've pointed out that he opposed the name "socialist." If you've misread me then i'm sorry, but feel free to cite the claim from me that gave you this misconception. Unless you can't, of course, and you just told a malicious lie for no real reason. Child, i've never shifted my stance, nor have I ever been wrong. You appear to have misread a pretty easy to understand comment of mine, and have been confused ever since when i've argued or a stance that you didn't understand. How would I even have "realized it was wrong?" Child, you haven't presented any argumentation, why would I change any stance? And thank you for admitting that the factories and banks were privatized and under private control, which of course disqualifies hilter from any sort of socialism. Of course you claim any site or source that disagrees with you must be socialist, must be racist, and must be conspiratorial, and so on, without ever once even attempting to substantiate a single one of these claims. Like, as we've been over, the vast majority of your "argument" here stems from your hatred of socialism, without ever once recognizing that your hatred and conspiratorial ideology is not in and of itself an argument. I'm sorry that you feel the ideology of hitler's victims was equivalent to his own, but your denialism has no place here. I hate to break it to you but as i've said so many times, this "Famine" point is utterly absurd, and shows that you are more willing to deny history and swallow whatever ideological drivel justifies your hatred. Child, stop denying history. No, not every "socialist regime" ended in famine, given that there are literally some still around and that, for example under the USSR, famines were ended, and had been more common under the Tsar. "Rather quickly" is odd too, considering many of these countries lasted the greater part of a century. That's, of course, not mentioning the fact that non-socialist countries have famines too, and constantly. Obviously we've already mentioned Tsarist russia, but who could forget the Dustbowl in the US? Or are they both socialist too? Your claim that socialism always leads to famine, or even that socialism always leads to centralized ownership, is of course, unsubstantiated, and historically false. Do you care? Not at all. The problem with your argument is that hitler wasn't a socialist, and in fact spoke frequently against the failures of centralized and planned economies, using many of the same points you just did, which is why he supported majority private ownership, among other reasons. Hitler, of course, was not a socialist, a fact you continually deny, but its good to know that you'd rather leave the research to anyone else than actually dealing with the facts.
    1
  2468.  @MadsterV  the greatest deniers of Hitler's ideology tend to be his biggest supporters. Tell me child, is this true of you? You seem to hate centralization/socialism and love private property/inequality nearly as much as Hitler, is that why you try to distance yourself from him so much, while utterly ignoring reality in the process?
    1
  2469.  @MadsterV  "You can't help it. Hitler was a socialist and so are you." That's funny, quite literally only the thing me and hitler have in common is not being socialists. So again, you have failed to actually substantiate your arguments. You've proven that you call anyone who disagrees with you a socialist, so I must conclude that you actually have no basis for any sort of argumentation. I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that hitler agreed with your political views, especially regarding socialism, economic centralization, and private property. You: "Hitler was a socialist" Me: "Hitler was not a socialist, here's the evidence." You: "Hitler was a socialist because x,y,z" Me: "Hitler was not a socialist, and your points x,y,z are false, and here's why." You: "Hitler was a socialist because x,y,z, and you must be a socialist too." Me: "Neither me nor hitler are socialists, and I already addressed x,y,z, here's new argumentation and quotes of my old responses." You: "Hitler was a socialist, you can't handle that because you're a socialist, here's my arguments you keep avoiding." And so on. Every time I respond to your arguments, and every time you fail to respond to mine, just repeat the same thing over and over again. Now, you've decided to accuse me of socialism. Why? Did my comment about your support of hitler's political views rub you the wrong way? It should. Come to terms with it, own it, and try to be better, or at least not deny your past. You can't help it, you can't hide it, you can't deny it. Hitler was not a socialist.
    1
  2470.  @MadsterV  Child, your "you're rubber i'm glue" nonsense is not an argument, especially given that it's hard to accuse me of being the one to dance around arguments when I am more than willing to quote myself making arguments you claim don't exist. In reality, you've danced around every rebuttal i've given you, and failed to provide any facts in the first place. So I provide argumentation, evidence, and reasoning. What is your response? "I won't address any of it." - MadsterV. The facts regarding hitler's support of private property? "I won't address any of it." The facts regarding his numerous statements on the inefficiency of centralized economies and his opposition towards implementing a similar system in germany? "I won't address any of it." The fact that his "car of the people" was directly inspired by german conservatives and that policies of appeasement towards labor are common among capitalists and conservatives to this day? "I won't address any of it." The fact that he openly dealt with conservatives, capitalists, industrialists and factory-owners, and put in place government programs to cement their private power and reign in their angry workers? "I won't address any of it." The fact that people from long before his fall were already pointing out, as commonplace fact, that the nazis had nothing in common with socialism and were clearly members of the right? "I won't address any of it." Hell, the fact that i've rebutted every single one of your claims, the fact that even after I answer your question directly you still accuse me of 'dancing away' from it, the fact that I caught you in multiple lies that you refuse to apologize for? "I won't address any of it." The very fact that I have proven, with logic, reason, evidence, argumentation, citation, quotes, references, rebuttals and History that Hitler was not a socialist, that Hitler shared many of your views, and that Hitler belongs solidly on the anti-socialist far right? "I won't address any of it." - MadsterV Coward. Child, for once can you stop running away from the argument? Does this mean you concede defeat, since you've shown that you cannot actually respond to rebuttals?
    1
  2471.  @MadsterV  Child, how is that "one dimensional thinking?" It's a question, you're allowed to answer it. Do you believe that right wing socialism can exist? If so, you're incorrect, as right wing socialism does not exist. If not, you're still incorrect, as that means you would be describing hitler as a "left wing socialist," despite him fitting the definition of neither term. The problem is that socialist parties and figures can be nationalists, see members of the black panther party for example, but they still aren't nazis. In reality, the nazis were nationalists, not socialists. The "difficult" part of your assertion is the part where it isn't true. The very fact that you respond to arguments with an open claim of "well I won't address it" proves my point exactly. You know you can't respond to a single one of my points. You've literally failed to respond to a single one of my points, I can quote myself responding to the claims that you say I "dance around." Before I do that, let's answer them again - Banks were under private control and the wealth of private bankers grew - Factories were not nationalized and hitler was explicitly against nationalizing german industry, see previous point. - Again, a policy directly influenced by german conservatives - If by "control of the means of production" you mean private control of the means of production you'd be correct, because he did indeed speak a lot about how important that was and how he put it into place - And again people you refuse to cite or argue for the perspectives of, while I actually cite documented interviews that prove you wrong. You also of course decide to take hitler on his word without ever understanding his rhetorical strategy or definitions... interesting. You literally have no way of denying the fact that hitler was about as much of a socialist as you are, so you run away and repeat the same old arguments. I'm not a socialist, and hitler was not a socialist, perhaps the one commonality all three of us share. Child, I literally answered your question last response, and even before that. Sorry you can't handle reality.
    1
  2472.  @MadsterV  You make the following claim: "You've danced around every fact I've given so much you'd think it's prom night." Two problems here. One, nothing you say is a "fact," they're all assertions without evidence to prove them. Two, I haven't danced around a single one of your assertions, I have provided argumentation to rebut them. What was your response to that? "I won't address any of it." So let's quote a few of those, hm? "I hate to break it to you but as i've said so many times, this "Famine" point is utterly absurd, and shows that you are more willing to deny history and swallow whatever ideological drivel justifies your hatred. Child, stop denying history. No, not every "socialist regime" ended in famine, given that there are literally some still around and that, for example under the USSR, famines were ended, and had been more common under the Tsar. "Rather quickly" is odd too, considering many of these countries lasted the greater part of a century. That's, of course, not mentioning the fact that non-socialist countries have famines too, and constantly. Obviously we've already mentioned Tsarist russia, but who could forget the Dustbowl in the US? Or are they both socialist too? Your claim that socialism always leads to famine, or even that socialism always leads to centralized ownership, is of course, unsubstantiated, and historically false. Do you care? Not at all. The problem with your argument is that hitler wasn't a socialist, and in fact spoke frequently against the failures of centralized and planned economies. And thank you for admitting that the factories and banks were privatized and under private control, which of course disqualifies hilter from any sort of socialism. hey, at least you admit it. Yes, you gave me the name of "privatized banks" as you said, though at the time you asserted that they were nationalized, which I quickly disproved with facts and argumentation, which you failed to rebut. When it was your turn to respond, what did you do? "lol nope" and ran to the next argument, only to repeat the cycle of disproven talking points later. Yes, you can look all of these up, but it doesn't matter how many of these basic search results I cite to you, it doesn't matter how many historians I cite, it doesn't matter how many basic economic facts I cite, you just won't listen. I agree, these banks were under private control when the nazis took power. Even you have to admit that, I see. And I've literally already addressed this, why do you feel the need to "lol nope" my rebuttals to your false claims? People believing in an ideology, and that ideology being represented by that government, does not make them literal extensions of the state. Do private businesses that support the republican party become state owned when a republican political they supported comes into office? Of course not, as i've already pointed out. Many private owners of industries supported the nazis... because the nazis supported private ownership. What was you response? "lol nope." I've literally pointed out that this "people's car" policy only served to benefit private owners, never actually made it to "the people," and was directly inspired by the anti-socialist laws passed by founder of german conservatism Bismarck, and both sets of policies further shared the desire to quash potential socialism or unionism early by appeasing the workers with propaganda and supposed public work projects. You responded to none of this. Just call my arguments "irrelevant and subjective" without even explaining why, and then run away. The problem is that you've made so many claims, and refused to substantiate a single one of them. For example, when you made a claim about Orwell, I cited quotes that went counter to your claim. You claimed further that Orwell changed his mind, that these quotes were from later when the party had collapsed, and I disproved that as well. You then quietly let the point drop because I had, as usual, proved you wrong. Is this not the very definition of a "lol nope" argument? Come on." Funny, you claim I have "danced around" your arguments, and yet here, cited almost wholly from responses you have yet to reply to, are responses to every single one of your points. It's almost as if... you're a liar.
    1
  2473.  @MadsterV  Amazing the lengths people like you will go to deny basic history. I'm sorry you can't refute the fact that hitler was a far right anti-socialist, like you, and i'm sorry that thought drives you to such fanaticism. Child, not one of those assertions were "danced over." All were addressed, and disproven in turn. Why is it that hard for you to address them? Is it because you know that the facts aren't on your side? I think we have an answer!
    1
  2474.  @MadsterV  Let's try this again, so you can't run away from reality. You make the following claim: "You've danced around every fact I've given so much you'd think it's prom night." Two problems here. One, nothing you say is a "fact," they're all assertions without evidence to prove them. Two, I haven't danced around a single one of your assertions, I have provided argumentation to rebut them. What was your response to that? "I won't address any of it." So let's quote a few of those, hm? "I hate to break it to you but as i've said so many times, this "Famine" point is utterly absurd, and shows that you are more willing to deny history and swallow whatever ideological drivel justifies your hatred. Child, stop denying history. No, not every "socialist regime" ended in famine, given that there are literally some still around and that, for example under the USSR, famines were ended, and had been more common under the Tsar. "Rather quickly" is odd too, considering many of these countries lasted the greater part of a century. That's, of course, not mentioning the fact that non-socialist countries have famines too, and constantly. Obviously we've already mentioned Tsarist russia, but who could forget the Dustbowl in the US? Or are they both socialist too? Your claim that socialism always leads to famine, or even that socialism always leads to centralized ownership, is of course, unsubstantiated, and historically false. Do you care? Not at all. The problem with your argument is that hitler wasn't a socialist, and in fact spoke frequently against the failures of centralized and planned economies. And thank you for admitting that the factories and banks were privatized and under private control, which of course disqualifies hilter from any sort of socialism. hey, at least you admit it. Yes, you gave me the name of "privatized banks" as you said, though at the time you asserted that they were nationalized, which I quickly disproved with facts and argumentation, which you failed to rebut. When it was your turn to respond, what did you do? "lol nope" and ran to the next argument, only to repeat the cycle of disproven talking points later. Yes, you can look all of these up, but it doesn't matter how many of these basic search results I cite to you, it doesn't matter how many historians I cite, it doesn't matter how many basic economic facts I cite, you just won't listen. I agree, these banks were under private control when the nazis took power. Even you have to admit that, I see. And I've literally already addressed this, why do you feel the need to "lol nope" my rebuttals to your false claims? People believing in an ideology, and that ideology being represented by that government, does not make them literal extensions of the state. Do private businesses that support the republican party become state owned when a republican political they supported comes into office? Of course not, as i've already pointed out. Many private owners of industries supported the nazis... because the nazis supported private ownership. What was you response? "lol nope." I've literally pointed out that this "people's car" policy only served to benefit private owners, never actually made it to "the people," and was directly inspired by the anti-socialist laws passed by founder of german conservatism Bismarck, and both sets of policies further shared the desire to quash potential socialism or unionism early by appeasing the workers with propaganda and supposed public work projects. You responded to none of this. Just call my arguments "irrelevant and subjective" without even explaining why, and then run away. The problem is that you've made so many claims, and refused to substantiate a single one of them. For example, when you made a claim about Orwell, I cited quotes that went counter to your claim. You claimed further that Orwell changed his mind, that these quotes were from later when the party had collapsed, and I disproved that as well. You then quietly let the point drop because I had, as usual, proved you wrong. Is this not the very definition of a "lol nope" argument? Come on." Funny, you claim I have "danced around" your arguments, and yet here, cited almost wholly from responses you have yet to reply to, are responses to every single one of your points. It's almost as if... you're a liar.
    1
  2475. ​ @MadsterV  it's crazy how for all the times you claim that your assertions are "Facts," said assertions keep changing and getting more extreme as you get rebutted time and time again. It's almost like none of them are true, but as you get more and more annoyed, you make up more lies and continue to avoid the truth. Child, we know the reason you (unlike I) cannot present argumentation or evidence for your fanatic beliefs, despite me directly inviting you to. It's because no evidence exists.
    1
  2476.  @MadsterV  Child, this is pathetic. All this to deny the basic fact that he was not a socialist. Why are you so obsessed with defending him? Why do you claim that your assertions are "Still unrefuted" when not only have I directly debunked them, you have yet to even put forwards evidence that proves them to be at all true? Please attempt to stop running away from reality. - The banks were privately owned and the private owners gained profit - The factories were privately owned and the private owners gained profit, the nazi party leader was open about his opposition to nationalizing germany industry, believing it counter to his ideology, and put policies in place to put previously public property from the Weimar Era into private hands, and to cement the power of private owners against socialists and unionists. - The means of production were brought under private control, and his intention to resist economic centralization and state control of the economy was documented in interviews, speeches, and policy analyses, and yes, is known history. - The "people's car" was directly inspired by Otto Von Bismarck's "Anti-Socialist" laws, that were passed with the explicit goal to placate potential unionists and socialists so they wouldn't rise up against the right wing ruling party, which were all aspects of the "People's Car" policy, as well as remaining a core of conservative political strategy to this day. - If propaganda makes one socialist, than I suppose the US, that had one of the most effective and greatest propaganda machines of the era, would surely have made marx proud. - He joined a party that had once attempted to appeal to workers, and Hitler never renamed it to the name we know it by today, rather, the remaining anti-hitlerite members of the party added "socialist" to the party name, explicitly against his wishes in a move he openly opposed. They would later note hitler's opposition to socialism, and then be killed en masse. - There are numerous interviews in which he openly claims that he has no tie to the title or ideology of socialism, that he despises both collective and centralized economic control, that he supports private property and german private industry, and that he opposes the left and the ideologies/allies of it. There, of course, is no proof of his "way to achieve socialism," given he was an anti-socialist, a fact proved further by the fact that you refuse to cite these supposed interviews, despite referencing them time and time again. None of the things you've asserted are facts, they are assertions. The very fact that you cannot provide evidence for them, proves them to not be fact. I'm sorry you can't actually address my arguments, but in doing so you prove conclusively what I have said from the very start. Hitler was never a socialist. This point, of all of them, remains utterly untouched by you. You've yet to even address it, much less disprove the various avenues of argumentation and evidence I have put forwards to prove it. Hitler was not a socialist, and the problem for you is, that means you have to actually deal with his real views, views you don't disagree with nearly as much as you wished. That's why the right tries so hard to deny their most infamous figure, because without doing so they would have to come to terms with the frightening similarities they still share with him. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and this fact terrifies those who now realize that they hate socialists more than him.
    1
  2477.  @MadsterV  Awww, you didn't run away! Finally, some substance. Ok, let's get to work! Wait, nevermind, just read your first response.... it's just the same assertions again. Child, why can't you provide arguments? Every single one of these claims has already been debunked, your only new addition is adding "like the CCP" to the end of some of them, which is yet another claim you refuse to prove, and which itself is a fallacy that leads to numerous more claims that you actually need to prove in order to prove your points. For example, first you'd need to prove it was true of both systems, (it isn't) then you'd need to prove it doesn't represent private ownership (it quite blatantly does) and then you'd need to prove it came from the same or similar ideological backings despite also occurring in numerous right wing economies (it doesn't) and so on. Of course, you're unwilling to even do step one. This is why you've conceded to the fact that hitler was less of a socialist than you
    1
  2478.  @MadsterV  Child, you need to come up with actual arguments. As of yet, you've just repeated the same claims, failing to ever address the fact that your pro-hitlerite ideology has been utterly debunked. It's amazing how actually examining hitler's views results in viewing an ideology eerily similar to yours. The only real difference it seems is that he's swapped out the word "capitalism" with the word "socialism" and just went on calling for the same policies. Even you have to realize this at some point, it's why you deny his influence so much, because you know you agree with him.
    1
  2479.  @MadsterV  Love how you describe capitalism and then try to pass it off by claiming "As the CCP does." Are you just itching to show your ignorance of another economic system? Do you think that pointing out practices that conservative capitalist politicians have participated in for decades proves your point, somehow? Come on, stop deflecting.
    1
  2480.  @MadsterV  I agree, your insults and continued assertions just aren't arguments. You keep trying to fit hitler's right wing anti-socialism on the left, but can't actually prove a single one of those claims. Also, your claim that " right wingers never stand for these national socialist policies" is especially funny given 1. the nazis were right wing, 2. policies such as "people's car," "propaganda ministry," and opposing the inclusion of socialist in a party title have literally always been found in right wing groups and parties. Does that fact offend you? Child, I already addressed these false statements. - The banks were privately owned and the private owners gained profit. You pretend that they were nationalized, and yet do not give any sort of evidence. You further pretend that private industry being in the hands of those that support an ideology makes those people extensions of the state. And yes, we can see similar "national socialist" policies among the modern right. - The factories were privately owned and the private owners gained profit, the nazi party leader was open about his opposition to nationalizing germany industry, believing it counter to his ideology, and put policies in place to put previously public property from the Weimar Era into private hands, and to cement the power of private owners against socialists and unionists. Same as above. - The means of production were brought under private control, and his intention to resist economic centralization and state control of the economy was documented in interviews, speeches, and policy analyses, and yes, is known history. This fact has been documented numerous times, and he strongly opposed centralization and nationalization openly. So many among the private factory owners were proud nazis... because the nazis benefitted private owners, a similar policy can be seen in today's republican party and the alt-right. - The "people's car" was directly inspired by Otto Von Bismarck's "Anti-Socialist" laws, that were passed with the explicit goal to placate potential unionists and socialists so they wouldn't rise up against the right wing ruling party, which were all aspects of the "People's Car" policy, as well as remaining a core of conservative political strategy to this day. - If propaganda makes one socialist, than I suppose the US, that had one of the most effective and greatest propaganda machines of the era, would surely have made marx proud. Love how your only argument right now is a no true scotsman fallacy, where you declare seemingly at random that private companies, businesses, and individuals are not private... because you say so. - He joined a party that had once attempted to appeal to workers, and Hitler never renamed it to the name we know it by today, rather, the remaining anti-hitlerite members of the party added "socialist" to the party name, explicitly against his wishes in a move he openly opposed. They would later note hitler's opposition to socialism, and then be killed en masse. - There are numerous interviews in which he openly claims that he has no tie to the title or ideology of socialism, that he despises both collective and centralized economic control, that he supports private property and german private industry, and that he opposes the left and the ideologies/allies of it. There, of course, is no proof of his "way to achieve socialism," given he was an anti-socialist, a fact proved further by the fact that you refuse to cite these supposed interviews, despite referencing them time and time again. None of the things you've asserted are facts, they are assertions. The very fact that you cannot provide evidence for them, proves them to not be fact. I'm sorry you can't actually address my arguments, but in doing so you prove conclusively what I have said from the very start. In continually asserting the existence of say, interviews, without citing them, you prove my point even more conclusively. Hitler was never a socialist. This point, of all of them, remains utterly untouched by you. You've yet to even address it, much less disprove the various avenues of argumentation and evidence I have put forwards to prove it. Hitler was not a socialist, and the problem for you is, that means you have to actually deal with his real views, views you don't disagree with nearly as much as you wished. That's why the right tries so hard to deny their most infamous figure, because without doing so they would have to come to terms with the frightening similarities they still share with him. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and this fact terrifies those who now realize that they hate socialists more than him.
    1
  2481.  @MadsterV  Child, the very fact that the only citation you have provided to date is rhetoric you haven't even read, rather than actual citation, is sad. I do hope you realize quotes from a politician years before they got into power don't actually describe their worldview. "Well shit, if hitler said he liked socialism (which he defined as nationalism) decades before getting into power with the explicit goal of gaining political support, it must be true!"
    1
  2482.  @MadsterV  Mental gymnastics? Child, that's yet another claim you have to substantiate it. Child, do you take hitler on his word for everything? And if so, are you ignoring his later words on Marxism, when he no longer had to appeal to voters with false promises and was already in power? "Death to marxism." "“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." - Adolf Hitler Hm, seems about as right wing as one can get. Again, child, as we've been over, you see the word "socialism" and presumes that it represents in hitler's mind, the same concept it does in yours. Let's see how he actually defines socialism. "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.” Oh, so the "socialism" he wants to bring to people is a system in support of private property, nationalism, and anti-marxism. So yes, very "right wingy." I mean, did you even read this quote? It proves the opposite of your claim, the man clearly had a different definition of socialism than you, and yet you still assert otherwise. Again, let's see how he defined 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." Of course to Hitler nationalism cannot be seperated from "socialism," Hitler quite literally calls them the same thing, defines the term socialism as "german nationalism." Again, child, do you not see the problem with quoting mere rhetoric from decades before he got into power? Need I remind you of the vast swathes of right wing politicians that go into office claiming to be progressive, achieving the opposite? Let's see what his party really thought of "social justice." " 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!" Interesting. So it appears, as usual, you've presented a piece of rhetoric and accepted it as fact. A piece of rhetoric, mind you, from an era where hitler had to pretend to be in step with a faction he despised. Catch the point yet? I mean yes, this is literally right wing, what? "We must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint." – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich Child, rejecting a standpoint of class or class struggle in economics and ideology is about as right wing as you can get. And again, we've been over this. When you define "socialism" as nationalism, hitler's comments make a lot more sense. Again, according to hitler, "National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions." So yes, according to this quote, he was a fanatic nationalist. Again, you make the mistake of hearing the word "socialist" and instantly assuming that he was referencing the same concept you were, stripping away historical facts in the process. I suppose you think that the soviets were democratic because they would often reference "Proletarian Democracy?" I mean if a dictator says it, it has to be true, right? So let's see how in tune he actually was with socialism, as we understand the term. "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." I mean even you can't deny it, this reads as a near word for word copy of modern right wing talking points. He was right wing. Child, you've been called out in lie after lie, and despite that you continue to try, and fail. I'm sorry, but you've made this easy for me. And still not a socialist, just like you and hitler :)
    1
  2483.  @MadsterV  Child, is it that hard to admit you were wrong? As of yet, not a single one of your assertions has been correct, and yet you continue to assert the same things.
    1
  2484.  @MadsterV  Child, are you not able to actually substantiate your claims? You continue claiming things are true without proving so, and misreading quotes while refusing to deal with factual corrections. Why are you hiding from your legacy? ".. yeah because it's very common in right wing circles to discuss how to achieve ultimate socialism. " Funny how you can't deal with the fact that hitler never said that...
    1
  2485.  @MadsterV  I explicitly and correctly prove to you that you have no idea what you're talking about, and what is your response? Well, to ignore it all and continue on with insults, of course! How sad. Child, you have literally attempted to redefine the term "socialism" to mean "capitalism."
    1
  2486.  @MadsterV  You share a lot in common with your hero, you know. Calling out random socialists, accusing people of leftism or socialism on a whim because they point out facts you don't like. Difference his, his ideology led to genocide. You're only just getting there.
    1
  2487.  @MadsterV  Child, is it that hard to admit I just caught you in a lie? You called him a marxist, and thus left wing, I simply pointed out that he hated marxism, and now you're angry at me? How sad. Yes, unless you're attempting to say that right wing socialism exists, him being right or left matters a lot. And as i've said so many times, him being a nationalist anti-marxist is not the only reason he was right wing. Child, what do you think "any class standpoint" means? did you think he somehow said "Any class standpoint, except class standpoint in terms of class struggle, we like that? No, child, he openly said that he rejected "any class standpoint." I'm sorry you feel the need to call me a socialist, but hitler quite openly rejected the concept of class struggle, and i'm still not a socialist. So yes, you just openly lied, given Hitler's rejection of class struggle (a class standpoint) is an example of right wing class collaborationism. Child, I quite literally provided evidence of hitler redefining the term "socialism" to mean nationalism when he used it. What is your response? "Nice try." You can't even acknowledge that you've been corrected. So yes, the fact stated is that hitler attempted to redefine terms. What is your response? Nothing. And yes, hitler was right wing, as I continue to point out in many different ways. You're really obsessed with trying to deny that aspect of his ideology, we know. "What Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve." Child, how on earth do you read this as socialist? Genuinely, have you never heard of a politician claiming "these groups want this, we can do it better than them!" A I've shown in previous quotations, he didn't care about what those ideologies actually called for, such as a non-private economy. What he's referencing is general wellbeing of the workers and people. What is "Socialist" about claiming that your ideology is better than socialism? Are all the capitalists who say that their ideology is better for freedom and worker's rights than socialism, now socialists? He wasn't a socialist, and he claimed to have a better idea to achieve worker/general wellbeing than socialists, marxists, and the left. And yes, it actually is extremely common in right wing circles to discuss the idea that they can get what socialists want better than socialists themselves. Again, child, do I need to remind you of hitler's 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." So yes, him claiming that there must be a nationalist system that rejects internationalism... is quite literally right wing. It's amazing how you continue to assert that his actual definition of the term socialism doesn't matter in this conversation. Why are you deflecting to CNN? Again, child. "Well if hitler said he liked socialism (which he defined as nationalism) he must be a socialist!" You haven't responded to a single one of my quotes, so I must assume that you understand how absurd your statements are. Again, let's see what his actual policies were, devoid of labels, and how he saw socialism. "‘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.’ " I'm pretty sure you think this was never said, or that you'll just ignore it, since it doesn't fit your narrative. I mean, despite the fact that this excerpt from the book "Hitler and I," by the very head of the opposition ideology within the nazi party before hitler's takeover, clearly states hitler's opposition to nationalization and even the term socialism in confidential privacy without the veneer of propaganda, that doesn't matter to you, right? It doesn't matter that every usage of the word "socialism" carries with it his own definition, not yours? It doesn't matter that he openly identifies with the "party of the right?" " 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." No, I didn't think so. I'm sorry you feel the need to deny hitler's attempted redefinition of terms, and i'm sorry that you have no counter to the fact that every time he said "socialism" he openly declared it to mean "nationalism," as i've proven. So yes, right wing. I'm equally sorry that after all this time you still continue to call me a socialist, despite the fact that you have presented no evidence for said claim, and prove yourself wrong by asserting it. But yes i'm sure in your mind, private property loving, socialist hating, conservative hitler was...a left wing socialist. Gosh, the mental gymnastics must be tiring.
    1
  2488.  @MadsterV  Child, you've been on "wHaT iS rEaLiTy aNyWaY" for a while now.
    1
  2489.  @MadsterV  Child, please stop lying. None of the statements you're saying have been "disregarded" have been disregarded at all, they have been disproven with citation and evidence. You just don't like that fact. - He openly declared that his "ways to achieve" his system included a rejection of socialism, of central control, and of the left, and again, he defined socialism as nationalism - You've yet to actually cite your claims as to "What he did," and you've yet to respond to me pointing out his anti-socialist policy. - You've yet to provide evidence of others "citing him as a big socialist," in fact you've been caught in lies about exactly that several times, whereas I have pointed out that he was a well known conservative. - Child, none of this is remotely true to what I said. Again, if it was, you'd be able to quote it, but we both know you aren't. I've remained firm in my recounting of factual information, you continue to run from reality. I guess you just can't handle when the facts are brought up to you, huh? How very sad.
    1
  2490.  @MadsterV  "- disregarding what you said yourself (the change of party name was before his time, then by his enemies, then by himself but was thinking of something else when he did)" Child, what? Again, I never said the party changed names before him, I pointed out that they changed names because of his faction attempting to distance itself from the concept of a worker's party. I've always pointed out that the addition of the word "socialist" was against his wishes, and proposed by his enemies that his latter killed. And what do you mean "then by himself was thinking of something else when he did?" Child, are you trying to project your childish understanding of the topic onto me? He specifically tried to redefine socialism because it was included in the party name against his wishes. He was stuck with a party name that meant something that he didn't agree with, so he tried to twist the term to represent something he did agree with. Child, are you alright?
    1
  2491.  @MadsterV  And now you're trying to ignore basic facts. As of now, you have been caught: - ignoring his own statements, in which he constantly opposed socialism in name, association, and policy, and talked about his goals and policies relating to an anti-socialist system, as well as his attempted redefinition of socialism. - ignoring the basic reality of his actions, which put power and money into private hands and reinforced private ownership of the economy, far right anti-socialist policies that you agree with - ignoring the general knowledge of the time, such as Orwell pointing out quite obviously that hitler was nothing more than a repackaged conservative and about as far from a "big socialist" as you can get - ignoring your previous statements and the rebuttals to them, quitetly letting them go when you know you've been disproven, only to bring them up later to waste my time in responding to the same assertions. You need to stop ignoring basic reality, and deal with the facts. Hitler, like you and I, was not a socialist.
    1
  2492.  @MadsterV  Hey, maybe stop calling random things "REAL SOCIALISM" just because you disagree with them! Or am I allowed to call you out for "not real anti-socialist" arguments?
    1
  2493.  @MadsterV  The problem with conservatives constantly making fun of "not real socialism" arguments is that they have yet to actually define socialism. Therefore, when they make an absurd remark, such as calling modern america socialist, and they are corrected, their response is to say "oh, they weren't 'real' socialists? HA." Ignoring that they have yet to actually prove otherwise, much as you have neglected to prove your denialist assertions. This would be like me saying "yeah, the ground is actually made of uranium" and before any response, saying "oh, of course you'll say it isn't REAL uranium."
    1
  2494.  @MadsterV  Child, you need to stop attempting to rewrite history, your apologia is shining through. Wow, it appears that you've just now found out that politicians... can lie. So you actually think that hitler's actions don't matter as much as his propaganda? That his words are more important than the millions of workers, socialists, leftists, unionists and their allies that he imprisoned or killed while defending and praising conservatives? Come on now, this is sad, child. Also, why even bother to ask if I was a socialist when you don't care about my answer? Do you want to throw me in a camp too?
    1
  2495.  @MadsterV  Ah yes, the infamous MadsterV argument "but you're wrong, no I won't explain why." At one point one must wonder why you don't already have a degree with this extraordinary thinking. Yes, child, that is literally how that goes, and that is literally how i've seen it go multiple times. In reality, what happens is that capitalists will look at random countries or regimes, only a number of which even claimed to be socialist, and start hurling out accusations. When a socialist, capitalist, conservative, historian, anyone comes to attempt to correct them, they just make some odd reference to "no true socialism" arguments, without once even attempting to prove that their example actually does represent socialism in any capacity. You've somehow fooled yourself into thinking this is some socialist strategy, when you (like with all your other claims) refuse to substantiate your actual assertions. I'm sorry that you feel basic reality is "reality twisting," but your lack of ability to rebut it proves that it is, indeed, true. We've been over your constant "i'm rubber, you're glue" accusations. I can back up my claims, you can't. In this conversation, we are not equal. Child, we've been over this so many times. Did you even read the line following the one you quoted? Yes, he so often talked about his conception of socialism (which he defined as nationalism) because he was forced to adopt that term when the party name was changed against his will. He talks often about how great he sees nationalism as, yes. And come on now, child, are you really going to claim that the man who threw millions in camps for protesting his labor conditions, the man who abolished unions, the man who openly protected private power, now represents the workers because... he tried to assert so in propaganda? Ah, yes, the famous evidence of "a speech." Tell me child, why would a man that opposed workers speak about how much he cares for workers? Could it perhaps be that, oh I don't know, the man was a dictator, who wanted to keep his people from revolting by convincing them that he was on their side? Could it be that his statements among party officials and in private documents, as well as of course his actions, matter more than his attempt to appeal to an audience? Come now child, you were talking about the nazi propaganda machine not too long ago, what do you think said propaganda machine actually does? In any case, as we've been over, in writing and policy he clearly contradicts this quote. "‘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.’ " ""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." Tell me, does a man openly insulting workers for daring to ask that they might be given a portion of the wealth or power they make capitalists, sound like a man in favor of the workers, or the capitalists? So yes, we can tell quite conclusively that he did, indeed, have it in for those workers, do you expect him to make that obvious to the workers themselves, in a speech directed at them? And again, here his actions matter. Did he actually take action against capitalists exploiting workers? No, he took actions against jewish people of all classes, and promoted "german citizens" of all classes, which included solidifying the power of private owners who profited under his regime, all facts you can't handle. Why do you feel the need to bend reality? Why do you assume that a man speaking to those sick and tired of being exploited under his regime would be telling the truth about hating their plight, to their face? Come on now, learn to recognize propaganda, and see the clear evidence that contradicts it. Why is it that you keep trying to rewrite the past? Do you also believe hitler had no desire to attack on the rights of other nations?" Come on, please engage rationally for once. Unlike you, I have no desire to hide or rewrite history as it stands. And as we've been over, nobody in this conversation is a socialist. And i'm sorry, child, do you despise the fact that i've picked apart your argument with facts and reason, and pointed out exactly what you got wrong and exactly where you attempted to bury history?
    1
  2496.  @MadsterV  I know, nevermind the actual history, let's just trust youtubers that fulfil biases to tell the whole story! Sounds like a great idea!
    1
  2497.  @MadsterV  Child, you need to stop running from reality. Appeals to authority aren't going to help you here. It is funny, however, that you perfectly fit yet another of Eco's points of recognizing a fascist. "The enemy must be strong and weak at the same time." "Deluded socialists are sad, pathetic and dumb yet dangerous." So why do you support national socialism again?
    1
  2498.  @MadsterV  Child, why do you keep ignoring historical context and quotes that prove you wrong? Are you... afraid?
    1
  2499.  @MadsterV  Child, where are your arguments? Why can't you give a simple yes or no as to your support of hitler's ideology?
    1
  2500.  @MadsterV  Child, why do you support National Socialism?
    1
  2501.  @MadsterV  ""When you define "socialism" as nationalism" <- this was your argument. In order to prove Hitler was not a socialist, you needed to change the word to mean something else. Do you really think anyone would go "oh yeah, makes sense"?" Child, I was quoting hitler. How do you not see that? Or are you purposefully lying?
    1
  2502.  @MadsterV  According to you, the following do not countL - multiple widespread speeches do not count (lies, all lies!) - multiple interviews made into print do not count (lies all lies!) - multiple documented policies and projects do not count (it didn't work so it's not capitalism! it has to work to be capitalism!!) - His definition of socialism - The fact that you claimed I changed my argument, without even once providing evidence for such a claim.
    1
  2503.  @MadsterV  "- your own words from just a moment ago do not count (the change of party name was before his time, then by his enemies, then by himself but was thinking of something else when he did)" Child, how many times do I need to debunk this? gain, I never said the party changed names before him, I pointed out that they changed names because of his faction attempting to distance itself from the concept of a worker's party. I've always pointed out that the addition of the word "socialist" was against his wishes, and proposed by his enemies that his latter killed. And what do you mean "then by himself was thinking of something else when he did?" Child, are you trying to project your childish understanding of the topic onto me? He specifically tried to redefine socialism because it was included in the party name against his wishes. He was stuck with a party name that meant something that he didn't agree with, so he tried to twist the term to represent something he did agree with. Child, are you alright?
    1
  2504.  @MadsterV  "When you define "socialism" as nationalism" <- this was your argument. In order to prove Hitler was not a socialist, you needed to change the word to mean something else. Do you really think anyone would go "oh yeah, makes sense"?" I think this quote perfectly explains your hatred of history. I explain, multiple times, using quotation as evidence, that hitler saw no difference between socialism and nationalism as concepts, and that his "socialism" was just nationalism, and had no association with the actual concept "socialism" references. Even you pointed this out with your quotation. However, in order to deny this basic fact, you've claimed that I am the one defining socialism as nationalism. Child, why are you trying to lie? Is it because you know I won?
    1
  2505.  @MadsterV  Child, reasserting the same flawed assertions will not make them true. Yes, since you hate socialists, you like to imagine a made up conspiracy where every single one of their statements becomes a magical coverup for sinister ulterior motives, such as denying the socialism of america, right? You couldn't possibly consider the fact that maybe, of the hundreds of figures, regimes, countries, and ideologies you claim belong to "Socialism," only a handful do? I mean, you've accused me of socialism plenty of times, is me correctly explaining my actual views "no true socialism?" What decades of lies, what failed ideology? You've watered down the term so much with misuse that it means nothing coming from you anymore. So please, provide actual evidence. You have yet to do anything of the sort. Maybe you should start by admitting that you were wrong, and that I am actually "no true socialist?" Perhaps that would help more than simply trying to rope me into your conspiracy of accusing random figures of supposed socialism? What am I trying to do, child? Trying to point out that you call random regimes, individuals, and ideologies socialist? Yes, I am, those are my words, and they are true. As of now you have called random things and people socialist for no actual purpose, as well as proving that you have no core definition of socialism, nor are you willing to deal with historical definitions in question. So you'll continue trying to assert the existence of a supposed conspiracy, with no evidence, because you don't like that I called out your lies? How absurd. Why do you keep on with your "no true anti-socialism" arguments, trying to weasel your way out of the blame for the many failed states behind your ideology? Child, unlike you, i've never denied reality. I've never lied, which is why you as of now have been unable to actually provide evidence of me lying. You've presented me with quotes you have not read, quotes you want to erase, and quotes you do not understand, and I will present you with more and more until you understand that. Child, what does the size of a rally have to do with the fact that he was trying to gain their support? Why can you not just stick to the facts, and why must you continue accusing me of socialism in order to discredit my facts, much like hitler did? And of course, no i'm not saying anything of the sort. You're saying that a politician, known for lying and a strong propaganda arm, must be taken on his word. You're saying that interviews that support your point exist, and yet you are unable to cite them You're saying that policies that support the idea of his supposed socialism exist, and yet you are unable to cite them and unable to respond to rebuttals pointing out his far right anti-socialism, all while lying about my arguments. You're saying that I've made arguments that I have proven I never made, and you have never even made an effort to rebut me. Stop spreading lies, child, i've rebutted this several times now and you can't handle that. So the only thing we're allowed to trust is you and hitler? Wow, how rational, that sounds like an amazing idea! No, i'll stick with the facts. Child, you have quite literally, multiple times now, attempted to redefine the term socialism to describe forms of capitalism. Of course you have no rebuttal to this, as you know it to be objectively true. Why are you confusing two different arguments? I pointed out multiple times that hitler defined the term socialism as nationalism, something you have falsely attributed tome. I then pointed out that in order to claim hitler was a socialist, you had to change the word to mean something else. Child, why are you lying again? I do hope you realize that lies don't make an argument. All you've done is shown your hatred of objective facts, and your unwillingness to engage with reality. Child, you need to stop ignoring history. Hitler defined socialism as nationalism, remember? Again, we can see clearly his actual thoughts on socialism: "‘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.’ " ""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."" So you take hitler saying that he doesn't believe in class struggle... as him saying he wants to abolish class? Child, this is pathetic, you really need to stop defending your idol there. Apparently, according to you, nothing he did or said actually matters, the only thing that matters is the propaganda he put out, and only the propaganda that you can strip from context and history. I'm sorry you hate the fact that hiter wasn't a socialist.
    1
  2506.  @MadsterV  You continually attempt to appeal to supposed citation, and yet when asked, fail to provide any. When you do provide citation, it is unrelated, and accompanied by its own claim. When I provide citation that counters it, you fail to respond, and instead go back to asserting the same thing, over and over again. You've lied about me, you've lied about history, and you've lied about reality. All of which i've caught you in. Don't you feel ashamed?
    1
  2507.  @MadsterV  Don't you feel bad, at some core of your being, that in order to make the arguments you make, you feel the need to lie, to divert, to run away and to erase history? Let's look at a few of the arguments you've been proven wrong in. You asserted that orwell praised hitler as a socialist, I proved this wrong with actual quotes. You then asserted that these quotes came from after the nazi party collapsed, and he changed his mind. I proved this wrong as well. You asserted that I changed my stance on the name of the party, despite providing no evidence or argumentation. I proved this wrong. You asserted that he was a socialist. I proved this wrong. I'll be adding to this list.
    1
  2508.  @MadsterV  Child, what's wrong, why no response? I guess you've finally conceded. In any case, I must point something out. Your argument, as anyone can read, shifts constantly. Whenever you make a claim, you continue to repeat the core claim, never including rebuttals, but often shifting the specifics of said claim. When I ask for evidence, you neglect to provide any, when I ask for rebuttals, you fail to actually quote my arguments, when I point out contradictions, lies or conspiracies, you fail to even respond. You accuse me of denying reality and yet are wholly reliant on ignoring my citations and points in order to spread yours. After all, if you responded, you would have to admit that I proved you wrong, so you don't. For example, I proved that hitler despised adding the name "Socialist" into the party, and later purged those that added it. However, after it was added, he attempted to use the word he was stuck with for rhetorical advantage, by attempting to shift the meaning from a word he disagreed with, to one that described his ideology. You attempted to describe this as a shifting argument, by saying "the change of party name was before his time, then by his enemies, then by himself but was thinking of something else when he did." However, you fail to provide evidence for your claim, even after i've explicitly asked you. You lied about things like his definition of socialism, and attributed said definition to me. You made the baffling assertion that hitler's own words don't matter, all that matters is his propaganda, and you seem to think he would have been openly anti-worker... in front of a crowd of fed-up workers. You constantly assert to there being supposed socialist interviews, quotes, accusations, and policies, but you can't actually provide a single one of those things, whereas I have provided evidence to the contrary. Does it hurt, to lose this bad?
    1
  2509.  @MadsterV  Why do you keep bringing up trump, cnn, "orange man?" Are you projecting your biases onto me?
    1
  2510.  @MadsterV  If you can't respond to reality you can' just say it, it's clear from your actions. Why would I care who is and isn't rooting for reality?
    1
  2511.  @MadsterV  Kid, what? Are you really getting annoyed that I dare take time and effort to conclusively do what you can't?
    1
  2512.  @MadsterV  Please tell me you don't actually think that "300 words" is an essay. How young are you?
    1
  2513.  @MadsterV  Child, why do you assume I care about your "orange man?" You just keep proving this is a matter of ideology for you. Just grow up already.
    1
  2514.  @MadsterV  Ah, back to that old appeal to authority, are we? Why do you hate listening to proven facts and actual logical argumentation? It's quite an odd trait.
    1
  2515.  @MadsterV  Funny, I always hear that just when people realize they're wrong, and it's usually from people like you that haven't watched it themselves. Odd how you can't prove a single claim about my arguments. Almost as if they aren't true.... hmmm.
    1
  2516.  @MadsterV  It's amazing. To you, a rebuttal is a denial. To you, substance is empty and vapid, while random assertions constitute arguments. To you, non-socialists can be socialists simply because you say so. Why is it that you get so angry when people correct you? Is it because you know you are wrong?
    1
  2517.  @MadsterV  At least you can admit he's right wing. Why though do you attempt to project your redefinitions and lies onto me?
    1
  2518.  @MadsterV  "Everywhere everyone" in this case being just you, in the two or so threads you've been debunked in. I'd be happy to invite in a few buddies to prove you wrong, but I doubt that'd change your mind. Please stop lying. I'm sorry you don't like the truth. Why is it that you feel the need to structure your entire argument in terms of ideological wins and losses? It's almost like you don't actually care about the history. Oh, and give up the "i'm rubber you're glue" schtick, it doesn't work well when I can prove you wrong. I've redefined no terms, told no lies. You, on the other hand... I'm sorry you don't want to engage in reality, champ. But hey, if that's how you see it, fine. And yet another case of your utterly deficient mentality. Child, what part of "I will steal socialist symbols from socialists and make them represent my ideology instead" is socialist? The act of claiming or reclaiming symbols, words, names, or even movements is pretty common. But hey, at least you can admit the man was right wing.
    1
  2519.  @MadsterV  Youtube continues to delete my response, you can see the original one with full quotation here. https://youtu.be/Clv8QRy1FwE Apologies for the censorship, youtube is annoying with those things. In any case, your quote, as usual, completely ignores my attempts to educate you on Hitler's views and definitions. Just as with socialism, hitler had his own definition of democracy, so that he could explain his ideology while also using the association of popular terms to spread it. You can even see it in this quote, "each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation." As i've shown in my quotation, Hitler defines "democracy" as a system not of group rule, of voting, of equality or of public service in government, but of meritocracy, individual supremacy, and eventual dominating power. Or, as he said himself, "Thank the Lord, Germanic democracy means just this: that any old climber or moral slacker cannot rise by devious paths to govern his national comrades, but that, by the very greatness of the responsibility to be assumed, incompetents and weaklings are frightened of.” So you've just given me a quote stating that hitler believes his ethnonationalism to be the greatest form of meritocracy, which does line up rather well with his other views. In any case, the fact that you yet again take hitler on his word, this time in calling him a fan of democracy, is quite absurd. No 500 words for you, but i'll remind you that i'm no socialist for sure.
    1
  2520.  @MadsterV  You can stop denying history now. Every one of your accusations a lie, isn't that shameful?
    1
  2521.  @MadsterV  I have to wonder how you see yourself in this argument. You have to realize at this point that you are purposefully ignoring evidence and points that prove you wrong, yes? Do you actually still think you're somehow in the right? Curious.
    1
  2522.  @MadsterV  You've got that right, child, "deluded" is when you... post a comment. Gosh, you really are sad that I proved wrong, aren't you? It's always the same old lies with you, no substance, and then you just run away to tell them again. Coward.
    1
  2523.  @MadsterV  Child, this is a lie. Why did you tell such an open lie? I simply pointed out that hitler did not define socialism the way you do. Can you not handle that simple fact?
    1
  2524.  @MadsterV  Child, you cannot handle the fact that your personal hero Adolf Hitler was not a socialist, and so you cry, scream, and beg, trying to avoid reality, but it never comes to you. Do you find it odd that you can't find any evidence for your assertions? That you can't actually reply to a single one of my statements?
    1
  2525.  @MadsterV  Child, I understand you wish to emulate your dead leader Adolf, but calling random people socialist wasn't an argument when he did it, and it isn't an argument when you do it to honor him today.
    1
  2526.  @MadsterV  Child, reality is there for anyone to see, a reality you keep denying. I pointed out that hitler definers socialism as nationalism. If you have a counter to that, go ahead and provide it. We both know you don't, however, so why do you keep lying about my arguments? And child, are you really so invested in making my point for me? Ignoring your many, sad insults have you realized that you have yet to actually quote something that suggests that you might be correct? Take this quote, for example. Tell me child, what about this quote is left wing? What discounts him from being right wing? The right rails against out of touch elites, big business, and liberal billionaires constantly, in essence reasserting what Hitler is saying right here. Of course neither they nor hitler actually oppose this class existing, but they are both attempting to appeal to "the poors" for political support. It's hilarious that even your quotes supposedly proving your point only prove how much you have in common with him. And again, we can see what he really thinks of workers and owners: ""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." How very "socialist," right?" By all means, continue presenting quotation that shows your fanatic ignorance. Hitler was a far right anti-socialist, which is why there's such a historical record of him doing and saying far right anti-socialist things constantly. You of course don't care about the historical record, because you found a speech of a politician trying to get supporters and decided they must be telling the whole truth, ignoring their ideology and actions.
    1
  2527.  @MadsterV  Isn't it funny that in order for you to feel that you've somehow won, you have to insult me, you have to make baseless assertions about me, you have to run away to other arguments and make blanket assertions regarding those as well? Isn't that just odd? Child, why haven't you watched the video?
    1
  2528.  @MadsterV  "Neat, this gels with him saying that his ideas were an improvement on inferior Marxism, to achieve ultimate socialism. What a right-winger!" funny how he's... literally never said that. Remember when you tried to claim "I will replace socialism and be better than socialism" meant he wanted to be a better socialist, and I pointed out that claiming to be better at an ideology than the ideology itself is a staple of the right, utterly destroying your nonsense? Well now you're back at it again. I'm sorry child, he said his ideas were better than marxism and socialism because he was neither marxist nor socialist. He never wanted any sort of "ultimate socialism," as I have proven and as you have been too afraid to address. I suppose you think PragerU is a bunch of socialists, because they've claimed that their ideology is better at doing what socialists want than socialism is? Child, he hated marxism, and openly rejected it, as well as hating the left and socialism. Do you think every person who rejects an ideology is secretly trying to "improve" it? Yes, child, he was a right winger.
    1
  2529.  @femboydarksouls5580  vro what?
    1
  2530.  @femboydarksouls5580  dude what are you actually on about
    1
  2531.  @femboydarksouls5580  what?
    1
  2532.  @femboydarksouls5580  would you care to substantiate that?
    1
  2533.  @femboydarksouls5580  are you just going to say random things?
    1
  2534.  @femboydarksouls5580  what "what?"
    1
  2535.  @femboydarksouls5580  I'm shorryz huh.
    1
  2536.  @femboydarksouls5580  what are you even going on aboutM
    1
  2537.  @femboydarksouls5580  that's just childish
    1
  2538.  @femboydarksouls5580  looks like you found a fan
    1
  2539.  @femboydarksouls5580  come on, not that difficult
    1
  2540.  @femboydarksouls5580  God, looks like we're dealing with this again.
    1
  2541.  @femboydarksouls5580  it's reality
    1
  2542.  @femboydarksouls5580  it really isn't.
    1
  2543.  @femboydarksouls5580  no, it doesn't.
    1
  2544.  @femboydarksouls5580  ? what "what?"
    1
  2545.  @femboydarksouls5580  I'm talking about your own statements. Do you remember those?
    1
  2546.  @femboydarksouls5580  But it isn't.
    1
  2547.  @femboydarksouls5580  because it's true?
    1
  2548.  @femboydarksouls5580  why would I listen to you?
    1
  2549.  @femboydarksouls5580  I really didn't.
    1
  2550.  @femboydarksouls5580  Again, really didn't.
    1
  2551.  @femboydarksouls5580  But I already have.
    1
  2552.  @femboydarksouls5580  is all you have basic denial?
    1
  2553.  @femboydarksouls5580  it's false.
    1
  2554.  @femboydarksouls5580  What is? Please specify.
    1
  2555.  @femboydarksouls5580  Did what? Come on.
    1
  2556.  @femboydarksouls5580  why even bother commenting this
    1
  2557.  @femboydarksouls5580  I've already explained myself
    1
  2558.  @femboydarksouls5580  come on, this is sad.
    1
  2559.  @femboydarksouls5580  typical of what, exactly?
    1
  2560.  @femboydarksouls5580  doesn't know what? Please just attempt to make sense.
    1
  2561.  @femboydarksouls5580  did what?
    1
  2562.  @femboydarksouls5580  god this is tiring.
    1
  2563.  @femboydarksouls5580  so much utter nonsense.
    1
  2564.  @femboydarksouls5580  i haven't lied yet
    1
  2565.  @femboydarksouls5580  do you expect me to respond to every single one of your bizarre, vague assertions?
    1
  2566.  @femboydarksouls5580  Come on, I literally am.
    1
  2567.  @femboydarksouls5580  I'm not lying.
    1
  2568.  @femboydarksouls5580  alright i'm done with you. nothing but cope lol
    1
  2569.  @pietrayday9915  Yeah, the problem is that the way "you think" about socialism and marxism just betrays your ideological fanaticism. You would rather paint your enemies as some sort of discordant, irrational horde than engage them in good faith and on equal ground, because you know that's an argument you aren't equipped to make. I mean, take your assertion here. In order to make it, you need to ignore the entire history of socialism and marxism, ignore the very foundations of the ideology, in history and thought, and just assert whatever random thing you feel like in order to feel superior. It's easier for you to make up some story where marxists are conspiratorial, pathological liars, than perhaps admit that many of the groups you try to associate with marxism don't belong there, and perhaps they actually do oppose the far right. It's easier for you to attempt to discredit and trivialize the accusations, than examine them truthfully. But I doubt you care about that little nugget of reality.
    1
  2570.  @Gromkiii  It might not be that hard to understand for you, precisely because what you say is false on every level and hilariously ignorant.
    1
  2571.  @bluedolphin6104  Nah, kid. I provided proof, you provided cope. I'm sorry that you can't handle argumentation that proves you wrong, but that's nobody's fault but your own. Stop running away from people who prove you wrong.
    1
  2572.  @MadsterV  Child, we know you have no idea what authoritarianism is, hence you defending it and yet claiming to abhor it. How about you stoop deflecting from your apologia? "Name one authoritarian measure?" Oh child, where to start. Perhaps the biggest rise in deportation in American History? Attempting to call federal troops to quell peaceful protestors? Asserting that the media and fact checkers cannot be believed, only him and his supporters? Directly contacting governors and asking them to crack down on protests? Allowing unmarked vans to abduct protestors, and those in the vicinity of protests? Questioning the integrity of a fair election? Calling for the further funding and militarization of the police, as well as the continuation of a bloated, authoritarian military? Asserting his enemies are terrorists and must be cracked down upon for "law and order?" Planting allies throughout a democratic system to subvert the people and his own responsibilities? Banning travel and threatening people who attempt to continue covid restrictions? As I said, I could go on, but you don't care. You've been proven wrong in the past and never bothered to change your mind, why would that change now? Child, outside of your right wing echo chamber, your claims fall apart instantly, hence the lack of evidence. You hate to admit that trump did the exact thing you're accusing others of, and worse. You support an authoritarian government. You support the government silencing critics at their discretion without any laws broken. And you won't even admit it.
    1
  2573.  @Gromkiii  IF you feel the need to make an absurd claim, at least look at a dictionary first.
    1
  2574.  @Gromkiii  Unfortunately for you, reality is a little more complicated. If you want the government to control or own everything, how does that make you a socialist? Socialism is defined by collective control, which can be done through a government, but not all government control is backed by the collective as a whole. In fact there is a large history of stateless socialists that you're ignoring. Government control isn't "society control," it can be control by an individual or small group. If you want the individual to have free choice and be independent of the government... you would align with marx, given he called for those exact things. Things really agree just black and white in your head, aren't they? Hitler didn't desire, nor "Get" total control of the means of production, he desired, and put in place, private control of the means of production. The problem is that you don't see, and thus project your ignorance outwards.
    1
  2575.  @bluedolphin6104  No, child. As I said, if you can't cope with arguments proving you wrong, stop joining arguments just to lose. Why the hell would I go to a socialist country? Did you just assume I was as ideologically driven as you? Pathetic. Get a life.
    1
  2576.  @help4343  I wouldn't bother with Madster here. He has a bit of a habit of being proven wrong, only to come crawling back with the same arguments whenever someone dares respond.
    1
  2577.  @Gromkiii  ...what? oh god the irony.
    1
  2578.  @Gromkiii  So, sorry, you think you can make up for a lack of debate by linking the video... we're commenting on? Come on, that's hilarious. It's hard to convince the convinced, hence, you being unable to admit when you're wrong.
    1
  2579.  @Gromkiii  "There will not be a government in history to advocate for something else other than for some form of socialism because without socialism they will lose power and corporations will have no real monopoly of the market. " - one of the most economically illiterate claims i've ever heard.
    1
  2580.  @Gromkiii  Well, you could admit you’re wrong, for one. You need to learn to consume media diligently, not just taking people you agree with at their word because you agree with them. No, “true capitalism” is any system which is dominated by private ownership of the means of production, which means that black markets could (and do) exist in capitalist countries. The capitalist market, similarly, is not the only place one can exchange goods for other goods, services, or money, given that all those things exist in certain anti-capitalist ideologies and predate capitalism itself. Also, money without the state backing and enforcing it is hysterically unstable, which makes it yet another case where capitalism is reliant on the state to exist. Government is not “society,”government is government, which can serve or reject society, just like private owners. Capitalism also isn’t “when no taxes,” given that capitalists have advocated for taxation going back to the founding of the ideology, and that capitalism itself relies on a state to enforce private property and thus taxation in some regard is necessary. “True capitalism” is precisely the thing that cut North Korea off and intervened in a war that ended up killing thousands merely because capitalism doesn’t like it when people have free will and the ability to reject capitalism. Funny how you note the “wretched souls” starving in north korea (the society) and yet you have the nerve to somehow call the government, a dictatorial force that oppresses and starves north korean society, the society itself? Shameful.Things being run by government doesn’t make them socialism, as we’ve been over. Socialism is defined by collective ownership, not governmental ownership, which everyone from monarchists to capitalists call for in some degree. Modern western countries are, like it or not, capitalist, because their economies are majority private owned and are populated by private owners. The power of these private owners is growing, as they exploit more and more developing nations. And thus they are more willing than ever to abuse the government for their own profit, as capitalists always have. Child, your claims are frankly absurd and hilariously false. There has been, are now, and will be for all the foreseeable future, governments advocating for something other than for some form of socialism. The number of socialist governments is tiny compared to the amount of non-socialist governments. What you call “some form of socialism” is what Adam Smith and Edmund Burke advocated for. With socialism, these capitalist governments would lose power and corporations (private entities) would not have the virtual monopoly they do. However, in order to deny the flaws of socialism, you have decided that the most capitalist act in existence is “socialist.” What you call “the extreme case of socialism” betrays your ignorance. Marxists advocate for collective control, not government control by one faction. The far right anti-socialist nazis advocate for private owners of a “superior race” being in control. Odd that you say “reminds me of democrats” given that the Republicans in the USA are the party of proud neo-nazi support. North Korea is a near monarchy, China is ruled by private corporations who take government positions to profit further, and so on. Of all of these examples, only one advocates for the abolishing of private property in preference of a more fair system, the Marxists. The nazis, for example, despised the notion of a fair or equal economy, and allowed/strengthened private ownership. Despite the fact that even you have to realize that China is a predominately private economy, you still claim they are socialist, despite the fact that by your definition even “giving back capital” is socialist and thus their “rise,” to you, is due to socialism. Ownership of capital isn’t ownership of the means of production. Ordinary people operating their own means of production is far from a “deadly sin for marxists,” given this is literally what they advocate for. You say that it was “capitalism” that allowed for China’s rise, despite the fact that you previously described the polices that led it to rise as “socialism.” Your inability to keep a consistent argument is noted.
    1
  2581.  @Gromkiii  amazing rebuttal
    1
  2582.  @Gromkiii  Child, you have a real problem with projecting. You attempt to claim that all I do is say "debunked..." despite literally citing my claiims, something you're unable to do. I'm sorry you can't come up with actual arguments.
    1
  2583.  @Gromkiii  Ah - this part. The part where you attempt to say something profound, usually as a thinly veiled insult, and neglect to address a single argument in the process. You have decided, somehow, that I’m a fanatic socialist, despite me openly stating my opposition to socialism, and rather than address my points you’ve attacked the version of me that exists only in your own head. So far, you have proven yourself utterly blind to everything, ignoring all argumentation and proof in order to keep your deeply ignorant worldview. All you can do is assert that what I say is false, already debunked, without proof as you’ve done so far, and ignore definitions, history, and simple economics that utterly disprove you. You, in this very response, turn towards smears rather than attempt to respond to argumentation in good faith. Perhaps you should learn something from Solzhenitsyn, and realize that fanatic adherence to your ideology is a fault, not a virtue. We both know that you’re unable to address my arguments, because doing so might mean admitting you’re wrong. I can change my mind, adapt to the evidence, I have many times in this comment section alone. You have not shown a similar capability. What happens when, one day, you’re forced to admit you’re wrong? Will you fall into a deep despair as your fanatic worldview is torn away from you? It truly is sad that your only method of argumentation revolves around insulting me and ignoring historical facts that prove you wrong, all while asserting that it’s actually me who can’t handle the truth… despite providing it. I hope, one day, you’ll be able to handle the idea of being wrong.
    1
  2584.  @Gromkiii  Isn't it funny how much you loathe haing to provide actual argumentation?
    1
  2585.  @Gromkiii  I don’t “smear” you, that would be you, attempting to call me a suicidal socialist. I merely point out the simple fact that you’re acting like a child. You claim I am blind to facts people give me, and yet can provide zero examples of this. You claim my arguments are “debunked in the video” to get over the fact that you can’t actually address my arguments… and neither did TIK. What you mean by being “blind to the facts” is being more educated than you, and being willing to say things you disagree with. I’ve been providing you with countering facts and argumentation all day, and you’re simply unable to listen. When have you actually argued with me? You provided nothing of substance and dipped out when it was your turn to actually present a point. The problem is that you have zero respect for knowledge or history unless you can use it to further your political agenda. Any understanding of history that teaches that socialism is anything less than the devil incarnate, to you, is dismissible. I’m sure you’ll go on attempting to assert your disproven points, but I’m also sure that you’ll be less confident in them, now that you realize how easy they are to refute. That’s the consequence of rejecting true knowledge..
    1
  2586.  @Gromkiii  Your proud ignorance truly knows no bounds. Yes, this sad piece of denialist entertainment is right here, hence me working to combat many of the sad pieces of apologia it presents. Did you actually watch the video? If so, you would know even TIK admits that his resources directly contradict his claims. Would you like to see my resources? Then I must first recommend you go into TIK’s list, because his historical resources and mine are largely the same - he’s just unfortunately willing to cut important pieces out, and fill in the gaps with works of ideologues. “From the actual book” is where TIK wants to look least. And child, why would I get depressed? After all, it’s you, not I, who bowed out of a debate because you couldn’t come up with an argument to save your life. Why would governments and socialists like me, one who despises both? Or do you think that true history is a socialist agenda?
    1
  2587.  @MadsterV  Awww, running away from yet another argument you lost? Why am I not surprised.
    1
  2588.  @MadsterV  Pro tip: this denialist nonsense already got bodied by arguments you were too afraid to respond to. Sorry, kid. Hitler hated socialism, and fascism is anti-socialist.
    1
  2589.  @MadsterV  Child, you appear to still have not figured out that not everyone saying "i'm not a socialist" is engaging in some "no true socialism" fallacy. He wasn't doing some "true socialism has never been attempted" thing, he was openly saying that his concept of socialism had nothing in common with any previous or current movements using the name, and should be considered entirely politically separate. And yes, we've already been over your support of fascist ideas. Now, of course, your hilariously false claims that fascism is a type of socialism have been long since disproven, though at least you seem to be less confident in them now.
    1
  2590.  @MadsterV  Where's the "backing down?" Hitler admits that "National Socialism" is right wing, pro-private, and anti-socialist. Yes, hitler was just quoted, and apparently you aren't able to read. This isn't that hard, child. And you, like every person who wants to distance fascism from anti-socialism, seem to think that your little bible in video form here must be adhered to, and that anyone who proves it wrong must just not have seen it. Child, you haven't done a second of research. You watched a video you evidently didn't understand, and you attempt to repeat the few arguments from it that you bothered to remember. I hate to break it to you, but the nazi government was privatizing industry. Not just the few cases of industry being seized from one party to be given to another, but privatizing german public industry that had been public for decades, at the very least years before the nazi took power. The case of "reprivatizing" is a tiny number of the overall privatizations. But TIK doesn't want you to know that. It's hilarious how all you know how to do is deflect to "muh china!" You know, the private market economy with one of the highest stakes in the global market, and one of the biggest billionaire population on the planet. Where's the "Communist?" Also, you (like every single person who wants to distance socialism from fascism) seem to not have watched the video. Authoritarianism isn't when you hit someone on the head, child. Authoritarianism, and the hierarchy that defines it, is the child of the right, only recently even adopted by the left in any form. Hitler's form of governance is undoubtedly deeply conservative, anti-socialist, and of course with those things, right wing. But hey, keep trying to run away from the facts, huh? The topic is that you have no evidence for your claims, and that this thread is filled with your past failure to prove even the most basic assertions. Face the facts, kid: The nazis weren't socialists, and fascism is and always will be the child of the right.
    1
  2591.  @MadsterV  Oh you mean the "sources" that you refused to provide, and that I provided directly countering evidence for, which you instantly ignored? Those sources? Nobody can find your source, kid, because your claim doesn't exist, and was directly countered. "Cheers" indeed.
    1
  2592.  @MadsterV  It's funny how your only effort to disprove people consists wholly of just saying no, and then bragging about debunking an argument. I'm sorry, that's quite pathetic. thank you for admitting you're wrong, yet again.
    1
  2593.  @MadsterV  Awww, are you still trying to claim you didn't lose the pathetic arguments that you ran away from so many weeks ago? You know we can read this thread, right?
    1
  2594.  @MadsterV Child, purposeful ignorance isn't going to save you this time. You do understand the concept of historical context, right? Or did you fail to read their response, as seems so consistent with your failure in arguments? Yes, child. He was hostile to socialism. How long will it take you to admit that your definition of socialism and his were radically different, and that he made this abundantly clear in his writings?
    1
  2595.  @MadsterV  No, child. It's the guy who beat you into the ground with arguments you failed to refute, and continually ran away from, here to remind you of your pathetic defeat.
    1
  2596.  @MadsterV  Pummeled? By who? Certainly not you, who repeatedly conceded arguments and ended up running away because you realized you were wrong. I beat you, effortlessly, and you're still coping with defeat. Apologists like you need a good dose of reality.
    1
  2597.  @MadsterV  No, child. He literally said that he would rip the term socialism from socialist's hands and use it to promote an entirely different ideology, that advocates for right wing authoritarianis, conservatism, and private property. So there goes that little deflection of yours. And what do you mean "Dodging?" Child, I directly addressed this. It seems you haven't learned to read yet. No, china's policies are not the same as Germany's, but it's telling that you're ignorant enough to always take authoritarian parties on their word. After all, as i've pointed out previously, China has one of the biggest stakes in the global private market and highest population of billionaires. Global capitalism couldn't exist without market economies like China. Is this who you're comparing Hitler to? A far better comparison would be modern russia... which right wingers, unsurprisingly, support. Oh, and child, we've been over this. I watched the video months before your first response, hence me being able to so effortlessly debunk your regurgitated arguments from it.
    1
  2598.  @MadsterV  "Also, you keep dodging the fact that communist China has the same policies than Germany had, which is no surprise at all, they are cut from the same socialist cloth." Few problems with this. China doesn't have the same policies of germany, which even TIK is forced to admit. China is a private-based market economy. An economy more similar to the nazis, that is, plutocracy, would come in the form of modern Russia. Of course, sad children like you despise these facts. Nazi germany is cut from no socialist cloth, as even you agreed with the words and policies of hitler when it came to private property. I'm sorry child, but the nazis in no form were socialists, and the fact that your closest comparison is an openly private country is telling.
    1
  2599.  @MadsterV  lmao, thi is hilarious. You seriously can't come up with a single argument, can you?
    1
  2600.  @MadsterV  But... you haven't. Again, anyone here is free to read the threads back. We see you, attempting to deflect from the point, posting comments full of insults and lacking in arguments, and when you are pressed on these points, you run away. Apparently, to you, citing information is an "inane nope." You claim to disprove things and yet you refuse to actually engage in arguments, both now and in the past. Apparently, the time when you actually argued is so far in the past not even you remember it. No, child. You repeat arguments that I, personally, have disproven. You're right, it's not an argument. It's me embarrassing you, over and over.
    1
  2601.  @MadsterV  Oh, child. Apparently you're unable to read. It's good though, that you have finally understood that like it or not, hitler wasn't a socialist, and fascism is anti-socialist.
    1
  2602.  @MadsterV  "under the socialist party" Child, this is my exact point. You just, yet again, labelled proud capitalists as "Socialists" with nothing but your own silly feelings backing you up.
    1
  2603.  @MadsterV  So you agree then, with the simple fact that you've been proven wrong? Good. This is exactly my point. See, you don't like the fact that the US and Canada are openly capitalist market economies, and are both ran by leaders that are openly hostile to socialism. So, you construct a fantasy world in which these countries are "Current socialist governments." How do you feel about the fact that the measure of freezing assets was taken because the trucker's actions were harming the private market economy Canada is based off of? How do you feel about the fact that free speech restrictions, overwhelmingly, are passed by the right? No, child. What you described, if we take your word on it which would be silly given how false it is, is authoritarianism. Happening under proudly and violently capitalist governments. So, no. No fascism under a socialist party. That would indeed be surprising, given that fascism is a far right anti-socialist ideology.
    1
  2604.  @MadsterV  Exactly! He, like the modern right, depised immigrants and one of his first moves was to strengthen the border and deport thousands. This "socialist" part you keep asserting they believed in, you have yet to provide evidence for. Because none exists. Now, I'm well aware you've said this before, precisely because in the past I've easily rebutted it, and you seem to want to wait weeks and then make up fantasies in which you won the arguments you ran away from, rather than dealing with reality. I'm honored that you think i'm good enough at destroying right wing apologia to be a professional, but sadly, I'm just a guy who likes to spread the research.
    1
  2605.  @MadsterV  Er, no. Try authoritarians like american leaders, from Eisenhower to Trump. Try authoritarian like Putin, like De Stefani, like Dollfuss, like the centuries of absolute monarchs that the right proudly draws its inspiration from. The list is, quite literally, longer than we even know. But apparently, whataboutism means more than history to you. Apparently, you're unable to refute any arguments countering this line, so you've just decided to say it again, as if that makes it any less debunked. No, child. As stated previously, hitler said it himself and others said it of him, his goal was to divorce the term socialism from the socialists, to separate himself utterly from the legacy and continuation of socialism and attempt to institute a right wing, conservative, pro-private regime. You, apparently having some reading comprehension issues, apparently think this means that he said "i'm doing real socialism." Has it occurred to you that "i'm going to redefine x" and "I'm going to try x but different" are different things? You can avoid the counter arguments all you want, your insecurity in failing to respond is evident. Sorry, child. It's in writing. It's common knowledge. Your assertion... is wrong. Now, you can run away from the facts all you like, but don't think that means I'll go easy on you. Hitler, like you, despised socialism. Fascism was formed of conservative anti-socialists, and finds its base in right wing anti-socialism. Fascism is not a type of socialism, and hitler openly defined "socialism" as an ideology near identical to that which modern conservatives call for. It's hilarious that you have to lie so openly to even have a chance to appear remotely reasonable in your claims. Go inside hitler's brain, I wonder what he values? Well, we can see from his writings: strong borders, strong military, less/no immigration, more powerful citizens, powerful national/cultural identity, hatred of minority groups of all sorts for spreading things that counter his national myth, in favor of the supremacy of private property, god I could go on. Your claims of his thoughts are hilariously incorrect. "State control of private companies?" You mean the thing he despised and actively worked against? And how is it that you seem to know nothing about leftism? Child, leftists don't call for racial segregation, expropriation, or authoritarianism. You're thinking of the conservatives.
    1
  2606.  @walterbailey2950  Madster here has a nasty habit of trying the same arguments over and over, and rather than responding to counters, just repeating the same line. I will admit, it does get tiring.
    1
  2607.  @MadsterV  Oh, child. You do realize that just... making things up isn't an argument, right? You do realize that your silly claim that the far right anti-socialist fascists were somehow their own greatest enemies is long debunked, correct?
    1
  2608.  @MadsterV  Finally admitting you're wrong? Took long enough.
    1
  2609.  @MadsterV  But he doesn't. You've just chosen to pretend he does. Let's examine your interpretation. " "The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning" <- here is where he says "it wasn't real Socialism"" No, child. There is where he says that he has no kinship with previous or current socialist movements, and that the term when used by them has nothing to do with the way he uses it. He literally, openly says that socialists have confused the meaning of the term, yet you still assert that the used the same meaning as them. " "Our socialism is national" Here is where he explains the difference between his National Socialism with the other socialisms: he focuses on nation and race instead of classes, as pointed out with "To us state and race are one" " Again, child, we've been over this. You seem to have skipped the parts of the quote that prove you wrong, but here we see you evidently can't even read what you've quoted. He literally just stated that his conception of "socialism" is not just a variation on those that have "Confused the term," but that it is an entirely different thing. Did you not read the quote? He doesn't consider what you call "other socialisms" to be socialist, in theory in execution. He believes that they stole his term and are using it to describe views he does not hold, Your assertion that he viewed his ideology as a subset of "other socialisms" is disproven by the first sentence of this quote. In any case, this is false. Socialism by definition "focuses on class," and hitler did not desire "socialism for the race," nor did he ever state he did. Did you forget the part where hitler makes his definition of socialism known? One who focuses on "nation and race," as hitler admits, is no socialist. Genuinely, I don't think I can understate how silly the statement " Here is where he explains the difference between his National Socialism with the other socialisms" is, when you just quoted him openly saying that he doesn't think "other socialisms" exist, and that he despises/disagrees with any other using the title. " "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution" Here is where he demonstrably lies for the gullible and unconvinced" Which apparently includes you, who thinks he somehow just turned on the politician propaganda machine in one sentence. Hey I notice you left out the parts where he praises right wing anti-socialist ideas... hm. Of course the nazis weren't communists, they were fascists, proud far right anti-socialists. Now, I knew you were economically illiterate, but I didn't think you were illiterate enough to suggest that communists are a "type of socialist." I also didn't think you were silly enough to say that fascism is a type of socialism, just after responding to a quote of hitler saying that he doesn't consider his ideology at all related to socialism as you use the term, but oh well, here we are. No, child, fascism isn't a type of socialism. Your statements are, however, hilarious. Neither fascism nor communism call for totalitarian centralized economies controlled by the state - fascists call for private ownership defended from the workers and socialists with the help of the state, communists call for the abolition of the state, along with class, currency, and wage labor. Communism is not when one redistributes the means of production, and nazism/fascism calls for private ownership, not control by one party "via appointed party officials." That last part is especially funny because hitler was openly against the policies you claim built his ideology. Communism call for the abolition of class, fascism calls for the supremacy and never-ending dominance of race and nation. As different as can be. Lie it or not, communism and far right anti-socialist nazism are as different as can be. No, child, both aren't socialism. Hitler was less of a socialist than you.
    1
  2610.  @walterbailey2950  the problem there is that you're assuming that Madster here is rational enough to get disarmed, rather than just deny things or continue repeating the same disproven point.
    1
  2611.  @MadsterV  Oh, child. Your video bible isn't going to save your dead arguments.
    1
  2612.  @MadsterV  Child, I "won" the first time, all those months back, that you ran away rather than dealing with the arguments you were unable to support. I watched the video before I ever had the misfortune of trying to educate you. You hope that everything I say countering the video is proven wrong by the video itself, because you can't make any arguments without TIK doing the "work" for you. Frankly, I don't care how I look to someone that lies as much as you.
    1
  2613.  @walterbailey2950  The thing is, I think I ever quoted the same section to him a couple of months ago, with the same explanation. He, of course, shrugged it off without reason. You can't forget that this all started because I pointed out TIK's conspiracy theory, and Madster here said this when I referenced the fact that monarchism is right wing "you called conspiracy theory the relabeling of anything bad as right wing. I showed you doing it, thus it's no longer a theory. You just did it." He thought that correctly labelling monarchists as right wing... was a political ploy. Jesus.
    1
  2614.  @walterbailey2950  eh, fair enough. I'll stick around, at least
    1
  2615.  @walterbailey2950  Oooo, good idea
    1
  2616.  @walterbailey2950  It really is an interesting question. I wonder what he thinks about people like Edmund Burke or Adam Smith, undoubtedly huge inspirations to the modern right and yet in favor of monarchism against the wishes of leftists, Burke doubly so.
    1
  2617.  @MadsterV  running away from arguments while bragging about your own illiteracy sure is a strategy here bud. He explicitly defined socialism as a right wing, conservative, pro-private ideology. He never stated nor believed that he was a "better" socialist, because that implies that he believes that people like marxists are socialists - which even you admit, he did not. His "national socialism" was not advertised as a "this time it'll work" type thing, because the "previous times," as you call them, hitler whole heartedly condemns and notes that he has no desire to associate with their movements or goals. Please stop throwing out terms and arguments that have already been refuted, and get used to the simple idea that you are, and it seems have been, conclusively wrong.
    1
  2618.  @MadsterV  But... he isn't. I mean, you can run away from that fact all you like, you can repeat the same assertion, but the simple fact that you can't address a single counter proves the fact that you know you're wrong.
    1
  2619.  @MadsterV  Hitler wasn't a socialist - finally, you're understanding it. Just today, Wendy Rodgers, arizona republican state senator and proud self-identified conservative/trump supporter, said the following things: "I stand with the Christians worldwide not the global bankers who are shoving godlessness and degeneracy in our face." As well as: "Zelensky is a globalist puppet for Soros and the Clintons." and: "The bankers want a great reset and World War III." Alluding to a conspiracy of "international bankers?" Attempting to call them forces of degeneracy? Referring to worldwide leaders as tools of politicians and jewish billionaires? This is, like it or not, literal nazi rhetoric, pulled directly from hitler's works. Directly after facing heavy criticism for these statements, she asserted that she was being "cancelled" by "communists" that controlled the news... shortly before going on to shill for Trump and the Keystone pipeline. Isn't it oh-so-telling how seamlessly open fascism merges with right wing talking points? Remember - this is the side you're claiming has nothing to do with nazism. These are the views you're claiming only show up on the left. Calling hitler a socialist is, by definition, apologia for the nazis, and worse, actively distracts from the increasingly bold fascist presence that you don't want to admit to agreeing with.
    1
  2620.  @MadsterV  Child, you still appear to be woefully ignorant of the concepts of timezones. Are you really so angry that I can disprove you any hour of the day? But child, he isn't. Why aren't you able to do anything else, besides repeat this sentence? It's been directly addressed, do you just not have a counter? He openly said that his ideology had nothing to do with what you consider socialism, that what you call "other socialists" didn't fit his definition of the term, and that he wanted to divorce the term from the concept it had been known by. At no point does any of that translate to "this is REAL socialism." Child, I call you out and you can't handle it. The problem is, despite full well knowing that my arguments debunk the video itself, a video i'm increasingly convinced you haven't watched (due to your failure to even emulate its arguments) you continue to claim that my statements are addressed in the video, and that I haven't even watched the source I directly cite. I'm sorry you can't handle the fact that everything you say is easily debunked, and that you have no counter. Evidently, you haven't seen it, given how you aren't able to cite these supposed counters. Child, you're coping with your loss again. Everyone sees it but you.
    1
  2621.  @MadsterV  No, child. They switched into "done with your apologist shit" mode, meanwhile, you've been denying reality all along. You have to pretend that everyone who proves you wrong must be some kind of socialist, because you would prefer to dismiss them with insults than address their arguments, given that you have none. Why are you randomly telling people to move to "socialist countries?" Child, according to you, the modern strongest economies in the world are socialist. I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance. Maybe once you address that you'll stop saying such silly things. The nazis openly called for, and implemented, private ownership of the means of production. Calling hitler a socialist, by definition, makes you not only a denialist, but an apologist.
    1
  2622.  @MadsterV  It's eternally funny how you're unable to address a single point, and yet whenever I make note of the fact that you haven't addressed my arguments... you claim that isn't an argument. Me: You're wrong, here's why. You: No. Me: But you're wrong, here's why. You: No. Me: You're wrong, denial isn't a good look You: Wow no arguments?
    1
  2623.  @MadsterV  No, child. One of my arguments of many is that the right actively emulates the nazis they are ideologically descended from. I note your deflection on that front. You hate socialists so much that you're willing to apologize for nazis to condemn socialists. Right wingers are deluded, nazis or not, and dangerously so. "No apologies here?" Child, you just openly admitted that you can only condemn socialism, not the nazis that hated it more than you. "Socialism is awful and a death wish?" Your opinion is noted, now where is your condemnation of the far right anti-socialist nazis and the modern conservatives that mirror them? Hitler, for example, was a far right anti-socialist extremist like yourself. He died because socialists and liberals alike despised his nationalistic rightist ideology, and saw the threat he created. Child, please learn the concept of a timezone. I won because you refuse to create a counter argument.
    1
  2624.  @MadsterV  "Like Hitler, for example, who was a socialist" Ah, quick correction! Hitler wasn't a socialist, as has been proven to you conclusively. I know you can't handle counter arguments, which is why you just repeat the same sentences for hours. It's not like you would know that, given that you haven't watched the video, nor does it seem that you've read my actual responses. How sad.
    1
  2625.  @MadsterV  Did you forget the part where a person proving you wrong isn't them just being ignorant of your points, but them actively understanding and refuting it? What you "said" doesn't matter, historical reality, especially the reality of hitler's privatization, matters. Evidently, you haven't done any sort of research into this topic. Denying history and running away from arguments you can't disprove isn't a good look. The fact that you continually deflect to arguments on an ideological basis rather than a historical one betrays your intent. You want to link socialism to the crimes of the right because you hate socialism, not because there's an argument for those absurd claims. Why do you assume those educating you are in need of education. Don't guess things, admit when you're wrong.
    1
  2626.  @MadsterV  Ah, you're at that stage. "It doesn't matter that I lost the argument, you proving me wrong boosts the video!"
    1
  2627.  @MadsterV  No, child. Hitler never said that his far right socialist ideology was some more correct or pure form of the ideologies he despised
    1
  2628.  @MadsterV  It's funny how you're making a whole deal about being mad we're in different timezones. I don't care about being "sneaky," I care about proving you wrong, which i've done so many times that it's hilarious. "Bad faith?" Pot calling the washcloth black. I find it funny that you're so desperate to have any sort of a win that you've utterly given up on making any argument. Unlike you, people will watch this video, and easily debunk it as I have, and as so many other historians have.
    1
  2629.  @MadsterV  Despite you consistently claiming the same thing, you never provide evidence. why is that? Is it because you know no evidence exists?
    1
  2630.  @MadsterV  But I haven't. you continue to assert this, but whenever I ask for anything in the way of examples, you just deflect and attempt to ignore counter arguments. You've admitted that you have no arguments left. I win by proving you wrong, as i've done time and time again. Despite you calling me "dishonest," you're the only one to be caught in a lie so far. Hitler was a socialist. You can cry about that all you want, but you have literally zero counter arguments. "Every single thing you say is addressed in the video?" And yet, when asked to provide evidence of this, you don't. Not just because said evidence doesn't exist, but because you haven't watched the video. I easily disproved your silly assertions with evidence and facts, which you have neglected to provide in any form. I've been here for years and people are so desperate to score a win against me, that they have to pretend I haven't watched the video I just cited :)
    1
  2631.  @MadsterV  You mean you don't like the left vs right dichotomy because when you attempted to use it previously, and I debunked your "understanding" of the terms. You then seem to have backed off from that previous assertion without a retraction of any form, which is typical for the arguments you continuously lose. Like it or not, "National Socialism" was not socialism, in definition, in implementation, and in goals. "Socialism wearing the skin of capitalism" is what you use to reference an openly market economy. Apparently the people being "tricked" into thinking they had freedom were "tricked" so easily that they actually... did have power and autonomy over their property. Ultimately, the private market was in control, especially at the top, and if a socialist or unionist tried voicing their views, they would be executed or sent to a labor camp, if they weren't forced to conform to the right wing nazi state to begin with. Capitalism, historically, requires no such thing. It actively campaigns against informed consent and freedom to compete, because both of those things harm profit. Sadly for you, Nazi Germany openly had a private market economy with profit and competition. Capitalism is guided by the whims of capitalists, and thus sadly often betrays the things that useful idiots claim to care about.
    1
  2632.  @MadsterV  But... not denial. You were clearly educated on a concept you had no knowledge of. You claim a person easily disproving your nonsense narrative is ignorance, simply because they don't hold a view that supports your narrative. Pathetic.
    1
  2633.  @MadsterV  As we've been over - Hitler said "National Socialism" was a right wing, conservative, pro-private ideology that shared no ideological connections with the "other socialism" you reference. Not "true socialism." You've been using ad hominem arguments and deflection for months now, my guess is that you've been backed into another corner and confronted on your inability to participate in actual discussion, so you're bowing out. Isn't it telling that you never manage to actually prove a point?
    1
  2634.  @MadsterV  I'm proving you wrong. Are you not used to that by now? You gave me no evidence, you just referenced arguments you didn't understand from a video you didn't watch. You're thinking of me, who provided evidence you hate dealing with. So many people have asked you for sources, so many times, and yet you never provide anything but the line "watch the video," even when not applicable, which is nearly always Why is it that you assume that everyone shares your illiteracy? Hitler wasn't a socialist. Read the sources cited by the video, or my arguments citing them and directly refuting the video, for more detail.
    1
  2635.  @MadsterV  Oh my god for once in your life attempt to actually respond to argumentation rather than just saying shit.
    1
  2636.  @MadsterV  You. Literally. Quoted. Him. Countering. Your. Presented. (and long refuted) Assertion. You quoted those words, and now just want to ignore them to push a point that not even you are confident in. Genuinely, how are you comfortable with being this disingenuous? Hitler never, never stated anything like "he hated their failure and mistakes and thought he could do better." You literally openly responded to a quote of his in which he states that he has no ideological connection to "them," that they had stolen the term and defined it incorrectly and thus their usage of it was false. Why do you assume that he identified with and agree with this group when he openly stated that his definition of the term had nothing to do with theirs, and thus his ideology was not connected? This is not hard to understand. It's like one person defining pacifism as murder, and the other defining it correctly, and you stepping in to declare that the second just wants to use the first one's definition, but do it better? It's so absurd. He hated their ideology, and based his ideology off of the assertion of their failure. He didn't want to "do better" at their goals, he wanted to do better at the goals of the right. Again, what do you mean by "this time?" He literally states that he doesn't consider any other groups, the "other times," to be socialist. Why would he base the success or failure of his ideology on one he constantly condemned? You do understand that the phrase "true socialism has never been tried before" has nothing to do with both the arguments of the left, who might claim that socialism was tried but never achieved, or the arguments of hitler, who argued that he must tear the concept of socialism from all those who used it previously, that they defined the word incorrectly and should be condemned in both ideology and action, and that his ideology repudiates them entirely. Your "cozy familiarity," unsurprisingly, comes about as a result of lying about the positions of both the left and right. Even though all of this has been pointed out to you before, even though you have refused to even address these arguments or acknowledge their existence, you continue to assert the same thing, moving further and further from your originally arguments, warping your statements around your pride and restating them in increasingly extreme ways as you get rebutted over and over. Even as they're rebutted, even as you can find no justification for them in the citation you refuse to address, you just can't stop yourself from making these silly claims. And again, why is it that you assume people are as ignorant and in need of research as you? The concept of reprivatization has been defined and discussed in this very thread, however, you seem to think that pointing out that fact that hitler's actions qualified as privatization, not reprivatization, and that both are incompatible with socialism, means that the person in question is just ignorant rather than actively rebutting your points. You evidently have no idea how they ran things, and you've been previously rebutted on your false comparison to the private market economy that modern china is. Ironically, one of the few things they share in common is the usage, and reliance upon, the private market. You just try to call it the "Chinese communist party" in hopes that people won't actually research the economy. You need to research.
    1
  2637.  @MadsterV  Oh my god please learn to read, this is pathetic. "The concept of reprivatization has been defined and discussed in this very thread, however, you seem to think that pointing out that fact that hitler's actions qualified as privatization, not reprivatization, and that both are incompatible with socialism, means that the person in question is just ignorant rather than actively rebutting your points." "the person in question" I'm referencing someone rebutting you, not your own ignorant statements. This is sad.
    1
  2638.  @MadsterV  You are completely unable to even read a single response, and the fact that of the entire paragraph I posted, you only found one sentence to respond to, and evidently didn't even finish the sentence, is so telling. You bring up the "Chinese Communist Party" as an attempted, and ignorant, association fallacy, claiming that the nazis were similar to a group calling themselves communists (despite yourself admitting that the nazis hated communists/heavily disagreed with communists) and thus must be like communists or share a similar source. This, of course, ignores the simple fact that the nazi's private economy isn't "parallel" to China's private economy, though they do share some similarities in their reliance upon markets an private property as well as repression of workers and socialists. You don't want to actually research it, because actual research reveals China being a market economy with a huge stake in global capitalism and one of the highest billionaire populations of the world. Actual research reveals that the nazi economy was not similar to china's economy, china's is based on international trade/cheap labor, the nazis was based on private ownership/competition within the country with limited international market. They don't "Share the same origin," nor do either belong to the categories you ignorantly and without explanation assert they belong to. What do you mean "unlike you?" Come on, this isn't that hard. I suppose you genuinely don't know what a timezone is, or that the world doesn't revolve around you. "Admitted to do?" Ah, another claim you're unwilling to prove. For all that, you responded to next to nothing... pathetic.
    1
  2639.  @MadsterV  Well, if I said that, you'd be happy to quote me and link the comment where I said it, hm?
    1
  2640.  @MadsterV  How exactly would I say that I "post late at night so I can win" given that I don't live in a timezone when this is "late at night?" Are you ok, dude? I can just imagine yourself maniacally laughing at your own imagination, and it's a bit worrying Ah, and some more deflection. Child, I merely pointed out that, despite your attempts to conflate china and nazi germany, even your own explanation doesn't make sense, and openly conflicts with your previous statements. Your response to that was... "no." I mean literally, just "no." You just accuse me of being ignorant to get around the fact that you have no idea how to counter your past hypocrisies. If you had a bit of integrity, you might try a doomed-to-fail argument, like "just because they hated communist ideology and communists hate their ideology doesn't mean they hated communist ideology or that communists hated their ideology!" Who is "they," child? You going to mirror your republican buddy from earlier? It's sad how far you go to avoid arguing.
    1
  2641.  @MadsterV  Isn't it hilarious how your only responses now consist of complaining that nobody will be able to see how badly you lost.
    1
  2642.  @MadsterV  Child I don't think you know how youtube notifications work either, this is quite sad to be perfectly honest, but you already knew that.
    1
  2643.  @MadsterV  Hitler wasn't a socialist, made his own brand of far-right ideology, and said "this time I'll get rid of socialism," like you yourself suggest.
    1
  2644.  @MadsterV  Child, we've been over this so many times. They literally educated you on the definition of the term you're claiming you didn't look up. Why are you so scared to admit you're wrong? Your ignorance is nobody else's responsibility, but I'll make it mine anyway. Nobody is "ignoring" you attempting to assert that hitler was in favor of state control, we're disproving that silly assertion. He despised state control, openly opposed it in rhetoric and policy while praising private property, and asserted, much like yourself, that the failure of the USSR lay in their rejection of private property. You continue ignoring this and screaming "reprivatization!" while ignoring all arguments... because you don't have a counter. You've tried to wiggle your way out of the concepts of left and right, which you attempted to use previously, but that doesn't work, and so you attempt to insult people who are exposing you to history. Your ad homminem repetition is noted. "Speaking of disregarding history..." well at least you're honest about what you're about to do. You absolutely ruin your credibility by making hilariously false claims that have already been disproven, and then openly admitting that you have zero consistency. By your own definition, no, child, not all socialism is authoritarian. And, like it or not, neither Canada nor the USA has a "ruling socialist party," as both "ruling parties" are openly liberal and capitalist, Biden even throwing in his lot with conservatives more times than can be counted. When you say "who decreed that stating anything contrary to government's opinion is declared terrorism," you mean "who declared that people can't hold up the capitalist economy or attempt to harm others without being considered people who harm others or criminals," which disproves your assertion from a multitude of angles. History does repeat itself, with republicans openly talking about "international bankers" which necessitate, and justify, their turn towards authoritarianism. This is only possible through people like yourself, who hear literal nazi propaganda coming from the mouths of those you support and decided to, somehow, blame socialism on the left. You've actively attempted to erase history, denying widely known history, and now you throw your lot in with modern fascists. Like it or not, kid, hitler wasn't a socialist. He didn't make a "brand" of socialism, nor did he consider his ideology connected to "other socialists" as you call them. He didn't say "this time it's going to work," because he didn't consider any attempts at socialism to be working towards what he wanted. He was a far right, fascist, conservative, anti-socialist dictator, and you openly welcome his support.
    1
  2645.  @MadsterV  Oh, you mean the thing you continually deflect onto me? Child, do you not remember your own words? "Unsourced quote?" Would you mind pointing out exactly where that is, or is that another lie? Oh, child. Who is "they all?" Do you mean you, and all your imaginary friends that help you to project your tendency to lie.
    1
  2646.  @MadsterV  Oh I agree, everything you say has been long refuted, and you don't even have the patience to read responses clowning on you. And yet another unsourced claim, one you're unwilling to provide despite being asked to give any sort of citation. How surprising. I guess you haven't watched the videos, read the sources, or even read my responses. Oh, you simply love the idea that the video refutes all of my claims, but your unwillingness to actually provide proof of this is exactly what i'm talking about. Everything you say is refuted, and the video you didn't watch does nothing to disprove the reality found in the sources it cites. Everything you say is long debunked in this thread alone.
    1
  2647.  @MadsterV  I'm sorry child, but you resorting to ad hominem proves the simple point you've known all along - hitler wasn't a socialist. Who is "everyone?" Your imaginary friends again? No, child, you ignore what I say because you have no arguments. You don't like the fact that it's so easy to argue against your revisionism. Child, I have presented no dishonesty, no opinion. I have only presented facts, historical cited facts, that you can't argue against. You haven't watched the video, haven't read the sources, and haven't read my responses. You're utterly pathetic. Hitler was a far right anti-socialist , who is being emulated by modern right wingers and fought by socialists throughout history to the modern day. You're just hoping to cover up for, apologize for, and aid the modern resurgence of, fascism. You can't even condemn it. Sad. Your lies have made no dent. The truth stands strong.
    1
  2648.  Wulf  Why do you assume that other's usage of terms is in line with your own, and why do you feel that individual asserted events stripped of context can remove decades of fascist history that resulted in a complete rejection of socialist views in the economic, political, and social spheres? Even in the case of Bombacci, a break in the norm, it was written even just following his death about how he had rejected socialism/communism in favor of fascism, and that fascism only came to exist through a weakening of socialism. Fascism is not communist of course, but "prussian socialism" as an ideology merely acts as a thin veneer upon capitalism, advocating for the policies of private markets and government non-intervention, and cannot be likened to historical socialism in the slightest. Gentile referred to fascism as a movement of the right, one which rejected and negated socialism, liberalism, and democracy. Hence, mussolini hiring capitalists, and so on. Fascism isn't socialist. And yes, what else is new, TIK shares his ignorance and a bunch of people disagree for a bunch of random reasons.
    1
  2649.  Wulf  Spengler, the open conservative, the opponent to trade unions, labor strikes, progressive taxation or taxation on the rich at all, the shortening of the working gay, and government assistance/welfare for sickness, old age, or unemployment, while championing private property, competition, imperialism, wealth accumulation and centralization? How could anyone confuse him for a capitalist... right. Fascism did just fine without socialism, given that socialism itself is antithetical to the goals of fascism, and that fascism has only ever seemed to enforced "materialistic consumerist society." Socialism existed before marx, yes, and yet it has always been defined by an opposition to the right in favor of social ownership. Gentile quite openly wrote about Fascism's negation of socialism and rejection of the left and favor of the right in his collaborative work with Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. The problem is, you appear to not know what socialism is, and are going along with fascistic redefinitions of the term, as if socialists and fascists use the same word to describe the same concept. Fascism does not have socialist structure in it, nor do fascist systems resemble socialism. Fascist italy was not "more socialist than capitalist," it was third way, a rejection of both in favor of a right wing private economy. Someone defining socialism as nationalism or state control and abusing the term doesn't change that. Mussolini proudly hired capitalists like De Stefani to run his economy out of wartime, because, unsurprisingly, he wasn't actually all that "against capitalism."
    1
  2650.  Wulf  1) You keep saying "socialist structure" and yet every place you identify as having "Socialist structure" seems to be a place in which private property and international capitalisms reigns as the dominant economic system. China's economic policies are not the same as fascist ones, but they certainly don't fall in line with socialism. 2) Spengler was a conservative in every sense of the word, and his primary students were much the same. Came from conservatives, gave to conservatives, and so on. 3) By necessity socialism must be a system in which the workers are either free to strike or have no reason to strike. A system in which they are explicitly prohibited from organizing and expressing their concern, in favor of total ownership by the private owners, is antithetical to socialism. There's a huge difference between trying to create a system in which strikes are redundant, and trying to outlaw labor rights in favor of capital. - And no, clearly you haven't read Spengler, or more accurately you haven't read him directly, instead filtering your view of him through several online figures that have convinced you that their word matters more than reality. Spengler proudly stated that he wanted to preserve private property. He didn't call Marx an imperialist, he criticized him for not subscribing to the nonsense idea that germans were, somehow, genetically socialist. - The fact that Gentile could spend so much time explaining his position on the left-right debate and then helping to create an ideology that would solidify this position through deed, and you just feel like you can dismiss it, says a lot about you. - I'm sorry, what? Lenin's "Corporate State" was not great, even he admitted it wasn't a socialist system, and was incredibly temporary. It was this system that would later begin to tear the USSR apart before being replaced under Stalin, with not much better results. If you define socialism as including the NEP, your definition is as far removed from reality as possible. 4) No, child, Mussolini hired a capitalist to plan his entire economy, not because they were a means to an end, but because that was in line with fascist economics, economics that would only be subverted when absolutely necessary. The soviets were open about the fact that their "small capitalism," the NEP, was not a socialist system. Mussolini, on the other hand, said no such thing about Stefani or his capitalist reforms, and made no indication of them being temporary, or not resumed upon the war's end.
    1
  2651.  Wulf  So your entire argument is just you admitting your ignorance on a subject, but then shifting the goalposts. Great. 1) There are literally hundreds, you can read books from Fourier to Greeley and beyond, but they all share the commonality of social ownership. Of course socialists existed before marx, but not by the frankly absurd definition you're trying to push, even utopian socialists share commonality with marx and socialism that fascists just don't have. 2) While the exact policies advocated for had a few core differences, the moral basis and assumptions of conservatism in germany, and in the modern US, are exactly the same. 3) So you're not listening. Socialism, as in socialism actually implemented, has no need for strikes because strikes are redundant under social ownership. The workers would already have control of the industry and so they're redundant, they'd be protesting to themselves. However, this is not what Spengler advocates for, he advocates for the forced repression of collective bargaining and strikes in favor of private business. Socialists argue for strikes, until socialism makes such strikes redundant. Socialists don't force strikes to stop. Also, Reed literally supported worker strikes, participated in them himself, what are you talking about? 4) Again, you're exposing your ignorance here. Saying "You have not read spengler" because I disagree with your lack of understanding is not an argument. Spengler argued in favor of an inherent "socialism" in the german people. His point of view was an explicitly conservative one, in which he argues for a "socialism" that is economically indistinguishable from western conservative capitalism. He argued that Marx was stuck on some british notion of socialism, which called for abolishing private property and taking riches from the rich, two things he strongly opposed. His "real socialism" had already took place, as capitalism. 5) Quite literally just explained this, Gentile placed himself on the right, and allied with the right. 6) Again, the system Stalin replaced was not known as socialism to literally anyone, Lenin had to apologize to his party when first putting it in place, openly admitting that it was not the socialism he promised. The NEP's goal was capital interests. 7) That's putting it lightly. He "hired a guy" that ran his economy according to classical liberal principles, and only replaced said guy when the whole world was doing the same, as capitalist economics don't do total war all that well. Mussolini openly praised private property and created organizations for private owners to maintain and take control, he openly despised socialism and made it clear that fascism negated socialism. He created no "Great socialist state," nor did he desire to. He "used capitalism" because it was in line with his ideology. He appointed capitalists without reason, without assurances of the temporality of the policies, and without apology. Meanwhile, communists did the opposite, hating to have to use capitalism only when necessary, assuring the policies would be temporary and facing huge ideological backlash from their implementation. 8) The NEP was Soviet Russia's "capitalist" phase. Mussolini and Hitler supported private economies openly, and made no apologies for their support, and even praise, of the right, conservatism, and policies that openly align with capitalist agendas. Sorry? Antisemetic conspiracy theories don't change that.
    1
  2652.  Wulf  No, kid, I just keep saying things that you're evidently ignorant of on a base level, and you keep shifting your arguments around information that i'm the first to expose to you. Nothing here is a lie, it's basic historical fact. 1) Yes, evidently unlike you i've not only read the sources, but actually understood them. You, on the other hand, have failed to do either, and are somehow attempting to project this failure onto me. No, child, it was pretty obvious, as it remains damn well obvious, that nationalists/conservatives/fascists have a fundamental disconnect from leftists/communists/socialists. Neither group had to try to distance themselves, given that up until recently, it was just basic accepted fact. TIK attempts to erase this, but TIK's movement, as it always has been, represents a tiny minority. 2) Yes, and again, evidently you do not. Even ignoring their near perfect overlap, Spengler and modern western conservatives are so similar becaue they build their ideology off of the same foundation. 3) But it isn't, child, and no socialist says that. What you mean is that strikes hurt your conception of socialism, because as we've been over, your "prussian socialism" is indistinguishable from capitalism. All socialists weren't against strikes, because it's a tool against capitalism that gives power to the working class. That's precisely why you hate them. So, no, your assertion that all socialists were against strikes is unfounded an absurd. 4) Again, you're making the mistake of conflating your usage of terms with their actual meaning. Spengler criticized "capitalism," and yet used the term to describe socialism up to that point, not just marx. Meanwhile, he openly advocated for a system that modern conservative capitalists would vote for within a heartbeat. What he meant by "Capitalism" is what he actually disliked, that being internationalism, political groups and private organizations doing things that didn't solely benefit his nation. One could argue that capitalism leads to that, but this one was not Spengler. He called socialism "capitalism" to get over the fact that he was just advocating for another capitalist, capital-oriented system. - Simply put, he was proudly in favor of private property, proudly making note of the fact that the formation of his system involves "carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and leaving scope for the kind of personal enterprise, talent, energy, and intellect displayed by an experienced chess player, playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords." - You've now gotten to the point where you're openly spreading the very same rhetoric as capitalists, such as calling socialists murderers and thieves while saying that rich people, and importantly their economic and political power, should be defended. This cannot be called socialism. - He was in favor of rich people though, as are you, as you defend his ideology. 5) Again, literally just explained this, Doctrine of Fascism. 6) So you're just ignoring what i'm trying to tell you. The NEP was not meant to "balance socialism." It wasn't called a socialist system, wasn't implemented with intentions of being a socialist system, and was promised to be temporary/apologized for by its socialist implementers, because they realized that it went against their ideological goal. What you call a "utopian dream world" is the definition of socialists, and what you call "balanced socialism" is what everyone, then and now, knew as capitalism. Well, everyone but capitalists, the group you're throwing your lot in with now. 7) To socialize the means of production means to put them in collective hands, to put everyone on the same level of control, to abolish private property and distribute the riches and power of the owning class among those that work their machines, and so on. To nationalize means to take into the states hands, and the state can represent the workers, but it can also represent capitalist interests, or hell, just represent the interests of the leaders themselves. You can insult me as much as you want, but the fact that it seems i'm constantly teaching you new things about your own ideology speaks volumes, and its clear that of the two of us, i'm the only one to have actually put in the work, done the research. You're calling Mussolini's voluntarily appointed head of economics a "puppet," because you can't get over the fact that in word and deed, Mussolini's system was only half a step away from capitalism. Oh, also, odd that you went right to antisemetic conspiracies. Telling.
    1
  2653.  Wulf  thank you for finally admitting to being wrong. See? That wasn't that hard. 1) But I have read them, this is why it is so easy, time and time again, to not only correct you but to educate you on the history of your ideology. You don't know what you're talking about, and i'm the one who had to tell you what you're even trying to defend. 2) Again, child, of the two of us, only one of us has actually proven their point by citing quotes and sources to back up their claims. I have quite literally proven that he was in favor of private property, and those that use it to gain personal wealth and power, and your only response is to claim I haven't read his work, despite literally quoting him. I didn't miss anything. Not like you would know, though, given you've failed to read his work all together. - Spengler's policies were the exact same that modern western conservatives support, and one of the biggest parts of his impact in the political sphere was on the modern Conservative Revolutionary and Conservative Populist movements. He disliked "modern western civilization" for the same reason they did, and still do. - Strikes aren't tools of capitalists, they're literally against capitalist private owners. See, this is the problem, you're reversing the concepts of capitalism and socialism and then using them to make absurd claims with no historical backing for your frankly silly definitions. Socialists aren't against strikes, again, you are against strikes because they harm capitalists, they harm private property and the rich and the powerful, the people who you call "Socialists." Reed quite literally participated in strikes, he wasn't against them. Socialists are not against strikes. Anti-socialist fascists are. - Dude, you literally said, and I quote, "all socialist were against strikes." And yet, here you are, now saying "I am not saying all socialists were against strikes." Do you see the problem? The people strikes hurt are capitalists, which is why fascists oppose them so much. - I call you ignorant because you are ignorant, and apparently proudly so. I've proven that Spengler's views were not only in line with modern conservatism, but that modern conservatism is heavily inspired by Spengler himself. Your only rebuttal to this is making up some fake world where conservative capitalists hate conservative capitalist policies, and where i've somehow gotten this information from some random video, rather than actual research, which is specific enough that I think I can reasonably guess that you're projecting. The fact that you call conservatives "closer to marxism" than Spengler, a head conservative of his time and inspiration to modern conservatism, says a lot. - So in other words, you called socialists murderers. You said that the policies that socialists actually advocate for, historically up until the modern day, makes them thugs, makes them utopic, makes them stupid. I hate to break it to you, but most politicians get rich, it doesn't make random people claiming to be socialist "Capitalism in decay," especially when nationalists and conservatives like Spengler not only get rich off of politics, but do so proudly and advocate for systems where their wealth and power remain their own. You literally advocate for the very system that founded american corporatism and capitalistic oligarchy, and now you're trying to project that onto socialists? You get literally everything backwards. - You literally said rich people should be defended, not attacked, under your "balanced socialism," a position that Spengler himself held. - Child, you keep saying "socialism in the real world" and when it is pointed out that the systems you describe have nothing to do with socialism and were not even known as socialist, you just run away. You call socialism "dreamy and utopic" and praise capitalism, or as you call it, "socialism in the real world." - Of course, I have read your famous conservative thinkers, from Spengler to Schmitt, Evola to Degrele, but I cannot claim that you've done the same. Since I have read them, I was able to quote exactly how they support private property and those that gain extreme amounts of wealth from it. Since you were unable to provide any countering evidence, or even countering argumentation, I must conclude that you're projecting yet again. - Child, what? You don't even know who wrote The Doctrine of Fascism?? I'm genuinely shocked at your ignorance. Just because I cite one source doesn't mean that's the only source i've read, especially when i've cited multiple at you, child. In any case, why should the Doctrine not be considered as a source? It wasn't "just a report of those given times written by a few people," it was a book outlining fascist ideology, written in collaboration between Gentile and Mussolini. It is the foundational source of fascist thought, and you didn't even know it existed until I explained it to you. I've clearly read more on this subject than you have in any. - No, child. Mussolini didn't refrain from calling himself a socialist because it would "confuse" people, he did so because he realized that fascism required the negation of socialism, and even the ideological and moral basis/assumptions of leftism. This is why he didn't only ignore the label socialist, but actively reject it, disassociate himself from it and write, over and over again, that socialism was an enemy of fascism. Mussolini wasn't a socialist, not because he called it something differently, but because he aligned with the right and anti-socialism. Its theory was not "reformed socialism," but populist rhetoric in a conservative shell, a rejection of socialism in all ways. - Please tell me you're joking. Read your own response. - And yet, it is me who explained to you the founding of Mussolini's economy, me who has cited his words back to you, and me who has explained the basic history of his economic theory, and the figures that he invited to help run it. You wouldn't have even known about De Stefani if not for me, and yet you claim i've not read anything on the subject. - No, child. I did defend my logic, and then called you out for, predictably, falling back into fascist antisemetism. The two things aren't comparable. Some communist leaders were jewish, not as a choice, but out of pure coincidence, and often that identity had nothing to do with their views, due to the popularity of secularism in communism at the time. Mussolini appointing capitalists to run his economy is nothing like this. It was an active choice, ideologically motivated, and entirely purposeful. Communism is not jewish, even though there were some jewish communists, because being born into a jewish family is not a choice, and jewish faith/ethnicity has nothing to do with communist thought. Mussolini, on the other hand, actively chose to appoint these people, they weren't born into this position, and he did so because the economic policy they proposed was in line with his ideology. You're saying that someone being born a way, and someone hiring another person, are "the same." Communism is not jewish, because jewish communists existing is coincidence. Fascism has capitalist economics, because fascists supporting capitalist economists is a conscious choice. Therefore, your argument is down, and you really showed your ignorance.
    1
  2654.  Wulf  Hey, at least I didn't proudly admit to being ignorant and incorrect, as you did. Hell, i'm not even a socialist.
    1
  2655.  Wulf  But you did, you lied, I proved your lie wrong, I proved you haven't read a word of research and theory, and you admitted that you were wrong. I "used the same arguments" because you continuously failed to address said arguments or provide evidence that countered them. Just because you didn't know the truth, doesn't bring it a lie. Evidently, you haven't read his work, at least not in any in-depth or critical sense, given your ignorance on his views. I, unlike you, have no desire to watch random videos and let them determine my view of history. Your ignorance is not the fault of others, and your lack of knowledge on the subject of your own debate is shameful.
    1
  2656.  Wulf  Except we're both aware of the simple fact that i'm not lying, hm? I have no interest in agreeing with someone who proves themselves to be so far from reality in their assertions.
    1
  2657. But you did, you pushed a narrative over the truth, I proved you wrong, I proved you haven't read a word of research and theory, and you admitted that you were wrong. I "used the same arguments" because you continuously failed to address said arguments or provide evidence that countered them. Just because you didn't know the truth, doesn't make it go away. Evidently, you haven't read his work, at least not in any in-depth or critical sense, given your ignorance on his views. I, unlike you, have no desire to watch random videos and let them determine my view of history. Your ignorance is not the fault of others, and your lack of knowledge on the subject of your own debate is shameful.
    1
  2658.  @AverageAlien By "everything" you mean "nothing" right?
    1
  2659.  @AverageAlien  Well, simply put, because that isn't reality. What is reality is that fascism is a form of far right anti-socialism, and I guess you deny that because you owe your allegiance to a very similar strain of that movement. Insulting people can never take that fact away, kid. No matter how hard you try.
    1
  2660.  @AverageAlien  The video is long debunked by its own sources, if you would have ever cared to read them rather than take the word of a youtuber. Trying to call random people flat earthers seems to have the opposite of the effect you want, given your constant projection. In any case, yes, you were showered with pure facts and you ignored them, instead going to the comments to insult people who proved you wrong.
    1
  2661.  @AverageAlien  This is a very cultish mindset, but it betrays the purpose of TIK's work. You see, he doesn't actually care about history, and neither do you. Both of your goals are to "destroy [your enemy's] entire worldview." You don't care about where the facts actually lead, or the fact that TIK's video is an 'academic' laughingstock and his own sources contradict him openly, or even the fact that watching TIK's video actually does very little to convince anyone of anything unless they were already agreeing with TIK. It's typical flat earther rightist nonsense, you can't actually debunk the facts present so you try to argue with random people, and devolve to insults when proven wrong. Sad.
    1
  2662.  @harrymills2770  *wasn't. done.
    1
  2663.  @AverageAlien  Well, thank you for so easily proving that i'm right. After all, if I was wrong, you'd be able to actually disprove a single fact I brought to your attention, you'd be able to address a single criticism I made of this video. However, you can't actually do that, can you?
    1
  2664.  @AverageAlien  Why would I enjoy being a far right anti-socialist like you? His own sources contradict him and he makes this clear openly, have you actually watched the video? I've already debunked what he says, have you read my response, child?
    1
  2665.  @AverageAlien  And yet I debunked so many facts that you can do nothing but run and hide while crying in the comments about imaginay left wingers that you can't actually address or debunk.
    1
  2666.  @AverageAlien  So in other words, you don't have any counter arguments.
    1
  2667.  @AverageAlien  Funny, there's a giant paragraph of responses that seems to disagree with you. A paragraph of responses... that you are unable to argue with, contradict, or counter in any way. Feel free to prove me wrong.
    1
  2668.  @AverageAlien  I already have. If you want to claim the facts I brought up in criticism of his video were incorrect, feel free to make an argument as to why.
    1
  2669.  @AverageAlien  Of course you can't debunk the reality of Hitler's anti-socialism, thank you for agreeing. And thank you for admitting you'll have more in common with a fascist than any leftist possible.
    1
  2670.  @AverageAlien  Again, you assert I have no facts but there is an entire response made of nothing but facts proving you wrong. If you have a counter argument to those facts, feel free to present it. However, you as a flat earther seem to have nothing.
    1
  2671.  @dergutehut3961  Oh it wasn't, don't worry. I genuinely appreciate what you've done to attempt to combat misinformation here.
    1
  2672.  @AverageAlien  LMAO you're still going with the "Debunk one thing!" (ignores every response that debunks your assumptions) strategy, huh?
    1
  2673.  @MadsterV  Why would you say "thanks" to a post that is disproven instantly by me?
    1
  2674.  @MadsterV  Nah just confused on why you would praise an argument torn down instantly.
    1
  2675.  @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
  2676.  @dgray3771  Yeah the problem there being that it is the right, not the left, that share hitler's social policies. His hatred for immigrants, his hatred of the old and unworking living off of state charity, his hatred of those that tried to unionize or manage their own workplaces, and so on. "Both sides" are offended, because one has gotten it right and the other has gotten it wrong. Taking a middle of the road position here is a bit silly.
    1
  2677.  @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
  2678.  @mitscientifica1569  Child, fascism is anti-socialist in nature, as even you have admitted.
    1
  2679.  @mitscientifica1569  MIT, you need to stop lying. Fascism has no desire for altruism, and their private, far right ideology has no desire for any sort of economic collectivism. Fascism, of course, is nothing like communism. Fascism, like its father conservatism, has no care for the rights of the individuals, whereas communism as a historical ideology has been linked to the foundation of one of the largest schools of individualism. The problem of course is that your statements don't reflect reality. Your statements are so vague that they can be substituted with any ideology and still be true. For example. The social group is paramount, and if the rights of the individual conflict with their perceived understanding of the good of the collective, both fascists and their more moderate counterparts, conservatives, are willing to violate those rights. Conservatism and fascism differ on which collective the individual should be sacrificed to. Fascism sacrifices the individual to the nation or race, while conservatism sacrifices the individual to the nation, the family, the culture, the race, the party, and so on. Do you see the problem yet? Communism doesn't sacrifice the individual at all, child. Is conservatism socialist in nature? Of course not. Fascism, like its modern counterparts, is not socialist in nature in the slightest. It is, in fact, anti-socialist to the core. Your assertion holds no basis. Communism abolishes private property in favor of a system of free and equal association among producers, while fascism protects private property and private owners with state force. The state did not control these individuals, but instead allowed said individuals to align themselves with the very ideology of the party, primarily through financial incentives, which is why so many private owners supported the nazis. The problem of course is that the "similarities" in question either come up out of pure fabrication, or can only be pointed out because the statements are so vague that the "similarities" are shared with most modern ideologies. For example, forced work, secret police, ideological imprisonment, starvation and slavery, all of those things happened under capitalist states. Are they too similar to communism? Do you understand that two countries having prisons, or even totalitarian prison systems, do not make them equal or alike in all other regards? The "outcome" argument is quite silly given that these outcomes show nothing other than authoritarian rule, which again, was far from exclusive to these two groups. Is that all that it takes to consider one a socialist, to share a number of traits with only some socialists that many anti-socialists share as well? Of course it makes a difference, and of course you're ignoring most of the differences. If one wants to talk about life and death under these ideologies, one must talk about the modern right wing capitalist empires, which have shown not only apathy but open contempt towards the notion of a right to life. So again, is that a similarity one must point out? Is communism just a form of capitalism, because it explains the atrocities committed in the name of both ideologies? I would recommend you stop quoting contradictory sources and claiming them as your own. The very fact that your only citation is an opinion piece from a right wing think tank named after an apologist to the nazi regime proves my point perfectly.
    1
  2680. And yet he's wrong.
    1
  2681.  @svy99n  Sure. There are a few parts, and if you'd like I could go into much more detail (i'm just a bit busy at the moment) but essentially he tries to define socialism as state control, and the state as any organization of people. In other words, he has directly called companies socialist, parties socialist, even hierarchy itself he calls socialist. His definition is so broad he calls everything that is not a singular individual socialist. I know how absurd that is, and trust me i'm doing my best to represent his views here, but these are all things he has legitimately said. The problem is that socialism is not just state control, and the nazis didn't even have that. Socialism is when the workers, as a whole, control the means of production. I think we can both agree hitler never did that, and given his actions relating to unions and labor rights, never even wanted it.
    1
  2682.  @svy99n  The claim I was making was not that germany was capitalist at the time, no, they really weren't. However, there isn't a rigid binary between capitalism and socialism. Nazi germany, and nazi ideology, was neither, and while they took aspects from both they largely dismissed the ideas of both as well, and constructed something new, fascism. The thing about said private ownership is that it did certainly exist, it was just not guaranteed. You could still very uch own and operate a business in competition with others, and in fact such behavior was encouraged at points, but you had no assurance that if you were to go against the nazis, would your ability to do that remain. The german government really didn't "supersize all of the substantive powers of ownership," they didn't micromanage those properties, and when in cases of non-wartime supplies, often let the businesses compete and operate freely. The problem is, you're mixing up a right to private property, with the existence of said private property. Business wasn't state owned, or state managed, it just wasn't state guaranteed. They didn't control the property in the slightest beyond what all other warring countries were doing at the time, and in fact, they did so substantially less. They also didn't really have "collectivist principles" as you put them. They couldn't care less for the greater good, or common good, because those groups included minorities, political dissidents, disabled folks, ect. Similarly, they didn't like the individual, because the individual could also go against them. So they warped and combined both the concepts, and engaged in a sort of selective populism, where they cared about the "collective" of Aryans, and the "individual" supremacy of Aryans. Of course they cared about the state first, but that's anti-socialist, not a socialist stance. They couldn't care less about the workers, they just wanted their perfect genocidal state to be the center of attention. Again, the nazis did not interfere in property when they felt they didn't need to, which was most times. That is not socialist. And thinking that, i'm sorry to say, doesn't at all change the defintion. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. If it was just about government control, famous socialists like Proudhon wouldn't be socialist at all. After all, they didn't want a government, and fought against a system where the state owned nearly everything (monarchism.) In socialism, the state does not have control, the workers do. If there is a state, it must either be ran by the workers as a whole, or representative of them. While socialism does remove the idea of private property, it doesn't transfer it into state property, rather into communal property, where people own it as a collective. The nazis in no way created any systems resembling that, in fact they destroyed quite a few that the Wiemar Republic had already had in place.
    1
  2683.  @svy99n  Sure, feel free, take your time. In the meantime, i'll respond to what you have here. Yes, in socialism, the key is that the workers have control. They can work through the state, but they must have control. If there is a state under socialism, that state has to be representative of the workers. So it must be some form of democracy, direct or representative, or perhaps a republic. However, one single "Leader" would never be bale to lead a socialist state, he cannot speak for all the workers. I would say the three scenarios are close to this - No state, the state gives workers control, or the workers control the state that controls the economy. The thing is in such a socialist system, it would have to be the workers controlling the means of production, not the leader, not the state. The workers themselves would either be the state, as in they are voting for policies and action relating to the economy, or they themselves are controlling that economy as a collective, directly. The production cannot be managed "for them," because if it is done against their desires or without their consent, it cannot be a worker ran economy, and cannot be socialism. I would agree that is an alternative, but it is far from the only one from the above systems both you and I have shown and pointed out here.
    1
  2684. ​ @svy99n  Hi then. Sorry this is a bit late, but i'll try to answer in full. (1/2) I think the key is looking at these states under the banners of what they actually are. The USSR, for example, in the early years did not even claim to be socialist. After Stalin took over that changed, but still. The thing is, consistent logic must be used. We can't redefine socialism based on who or what calls itself socialist, the word must be evenly applied. Your system of a "Leader" could work theoretically as socialism, but that person could not be a total authority, and must be able to be held accountable by the people. That really doesn't happen as often as you would think. Can it technically happen? Yes. Will it, in reality? Unless said leader is perfect at their job, no, most likely not. As for your next point, i'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, for this argument at least. I would agree, plenty of regimes have very, very misleading names. I think that's an aspect of totalitarian rules generally though. But in any case, I don't think that misleading name should determine their politics. Just as they can call themselves democratic in the absence of it, they can call themselves socialist in the absence of it. While your idea is interesting, I think you yourself disprove it pretty quickly. The workers very much did not voluntarily surrender themselves to the state, we can see as much in what happened to the Kulaks under Stalin's rule. They in some cases did think the state would help them, but it wold later do to them, they never signed up for. The state, while it sometimes would work for them, most of the time refused to work with them. As I said, this isn't a one time thing. An election can become despotic. A state can turn corrupt. The consent of the workers, like the consent of the governed, must be constant. Yes, the state can be put in place by the workers, but as I said, this can't be a one time deal. If a leader is put into place, they must be able to be held accountable. So yes, the workers must be in control for it to be true socialism, or really socialism at all. Now this doesn't necessarily mean the workers truly govern all aspects of society, although it certainly can be, but socialism refers more to the economy. Now you yourself pointed out the problem. While a society with a "leader" can in fact be socialist, there's a reason very few systems have been. It's because, like you said, such a leader would have to act as a perfect conduit to the masses, and such a system resting on just one person really wouldn't work. You would be right, every system calling itself socialist fails to do this. They do, in fact, " institute what is perceived by them (the leader and his hierarchy) to be the best for the Masses on their behalf. " The question, one i'll raise now and then leave alone, is what do we call socialist? Do we call it by what the socialist philosophers and thinkers who created the term want to call it? Or do we call it by what the dictators who put "socialist" in their party names actually did? I lean towards the first, simply because most people calling themselves socialist today want that, and not a new stalin. It's this question that I think is worth bringing up here. After all, did stalin, or other soviet leaders, put in place a system where the workers had control of, well, anything? Certainly not, there were more of his workers in camps than there were in government. They put in place, as you said, a system of "selective collective," where those that spoke out were removed. That kind of goes against the first big idea of socialism, the "workers as a whole," not just the ones you like. Yes, going back to the original discussion, did hitler fit that definition? Well, i've already brought up my issues with using actions over definitions, but let's get a more professional one. "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." Do they really fit that definition? Even so, we can see what you're talking about isn't socialism - it's totalitarianism. And while the two do have an unfortunate past, they can be separated, and must be, to a degree. Hitler's ideology, however, was in fact totalitarian as default. It had no intention of raising anyone up, besides himself, and crushing all others under his boot. To quote mussolini, with a different (but very similar) philosophy describing fascism: "A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else." As for the 25 point program, it's worth putting out there that it was part of a political propaganda move, as you said, to "seduce the working class," and very little of it was actually put into place, but I do still think it can be worth looking at it to see the later Nazis hypocrisy. I'll point out the specific cases where this is. 9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties. - well obviously this wasn't the case, given how little those on top worked, compared to those in labor camps. 10. Every citizen should have a job. Their work should not be selfish, but help everyone. - Again, considering the vast amount of homeless, and the vast amount in work camps, not the most accurate. *11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work. The breaking of the slavery of interest * - The first part of this is somewhat accurate, as they banned some kinds of welfare, but that's about at. *13. We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government. * - They actually banned all small corporations and sold much to bugger ones, while working with corporations across the ocean. *14. Big industrial companies should share their profits with the workers * - They disbanded the right to collective bargaining. *17. We want to change the way land is owned. We also want *o a law to take over land if the country needs it, without the government having to pay for it; *- This is one of the ones people often bring up, and there's actually an interesting passage from an interview done that i'll quote here relating to it.
    1
  2685.  @svy99n  (2/2) "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. " That is from Strasser's "Hitler and I." *20. We want to change the system of schools and education, so that every hard-working German can have the chance of higher education. *o If poor parent cannot afford to pay the government should pay for education * - I mean, again, state sponsored propaganda is kind of just a totalitarian thing in general, not as much socialist. I did leave out a few as you noticed, but I tackled the ones that got brought up the most, and the ones that seem the most "socialist" and not just political grandstanding. And you would be right, they did put in several things like a state-sponsored union, of course, they had ultimate authority over what the union did (kind of defeating the point) and outlawed all other unions. And here is where we disagree. I would say that we don't need to try to roughly attach it to whatever it's closest to, because we already have a name for it - fascism. Was it somewhat close to some of those socialist dictatorships? Sure, but it also shared much in common with, say, Pincohet's later rule, and the FSA, and even monarchs. The symptoms you talk about, of throwing people in jail and what not, were not exclusive to socialism, so I just think it's a bit useless to equate the two on those terms. After all, Pinochet wasn't a socialist, right? Anyway, you are correct. I believe I quoted it earlier, but they thought to take the parts of many systems that could fit their ideology of "state first," and one of many) was socialism. I think here it's worth discussing the differences here, because the similarities you present don't do much. For example, Trotsky certainly agreed with Stalin when it came to many of his totalitarian policies. And yet, the two feuded until the day Trotsky died. That's because, despite agreeing on some things, they disagreed on many. And they were still both socialists. All of the people you named were totalitarian, yes, but that doesn't mean much. You see similar policies on both the libertarian left, and libertarian right. I wouldn't say that a freedom to bear arms is a communist policy, even though communists like Marx and most others liked it, right? For the differences, you look at specific actions, and intents. Take Mao. Most of those killed were not because they were dissenters, they died in the Great Leap Forward, which is part of why China is in the position they're in today. The deaths were absdolutely not justified, but there is very much a difference in killing millions because of their ethnicity and killing millions because you're trying to achieve something. And that's the key. The systems you talk about are betrayals of socialism, but even setting that aside, there are so many key differences. The Nazis saw what they were doing as good, as the strong ruling the weak, as them asserting their superiority. The soviets, and mao, saw what they were doing as a justifiable action against their goals. Hell, you can see as much with Lenin's NEP. Lenin put it into place and the soviets hated it, they wanted it gone, and eventually got their wish. Hitler put into place a somewhat similar system, but he openly said that he supported that system, it was his goal. And that's, beyond all the policy and philisophical differences, the key. Hitler did what he did because it was well within his ideology, and he wanted to. Mao, Stalin, ect, did what they did even though it went against their ideology because they thought it might help, or that it was necessary. Does that justify it? No, but it differentiates it. And here's the last point, where I largely agree with you, but still differ. I agree with you that trying to create a society centered around a "leader," be it on the right or left, is incredibly flawed. I would certainly agree with you there. However, every system fails. Just, generally. Think of the hundreds of times people tried to overthrow a monarch, with no success. Or the times it literally backfired so hard they progressed backwards, like the french revolution. Hell, if you really want to think about this stuff, think of all the times civilization itself failed, and only the few, small cases when it succeeded, under extraordinary circumstances. I'm not saying this in relation to socialism, by the way, but any system. One day, there will most likely come a system that is better than the one now. And we can point to it being untested, or point to it failing, but it'll fail until it succeeds. Socialism failed for a variety of reasons, but not many are intrinsic to the ideology. Outward forces, useless leaders, natural disasters, the list goes on. Hell, russia was coping with losing a huge amount of their industry from their Scorched Earth tactics, and 16 million people. Am I trying to excuse socialism? No, I hope you can tell from this response, but I personally am not a socialist, nor a communist. But I think it's worth looking at these ideas with nuance. It's also worth looking at the alternative the same way. Other systems will rise up, and possibly succeed amazingly, or fail even worse than the USSR or Mao's China have done. Those are worth considering. The USA is on top of the world, with tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths as the direct result of our actions... for what? So we can buy a new iphone, most likely made in china? I don't know, I think both systems are worthy of heavy criticism. There is no good guy in history. But we can always strive for something better, I think at least. But that about raps it up, I suppose. Again, sorry for the delay, but it took me a while to actually get around to starting. Hope to hear your take on all this! And thanks again for the civility.
    1
  2686.  @TheImperatorKnight  Oh, they're watching.
    1
  2687.  @koryonos-geheim-einherii  But that... isn't how that works. He wasn't a socialist, because even though there was a time when socialism was less rigidly defined, his policies, his philosophy, his rhetoric and his political allies all point in the exact opposite direction from socialism. Expanding credit, jobs programs, and "bullying" the private sector aren't socialist policies, they're policies that have bee advocated for and upheld by even capitalists for forever. It wasn't capitalist either, and it certainly wasn't somehow both at the same time.
    1
  2688.  @koryonos-geheim-einherii  Amazing comeback then, I guess.
    1
  2689.  @koryonos-geheim-einherii  ok then, alright.
    1
  2690. They aren't communists and socialists, mate. The people telling you the truth, that hitler was not a socialist, are historians. The fact that you so wish to challenge reality says a hell of a lot about how you put your own ideological bias in front of any care you have about history. The idea that hitler was a socialist is long debunked, and one it seems the right keeps trying to revive because they can't handle that it's an objective fact that hitler was right wing, and not a socialist. Anyone who says otherwise better make a strong case, and i'm sorry, blaming "leftist academia" isn't that case. It's literally what the nazis did.
    1
  2691.  @jonnybgoode7742 one good example of both our statements below mine
    1
  2692.  @fatguy6153  Yes, you cannot be right wing and a socialist. That's... kind of the point, socialism is a leftist idea. I would say China is right wing culturally, much like the USSR, but it is still pretty left wing. Also, they aren't socialist, they're state dirigiste. They left behind all that socialism nonsense with their constant market reforms that started a few decades back, and they haven't looked back since. They're much closer to a capitalist system with a strong bleedover between the state and private sector, which act as largely the same thing. I would say that genocide, or even ethnic genocide, isn't exclusive to one side, you'd be right. However, the problem of course then lies in the actual interpretation. Were some notable socialists anti-semetic? Yes, they were, just like they were most likely racist. The past was a different time. For the most part however, said anti semetism wasn't part of their belief system or ideology, which is good. I don't see how any of that gives you the idea that socialism can be right wing, though, that doesn't make much sense. It can certainly have conservative parts, or conservative policies under otherwise socialist-leaning systems, but on the whole it makes no sense to call it right wing.
    1
  2693.  @fatguy6153  It... just isn't. What you described indeed points out that it's a totalitarian system, but nothing you said showed that they were at all socialist. Any regime that encourages people to start a business doesn't really fit the bill of socialism. They don't care about the workers at all, many CEOs are entrenched in important positions within the state. Could it have socialist influences? Yes, probably, but they don't really have a socialist system in place. The problem with supposed "right wing socialism" is that it ceases to become socialist. China has a direct market system, North Korea is a hereditary monarchy, the USSR was constantly working for it's upper classes, and the italian fascists made a point of disagreeing with socialists on most issues. "National Socialism," as in a "socialism" that focuses on the nation or race over the workers and class is in no way socialism to begin with. Statist socialism does exist, but it actually has to be giving the workers the means of production. The problem with your "state socialism" is that it isn't socialism, it's a system of totalitarian market reform where the businesses own the government as much as the other way around. Systems like china cannot be socialist, they check none of the boxes, but even then they aren't doing what you claim makes up "state socialism." They don't care about equality or inequality, clearly. They give huge bailouts and cuts to business, so they aren't exactly trying to control all of the market. They also, as I said, encourage the use of private ownership in the construction and maintenance of business. I fail to see how any of that is socialist. Would you mind defining socialism for me, really quick?
    1
  2694. Well then i'm sorry to say you've always been wrong.
    1
  2695.  @jaimes350  You realize the right is literally, currently, abducting people in vans for daring to protest, and firing gas canisters and flash bangs at them hourly? Yes, you were wrong, and more than that, we have proof of the right being more tyrannical and fascist every day. Fascism and socialism are nearly direct opposites.
    1
  2696.  @jaimes350  You know this is literally how the nazis rose to power, right? They increased police force, and made up an enemy for the people to fear, regardless of the actual danger of said enemy. We have proof the police aren't arresting criminals, they're arresting random protesters in unmarked vans. The fact that you support this shows you probably would have fallen for nazi propaganda while they were rising. And yeah, sorry, I don't like fascism. Is that now a crime too? Get used to it, mate. The right are objectively more tyrannical and more violent in the modern day, and you're defending those very practices, the same way the nazis did.
    1
  2697.  @jaimes350  You really don't know much about history, do you? Antifa was the one resisting the brownshirts in the streets, champ.
    1
  2698.  @jaimes350  It's ok, we get it, you don't know what you're talking about. Considering that the police force leans heavily right wing, is supported by right wingers, and loves to engage in unconstitutional, terroristic and tyrannical violence (which right wingers applaud) you may just be an idiot. I'm sorry to say, but telling you to put on a mask is not tyrannical. What is tyrannical is beating innocent protesters to a pulp for daring to use their first amendment rights, which you all love. Q: What happened in places like new york, where the police went on strike because they felt they weren't getting respect? A: Crime and murder went down, and of course, the police weren't stealing, raping, or killing on the job as they often do. Apparently innocent people being shot and being ruled by the criminal gang called the modern police system appeals to you.
    1
  2699.  @jaimes350  They were the german KPD force used to counter-attack the german nazis, kid.
    1
  2700.  @jaimes350  Exactly, those that are fascist (those on the right) will always deny fascism until the last possible moments, right before they start shoving people in camps. You seem to despise I an point that out so easily. You need to do more research on the origins of fascism and the movement.
    1
  2701.  @jaimes350  It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Mussolini was kicked out of the socialist party for spreading anti-socialist views, and then ebraced the party that countered the socialists the most, the fascist party. He later said that the goal of his movement was to "...smash the heads of the Socialists." Hitler literally sent socialists to his camps first, he outspokenly said he despised socialists and socialism, and embraced right wing conservative fascism. This isn't ignorance, that was your statement. This is called history. Neither were socialists. Fascism and socialists are nearly perfect opposites.
    1
  2702.  @jaimes350  He was kicked out of the party, not just because he wanted to go to war, but because he abandoned everything socialism stood for. Even he called fascism right wing, a fact you seem keen on avoiding. He was not only an anti communist, but an anti socialist as well, as he himself said he wanted to leave socialism in the 19th century. China is not communist, as communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Hell, they literally encourage their people to start up businesses. Doesn't seem very socialist to me. Oh, and of course you bring up AOC, a young successful woman who has found herself in a position of power through her own work and appealing to the people. Isn't that what conservatives claim to love? I guess not. Well, you have fun "earning a living," or more likely watching more youtube videos and leaving more comments so we can understand the full extent of your ignorance. Have a good one!
    1
  2703.  @jaimes350  Hm? Oh, you're doing that thing conservatives do, where they pretend to know what they're talking about because they heard some conservative repeat itback to them a few years ago.You know that amazon thing didn't actually happen, right? They didn't get costed thousands of jobs, they moved in anyway. Come on, at least keep up to date with your propaganda. Also, the NGD was not only not actually introduced by her, but would bring thousands of jobs to america, lower the amount you spend on vital needs like healthcare, and make america the envy of the world in terms of environmental stability. Oh, yeah, and it would be profitable for the nation. Happy to help dispel your myths :)
    1
  2704.  @jaimes350  I don't know man, you're the one who just wrote "sigh," and used the wrong "you're." Perhaps you should educate yourself on these matters a bit more.
    1
  2705.  @captainremington5109  I hate to break it to you, claiming Lenin "eradicated the jews" is objectively false. Eradicated means "destroy completely; put an end to." While lenin did purge political enemies, some of whom were jewish, and pushed for secularization of faith, which included jewish faith, he in no way eradicated his jewish population. Hell, his reign was best defined as one radically against antisemetism, recognizing it as a tool of the right and calling it an enemy to soviet life. You're thinking of stalin. Also, I hate to break it to you, the victims of purges in say, the USSR, weren't "rich farmers." Hell, Lenin made a whole lot more rich farmers with the NEPmen. No, the victims were antisemetic monarchists and fascists who openly pushed for a far, far worse system. Oh my god you're an idiot. Communism isn't just socialism, communism is the advocacy for a stateless, classless, moneyless society, a concept that existed long before Stalin. Stalin also had no need to attempt to distance himself from the nazis, given he was already about as distanced as you can get, on the opposite side of the political spectrum, a fact that only recently fanatics like you have tried to put into question. Furthermore, the very fact that you defend mussolini's far right fascism should point you to the fact that it simply isn't socialist. Mussolini's system didn't unite the nation at all, it united the powerful in an anti-socialist fear-state. Mussolini did divide up by race and class, he was openly and proudly racist and antisemetic and constantly put in place policies to benefit his wealthy allies rather than the people as a whole, or even "the nation." Your apologia for fascism and nazism is only proof to the fact that they aren't at all socialist. You proudly claim support for the most deadly ideology to date, defending it with the fanaticism most often seen in nazis. I hate to break it to you, but capitalism does demonize groups of people for the supposed benefit of others. You're doing it right now. Marxism is a method of analysis, not an economic system. Nazism has no core ideological economic program, and fascism remains the same. Capitalism however, by your logic, claims that the poor are demons, the unionists are demons, the socialists are demons, and so on. I could just as easily flip it around further, and point out that marx called for the emancipation of the individual. Nazis and Fascists are not communists or socialists, objectively. Communists and Socialists want collective ownership of the means of production, they don't even need a party. Capitalists want private ownership of the means of production, through a forced, unnatural system, that just further concentrates power and capital.
    1
  2706.  @captainremington5109  Again, false. Lenin didn't target jewish people any more than any other religious group or political rivals. Marx never called for the extermination of jewish people, he called for the secularization of jewish communities. He also said nothing about jewish people in the Communist Mannigesto. You're literally making shit up. Here's an actual quote from Lenin: "It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations. The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital. Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers. Shame on accursed tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations. Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital." The holodomor was not targeted at all, so how could successful people be targeted? It was literally the result of said people burning their own success. The nazis were very much objectively not socialists, as the sources on this video prove. Socialism isn't the society owning the means of production, nor did german society represent the nazi party. Nazis were very much socialists, watch the video you dunce. Socialism is the Society owning the means of production. The Nazi party, being the society, owned the means of production.
    1
  2707.  @captainremington5109  What an amazing comeback. No, sorry, you just don't understand or know history in the slightest. Easy!
    1
  2708.  @captainremington5109  Watch the video, read the sources, and stop lying to others. Hitler wasn't a socialist, and TIK's own sources readily prove this. Every single one of my points remains unaddressed, both by you and by TIK. You aren't going to respond, not because you don't want to "waste time," but because you know you're wrong, and you know you'll never accept history. Stop believing fallacies, stop pushing sophistry, come to reality.
    1
  2709.  @captainremington5109  Your ignorance is frankly astounding. Hitler didn't give the means of production to the nazi party, he allowed and encouraged private owners to compete among eachother for the favor of said party in the first place, that favor being given in the form of voluntary, guaranteed-profit contracts. What you describe, as well, is not "socializing the means of production," as that would imply making them socially, or collectively, owned. Your ignorance of these facts is astounding, frankly what world do you have to be in to not see something as clear as basic reality, black and white, objectively true. This is why your type is incapable of debate, and more importantly, learning from your mistakes after you lose one. There is a clear and objective historical record of Hitler being a far right anti-socialist and yet in the face of all of the evidence, you still claim he wasn't, all while providing nothing but insults and deflections yourself. Kid, what evidence do you have to prove a falsehood true? You assert "all of the evidence" leads to to conclusion that Hitler was a socialist, and yet historians and experts for years have collected and put to use the evidence in question and overwhelmingly come to the exact opposite conclusion. Your denial of basic economics is noted. Do you think that a country with a 70% private economy, like venezuela, is socialist? Do you think that countries with a less private economy, like Sweden or Denmark, are more socialist then? Do you understand the differences between public and private, market and state, socialism and capitalism? Evidently not, hence your uninvited rant on an entirely different subject.
    1
  2710.  @mitscientifica1569  You forgot the right wing part necessary for fascism.
    1
  2711.  @mitscientifica1569  are you saying they were both right wing?
    1
  2712.  @mitscientifica1569  leftist fascist is an oxymoron, and one has to be right wing to be a fascist.
    1
  2713.  @mitscientifica1569  again, child, you continually include the first, critical element of fascism - bring right wing. There is no such thing as a left wing fascist, and thus they were not fascists. You can try to cope your way out of that fact and ignore the rightism inherent in fascism, but it won't work :) Again, they did not meet the basic definition of fascism, which includes being right wing. You can't prove that they were right wing, you can tell yourself anything you want but that won't change that fact.
    1
  2714. ​ @mitscientifica1569  Why do you keep trying to deny Hitler's favorable and positive comments on far right anti-socialism, and his system of far right mass murder? Why do you continue to take his quotes out of context, continue to neglect to include his definition of socialism, and fail to recognize open propaganda? "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." “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” “Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. [Nazism], 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 [Nazis] 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.”
    1
  2715.  @mitscientifica1569  I love how you can't even come up with new insults so you have to use the old ones. Old ones that you can't even prove because you can't deal with your own constant failures in the real world? Unless Mao or Stalin were right wing, they had no "inherent fascism" to speak of. You can't prove that they fit all of these eight required elements of fascism, as they did not according to objective fact. -Right wing -authoritarian -ultranationalist -dictatorial power -forcible suppression of opposition, -strong regimentation of society and economy - use of mass murder, torture and imprisonment -total absence of democracy and human rights /://://
    1
  2716. ​ @mitscientifica1569  Exactly, even after all these months you still can't prove that Hitler didn't make a multitude of positive and favorable statements about far right anti-socialism, and you have neglected basic historical context. Even in private he stated clearly his absolute hatred of Marxism/Socialism. You try to quote nazi propaganda, but ignore the part where hitler proclaimed "they had never even read marx" in an attempt to spread antisemetic conspiracy, and that he actually said this of socialism:"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." “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” “Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. [Nazism], 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 [Nazis] 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.” his differences with the communists, he explained, were less tactical that ideological in nature. And of course, Hitler then revealed that the whole of his ideology was based on a basic rejection of marx and socialism in all forms, being shown in Strasser's Hitler and I: "‘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.’ "
    1
  2717.  @mitscientifica1569  Exactly, even after all these months you still can't prove that Hitler didn't make a multitude of positive and favorable statements about far right anti-socialism, and you have neglected basic historical context. Even in private he stated clearly his absolute hatred of Marxism/Socialism. You try to quote nazi propaganda, but ignore the part where hitler proclaimed "they had never even read marx" in an attempt to spread antisemetic conspiracy, and that he actually said this of socialism:"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." “We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.” “Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. [Nazism], 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 [Nazis] 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.” his differences with the communists, he explained, were less tactical that ideological in nature. And of course, Hitler then revealed that the whole of his ideology was based on a basic rejection of marx and socialism in all forms, being shown in Strasser's Hitler and I: "‘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.’
    1
  2718.  @mitscientifica1569  - nice try, the Nazi Government did not control the majority of Germany economy’s, they allowed private production in most industry, which included consumer products , healthcare and agriculture . They did this through the following methods: - constant privatization efforts with private businesses - An abolishing of trade unions and the gained support of businessmen, who found themselves supporting the nazi party as private individuals - Private control of wages, pricing, hiring/firing and production targets through voluntary contracts In reality, the nazi government promoted a system of private property and production, and absolutely opposed in every way any form of socialism.
    1
  2719.  @mitscientifica1569  Exactly, you are just repeating the same copy paste nonsense over and over with no evidence, mixed in with insults that show you're painfully aware of how incorrect you are
    1
  2720.  @mitscientifica1569  I agree, you are exceedingly pathetic, and use no citations, just copy and paste the same long disproven BS again and again. I provided incontrovertible proof of Hitler's positive support of anti-socialism per his quotes, and you were unable to provide a counter or a refuation. You do realize everyone in this thread realizes how often you copy and paste the same nonsense, sometimes multiple times in a row to the same person, yes?
    1
  2721.  @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
  2722.  @mitscientifica1569  h, 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
  2723.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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
  2724.  @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
  2725.  @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
  2726.  @8Maduce50  Wow! Not a single one of those things is true! why do you feel the need to lie in defense of hitler?
    1
  2727.  @8Maduce50  The fact that you openly attempt to redefine terms you evidently don't understand, all while lying about hitler's views and actions, is disgusting. Socialism is not "state control over the economy," though frankly that's a moot point, as the nazis despised state control. They hated equality in all forms, and made that known. "Class equity in terms of race" is literally called class collaborationism... a centuries old conservative policy position. They didn't "redistribute wealth," they privatized industry. One company being used for public projects to bolster germany's private economy doesn't erase the private economy. So no, nazi germany wasn't socialist. I know you hate this fact, but it isn't going away. You assume anyone who tells you the truth must be a socialist, because your own ideological fanaticism drives you to believing that everyone has the same deep biases. You can redefine your way out of the truth.
    1
  2728. and he doesn't even manage that, because hitler wasn't a socialist
    1
  2729. They tend to be "aghast"at it because it just simply isn't true. The left has never been an ally of nazi germany, the closest you get is a fragile pact with the soviets that was broken pretty much instantly, because both ideologies despised the other one. I'm sorry, but it seems that in refusing to actually engage with academic thought and research (which, coincidentally is what the nazis did, blamed all their problems on "marxist academia") you've fallen into your own proaganda pothole. Fascism has never been left wing, i'm sorry to say. Even Mussolini, the man you claimed was a "far left communist" called fascism a far right wing ideology, and cited several conservative and religious figures in his formation of it. Mussolini also put capitalist libertarians in charge of his economy, and worked with religious conservatives to spread his message. He also said the soviets were all controlled by the J*ws, so he wasn't a big fan of them. The nazis similarly appealed to conservatives, like Franz von Papen, to even get into power, and had their most loyal base, such as Carl Schmitt, in conservatives. Of course there is fightback from the far right, because they know that they've been caught supporting the nazis, so they want to deflect everything onto the left. Especially figures like Dinesh D'Souza, who was literally found out to be fabricating historical information to try to push his propaganda. He doesn't tackle historical inaccuracies, he spreads them, as does you. You all just want to deny that the nazis were far right, because... they had socialist in their names? Really? So you think Buffalo Wings come from real Buffalo? So yes, they were right wing, and I already corrected you on Mussolini. Hell, the fascists were praised by conservatives, by Churchill, by Mises. Similarly, the soviets prasied the US. Does that make the US far-left socialist as well, or did you not think that far ahead? So it seems that, yet again, the righties fragile ego comes before history to them, because they don't want to admit the truth. As usual.
    1
  2730.  @jscottupton  You, on the other hand, are using a definition of socialism that you made up.
    1
  2731.  @mattgrover3096  Ok, but he literally wasn't a socialist. This is a fact.
    1
  2732. ​ @tsaoh5572  Being civil may be a expected part of debate, but sadly it is a rare one to find in this comment section, so thank you anyways. And sure, of course a big part of this debate is around the definitions, the problem being that no matter what, the definitions just don't line up. Here I can agree, in that Hitler's ideology largely ignored any sort of set economic plan or policy, in favor of what was effective and what would help win the war. However, it wasn't entirely up to chance, especially his social views. And I would add to the list of parts that came from the right, that the very ideas of social darwinism and hierarchical power dynamics are what indeed defined the right at the time, which of course was a huge part of nazi ideology. Also, another quick nitpick here, though I agree with your overall point - one does not have to "live like" something to believe in it. One can believe in Soulism without living in the void, one can believe in Anarchism while living under a state, and one can be a socialist without living in poverty. And here is where we reach disagreement. No, the roots of nazi thought are not in the left, certainly not primarily so, and while certain aspects of rhetoric were taken from the left, the core of the ideology is firmly on the right. First off, changing from one ideology to another is not indicative of that new ideology - there are hundreds that have switched from socialism to libertarian capitalism, and vice versa - does that make socialism a capitalist ideology? No, so why would ex-marxists joining the right determine the lean of their new movement? Also - this part is false. For one, yes, Marx was a bigot... like nearly everyone else alive at the time. Marx, however, did not translate his bigotry into his ideology, at all. Marx's ideology was wholly economic. And you literally just said the nazis had no particular economic alliance. So no, they disagreed on far more than just "international vs national." Also, that last line is nonsense. If you replace "class" with an entire different identity, of course it would be different. I could also replace class with say, competition, and now marx sounds like an advocate of capitalism. You see the problem? You're literally replacing his ideas. And strasser, while perhaps closer to the left than hitler, was by no means a socialist. Socialism is fundamentally based on ideas of egalitarianism and equality, and strasser openly said that equality was a myth that would lead to the end of human civilization. Strasser didn't want socialism, he wanted a system with strong support for german citizens, but that isn't socialism by default, just a strongly nationalistic welfare system. And that sort of system is not socialism, but a type of corporatism. Goebbles is a complex figure to discuss, but what you must always keep in mind is that he was literally the head of state propaganda for the nazis. His goal was to drum up support for their movement, of course he would suggest an alliance with other political parties. However, it is worth pointing out that they never did end up siding with the socialist or communist parties of their nation - instead, it was the conservative parties who banded together to get hitler into office, undemocratically, and they who were rewarded under hitler's reign. Another thing - you are assuming that hitler actually considered the subjects of nationalism and socialism to be separate, and achieved separately - this was not the case. Hitler defined socialism as nationalism, so of course he would prioritize nationalism, as according to his definition of socialism, any system that was economically nationalist must also be socialist. autonomy And thank you for your time, I think you articulated your points just fine, though I also think a great many of them could require some clarification I hope to have given here. As for your definition of socialism, it is closer than most, but remember that what separated Marx's socialism from other socialisms of the time was not the type of control, it was its part in a historical dialectic. And I agree, its a difficult debate, but I think one that needs to be had. As long as people are out there comparing anyone left of center to hitler, I think it is a fair point to remind them where hitler came from. As for this final thought, I would disagree. Does nazi ideology have some roots in leftism? Sure, but not primarily. Nazism took from leftism what it thought it needed, and nothing more. The principles of equality and fairness were left behind, the defining features of leftist thought. Now, did nazism take from socialism? I would say not. It took on the rhetoric of socialism, but even the furthest left officials of the nazi party did not propose a socialism, even for the german people - they proposed a system of inequality and domination in which they felt the strong would rise. And that is my point - fascism, and nazism, do not lean left in influence or ideology.
    1
  2733.  @tsaoh5572  I'd be happy to read the paper you recommended, but it is worth pointing out that marx's work itself was not based on race or nationality, rather class. The race factor, in this case, was at most a subtle reality, not a basis of an ideology. And I would agree that yes, Marx was a racist, an anti-semite, and certainly not a very big fan of certain cultures, but he also justified this using the same economic calculations, even if off base. That's why I think it is a bit silly to equate the two ideologies, for example I could do the same with U.S. presidents of the time and point out how their bigotry might have been similar to the bigotry of another group. Marx's social views are worth discussion, but there's a reason that even the groups he was prejudiced against were able to so easily pick up and modify his work for said groups, because those social prejudices are not really built in. And here we disagree again, I suppose. You make a point that the founding fathers did something similar, they claimed to want equality for all people, but then restricted who they counted as a person. The thing is, we have objective hindsight here, and we can tell that they didn't actually believe all men were created equal. In any case, the thing is, the Nazis never even really claimed to want socialism for the germans. Here's a quote from one of Hitler's party members, Strasser, who we've talked about a bit aready: "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!" That is not a call for equality among some, that is a call for inequality among all. Nazism is antithetical to egalitarianism, it never even came close to destroying the caste system in germany, it literally managed to just centralize wealth further, either in the hands of wealthy nazi-supporters or the nazis themselves. The germans were not first and foremost, they were being thrown in camps or executed for doing anything from speaking out to simply being born different. The germans didn't want equality, they were social darwinists, they wanted the strong to rule, in state or otherwise. To say "the nazi party was always obsessed with creating equality" is just incorrect, they didn't do that in theory, promise, or action. And to think so hierarchically would make you by definition not a leftist, which is why marxists, anarchists, socialists, ect cannot also be social darwinists. Sure, we can go back and forth here, but some of the points being made even here... perplex me a bit. And I'll agree that in political origin, nazism did not only come from either the left or right, sure, but in practice, in ideological lean when the dust has settled and the ideology has cemented? Well, the very difference between left and right is the acceptance or rejection of hierarchical thinking, the left seeking to dismantle it, the right propping it up or continuing it, and nazism falls to one side very clearly there.
    1
  2734.  @tsaoh5572  These are the definitions of right and left i've found that best describe the difference between the entire right and entire left wing. Of course, when you're just talking about basic conservatives and not, say, right wing extremists, they do try to implement measures of limited equality into their ideology. However, this is only basic starting equality, which would then develop into hierarchy given the tendency for people to compete under this conservative ideology. In the end, hierarchy is preserved. And this I would disagree with. First, with the right, the protection of property has not always been a right wing strategy. When the right as a political construct was first formed, it was used to describe monarchism, and obviously monarchs don't have the best track record for respecting property rights. It was the more left of that time who introduced the concepts of property rights. Similarly, many social conservative movements work best when denying those rights to said people, which in more extreme cases, does happen. The left also does not focus only on the worker, though since equality tends to effect the workers the most, that isn't an uncommon perception. After all, it is usually the left that proposes measures to help those that can't work, right? mixing And that's the thing - if the means of production were managed and distributed as Marx wanted, the world would already be far more equal. That's the point of collective ownership of the means of production, the workers as a whole are raised up to the level of their bosses, equally, holding equal power in their workplace to their superiors. hierarchy
    1
  2735.  @jscottupton  So then it isn't socialism.
    1
  2736.  @jscottupton  Perhaps you should start questioning why its such a common argument to correctly state it isn't socialism then, instead of mocking it.
    1
  2737.  @jscottupton  we live under capitalism. The people you named were capitalists. This is how you know capitalism has truly failed, when it calls itself socialism. Do you understand the truth yet?
    1
  2738.  @jscottupton  ah, so you don't know basic political definitions. I'm not surprised, but still saddened. We live under capitalism. The "mixed economy" is still a capitalist economy. We have no socialist sectors of the economy, we are not socialist. We only have government and capitalism, the two of which align very well. Capitalism is an economic system, like any other, and when one removes any government interference or oppression, capitalism will die with it. Capitalism literally needs the force of the state guaranteeing the existence of private property to even exist. Face it, you're indoctrinated, and wrong. You call blatant capitalism "socialism" because it is failing horribly, and you're afraid to admit this is what happens when capitalism rules the world. You seem to think the government are criminals, and I would agree. Sadly for you, the government is ruled by capitalists, usually to the favor of capitalists. You get rid of government, capitalism falls with it.
    1
  2739.  @maelofohio6682  But you've haven't addressed it. You've just said things that are historically false as if they were true, and then made assumptions based on your other assumptions. The right stands for hierarchy, nationalism, authority, traditionalism, and conservatism. Conservatives don't want less government, historically most were monarchists. Anarchists are an offshoot of socialists, who are quite literally far left. Hitler's nazism and Mussolini's fascism wanted private control of the means of production, and anti-socialist control of nation. Marx didn't even want a state. At the end of the day, liberalism remains as a form of capitalism, and you have no sense of logic. Hitler and Mussolini were, by all logic, far right ideologues.
    1
  2740.  @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 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
  2741.  @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
  2742.  @mitscientifica1569  Bill Gates is literally one of the richest capitalists in existence.
    1
  2743.  @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 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. He points out that ownership was not abolished, and with the additional context of his other statements, we know that the nazi system was not one of socialism, and was one in which private industry had supreme loyalty to. The nazi party had the potential to control everything, but of course it didn't, and of course this is not the definition of socialism, as Orwell himself points out. Perhaps stop quoting out of context from things you don't understand? 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. But let's add some more context that you try to leave out, hm? "“common ownership of the means of production” is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class system. Centralised ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. “The State” may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money." "Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes." "But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognise any obligations. Eminent Nazi professors have “proved” over and over again that only nordic man is fully human, have even mooted the idea that non-nordic peoples (such as ourselves) can interbreed with gorillas" "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor rnan, 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. He stands for a centralised economy which robs the capitalist of most of his power but leaves the structure of society much as before. The State controls industry, but there are still rich and poor, masters and men. Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the moneyed 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 rightwing politicians." - George Orwell. 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
  2744.  @maelofohio6682  I never said that though, I pointed out that anarchism and the right are incompatible. how could I "admit" anarchists are far right when that isn't true? The right is defined by authority, and all anarchists are socialists. Stop lying.
    1
  2745.  @maelofohio6682  Amazing how you can't come up with a single rebuttal, huh? No, Monarchism did more than "give rise" to conservatism, monarchism is a form of conservatism, the first one in fact, and to this day monarchists the world over identify with and are defended by conservatives. The mottos on some codes of arms doesn't change the historical legacy of conservative monarch and their deep authoritarianism. There are actually many conservatives in europe, some far more right wing and authoritarian than in the US, they're just not your favorite conservatives. This video proves nothing of the sort, and appealing to authority does nothing. Of course, i've debunked every facet of your point, bit by bit. But as you have no counter, and can only make stuff up, you are unable to present any rebuttal. Child, can you read? All anarchists are quite literally based off of socialism economically, and thus have nothing to do with the right. Anarchists aren't far right, as I said: "Anarchists are an offshoot of socialists, who are quite literally far left."
    1
  2746.  @maelofohio6682  But you don't quote me - read the actual response I gave, in which I asserted that Anarchists are never far right, and are quite literally far left. At least you admit this, by calling anarchists socialists. The "few minor words" you got wrong was replacing "left" with "right," in other words changing the entire meaning of the statement. If you can't accurately quote me, that is your shortcoming, not mine. You have lied this entire time, and I have never once agreed with your absurd and frankly pathetic assertions.
    1
  2747.  @maelofohio6682  But there are conservatives in europe. Again, your only attempts at refutation thus far has been assertion, backed only by further assertion. Monarchism is the start of conservatism as an ideology. The actual pure evidence refutes your uneducated assumption that monarchism is not one of the most historically prevalent forms of conservatism. Claiming that I haven't refuted anything because you can't deal with my arguments is pathetic. And if you truly are 30 years old, I pity you, you have so much to learn and sadly so much of that time has been wasted in your zealotry. You are free to insult me all you want, but it will never change the reality of your debunked argument. And your replies are your attempts at rebuttal, but of course, they rebut nothing. Saying "i'm right because you're wrong" over and over isn't a rebuttal, and pretending that it is, is pretty sad.
    1
  2748.  @maelofohio6682  HA You literally couldn't read, and this is somehow my fault? You barreled ahead so quickly with your argument that your mind just substituted left for right, and now you're weaving some conspiracy to blame your zealotry on me. No, child, I never agreed with you, and now you're faced with the reality of your argument and statements having zero backing. I have never agreed with your nonsense. If I agreed, you'd have some surrounding context to prove your claims, right? And yet, you have none. Being "caught" implies you aren't lying, which you are. Run away, child. I'll take the win, and your humiliation, as my prize.
    1
  2749.  @maelofohio6682  Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Conservatism is the legacy of europe. Of course, after I caught you fabricating quotation in an attempt to make it sound like I ever agreed with you, which I clearly never did, you have nothing left. You have no choice but to keep up your lie rather than admit your ignorance. Since I caught you in this lie, I see that you have no education nor critical thinking, and continue arguing purely out of ideological fanaticism. That's why you're running away, since I caught you in a lie. I mean hell, you think "far right socialists" exist, you're quite disproven. I know you're trying to justify the shame you feel upon realizing how effortlessly you handed me the win, but don't pretend that we can't all see you running away for what it is. You have yet to prove a single one of your claims, you have yet to prove your fabricated quotations as anything other than a misunderstanding on your end (again, you seem to think that right wing socialism exists) and you have yet to really make an argument yet. You can cry about your devastating loss, but don't expect sympathy from me. You don't even know my stance, though I have always been clear about mine. You would prefer to lie about me than admit you might be wrong. The mark of an utter loser.
    1
  2750.  @maelofohio6682  But I didn't edit anything, beyond an initial edit around five minutes after I first commented to change the spelling of "Hierarchy," as I initially wrote it on moblie with a few basic spelling errors. You seem to think this edit has something to do with your inability to read basic statements, or discern the word "left" from the word "right." And so I simply ask, do you have proof for your claim? Do you have proof I have ever changed my stance? Of course not, you simply misread a sentence and rather than have any sort of humility and admit your mistake so we can move on with the debate, you try to protect your pride and try to pin it on me. Your stance is nonsense, and i've never changed mine. Thanks for proving that you are utterly incapable of constructing actual arguments, and can't read "right" from "left," quite literally.
    1
  2751.  @maelofohio6682  "MIT Scientifica" is a bot account that makes the rounds every few months to copy paste the same responses, hence me having copy paste responses ready to rebut them quite easily. You are willing to accuse others of editing their work without proof, and you have shown yourself to be an utter fool, completely irrespective of reality or proof. You have no evidence, and you are wrong.
    1
  2752.  @maelofohio6682  Again, saying I was "caught" with something implies that you made a true statement, and proved it to be so. You haven't, you simply misread a pretty simple to read response, and rather than dealing with the embarrassment of your own apparent illiteracy, and having the humility to admit you were wrong and move on with the debate, you've tried to accuse me of changing my views, of course with no provided evidence. That "edited" symbol has been there since last night, when I changed "Heirarchy" to "Hierarchy." Are you saying you failed to notice that too? Anyone and everyone will always see you fabricating a quote, and being called out. You claimed I edited a response, apparently not noticing that the response had already been edited even before you made your absurd claim of right wing socialists. You have altered a quote and lied about the findings of it, and have been unable to admit that. And of course I call you a child, it's the level of petty lies you operate on. Again, simply repeating it, doesn't make your sad, nonsense assertion any less false. There are conservative parties, by name, spread over euope, interestingly the vast majority defend current monarchies or call for a return to past ones. Insulting me doesn't change this fact, nor does it change the fact that monarchism is, by definition, a conservative ideology, which is one reason of many that conservatives defend monarchism. Your unsubstantiated assertion, " the phrase; "Europe has no conservatives" comes from europe itself," has no counter to these facts, nor does it represent the views of most europeans, certainly not every european as you alledge.. Europe has conservatives. The fact that you seek to refute a whole continental populace and history shows your ego. Well, simply put, you've often blamed me for your own ineptitude, one key example being the time that you were unable to read the word "left," and thus tried to blame me on your own hastiness in responding to a comment you evidently did not understand. You then accused me of editing a comment that had already been edited long before... providing zero evidence for your claims. I think you really can't deal with the fact that it was so easy for me to win this argument, which is why you gave up on actually making counter arguments such a long time ago, and continue to comment despite your assertion of running away. You seem unable to read the word "left," so you might want to go back to school, preschool to start with maybe. I'm sorry that propaganda means more to you than reality, it's really a shame, but sadly, not a surprise. The fact that you want to pin your own failings on me, and that you have yet to present an argument beyond "It's true because I say so," proves you never desired and were never capable of an honest debate, and that's why you're still here, while I easily walked away with both the win and your humiliation. Because now, you have lost as you had to pretend I altered my own argument, a statement you have yet to prove or even explain, which is pathetic. You try to place the blame for your own inability to read on me, which is indecent, dishonorable, and more than pathetic all at the same time. Feel free to insult me all you want, we all know you're making up for the devastating humiliation you have faced.
    1
  2753.  @mitscientifica1569  oooo, that's a new one! I'm guessing not the first time you've used it, hm?
    1
  2754.  @mitscientifica1569  Heard that one before.
    1
  2755.  @mitscientifica1569  Heard it before, can you come up with anything new?
    1
  2756.  @mitscientifica1569  Because your strawman of socialism doesn't check out?
    1
  2757.  @mitscientifica1569  Good thing that such a thing does exist! But hey, continue to copy paste I guess
    1
  2758.  @mitscientifica1569  I'm sure, buddy. Yet again, copy pasted
    1
  2759.  @mitscientifica1569  What a stunning source on socialism... i wonder who found inspiration from his work, hm?
    1
  2760.  @maelofohio6682  Just so you are aware, MIT's statements here are all copy pasted from other threads, easy to find his assertions and even insults if you scroll through the comments, repeated time and time again.
    1
  2761.  @mitscientifica1569  keep coping kid
    1
  2762.  @mitscientifica1569  I have two jobs, actually
    1
  2763.  @mitscientifica1569  Just so you know, you don't actually have any counters to the acts you bring forwards, not do you have rebuttals to my counters of your sad childish insults. You copy and paste then so often precisely because you can't think of anything else to say. I'm not even the first person you've used those insults on, child. Have you ever considered stopping your constant botting of threads? The quotes you give are so utterly unphasing that I've countered each in turn, or recognized your sad ad hominem attacks when they present themselves. I'm sorry that you have nothing but insults and lies, and that you haven't even realized that I'm not a socialist, and that my life seems infinitely more fulfilling than the insecure, obsessive worship of your religion of anti-socialism you participate in, which seems to be a you have left. I honestly don't think you've read a single one my my responses to your quotes. Of course, as we both know you're easily triggered and scared off by evidence, as you can't come up with responses you didn't steal or copy paste. I'm sorry you have nothing left but botting to deny reality. I have only ever copy pasted in response to your unrelenting spam of long disproven assertions, all identical in every word to the last. I'm sorry reality scares you. Unlike you, I despite ignorance, and fight against it openly when it rears its ugly head in your sad little attempts at insults. Maybe one day you'll figure out that they only been to apply to you, not me? Every assertion you've made about me so far is false. Care to change that?
    1
  2764.  @maelofohio6682  see what I mean. All copy pasted
    1
  2765.  @mitscientifica1569  I'm well aware. Still coping?
    1
  2766. @Anglo Patriot ....right ok then
    1
  2767.  @mitscientifica1569  Ah, yet another copy-paste cope from the King of Copy-Paste, the Maestro of Lies, MIT Scientifica. Of course, this is false. Writing as a committed socialist just after the fall of France in 1940, in The Lion and the Unicorn, ORWELL saw the disaster as a in total capacity "a form of capitalism", it showed once and for all that "there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution", though he was in no doubt that Hitler's victory was a tragedy for France and for mankind. The planned economy of course was not synonymous with socialism, nor was it a policy of nazi germany. The nazis, as Orwell pointed out, took only from socialists what they absolutely had to, but even considering that, were utterly a "form of capitalism." He pointed out that hitler was an anti-socialist, and that "as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side." Of course, you seem to cut out the parts of Orwell's response when he speaks of the "bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right wing politicians" that made up the ranks of the nazis. "One ought not to pay any attention to Hitler’s recent line of talk about being the friend of the poor man, the enemy of plutocracy, etc., etc. Hitler’s real self is in Mein Kampf, and in his actions. He has never persecuted the rich, except when they were Jews or when they tried actively to oppose him... Therefore, as against genuine Socialism, the monied class have always been on his side. This was crystal clear at the time of the Spanish civil war, and clear again at the time when France surrendered. Hitler’s puppet government are not working-men, but a gang of bankers, gaga generals and corrupt right-wing politicians." Of course, Orwell never argued that hitler would go down in history as the man who showed the bankers and finance as a whole some sort of superiority of socialist economies, as we've been over, Orwell did not consider the nazis socialists, which makes your reading of his work an utter lie. Of course, Hitler's far right sentiments were well known long before his death, and were reported on faithfully and fully, from Strasser to Wagner, all of which were quick to point out his allegiance to the right, and rejection of socialism in any capacity more than its use as a party name and the rhetorical association of the word, which he had no plans to act upon. However, to a thoroughly ahistorical individual as yourself, you would prefer to ignore those recorded parts of history. Hitler's remembered talk offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the strands that once made conservative darwinism and traditionalism irresistibly appealing to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars; it mingles, as right wing conservatism had done before it, an intense economic hatred of internationalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a vanished age before capitalist internationalism had degraded heroism into sordid greed and threatened the traditional institutions of the family and the tribe. Socialism, Hitler had told Wagner and Strasser, was a word that had been "Stolen." In other words, the socialism of all socialists before Hitler was born had nothing to do with his usage of the term. Socialism, to hitler, was not an economic ideology, had nothing to do with ownership or distribution, and nothing to do with lenses upon history. Socialism, he defined as the same as nationalism, as an ever-present ideology. To him, the word socialism meant nothing but a rhetorical device to be used. He had no love for those that called themselves socialist, nor did he take anything from their ideology beyond the word they used. Hell, part of his "reasoning" for his hatred of jewish individuals was the belief that they were all socialists and capitalists, and that they controlled his socialist and liberal competition. Hitler had no need nor desire for "socialist redemption." As for communists, socialists, liberals, anarchists, unionists and so on, he opposed them because they could not be further from his conception of perfection in tradition and nation that had led him to the right. They aspired to socialism, and his system had nothing in common with that word. Hitler's goal was far from the rule of labor over capital, nor does that statement have much to do with socialism at all. No, as Orwell so eloquently pointed out, " He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." Of course, when actually taking the statements of Wagner into account, rather than making unproven and unexplained claims as you do, we have little doubt about the conclusion - Hitler was no marxist, orthodox or not. He was well aware of the right wing basis of his ideology, and the flippant, vacant way he twisted the word socialism to his uses. He was no socialist, and he knew it. His ideology proposed the notion that "true socialism" was not socialism at all, that the socialism of the left was useless, and thus, "true socialism" must be a right wing nationalist movement, one that protects private property and capital, while crushing labor and the left. In fact, we see the only thing his "true socialism" has in common with socialism is the title. The "National Socialist vision" was evil and amoral, yes, but not because it was socialist, which we can see quite plainly it was not. The nazi ideology was not based on any economic theory, but rather concepts of race, nation, and hierarchy, the very children of the american right. To see it, all one has to do is look back at the history of his movement. Orwell, a man long versed in the right and totalitarianism, saw it. Wagener and Strasser, the very members of the party who had been there for the fermentation and eventual execution of nazi ideology, saw it. And of course, Goebbels saw it. He saw that the ideology of hitler, the "True Socialism" hitler spoke of, had nothing in common with socialism but a title. But that title, that represented the right, nationalism, hierarchy, domination, and unceasing brutality, that was a thing he was very much in favor of. The "Real Socialism" he praised was nothing more than the death of an enemy he despised, and the expansion of a right wing empire over their graves. Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but it could not be said that he did not feed into his own rhetoric. And to the end of his days, to the end of the nazi party, and to the modern day, it is believed and known that socialism is not at all what "National Socialism" was about.
    1
  2768.  @mitscientifica1569  I already proved you wrong, easily, and using your own sources to boot. Cope, child. Cope. Perhaps you shouldn't have cut the statements out where Orwell talked about the right wing anti-socialist basis of fascism and nazism?
    1
  2769.  @mitscientifica1569  Your last post came from a number of quotations that you failed to interpret and failed to fully quote, all I had to do was look up the source and actually cite Orwell's full comments on Nazis and fascism and it wholly and easily proved you wrong. You do see how that's quite a problem for your argument, yes? Or let me guess, you didn't read my response, did you?
    1
  2770.  @mitscientifica1569  Imagine 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. George Orwell, in contrast to those who want to distance Far right anti-socialist nazism from their own preferred version of right wing anti-socialism, proved you wrong easily. Exactly, nice try trying to lie about and rewrite Orwell's work, but in reality Orwell said this of the nazis, when pointing out their objective right wing anti-socialism: "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
  2771.  Pasha Staravoitau  ah, my bad
    1
  2772.  Pasha Staravoitau  yeah, sorry. Sometimes the @ just doesn't show up for me, so I made a quick guess. Still not that used to arguing on youtube anyway. But yeah, nice to see someone else who sees this blustering attitude and denial of countering evidence for what it is.
    1
  2773.  @zippidisx2749  He literally admits every historian he has cited disagrees with him. The sources might be good. His usage of them is not. Well, that's just his historical sources, as he cites numerous economic or right wing think tanks, not historians.
    1
  2774.  @juanpaz5124  I won't do it because there's no need. His video is already disproven, why would I waste 10 hours of anyone's time? His video has already been disproven spectacularly.
    1