Comments by "" (@charliemoore2551) on "TIKhistory" channel.

Total nonsense. When Hitler took power, far from socialising the means of production, he privatised the parts of the economy which had been nationalised by Weimar. Then went on to define socialism as the opposite of what it is. And yes, in wartime, the state directed German capitalism to support the war effort. But Winston Churchill did that too. Was he a Socialist? If Hitler was a Socialist he would have taken over ALL German business and used its profits for the common weal. He didn't. He directed industry to support the war and allowed capitalists to keep their profits. None of them opposed him. Funny that, eh? Yes. He said he was a Socialist many times. It doesn't make it so. It's a bit like me saying I'm Malaysian and then defining Malaysian as someone who was born in Wales. The bottom line is that ALL Fascists, from Mussolini to Donald Trump are actually grifters. They'll say and do whatever it takes to get power. It's what they DO then that defines them, not what they SAID before.
1
@colebehnke7767 Tell me you don't understand Fascism without telling me you don't understand Fascism. I watched enough of the video to appreciate the fact that the creator is economically illiterate, historically ignorant and ideologically twisted. The bit about the corporations and the banks being public institutions is just pure gibberish. The Right have problems with Fascism. Capitalism is supposed to bring personal liberty, freedom and peace but here you have a version of it directing the minutiae of people's lives, locking them up and murdering them and treating war as virtuous with the idea that each generation should have at least one war to make it manly and heroic. The problem with his hypothesis about Nazism is that the capitalists and bankers completely bought into it: Not only did it neuter trades unionism and prevent the workers from electing a socialist government, but it also made them more cash than they'd ever make in the liberal environment that capitalists claim to favour. That's why it has repeatedly flared up at intervals since then. There are obvious examples like the parade of US-backed military juntas in South and Central America, the Far East, and Africa from the 1950s through to the 1980s, but you're actually seeing it rise again through the MAGA movement in the US - the last of these being 100% funded, supported and, to a large extent, directed by capitalists. Basically, Fascism is what classic liberalism does when it's threatened by genuinely progressive movements. The problem is that the German, Japanese and Italian versions in the post First World War period really got bad press. That's why nonsense like this video has to be concocted to disassociate present-day Fascism from them. Even so, we are seeing some rehabilitation of them with people like Steve Bannon and even Trump himself speaking about Hitler and Mussolini positively.
1
@colebehnke7767 And every silly claim this jumped-up bozo makes is addressed elsewhere by competent historians.
1
@colebehnke7767 Probably not. The people who've gone down this rabbit hole are impervious to facts and evidence. I don't intend to waste any more time on this nonsense but just one last parting thought: No one at the time suggested he, or for that matter, Mussolini or Franco were Socialists. Not even the Mont Pelerin gang suggested such a convenient heresy in the decades which immediately followed. In the same way, of course, no one is suggesting Trump, Putin, Le Pen, Orban etc are Socialists now. I wonder how long it will take for enough time to pass before someone who does a lot of YouTube to suggest that they too were really Socialists. I don't see why not. All you you need to do is re-define all the concepts involved to make them mean whatever you want them to mean. Cos that's what this guy has done.
1
@colebehnke7767 Um no. No one took the Socialist part of the name seriously until several decades had passed. No doubt, in 50 years, there will be some similar Bozo claiming that Trump was a Socialist. As for history, I eat, drink and bathe in it. No with any historical knowledge or understanding would give this idiotic nonsense any credence whatsoever.
1
@Arkantos117 Nazism is a variant of Fascism. They're different because they developed in different countries. But the identifying principle, Might-Makes-Right, was central to both of them as it was in Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile or (possibly), Trump's US if he gets re-elected.
1
@Arkantos117 Not remotely uneducated. That's the substance of all Fascism: The belief that democracy is wrong because it allows the inferior majority to direct the superior elite when, according to their lights, it should be the other way around. That's what Franco's takeover of Spain was about, that's what the March on Rome was about, that's what the Night of the Long Knives was about, it's what Pinochet believed, it's what Trump and his supporters believe. Race and misogyny may well be part of the mix but they are not the root cause. Fascism is basically the institutionalisation of bullying.
1
Hitler didn't "argue" with socialists all the time. He locked them up and killed them. And he never did anything remotely socialist.
1
Yes. He's a Fascist. That means he's a grifter. So ofcourse he's lying! The Blackshirts tried to get a name for themselves by acting as muscle to protect agricultural workers being abused by their employers. It didn't work so they went to work for the same employers. They say and do whatever it takes to gain power.
1
I got as far as far as Eisner promising in 1919 not to do what Lenin had done in 1920! Hitler wasn't remotely Socialist. This is such a laboured trope that has been destroyed over and again so many times it's becoming tedious. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ez6w5BUMM or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2biEiuTzsgw
1
The Economist is not and was not Keynesian. It is and always has been a Right wing publication.
1
@colebehnke7767 Er no. It has a meaning which is pretty much universally acknowledged.
1
@colebehnke7767 The term originated in the pre-revolutionary French assembly. Reactionary representatives sat on the right and progressives on the left. That meaning has carried forward in relative terms ever since. It does get a bit confusing at some points in history. For example, Gladstone's Liberals (who represented capitalists) and Disraeli's Conservatives (landed gentry) were variously more or less progressive than each on different issues. And in the US today, both main parties are on the right or far right. But by and large, in most countries, it's widely and more or less universally accepted that Left means socialist and/or progressive and Right means conservative and/or reactionary.
1
@colebehnke7767 The Romans and the various Ancient Chinese empires were pre-age of reason so the question is irrelevant. The Catholic change is largely a regressive institution which has opposed most democratic progress but there are exceptions within it. Liberation theology still holds out in Latin America. The current Pope has some association with it - so who knows where it will go next?
1
@ Whether what's true or not? Who claimed that three banks were reprivatised? Which banks?
1