Comments by "Bruce Tucker" (@brucetucker4847) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ETBrooD Again, only if you expand the definition of socialism to the point of meaninglessness.
No reputable historian or political scientist I'm aware of would call, for example, New Kingdom Egypt or medieval monasteries socialist. And I've done a good bit of study of the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages in a university setting. (Much more, I'm pretty sure, than TIK has.)
(Edit: and before you respond that that's because academics are all socialists, medieval and ancient history are probably the least leftist subjects in academia - you can't possibly call, for example, Victor Davis Hansen, a number of whose books I've read, a liberal, much less a socialist.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ikindawanttodie2236 That is incorrect. Control and profits are both part of the equation. Pure socialism is when control of the company and profits from the company both belong to the workers in the factory. State socialism interposes a state organ between the workers and the factory, but the profits flow either to the workers in that factory, or communally to all workers in society. And in Soviet socialism the manager of the factory is appointed by the Soviet, which is at least theoretically a council of workers, or by the Communist Party, which is, again theoretically, a body made up of and working on behalf of workers.
None of that was true in the National Socialist model - the profits from the factory went to its private owners, not to the workers or the state, and control over the factory was distributed between the owners, who oversaw how production is performed, who is hired to do it, etc., and the state, which means the Nazi Party, which was NOT an organization made up of or working on behalf of workers.
You and TIK are arguing that National Socialism and left-socialism are the same because they both involve state control of the means of production, but socialism and state control are not the same thing. Many socialists advocate a stateless society, and what Marx called the feudal society and the slave society both involved a substantial amount of state control (through the feudal aristocracy in the former) of the economy but were not socialist by any stretch of the imagination.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Both of those examples are more a matter of design priority and execution than technological superiority. The Mark 14 wasn't a more primitive design, it was just badly executed, and its flaws undiscovered because the Navy wasn't given an adequate budget to test it. Like the Zero, the Type 93's superior performance came at the cost of a dangerous and explosive propellant that was more of a design choice than a technological advantage - the Allies didn't want anything that dangerous on their ships. You see the drawback when they detonated on the ships that were carrying them, as on the Mikuma at Midway. Likewise, the Zero had paper stats better than Allied fighters, but at a terrible cost: flimsy construction, poor handling at high speeds and especially in a dive, no armor, and unprotected fuel tanks that made it incredibly vulnerable compared to an F4F. Once Allied pilots learned to fly to the Wildcat's strengths and the Zero's weaknesses the kill ration turned in favor of the Wildcat.
Put it another way: there was nothing in either of those designs that the Allies couldn't have copied if they'd wanted to make the same design choices. This is unlike, say, the proximity fuse or the a-bomb that the Axis powers couldn't possibly have built.
The Japanese crews did have advantages in training and experience at the beginning of the war, but that's also not quite the same as technological superiority.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthiuskoenig3378 Lincoln died before the war ended, and when his successor, Johnson, tried to institute his lenient policies, he was strenuously opposed, sidelined, and eventually replaced by the hard-line radical Republicans, to the point where he became the only American president impeached by the House of Representatives in the first 200 years of the nation's existence.
What prevented a second civil war was that the issues that caused the first one became irrelevant. Slavery was gone and was never coming back, but after a decade or so of Reconstruction the southern states were allowed to institute Jim Crow policies that prevented the former slaves from having any part in governing the southern states or the US as a whole, while the sharecropping system as well as the massive employment of convict labor kept them exploited economically far more efficiently than slavery had. At the same time, the south was so economically devastated and essentially colonized by northern moneyed interests that former system in which tariffs that fell chiefly on the south were the main source of revenue for the federal government no longer functioned - the south didn't shoulder the burden of supporting the federal government because there was little wealth left to be extracted from the southern economy. Along with this the economic and political power of the planter class who had brought the war on was broken.
What put Reconstruction to its final end was one of the most corrupt political bargains in US history in 1877, in which the southern states agreed to let the blatantly fraudulent election of Rutherford Hayes stand in return for a Republican promise to withdraw all remaining troops from the south and cede control of the southern states to the exclusively white southern Democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1