Comments by "Barsukas" (@barsukascool) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
325
-
237
-
236
-
197
-
TIK, please stop calling the goverment of the UK Fascist. By no definition, neither the classical nor your own, the British goverment is Fascist. You defined Fascism as "National Syndicalism with a philosophy of Actualism". You have commented under your recent community post to a person doubting you "Unions are workers councils. The Local Councils are them. The "corporation" (corpus, body, organs of the state - the council) were set up as unions. They come from the Municipal Corporations Act in the 1830s (although their origins predate this)." You may be describing Syndicalism, but it’s definetly not national and the people in the goverment I doubt are Actualists.
Edit: TIK has answered to me in another comment:
"They are nationalist (not patriotic) and syndicalist. They're not Actualist, but that's just another Hegelian offshoot, so while they're not full Fascist, I think "Marxist-Fascist" is an appropriate term."
"Oh, and if you say they're not nationalists - who nationalised the industries and created the NHS in the 1940s? Nationalism is Socialism, remember."
186
-
143
-
61
-
48
-
46
-
44
-
35
-
34
-
24
-
20
-
17
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@NoName-OG1
You still did not define socialism. Thing is, it’s a matter of definitions. If we define socialism as 'when a state exists', well we have worldwide socialism. That’s obviuosly an incorrect definition. But if we define socialism as 'revolution of the proletariat to implement a dictatorship and lead to a world revolution', that’s only one side of the coin - Marxism. But if socialism is an economic definition, like it historically was and like voters mostly define it nowadays - 'state controlling the economy', then the National Socialists were not only advocating for socialism, but also implemented a lot of socialist policies. Obviuosly, they didn’t reach full socialism, they only planned doing that after conquering living space ( lebensraum ) in the east. They didn’t because they failed. That’s why TIK says '… the Nazis were failed socialists.'
Whether people call it 'state capitalism', I really don’t care, it may also be 'market socialism'. My point is that their policies were VERY VERY similiar to Marxist socialists or communists in Cuba, USSR, etc… Regardless of whether it’s 'state capitalism'.
4
-
4
-
@NoName-OG1
Your definition of socialism is basicaly "the belief that classeless public ownership of the means of production by all members of a society leads to an egalitarian society", which is not a dictionary definition. It is a Marxist definition at best and probably not even that.
Wikipedia defines it as "an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems, characterised by social ownership of the means of production." It says that socialism encompasses 'diverse economic and social systems', implying that socialism can be non-Marxist. In short, it defines as 'all the different ideologies, advocating for social ownership of the means of production'.
Meriam-webster defines it as "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Basically 'an egalitarian system that advocates for common/goverment control of the economy'.
Oxford dictionary says socialism is "an economic and political system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production and distribution". Basically 'a system based common/state ownership of the economy'.
Point is, your definition DOES NOT match the dictionary definitions. The classical definition goes something like this: "goverment/common control/ownership of the economy". It doesn’t mention workers, sometimes mentions egalitarianism. It doesn’t mention that ALL people must own the economy. Nowhere is mentioned that there will be no social hierarchies… it is simply public control of the economy. Words have meanings and are supposed to be used according to their meanings.
And even Marxist socialism has NEVER manifested itself egalitarian. The Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea… it never was egalitarian, it is only a dream that can not come true.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ImperialKnight86 The territories Hitler desired to annex can be figured out examining historical sources like speeches, from which we can understand the beliefs of certain people; as well as events on the ground, like the occupation and administration of certain territories. It is also important to note, that Hitler not only wanted to annex these areas, but also fully integrate them into Germany. The integration would be violent and would include the deportation and genocide of Eastern populations - Balts and Slavs (Poles, Russians, Ukranians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Latvians and local Jews), and the deportations or assimilations of others (Estonians, Tatars, French, Italians (i.e. not Slavs or Balts). These are the territories Hitler likely desired to annex:
The eastern countries (justified through Lebensraum):
Czechia, Poland (except small Slovakian territories), Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine (except Romanian territories up to the Southern Bug) and Russia up to (likely) some defendable terrain (likely the Ural mountains)(except Finish territories - Kola peninsula and Karelia). There are no known plans for Slovakia. It would likely be annexed by Hungary in the future or be partitioned by Hungary and Germany.
The Germanic speakers (justified through the idea of all Germanic speakers being part of the Aryan race):
1. Scandinavia:
Denmark, Sweden and Norway (the latter two may be reduced in size to further reward Finland, but not necesarily). Denmark’s possesions in Iceland and Greenland may have been desired mostly as strategic bases by Hitler, but they would likely not be aquired even after a potential victory by Germany of World War II, due to British and/or American occupation.
2. The Benelux and France:
Hitler’s ambitions in the West expanded further than the recently lost Alsace-Lorraine and Eupen-Malmedy. Even during the war, he annexed the linguistically close to Germany, Luxembourg, but he also desired what he considered to be Germans in the Netherlands (the Dutch) and the Flemish parts of Belgium which were also historically considered Dutch. Beyond that, he also considered the Northern region of France, south of Belgium, up to river Somme and teritory east of that to be gallicized Germans, because of the Holy Roman Empire and the Frankish Empire existing in those territories in the past. During the war, there was an administrative zone called ‘zone réservée’, which was supposed to be resetlled with Germans, spanning Northern and Eastern France. So, in the west Hitler wanted to annex Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands and all of ‘zone réservée’.
The south:
In 1938, Hitler annexed Austria, but he also desired to annex most of Switzerland, including the German speakers and the French speakers (to be assimilated). He would also, likely, allow Italy to annex teritories in the south of Switzerland - Grissons, Ticino and Valais. Hitler also desired the historically Austrian-controlled Tyrol, Slovenia and Istria and the Italian provinces between them - Belluno and Friuli. Tyrol, Slovenia, Istria, Belluno and Friuli were already annexed by Hitler during the war.
In conclusion, Hitler desired to vastly expand Germany and include many teritories spanning up to the Ural mountains in the East, Norway and Sweden in the South, river Somme and all the rest of ‘zone réservée’ in the West and Switzerland, Slovenia and Tyrol in the South.
TL;DR:
Hitler desired to annex these teritories into Germany:
All of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechia, Belarus, most of Norway Sweden, Slovenia, Poland, Ukraine, Switzerland, some of Russia, France, Italy, Croatia, Slovakia. I think that’s all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bananabourbonaenima
Big industrialists DID NOT support the NSDAP, only one big industrialist, who supported the NSDAP pre-1933 for political reasons - Fritz Thyssen later had his property nationalized, he left the country and later spent a year in a concentration camp. If you want to debunk me, name industrialists, the money they gave and WHEN they gave it.
AH did NOT eliminate trade unions. Instead, he NATIONALIZED them into the Deutsche Arbeits Front and those that refused to nationalize were crushed. He had a 32 MILLION MAN STRONG TRADE UNION, one of the biggest in HISTORY. If you say that this is somehow anti-socialism, what did Lenin do? Did he not 'crush the trade unions'? And if you leave PRIVATE trade unions, that’s PRIVATE initiative, which socialism is FUNDEMENTALLY OPPOSED TO.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DAWN001
After doing a bit more reaserch, I think I know what TIK means. So, the very premise of his argument is that when you are [owning something] alone or in a family (or a small group), you are owning it privately. But when people come together, they make hierarchies, which, at some (unspecified) number of people become public. So, according to TIK’s argument, as I understand, something that’s publicly traded, MAY be publicly owned, because it MAY have enough people to be consisered 'public'. The question is why he didn’t just say that, and the answer probably is that most publicly traded companies have enough shares to be classed as 'public' and thus 'publicly owned'. In my personal opinion, there should be a seperate word, like 'prublic' for companies that have enough members to not be private, but are not owned by the CENTRAL state (directlyor indirectly). But there isn’t such a word.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One of TIK’s arguments (I think) (so it’s easier to understand for me):
Karl Marx believes money becomes capital when used:
"[A] form [of circulation of commodities]: M[oney]—C[ommodities]—M[oney], the transformation of money into commodities, and the change of commodities back again into money; or buying in order to sell. Money that circulates in the latter manner is thereby transformed into [capital and] becomes capital <…>"
-Karl Marx - Das Kapital, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 4;
He’s saying that money, circulating in the market, becomes capital. And since money is always circulating, when Marx says:
"Money is the jealous God of Israel <…>", he automatically implies that "[Capital] is the jealous God of Israel" and since invented the word "capitalist" and thinks that accumulating money or capital makes you a capitalist, he’s also saying that "Capitalism is Judaism" and "Capital is Jewish".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fahrenheigh
"Ignorance is their strength" fits well here. I am not your enemy, I’m just some guy, who watched TIK and agree on a lot of topics with him. He cites hundreds of books from communists, socialists, capitalists, NatSocs, which most of them lead or add to his conclusions. He is a historian.
EVERYONE is biased and political. Tell me ONE person, ONE historian, who isn’t biased. That’s impossible. This is well summed up by one of Fredda’s (he is a guy who uploaded a video on NatSoc being capitalist) commenters who said "The idea that history could ever be apolitical is absurd." I agree with him. I am, for example, biased against people who want to m**der others - NatSocs, some socialists and communists (not all of them, some just have a utopia in their heads or just want a better life, but come to the wrong conclusions). Is that a bad bias? That’s why I watch people I disagree with, like people who think National Socialism was capitalism (Fredda) and also socialists and this one guy called Zoomer Historian sometimes (he has a NatSoc-leaning bias), even though I disagree with these people. Try the same. Or don’t and just stay in a bubble… :(
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@threemeters1425
Hi, after I read your comment, I’m curiuos. What kind of Third Positionist are you? How do you label yourself? What do you think of Jyous, capitalism, socialism, communism, syndicalism, nationalism, Christianity, individualism, etc. Also, if the nationality is relevant, what nationality are you? Also, do you believe in mysticism?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@katrinapaton5283 i’m sorry for offending you. You don’t have to accept what TIK says neither immediatly nor ever. I misread your message to say "we’re not fond of each other" instead of "they were not fond of each other". I didn’t mean to call you a Fascist/Marxist, I just misread your message and thought you said that was the case.
But do you understand my argument that Marxist-Fascist is not necesiraly impossible?
I don’t know what you would say is the definition of Fascism, but 'far-right ultra-nationalist' just ain’t it. We then need to choose a defining factor for the right and the far-right. Ultra-nationalism is also not a very good word as many people claim that both the Fascists in Italy and the National Socialists in Germany are ultra-nationalists, but one goverment mass-[unalived] its own population because of 'race' and the other did not.
TIK’s definition is the only concrete definition I have come across and therefore I believe it, because words have meanings. I remember one guy on youtube video claiming that Fascism has no definition, which makes the word pointless.
So, TIK’s definition of Fascism is 'National[istic] Syndicalism [trade unionism] with a philosophy of Actualism [Fascists Hegelianism]'. And according to TIK, the UK goverment is Nationalist, because it nationalized stuff, syndicalist because of the local councils and not actualist but since many socialists believe in some form of Hegelianism, according to him it’s Marxist-Fascist. I agree with this except for the Nationalist part. I don’t agree with TIK here, because nationalizing something doesn’t make you a nationalist. Before, I simoly explained his view which he explained to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1