Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Stick to Tanks" video.

I've watched the video. In it they admit that Nazis: 1. Fixed wages. (Only indirect admission, they have no courage to say it openly.) 2. Seized full control over who owns what. 3. Expanded social programs up to and including State sponsored vacations on cruise ships. 4. Printed fake money. 5. Redistributed wealth. But no, National Socialism was not real Socialism! ;-DD The one and only counterargument they bring up, was a privatization program. I don't think it counts, simply because Nazis knew that they'd still remain in full control of the property, regardless of who technically owns it. Their clients didn't know it, though. That's why they paid up! Hand waving and pointing fingers at alt-right (who? what do they have to do with this one?) does not constitute an argument.
4
@gargravarr2 National Socialism is Socialism. State controlled wages, prices, profit margins, factory ownership, just about everything, including state funded vacations on a cruise ship. That's Socialism.
2
@nozza4742 They were not scared by a casual comment stating that Nazis and Commies were equally bad. They got scared, because he said they were practically the same . And he was correct!
2
@Regis1995 Actually, we didn't disagree all that much. It's possible to establish facts, and once we came to that, our disagreements suddenly appeared much smaller than before. And that's the sad part. Because I do believe that if you let people discuss freely, and if they somehow manage to keep it civil, they eventually get closer to the truth and also their stances become less extreme. The Internet helps, probably more than anything before that apart from print, but just as people back then went through a painful and often violent process of coming to grips with this new medium, we may still experience the worst of our Brave New Medium. Still, it's a great thing. Have a nice day and a civil discussion about non trivial matters somewhere else, because Youtube is apparently not the best place for it.
2
@paranoidandroid9511 Regarding "left-right" dichotomy is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because Nazis end up left of center if you use it?
2
@paranoidandroid9511 "something that represents reality." So exactly what I wrote, then? Right-left dichotomy is wrong, because Nazis end up being lefies? "X axis right-left y axis authoreterian-liberterian" So? Nazis are left-wing authoritarians. What did we gain by adding this extra level of complication? Nothing. Everybody knows that Nazis were authoritarian. Most lefties are authoritarian anyway, so if anything, they appear to be more even more typical Socialists than before.
2
@paranoidandroid9511 "Nazis did not really have any political ideology" That's either total nonsense, in other words a lie, or hand waving. I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt and went with hand waving. "used politics as a weapon/cover because in reality they where thugs and bloody criminals who mainly wanted to get rich." How does it differ from any other Socialist country on Earth? "I do not think the writers did this on purpose." The writer. It was one guy, and his post which clarifies his stance, is pinned underneath the video. "trying so hard to [...] show that they nazis didn't really do any real socialist stuff" Exactly what I wrote, then? National Socialism was not real Socialism?
2
@paranoidandroid9511 "hey are to the right of center since you have to be part of the "racial national identity"" Oh, I see, they were righties, because they were racists? Well, then African National Congress are righties too... ;-) Though they foolishly claim to be hardcore Socialists. Whether you are willing to put forward national goals, racial goal or gender goals has little to do with what kind of goals you are trying to achieve. Nazis tried to achieve Socialism for Germans. The goals are what matters here, not the scope. When you advance as a politician from local to national level, you don't suddenly change your political affiliations, do you? "Having an economic and a social axis makes sence becausee you may have people who combine parts of diferent ideological trends. Like beeing caltural liberal, but fiscal conservative." How about religion axis? How about family? How about environmentalism? And so on, and so on. Why only taxes and personal freedoms? Actually, wasn't it authoritarian-libertarian axis just a post ago? Oh, I got it again. You complicate the model for as long and on as many levels until you can put Nazis on the right! Damn, I can be real dense sometimes... ;-)
2
@paranoidandroid9511 "Religion, enviromentalism, human rights etc is part of calture." So is economy. There is no point to single it out and make property rights a topic totally separate from all the others. And since it's such a complex issue, we should simply make a weighted average of all the relevant aspects and accept the result as binding. Or we can do what TimeGhostHistory did, that is try to obfuscate the problem in order to blame someone else... ;-) Actually, that's what has been done in the past. Blaming alt-right right now is so unoriginal. But why change what obviously works? ;-)
2
Stick to TIK!
1
There is only so many minutes in the video. If he started analyzing all Socialist policies of the Third Reich, we'd still be watching it.
1
@kitten-inside What was the difference, then? By the time Stalin turned to Nationalism in order to win the war, of course.
1
@Regis1995 "Essentially, class abolition versus class collaboration" Are you trying to claim that in Soviet Union there were no classes? That Stalin or Beria and your common Yuri Bezumov were of the same social class? Wanna buy a bridge on the Moon? I happen to have a few for sale. Very cheap... "In truth socialism is [...] about abolishing class conflict by creating an egalitarian, single-class society" If so, both Third Reich and Soviet Union have failed equally badly. Where are the differences? "Under fascism, workers unions were illegal..." I was raised under Socialism. Worker's unions were illegal. Where are the differences? "the DAF was a union that represented the interests of both the workers AND the upper class" Under Socialism I was raised in, it was exactly the same. Some shill pseudorepresentative construct, which was supposed to keep the lower classes in denial of what was actually happening. Where are the differences? Oh, the Beetle? We used to have a Fiat 126p in its place. Small, slow, engine in the back. The differences? Minor at best.
1
@Regis1995 "the difference between upper and working class is determined by who owns the means of production." Stalin owned Soviet Union, Hitler owned the Third Reich. Both of them were super upper class, by your own definition. Where are the differences? " there is no upper class in the Soviet Union." How about those bridges on the moon, heh? I have three more bidders banging at my door, so decide quickly. "The Third Reich never intended to have an egalitarian society; they HATED this part of Marxism" Oh, that's why NSDAP was a worker's party? So the workers would know to shut up and work? I mean, don't be that silly. NSDAP has called itself a Socialist worker's party for a reason. They were aiming for an egalitarian society for the Germans. International socialists wanted an egalitarian society for all workers of all nations, so initially there was a difference. But then war has happened and in order to win, Soviet Union had to turn to nationalism as well. So, what was the difference after that happened? "Soviet Socialism was a heavily authoritarian kind of Socialism." Unlike the Third Reich? Because if they were the same also in this regard, why do we even talk about it here? Show me the differences, not similarities. " (government) mediated between upper class and lower class" You mean, Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were mediated by the government? Because they were the actual upper class of the Third Reich, so the government supposedly told them what to do? BS. Hitler owned the government and told it what to do, not the other way around. Just like it was in Soviet Union. Where are the differences? "There is no mediation because no upper class exists, there is no profit as all value is distributed among workers. There are no clashing interests that need to be reconciled. " The holy RNGeesus, that's so stupid it hurts my head. 1. Lenin, Stalin and so forth, were tyrants. In the classical Greek sense. They owned their states and they were the pinnacle of power and social status. 2. All their lackeys were the second level of social class, right below the monarch. They were the aristocracy. 3. The directors of factories, big land farms and so forth were the third tier. They were the nobility. Nothing. And I mean it. Nothing has change since the Tzarat, apart from kicking out the old elites and bringing in the new ones in its exact place. So finally, there was a difference between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. Because in the Third Reich they didn't murder and/or disown all of their old upper class. Only the Jews. Oh, and that too. In the Reich the Jews were at the bottom, while they were at the top of the Soviet Union. But why do I have to write it? Finding and showing the differences was supposed to be your job. I was supposed to dismiss them as inconsequential.
1
@Regis1995 One more thing, because I forgot to answer it. Regarding "Nazis were conservative regarding the position of women in the Society" That's plain BS. They were not conservative at all, not even centrist. They were progressive. Hanna Reitch was a female pilot of rocket powered airplanes with 40 records to her name. Leni Reifestahl was a film director whose work in propaganda is still discussed in Universities. Current feminists never mention them, because they don't want you to know it, but Britain was conservative, Nazi Germany was not! Though they were slightly less progressive than the Soviet Union. Initially Soviets were very progressive, but it turned out badly for them after a single generation, with a bunch of single mother alpha widows, so they changed their tune a bit. So by the time the war has started, the Reich and Soviet Union were very similar also in this regard.
1
@Regis1995 I wrote a lengthy response (in which I agreed with some of your points), but it's not appearing, at least for me. I don't know who deleted it. It could be me, by mistake, though I don't believe it to be true. It could be TIK. I think he's progressive, and I wrote some stuff which could be interpreted as criticism of this ideology. That would reflect very badly on him, but since I don't know it's his fault, I reserve my judgement. Or it could be Youtube. Some keywords appeared to often, the thread was nested too deeply, my "social score" is possibly already damaged to some extent, so some algorithm decided that my post does not need to appear. Whatever the case may be, I rest my case. The discussion of ideologies is obviously not welcomed here. Consume the content and be content, that's the message. I get it. I have bread (I bake it myself), I have entertainment, and that's where it ends. A bit sad, though.
1
@paranoidandroid9511 No, I wrote that we should take a weighted average of all those issues and put the dot on the line wherever it belongs. "Weighted" means, that if the issue is important to someone, it carries a lot of weight. For example, a fervent feminist would be considered a lefty, even if he/she happens to support libertarian capitalism, but can hardly be bothered to ever talk about it. Or, a fundamentalist Christian activist would be a righty, even if he sometimes dreams about living in a Christian commune with no private property to speak of. In a nutshell, we take everything into account and then simplify the living out of it. Sure, it won't work in some fringe cases, but in general it's what we already do.
1
@paranoidandroid9511 "because issues do not have political attachments" The we don't need to be bothered and include those at all. If it's not part of political agenda, it should not matter.
1