Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Battlestorm Stalingrad E6 - The Kalach Cauldron" video.
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
@Lothar Nauth "The Nazis were not socialists."
Weren't they? What was the name of their party? The National Socialist German Workers Party...
"believed in prussian identity"
They were Nationalists, so obviously they believed in national identity, but Hitler hated Prussians anyway.
"traditional gender roles"
True that. They also didn't openly oppose religion, so they had their unique flavor of Socialism. Soviet Union started with an opposing view on gender roles and religion, but ended up exactly in the same spot as Nazi Germany. Women were expected to be virtuous mothers, while religion was replaced with secular cults based around state and state leaders.
"suppression of all individuality, strict order and hierarchy"
Anarcho-communists believed otherwise, but Soviet bolsheviks were very much the same.
"The reason why they added "Socialist" to their name was because they already had "WORKERS" in it."
Well, they also promised and realized state intervention programs which were directed toward improving the life of the common worker, like autobahns or armament. The industry technically remained in private hands, but only as long as the owners did what they were told.
How does it differ from Soviet Union, where you were a director of a factory, but only as long as the ruling party (CPSU or NSDAP) accepted you at this role...
Well, there was a difference, I admit that, but not a huge one. The main difference being that the Soviet Union has already worked through the economy collapse and they settled on something workable in the long run, while Germany was still waiting for the disaster to strike.
5
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "caring about individual rights"
I wrote "individual freedom ", not rights. Rights are not freedoms. Rights need to be guaranteed by something, freedoms do not. Just leave them alone, they will be there.
Just for example, freedom of speech is not a right (though it's called that often). If there is no law which forbids you from speaking your mind, it's automatically present. Hate speech laws on the other hand, protect your right to not be offended, so they grant you a right which was not there before. As we can see, hate speech laws infringe upon freedom of speech.
The left tends to concentrates on rights (ironic pun not intended), while the right concentrates on freedoms.
Fascist were lefites also because they concentrated on rights. Germans, as a collective group, had a right to lebensraum. In order to guarantee this right, the freedom of others needed to be infringed upon.
Authoritarianism is simply an emergent quality of leftiest's ideologies. While authoritarian right is definitely possible (monarchists are right-wing, for example), libertarian left is not. Concentrating on collective rights necessitates organized coercion.
Italian fascism started as an offshoot of anarchist ideology, but it didn't matter in the end, did it? The worker's right to "fair" pay needed to be guaranteed by the state. That's how it always goes.
5
-
3
-
3
-
@shrose68 "Just know that thinking that "big government" equals "left wing" is a childs understanding of political economy"
At which point did I suggest that my understanding of ideology is so one-dimensional?
With that said, lefties prefer big government. Always. (Until you count anarchists as lefties, then not always, but I'm not sure they qualify to be called that.)
Anyway, I believe you see that Nazis can't be classified as far-right, if they are openly left wing on many aspects of their ideology.
That's just silly.
Libertarians are far right. Nationalists with a capitalist twist can be too. Nationalists with a socialist twist? Sorry, does not compute.
"Just because the Nazis called themselves socialist doesnt mean they were" and "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea"
Yeah. That's true, but Nazis actually realized socialist agenda, while there is no democracy in Korea.
Socialists believe that everybody should get as much as they are contributing to the society. Regardless of market forces, regardless of inherited wealth, regardless of personal achievements. Hitler didn't just say he agreed with that. He actually did stuff, which lead us to believe he really meant it.
It's not only what you say, it's what you do. So while there is no democracy in Korea, there actually was a form of socialism in Nazi Germany.
2
-
2
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "Either way, the one dimensional political model TIK employs is hopelessly simplistic"
Is it really? Let's see.
Communism-Socialism-Liberalism-Center-Conservatism-Libertarianism and Fascism?
Fascists are to the right of Libertarianism? National Socialists are more to the right than Libertarians?
No, this model is not totally useless, but the reality is simply different. Fascists should be between Communists and Socialists on economy and personal freedoms, while they should be considered to be almost exactly centrists as far as social order is concerned (family, religion and nation).
They were right bang in the middle on those issues and very much to the left on pretty much everything else.
So how come they are considered to be far right? Well, let's examine their doctrine. They believed in indoctrination and propaganda, so lying to the public was right up their alley.
What would have happened, if people who actually believe in many aspects of Fascist ideology took over? Just hypothetically speaking, you know.
Would they honestly admit that discredited Fascism and Nazism were close to their ideals, or maybe rather they'd try to use indoctrination and propaganda in order to paint one of theirs as belonging to the camp of their ultimate enemy?
It's just a thought experiment, obviously. Luckily we are not in this alternate universe, where people are indoctrinated to such an extent... Clown World is just an illusion and white is actually black. ;-)
2
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "extreme form of Royalism, thus a true and inevitable outgrowth of right wing thought, right?"
No, not really. Monarchists believe in free market and small government. They just don't believe in democracy, so in order to prevent political entities from gaining support by granting more and more promises to the masses, they want an independent power structure, which will be immune to this process.
They do not consider the individual to be an unimportant part of a hive structure. They just (realistically?) believe that the position of an individual is very vulnerable and needs protection. Hence monarchy. That will "solve" all the problems with democracy, won't it? ;-)
Anyway, one thing monarchists can always rightfully claim, is that monarchies did work . In the long term! While socialism somehow always ends up being badly implemented...
"shoehorning complex political thought into a left to right spectrum is hamstringing the discussion."
Sure. Especially when it looks like the worst crimes against humanity were all committed by the left, so it definitely is wrong to do it that way... ;-)
2
-
1
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "Circular reasoning. [...] using words redefined to fit"
That's what I accuse the left of. Nazis, literal National Socialists, are redefined to become "far-right" in order to fit the need of distancing them from the left and associating the right with the crimes they had nothing to do with.
Mussolini was a Socialist. Giovanni Gentile was a Socialist, Goebels was a Socialist. Hitler was a Socialist too. And Lenin, Trocki, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
"hollowness of your (and TIK's) understanding."
Oh, sure. We are so "hollow", because we recognize that National Socialists were Socialists. That's such a simplistic view of reality, isn't it? The reality must be more complex than that, because otherwise the left would be blamed for all those crimes against the humanity.
That can't be allowed to happen!
1
-
@damienrichards7216 "as the only way to stop a "Bolshevik style revolution" [...] (although this was merely a perceived threat in reality the socialists had very little power). "
Who killed Mussolini? Could you maybe remind me how he died?
"my point being that someone can call themselves something (and even believe they are that thing) but then either change into something different or not care much for it in the first place."
Unfortunately, that's not the case as far as Fascists and especially Nazis go. Both of those movements put in practice broad state intervention programs. Starting from regulated wages and prices, through profit margins and going as far as state sponsored holidays. They did all of is merely three years after they gained power! Three years!
They didn't outright seize the means of production, but the control of the government was vast . You were allowed to remain the nominal owner, but only as long as you produced what you were told to produced, by using methods as approved by the government and selling it all at a price as assigned by the government. Only in name you could call yourself an "owner".
In practice, you were a director of a state owned factory!
"I do however agree that the soviet union was ironically similar to the 3rd Reich in a major way because although they went about things in different ways they ended up with a very similar result."
There is no irony, because the ways in which they went about things were almost exactly the same. Large scale state controlled economy, huge black markets, shortages, the reign of terror, infighting.
Just, the lot. They were the same.
1