Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gvjrapiro He has a problem with socialism, but the general view among capitalists is that it is idiotic, but as long as it isn't forced on anyone, who cares? After all, "the state can absolutely exist under capitalism".
We aren't speaking about a man wearing red trousers, we are speaking about a man wearing trousers that are both red and blue. The socks are completely different from the trousers.
I know you are not making a moral judgement. Value is subjective, profit is a form of value, profit is subjective, and therefore, a transaction is only made when it profits both parties.
Each individual is owning their own means of production. The community is not collectively owning the means of production, but each individual has a means of production. Seems very private to me. Oh yeah, voluntary associations are what markets are based off, which is something none of the individual anarchists thought should be abolished, and they believed that due to the labour theory of value, they could achieve their utopia through markets. According to Benjamin Tucker, anarchism would become meaningless unless "it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market — that is, private property".
Because in this case, it was 6 extra words, that's not too much to ask.
Kim Il-Sung had no idea that his regime would devolve into a hereditary dictatorship in the 1970s. The Soviet Union was going alright, and North Korea only became the insane country it is today out of a need for stability after the loss of the USSR, or at least, something that won't result in Best Korea exploding into PUbG.
Prove it. I have shown why if Italian fascism rejected socialism in general, then they wouldn't have only rejected Big-S Socialism, like that of the Italian Socialist Party. The Nazis didn't like fascists very much. Goebbels wrote in his diary on the 6th of February, 1942 that "One might say that fascism has reacted upon the creative life of the Italian people somewhat like sterilisation. It is, after all, nothing like National Socialism". This is part of a larger rant about the differences between national socialism and fascism, according to Goebbels. But anyway, what has all this got to do with Oswald Mosley? This was just to get an insight into fascist economic beliefs, not to go full into the hierarchical implications or whatever.
I did feel the need to include trade unions, not because of confidence in definitions, but because that was part of the corporatist system. The fascist economy in Italy was run by employer organisations, trade unions and the government. [The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, page 143] Back up your claims that "private" corporations undercut trade unions, and then get back to me.
Not all businesses incorporate. The ones that don't do it to get "customers", they do it to get "stockholders" [Basic Economics: Firth Edition, Thomas Sowell, Page 197]. Corporations may be run by a board of directors, but they are still owned by thousands, or even millions, of stockholders. [Basic Economics: Firth Edition, Thomas Sowell, Page 197] Again, all men are islands, islands can trade, but they are only public when 2 or more islands unify.
Just because religion was part of nationalism doesn't mean nationalism was part of religion. As for who they were trying to get currency for, I can direct you to Cecil Rhodes and King Leopold 2: Crimes Against Humanity Boogaloo, not your average British taxpayer. And these prisoners let's take an example, Australia, were ordinary Brits, and they weren't always hardened criminals. Remember, this was the time where you could get hung for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family.
France had no control over the Duchy of Brunswick, and Austria had no control over the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, so explain how it gave them control over what would be Germany and Italy other than a more advantageous geopolitical position.
So if nations don't always overlap, there can be multiethnic nationalist movements?
The first definition of nationalism, not the second one.
3
-
@Gvjrapiro Yes, he does oppose the idea of socialism. He has attacked YouTube, just YouTube by the way, and a public company, since it is owned by a public of shareholders, for enforcing their guidelines inconsistently, which has forced him to do such things as replacing "rape" with "r" in a video on Nazi crimes against Soviet women. He has only claimed that socialism when enforced on people who don't want it is a horrible attack on human rights.
They are also wearing blue, as in where they don't support private property. So the man simultaneously supports private property and doesn't support private property at the same time, and somehow the fact that others who supposedly support private property do the same as proof that he supports private property?
Income is defined subjectively, as is an expense.
Socialism is the community control of the means of production. Not private control of the means of production, the community. Socialism can exist voluntarily. Capitalism also exists voluntarily. While markets aren't necessarily a feature of socialism they are absolutely a feature of capitalism. And true, you get private property when you mix your labour with nature. Individualist anarchists are anti wage labour, and they didn't believe in a violent revolution that would destroy wage labour, they believed that market forces would drive people to self-employment, as the labour theory of value was an economic consensus at this time. Rothbard also believed the same thing initially, but after listening to a talk by Mises he was convinced by the Austrian School to adopt the subjective theory of value. Do you have any evidence proving Tucker thought otherwise, and you do realise that was an Ezra Heywood quote, not a Tucker quote?
"Utterly pointless", do you mean important to my argument? Of course, you can call something a lie when you leave out the argumentation, I can do the same, but I don't because I am honest.
Kim had no clue that it would be his descendants that would take over North Korea in the 1970s. But I am willing to hear evidence to the contrary. He was most definitely a socialist, he collectivised farms and industry.
Then why do they capitalise on the S? And yes, I did cite Hitler's head propagandist, and I cited this particular text because it wasn't propaganda. It was his own diary and none of which would reach the public until the late 1940s if that.
I am sure Kershaw has his reasoning since he is a historian worth his salt, and I am certain you can provide it. But there is my reasoning: A defining feature of fascism is racism, yes? Not necessarily. "Fascist 'racism' throughout the period between 1922 and 1938, however distinctive, was essentially benign - and shared little, if any substance with the malevolent racism across the Alps." "None of the major Fascist intellectuals were racists of the sort found in National Socialist environs." "In fact, since many, if not most, of the principal ideologues of Fascism, were Actualists, they had principled objections to attributing human behaviour to material - that is biological - causes." Another feature of fascism is anti-semitism, right? Again, not necessarily so. "The form of anti-Semitism adopted by Fascist Italy, as a consequence, was singularly different from that of National Socialist Germany." "However indecent, it shared few of the genocidal traits that have shocked the civilised world." "Italian Jews suffered innumerable indignities and material losses, but there is scant, if any, evidence that between 1938 and 1943, any Jews died at the hands of Fascists simply for having been Jewish." Fact is, there was little anti-Semitism in Italy up until 1938, and it was only because Mussolini wanted to get closer to Hitler. It is clear to me that much of the anti-Semitism comes from influence from National Socialism, and if fascism and National Socialism were one and the same, then Mussolini would have created these laws upon assuming the premiership of Italy. The National Socialists, however, had racism and anti-Semitism built into their ideology.
Source: Gregor, A., (2009). Mussolini's Intellectuals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Prove that Mosley rejected socialism when he let his party publish a book singing all the praises of syndicalism. And don't say it was because he like private property but, because you sir, are assuming his definition of private property is the same as yours.
And as I have been over, many experts on fascism say that Nazism and Fascism are completely separate. Do your sources speak about national socialism or fascism? Were the trade unions crushed in Italy or Germany, and could you quote from the sources, please?
Whether a black man is a segregationist is irrelevant to the conversation. Private customers trade goods and services with the companies, but they don't own them. That's the difference. And yes, they are using them to generate revenue, it's almost that is what every organisation does, generate revenue through one means or another! The difference between corporations and actually private businesses is that the corporations get revenue from their public and customers, private businesses only get revenue from their customers.
Firstly, Cecil Rhodes wasn't the leader of Britain and as for Leo 2, Belgium isn't Japan! Most Brits back then didn't consider it unsightly to steal a loaf of bread for your family, though the crown said otherwise.
Calling me inept won't change the fact that:
- Frederick William IV refused to become Emperor of Germans of his own volition
- There is no reason to believe that a coalition of great powers could take down Prussia, as Prussia has previously successfully defended themselves
- The powers of France, Austria and Russia had too many conflicting interests to even form such a coalition
- Nobody cares if a mostly agrarian country becomes unified
Really? What makes you think that if Nicola gets independence she will invade England, exterminate them and then colonise England with Scots?
3
-
@Gvjrapiro How embarrassing for you that you are still in this comments section, for over a year, and you haven't even gotten up to this point in the video? 34:08
Shareholders. Plural. How private.
He is still wearing blue socks, whereas you are trying to claim he is wearing all red. Support for private property rights is an all-red affair, and appeals to tradition such as "[t]his is common, again, within even those who advocate for the private property above all else" does not negate the fact he is wearing blue.
Income for the boss must always be greater than the expense of the boss.
That isn't a Tucker quote, a simple Google search refuted that. [ https://www.azquotes.com/author/50182-Ezra_Heywood ]
But an actual Tucker quote is "Laissez Faire [the free market] was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital."
I don't need the state to say that the pen I own is indeed my pen for it to be my pen. Property is natural.
When did Rothbard advocate for violence against people in defence of "traditional values" and law and order systems? Quotes, please.
The most I have found for Ludwig von Mises being a racist is his brother, Richard von Mises, writing a satirical study mocking the Nazis. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Rothbard took many individualist anarchist predictions and altered them to fit with the subjective theory of value.
You are going to need to do a lot more than a baseless Tu quoque to justify why you left out my justificative portion of my argument.
Prove that he knew that he was the progenitor of a hereditary dictatorship in the 1970s.
Yes, because you get these things called "small-[letter ideology starts with] [ideology]", as in they believe in [ideology], but not necessarily supportive of the [Ideology] Party. This describes many fascists, including but not limited to Benito Mussolini, Enrico Corradini, Alfred Rocco, Sergio Panuzio and Ugo Spirito.
Calling something a TIK talking point doesn't refute it. It is, in fact, an Anthony James Gregor talking point, a professor of Political Science, well known for his research on fascism.
You may have skimmed over the bit where Anthony James Gregor specifies 1938. This is because Mussolini wanted to get closer to Hitler, in 1938, and up until that point, anti-Semitism was scant in Fascist Italy. Hell even Mussolini's own mistress, Margherita Sarfatti, was Jewish. She, and 10,000 other Jewish people, a third of the adult Jewish population in Italy, was part of the National Fascist Party (Source: Mussolini: A New Life by Nicholas Burgess Farrell). Of course, this all changed in 1938, but from influences of national socialism, and was not inherent in fascism itself, otherwise these laws would have been implemented in 1922.
Slavic isn't a race. You cannot be racist towards Slavs.
It was published by the party, so it isn't that hard to make an inference as to what he thought of the contents of the book.
Mosley probably thought of syndicalism as something along the lines of "a system based on Guild Socialism in which workers were represented in the management of large companies and corporations. Working conditions, apprenticeship schemes, representation in government and profit-sharing were all to be part of a new system."
What actions did Mosley undertake to protect private "piperty"?
Look, I want to know whether your source was speaking about Germany or Italy specifically.
Firstly, you haven't proven that Thomas Sowell is a segregationist and secondly, we are speaking about corporate law here, not American segregation.
The key distinction is that customers do not own the business. They can incentivise the business to do certain things, but they cannot coerce the business to do certain things, as they would be able to if they had ownership.
Don't hate YouTube. Just think it could loosen up its guidelines.
I'll reiterate what I said on the "undeniàlinks" between nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, profit, and religion when you admit that Cecil Rhodes wasn't leading the UK.
-True. It does in fact, prove the objective political trend that the only reason why German unification didn't happen sooner was that Prussia didn't get its finger out of its arse.
-Really? I do not remember reading about the 8th Coalition, formed by France, Austria and Russia against Prussia in the 19th Century.
-Be honest though, do you really think, for example, Russia was prepared to collaborate with Austria after Austria cucked Russia in the Crimean War?
-Such as WHOM?
I don't think so, because the Irish nationalist movement after achieving its initial goals never attempted to claim superiority over the English, nor the Dutch over the Spanish, nor the Estonian over the Russian, nor the Polish over the Russian, nor the Norwegian over the Swede, nor the Tanzanian over the English, nor the Gambian over the French, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gvjrapiro >Now child, I know you hate the truth, but it is painfully apparent that you are incapable of individual thought. I'm sorry that you think repeating talking points over and over makes them true.
youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA
>Hitler apparently now opposed imperialism and the expropriation of oppression? If he only cared about one specific area, why did he murder, not deport?
Ironic you call me a child even though I was born 134 years ago because this response could only be typed up by a 10-year-old, so your projection is noted. Firstly: I did not say Hitler was anti-imperialist. I said that I find it unlikely that he would've made a deliberate effort to conquer territories that he thought would be unhealthy for the Aryan population. Secondly, he murdered because as he said on Mein Kampf PDF edition, Page 281, he believed the "nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if, in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people, those who spread the international poison among them are exterminated."
>Citation needed,
youtube .com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugz2RRu4UR4ZfT2o1yl4AaABAg .9Ouac_tUQ1Y9QLywqSqRvO [Link broken because YouTube hates links]
Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P281.
>but none will be found for your denialism.
Given that you analogized the Holodomor as a "punch on the soldier" (yes I paraphrased, fight me) [youtube .com/watch?v=qtACBI1Txrc&lc=Ugy35d9jnw5hN_qoprB4AaABAg] you are throwing stones in your glass house when you speak about denialism. I am just going to apply Sargon's Law whenever you make a negative character judgment about me.
>After all, that's why it is so often pointed out by people like Shirer in the Rise and Fall of The Third Reich that the DAF was run by private businessmen.
It's all very well and good saying that the DAF were run by private businessmen and giving a source for it, but it would be nice if you actually provided examples of these businessmen and provided a page number on where Shirer said this since it is a 1,245-page book after all. Also, it was published in the 1960s so we have probably gotten better archival data since then, so that takes away from the credibility of your source.
>Why does the truth make you lash out so much?
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>Why do you assume that private individuals care about "cost efficiency" when they're profiting?
Because you can make profits bigger than 0 if your business was actually efficient enough to provide services to both the civilian population and the military, but instead you have the state-controlled union making things so inefficient that you can barely provide services to the military!
>Oh wait, I know. You don't know the definition of private either.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the
judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
Anyway, of an individual or small group. In other words, not public.
>And to say "corporations are not capitalistic," you deny all of economic history.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>I'm sorry child, but capitalist [sic] is a system of statism. It is, at its core, one aligned with forceful use of power.
A system based on private property rights has a system that violates private property rights at the core? Fascinating.
>And corporations are private.
No, they have territories, a community (shareholders), and a government (Board of directors). They are states and therefore are not private.
>They weren't "governed" by mutual agreement though, which is why I didn't say that,
You said "No, in actuality it was communally owned territory that was only "governed" by mutual agreement and voluntary association, and more often than not the actions of one would not harm another and thus they happened with no interference." [youtube .com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugz2RRu4UR4ZfT2o1yl4AaABAg .9Ouac_tUQ1Y9QLTzOTDHT8] Sorry, putting "governed" in quotations doesn't change we have a form of government here.
>and i'm [sic] sorry that you feel the need to make up lies to make up for the fact that your statism was disproven.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>Simply put, we have no form of government here. No central power, no forceful authority being pushed, no laws, no governing.
In actuality, it was a communally owned territory that was governed by mutual agreement and voluntary association.
>I want you to understand now just how deep the hole you've dug yourself is.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>You define a voluntary, mutual agreement, with the ability to leave at any time, and no force being imparted on any party involved, no central governance, and no state, as a system of "government here, and is therefore a state."
I wasn't including "no central governance, and no state," so you are proving Sargon's Law when you are calling me a liar. Just because an agreement is voluntary doesn't mean it can't conduct the affairs of the communally owned territory.
>No, child.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>It wasn't a system of government to begin with
Not an argument.
>as with your definition, statelessness is impossible because apparently voluntary agreements form a "State."
Why can't they?
>At least you admit how absurd your position is here. No form of government, no state.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>If mutual, forceless voluntaryism isn't stateless, child, what is?
States can exist under voluntaryism, they just can't use force to fund themselves. Here is an example of statelessness: no community/no government.
>A man who spent his life preaching about the evils of profit
No, he spoke out against wage slavery. If profits were to be made through self-employment, he would be fine with that.
>and you say this changes his ideology
Makes him a hypocrite.
>And given that "libertarians" force people into capitalism...
Citation needed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3