General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

King Orange
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.

How is capitalism evil ideologically?
4
@georgechristoforou991 Hahahaha. No. Sorry that holds little to no merit.
3
2 or more people isn’t a government. A political community making up a territory or nation is though. A state can be a tribe, a city, a small region, a continent, or the entire world. Size is not relevant to it
3
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 it doesn’t have to be said; it’s shown. Secondly what u described isn’t socialism that’s anarcho capitalism because the individual is in control of his own means of production. Also how do u define being exploited? And what if they exploit them?
3
Socialism has nothing to do with the workers bud. That is a concept Marx made for Marxism
3
@land_and_air1250 again, Socialism pre dated Marxism. Marxism is only one form of socialism and no one is saying the Nazis were Marxists, but they were socialists
3
Except it isn’t a deception. A question worth asking is what consistent metric would u even define left and right as?
2
@georgechristoforou991 Or are you going to delude yourself that everyone was truly equal under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao?
2
@georgechristoforou991 ok defining left and right by something not applicable holds little merit. Which is why things like the compass hold better
2
Except he isn’t referring to the worker. Socialism has nothing to do with the workers, only Marxism does
2
@JacobSmith-xs3ir r u referring to corporations when saying that?
2
@JacobSmith-xs3ir taking an educated guess probably more than 3. Since that is above 3. But I don’t think he referring to just a few people. Corporations have different ownership because anyone in the public sector can partially own it. That’s how I interpreted it anyway
2
@JacobSmith-xs3ir so I took some time to do more research the contrast is based on who had the capacity to own it. So private ownership is composed of individuals and exclusive groups. Corporations however have the capacity to be owned by anyone and everyone, which is why it’s held going public. I apologize for a lack of clarification beforehand
2
No it isn’t.
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 anarchosocialism is an oxymoron
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 because anarchism calls for an absence of a state and socialism by its definition require the means of production to be control by the state or community. If it takes a state to enforce socialism then it’s incapable with anarchism which requires no state. It’s literally saying no state state.
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 really? What else is going to enforce it lol
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 again how would it be done without enforcement?
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 again how could it be done without? It doesn’t matter who says it if it’s not possible.
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 without enforcement there is no guarantee on a system that essentially is just asking everyone to go against their own self interest and preservation. Because of anarchism exists what keeps me from making my own means of production and claiming ownership over it?
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba. Etc. all of them lead to the same problems. Lack of individual incentive and initiative being one of them. That’s the problem, if something is collectively owned it takes away such initiatives. So inevitably leads to what I highlighted, what would keep one member of society from starting their own means of production and taking ownership of it?
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 if someone is owning and controlling their own means of production, distribution, and trade. That makes them a capitalist, which undermines the socialism aspect. Unless the community created enforcement policies but if it does that it becomes a state. That’s what ur failing to see. Socialism cannot exist or be maintained without a state but with a state it’s not anarchism. Literally anarcho socialism is an oxymoron because it’s saying non state state economy.
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 I know what exploited means but I am asking how and In what way. There’s many ways to exploit someone
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 that’s not a counter argument. I presented the logic literally less than a comment ago. What stops a private owner who is in control of his own means of production from exploiting a worker?
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 again if the means of production is not being controlled or regulated that’s socialism. But guess what’s needed to employ such a regulation, a state. By definition
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Also ur ignoring basic economics. Labor theory is subjective based on agreement. And the point of getting money is to save and invest. Another video is made that explains this
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 how so
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 fair enough, my mistake. I did accidentally deviate a bit there. Let’s continue
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 but going back to the main point. If someone is allowed to just go out and control their own means of production, what keeps them from doing the “ on “ exploitation.
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 establishing a direct democracy or a workers council is still establishing a state
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 No it isn't. Because if the state does not control the economy, that is not socialism. However every political system is a state by definition.
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 because if it’s preventing another owner from starting their own business with their own control of production then that’s not anarchism. If they interfere they create a state, if they don’t interfere that’s just anarcho capitalism
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 I am not saying they are. But if someone starts their own business with their own control of the means of production. Thats capitalism. So congrats, u made an Anarcho capitalist society.
2
It isn’t at least not In a consistent sense. He covers this in the video itself. People try to label left and right with arbitrary concepts rather than a consistent metric
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 anarchism and libertarianism are based on individual liberties which is contrast to the idea of a totalitarian state which socialism advocates and inevitably leads to. That’s why social spectrum is and needs to be separate from economics.
2
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 collective ownership over the means of production would require a state to enforce it, otherwise nothing would keep someone from leaving and creating their own private means of production to sell to society.
2
Nationalistic is a social concept. Can be associated with capitalism and socialism. Not to mention people confuse nationalism with racism. Submitting to National Identity is not the same as submitting to racial identity which is the main thing separating National Socialism from Fascism
2
Even though Hitler condemned Fascism, Mussolini even stated Fascism was rooted in socialist theory, and nothing about the Nazis or Fascists involved economic liberty. So no, they were not right wing. Not in any way that would make sense
2
@manuell3505 ok so Stalin was a dictator that had a very authoritarian nationalistic country. Does that make him far right by ur logic? What about Lenin or Mao? U can’t use a spectrum that holds no consistent logic
2
@manuell3505 and is ultimately arbitrary
2
@manuell3505 “that’s my side of the line.” - what is? U realize both sides can be racist and nationalist. That’s not exclusive to the right or left. Seriously ur not making any sense at all
2
@manuell3505 what question?
2
@manuell3505 Again what question, can u just elaborate without playing semantics games or throwing blind insult?
2
@manuell3505 Again I’m asking which one? U weren’t clear? Is asking Elaboration too much for u?
2
@manuell3505 Also calling me not the brightest for asking elaboration is blind insult. All u have to do is put some context in. Not a hard thing for an adult mind to do
2
@manuell3505 u can’t really answer things can u?
2
@manuell3505 Really, how does any argumentation about the Nazis being socialist make me a far right racist? Do u people just love making things up?
2
@rappakalja5295 somewhat.
1
Define Crony Capitalism. Also look at Tiks full National Socialism is Socialism video and he covers the privatization bit.
1
@ContemporaryCompendium ok and as TIK highlighted, capitalism is against state control. So that would still eventually leave capitalism’s spectrum
1
Which is partially true, however unlike Britain and the US that simply used it as a means to an end, Hitler didn’t
1
What?
1
Then I would ask that u present counter sources
1
@JacobSmith-xs3ir think about it. If a corporation is starting where shares are about to be bought and sold, then there is no associated owner. Not directly
1
@JacobSmith-xs3ir except he isn’t. He owns majority shares but he technically does not have full ownership
1
@JacobSmith-xs3ir on his own yes, but not when the rest of the shareholders vote to override his decision. He would have to own 51% or more of the total company for that to apply and most of the time no single individual owns that many. As it would undermine the point of going public.
1
@JacobSmith-xs3ir true but once when those shares are sold. Then it relegates the company to no longer be privately owned. Especially when those shares can be bought by literally anyone who can afford it. This is the same reason why a founder can be booted from his own company. If it was private that wouldn’t be able to happen.
1
@JacobSmith-xs3ir Because it’s no longer a private ownership. Technically anyone could have shares and partial ownership of the company. It’s no longer in the hands of the individual. Again it’s the same principle as how a founder can be booted from his own company. In a private business owned purely by him or even a partnership they wouldn’t be able to do that
1
@JacobSmith-xs3ir which is what separates partnerships from corporations. Again a partnership holds that split where all of them own it but their ownership is absolute and exclusive to them. Keeping it private. This is why again u can’t be booted out. If 4 people own a company. All 4 own it and even if 3 dislike one of the owners, they can’t get rid of him. This is not the same as a corporation. The ownership is collective based on share holders that can be passed as easy as a $20 bill. Because technically no one or even set of individuals own it. Even the CEO and Board are only representatives of the overall shareholders. Again this is the reason why a founder can be booted from his own company since technically he doesn’t own it anymore
1
jeff jr I stated it was a failed democracy. Which it is. The same way they were also failed socialists.
1
jeff jr I never said it couldn’t go to a different system. However North Korea never officially changed its system. It just failed at the point of democracies existence.
1
jeff jr I agreed for a time within its appointment. Most of the time it does take the people to get a system in power, however getting power and keeping power are 2 separate cases. North Korea was at the very least democratic and officially still is. However it’s institutions became corrupted ultimately leading it to failure
1
You fail to realize State Capitalism is an oxymoron
1
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Again, ur going by the logic if someone choosing to work for someone. So again if they control their own means of production with their own employee base that is not being controlled or regulated by a community. That makes him a capitalist and such, capitalism. What ur advocating isn't even socialism. Its just a type of business, forgive me I forget the name, that has an equal ownership amongst all employees and businesses like that have existed before.
1
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 “employee stock ownership plan,”
1
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 But again say there is someone that creates their own means of production, what keeps him from exploiting another member of the community?
1
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Its a socialist concept yes, P.S thanks for clarifying the name.
1
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 ur not listening. If someone goes and creates their own means of production to be sold or traded. That makes them a private owner, that gives them individual control. As such it would make it capitalist. If anarcho socialism does nothing to stop a bunch of individuals from making and controlling their own means of production. Then how would it still be under community control?
1
Such as?
1
@azerty8866 Hitler killed many Marxists which TIK already explains. Also it’s value is dependent on the evidence but I’ll give it a watch
1
mike mcmike bring actual counter evidence than blind insult
1
mike mcmike the funny thing is he says the same thing as you. Whether you like it or not. He presented a claim backed with evidence, at this point if you wish to call out his material as crap, distorted, or lies. The burden of proof falls on you to do so. Because no offense bud, any dumb ass can write in a comment and call someone an idiot. It takes a decently educated and well rounded person to make a proper rebuttal which is what u should be doing. Because just trying to attack people that have bought what he has presented isn’t going to get you anywhere. And believe me, many people here would love to see rebuttals to TIK just to look at things differently. So maybe go do so, or don’t. Doesn’t make a difference to me. All I’m saying is, if you wish to tear down his building, you better have a solid foundation yourself.
1
mike mcmike consensus is not a foundation for an argument. That is only trying to argue from a position of authority which doesn’t work. Whether or not you consider them scum does not change the standard. And I’m sorry ur stereotyping if you think every person who has bought into TIK is scum. That’s on u if u fail to present proper counter argumentation.
1
mike mcmike once again. Pulled out of nowhere yes, but when there is evidence to back it, then yes the burden of proof shifts. And there is no surprise. I bet there are people that can counter TIK. I want them to do so, but that starts by presenting a counter claim backed by evidence. Not blindly attacking him.
1
mike mcmike ok and again, use counter evidence. Dude this isn’t even just for TIK but those that follow him. Because yes u can’t change TIK’s outlook, but you can change his followers outlook. But that isn’t going to be done through attacking them.
1
mike mcmike I’m not trying to push anything. I never even stated I supported TIK. You put that in ur own head. I don’t agree with much of TIK’s conclusions. And here I had hoped for someone capable of doing a proper deconstruction. Sadly disappointed yet again. Instead I get blind insult.
1
mike mcmike once again! I care about evidence not consensus because in case you fail to recognize history. Consensus changes bud. That’s why evidence is needed that why I’m effectively begging you to find and present counter evidence but it’s clear that ur incapable or too limited to do so. And the fact u try to make an enemy out of me when by most accounts I was willing to side with u just shows ur either too dense in the head or seriously need to gain a grasp on debate. 🤦‍♂️
1
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 anarchism and liberalism don’t correlate with socialism. U can be a socialist without being libertarian just you like you can be libertarian without being socialist. Again that’s the problem of trying to correlate 2 isolated concepts. Again socialism is the communal/collective control of the means of production, distribution, and trade. Now tell me as I’ve mentioned before, without a state to enforce the collective ownership. Nothing keeps someone from going and making their own private means of production to be bought and sold. This is why the concept of Marxist Communism is nothing but a pipe dream. Because every ideology requires an exercise of violence and enforcement. Even anarchists as their basis of getting a stateless society would require them to work together effectively as a state to dismantle any developing state. And yes socialism advocates totalitarianism. Because for socialism to work in practice, everything would have to be subservient to the collective and community which by enforcement is the state.
1
jeff jr yes because I stated it’s a failed democracy.
1
Not an argument. No it isn't. Otherwise you would have real evidence to present and a logic to display. "Nu uh, that ain't true." is not an argument.
1
@nicknolte8671 more false accusations I see. It’s considered unethical to attempt to do false labels.
1
@nicknolte8671 Once again. Trump never attempted a cue. A riot got extreme is not an attempted cue. Ur yet to find me a single quote of a WW2 Nazi proclaiming to be a fascist. North Korea I mentioned was a FAILED democracy. Funny how u try to call me a fascist when ur the one using their tactics.
1
@nicknolte8671 what victim? Ur literally making shit up. Also do u have proof of Georgia’s call?
1
@nicknolte8671 there is no discredit. I asked for a specific piece of evidence u were unable to give. No red herring about that.
1
@nicknolte8671 And newsflash. Disagreement with ur conclusions doesn’t make me a fascist buddy. I could throw the same logic at u saying “disagreeing with me makes u a communist.” I don’t. Because one only has to look at a surface level to understand how retarded of an accusation that would be with no proper context to back it.
1
@nicknolte8671 source of such a call? Call me uninformed all u want. U have the power to fix that if there is truly enough credibility behind u. Instead you’d rather use false labels. Once again, nowhere has Hitler subscribed to Mussolini or Gentile’s theory of Fascism. Nowhere has he stated any desire to implement Fascism. And minor similarities within the economy and the fact both are authoritarian weren’t even ideologically aligned with each other within their inception. Also trying to criticize me based on intellectual honesty is hypocritical considering ur own false allegations.
1
@nicknolte8671 Sorry I do disagree. Ironic when u try to say antimentism was a core component when Italy had Jewish Fascists, one of Mussolini’s own mistresses was Jewish, and the first anti Semitic law wasn’t made until 1938. Over 10 years after Mussolini took power. Also once again, stop attempting false allegations you liar.
1
@nicknolte8671 Far from it. Again ur the one trying to do a false label. Not liking my conclusion doesn’t make me a Fascist buddy. There is no neo Nazi conspiracy of them being socialist. Why would there be? 😂 The only one subscribing to conspiracy is ur self. Also where’s that source for the Georgia phone call?
1
@nicknolte8671 no u didn’t post anything. Again disagreeing doesn’t make me a fascist. And Neo Nazis were far from the only people who believed in cultural Marxism.
1
@nicknolte8671 And I suggest u stop doing false labels commie.
1
@nicknolte8671 nope. Because all that would mean is that ur a pathetic liar. Again do u have any proof of ur claim? No. U don’t. No one will take u seriously if all u do is falsely label those who disagree with u
1
Again u have to look at the ideological motive and u need to look at the actions of the control. Kings within ancient societies did not promote free markets but were not socialists either because it was literally impossible at the time to centrally control the economy.
1
jeff jr not an argument. And no u bud. At least I’m not trying to throw blind insult and literal harassment
1