Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "National Socialism WAS Socialism | Rethinking WW2 History" video.

  1. Clearly someone doesn’t pay attention. First of all. Socialists killing other socialists is a lot more common than you would think. Second. What defines the left and right spectrum? What’s the measurement? Otherwise it’s just an arbitrary concept with no real meaning 3. The Marxists also outlawed trade unions
    6
  2.  @chimpanzee840  except economics is the defining of left and right. Yes Hitler was highly authoritarian and nationalistic and his ideology was rascist. But his inequality was based on racial theory. Not deliberate inequality amongst the Germans themselves
    4
  3.  @chimpanzee840  yes and that can still be associated with socialism. Socialism at its most basic levels is state control of the economy. Also every dictatorship is a hierarchy so by that logic, the Soviets and China were no different.
    4
  4. Social ownership of the means of production is based on an organized body or community which if they dictate the political and economic life is a state. As such socialism is state control over the economy
    4
  5. How is profit theft when both sides are willingly doing it through private control.
    4
  6. Hitler killed opposition to him. Hitler killed economic capitalists as well. Also what kind of logic is that? So Lenin and Stalin must not be socialists either since they also killed economic socialists
    4
  7.  @freddygarfunkle8947  you mean any version that wasn’t National Socialist? The Soviets also purged other socialists before bud.
    3
  8.  @dergutehut3961  U do realize that Nazis domination was based on racial theory which separated them from Marx. That’s not a contradiction of socialism though especially not in practice. They only privatized after already taking the companies from the original owners and giving them to loyal members of the party. Which was Nationalization.
    3
  9. That makes no sense. How can he not?
    3
  10. He also murdered a lot of anti Nazi capitalists, Jewish capitalists, gypsy capitalists, and disabled socialists. Also did Lenin, Stalin, and Mao not murder socialists?
    3
  11.  @freddygarfunkle8947  They do when it is not a form that aligns with their vision.
    2
  12. Really? Define the words then
    2
  13.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  R u joking? Really saying for the workers to rise up, for the capitalists to tremble to the communist revolution, the constant times of mentioning the oppressive capitalists. Really? U can’t be blind.
    2
  14.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  "The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones."
    2
  15.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." - really, and how does he intend to remove that opposition?
    2
  16.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
    2
  17.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite!”
    2
  18.  @herbertwilkshire4265  "The definitions of socialism communism and capitalism are all wrong People think that socialism means collective ownership of the means of production aka industry, but that's wrong." - Most definitions say otherwise bud. "That's actually called social capitalism." - Um, no it isn't. - "any capitalist system that is structured with the ideology of liberty, equality, and justice." - None of that even so much as mentions collective ownership. "Socialism is a place on the economic egalitarianism spectrum that is further left than capitalism aka individualism... And it's on the left of center of said spectrum, and it's further right than communism which is full or nearly total economic egalitarianism aka a non profit economy." - Ok and that is not applicable. Egalitarianism is not inherent. As people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were far from egalitarians. Socialism is where the means of production is collectively owned and or controlled. "And people think that communism is synonymous with totalitarianism and use the word interchangeably with it, incorrectly. Totalitarianism "And people think that the definition of capitalism is private ownership of means of production aka industry but this is also wrong. Capitalism means to profit." - No it doesn't. Profit is only an attribute, not a definition. - Capitalism: "an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests" - Profits is most often for their interests but is not the only. Not to mention capitalism does call for private control. "If the state owns all industry and is profiting this is called state capitalism." - No that is socialism. Because the state is collectivising the means of production. Also its oxymoronic. Capitalism calls for private control of the means of production. A state is not private, it is public. If everything is publicly owned, that is not capitalism by definition. "If the state owns industry and it's non profit then this is communism or socialism." - Except everything is profit. Profit: "a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something." - If they are able to gain more than the cost to make it, then that would generate a profit. But hey, I guess ur definition would explain why socialists countries tend to always bankrupt themselves lol. "If privates own industry and it's non profit this is still socialism or communism." - No it is not. Because private individuals controlling the means of production is not communal control. It is not the means of production being controlled by the community which was the point of socialism since its inception. "If privates own industry and it's for profit then this is capitalism." - Yes. If they own and control it for their interest. But other than this u r completely trying to redefine words, short answer. No.
    2
  19. Socialism was not always classed based
    2
  20. Did u read mein kampf?
    2
  21. ​ @herbertwilkshire4265  "that's exactly right they're called state capitalists because they positioned themselves and the state at the top of the economic hierarchy to accumulate all of the economic proceed" - Which is Oxymoronic. State capitalism is inherently contradictory. Capitialism is defined as the private control of the means of production, the private owner. State Capitalism DEF: "a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital." - That is not in private control. That is public and collective control. "You're staying to figure it out but it's still eluding you because you're too stupid to accept an uncomfortable truth right on front of you" - What that u cannot actually properly define the words? Sure bud.
    2
  22.  @herbertwilkshire4265  really, because I’m not the one trying to challenge clear definitions. U r. What ur doing is equivalent of looking at an apple and saying it’s not an apple it’s an orange. 😂
    2
  23.  @herbertwilkshire4265  egalitarianism is not inherent to socialism. And this is covered in a later video as well
    2
  24.  @herbertwilkshire4265  definition of socialism is the means of production, distribution, and trade being under the control of the community as a whole or by extension, the state.
    2
  25.  @herbertwilkshire4265  really. Because the definition is pretty clear on what it is
    2
  26.  @herbertwilkshire4265  Also once again, I already did refute ur arguments. It’s not my problem if u can’t read.
    2
  27.  @freddygarfunkle8947  Again you mean opposing socialist groups? I already explained that it isn’t uncommon within socialist movements for them to kill alternative variants
    1
  28.  @freddygarfunkle8947  you are not getting this. Yes they do. Marxists killed Mensheviks and Social Democrats before. The Nazis killed Marxists. It’s the same point. The fact you don’t understand this is baffling
    1
  29.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  except I do. Again ur the one trying to openly challenge them
    1
  30.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  omg when r u going to drop that? That was from weeks ago and I already elaborated things to u since then. I could call out ur bullshit of anarcho socialism. But I don’t. Because that would be taking the easy way out
    1
  31.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  I put a claim that he advocated one. U advocate one, u clearly want it to happen, and the revolutions that followed were done and claimed under Marx theory. Yes I could of worded it better. I was trying to say he advocated for one to happen and laid the seeds for it. But that was a mistake with wording. No different than u continuing to misuse the word state. Or should I just assume u lied there?
    1
  32. ​ @paidgovernmentshill_6950  I already answered where Marx said it, literally some of the threads, I used direct quotes from him. "State: the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time." Nope, no misuse there! - Um yes it was, because up until this point we have been referring to state as the political noun. "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." - So whether intentional or accidental, ur use of the word was misleading. If ur going to use the word with a different definition than the one previously discussed then u either need to say as much or preferably use a different word with a similar meaning such as condition.
    1
  33.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  dude look at the other threads we were on. We already discussed this and I’m not going to take the time to put this shit in a second time over ur denial.
    1
  34.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  I literally quoted the guy in other threads. If u can’t read them then that’s on u.
    1
  35.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  “The proletarians have nothing to loose but their chains. They have a world to win.” - need I provide more quotes for u to get the message
    1
  36. Elaborate
    1
  37.  @chimpanzee840  "The difference between left & right is the right is truthful in understanding that inequality is good & unavoidable; whereas, the left are full of shit & actually believe equality is soooooo good that it justifies temporary use of inequality 🤣" - Equality was not the basis of socialism. "Hitler 100% truthfully believed that inequality was good & sought to increase inequality by creating higher levels of humanity; whereas, a leftist is simply either an untruthful criminal who wants to push others into the mud or a fool who likes lying in the mud with other fools" - Ok, again urseparatingg the class struggle from the race struggle. No one is saying Hitler was a Marxist.
    1
  38.  @alexharrison9340  "A generally murderous and unpleasant time, it still is with constant capitalist war criminality perpetrated by the US." - Such as? "If one tallies up capitalist gov caused deaths v proto-socialist gov caused deaths, capitalism 'wins' hands down." - Perhaps in the long run, but you do realize socialists have a higher tally in terms of the amount dead under a single leader or in a short period of time. Mao being the best example. "Herr H was backed by capitalists' money at home and abroad." - What does this have to do with National Socialists?
    1
  39.  @alexharrison9340  "1/Such as the fairly recent US crimes in Vietnam," - Recent? Like. "Afghanistan," - Pulled out of. "ongoing crimes in Iraq, murdering an Iranian General who held diplomatic status etc." - Not even comparable to socialist genocide. "Undermining, interfering and destabilising socialist ( even mildly social-democratic countries such as Venezuela)" - How? Sanctions don't count. "endeavouring to replace left regimes with fascists in their own excessively nationalist, militaristic image ( e.g Pinochet )." - Like who? R u referring to Cold War America? "We don't hear so much now with the ongoing persecution of Assange but it's safe to assume US war criminality continues." - Assume. "The US infamously ignores habeas corpus with institutions such as Guantanamo Bay." - I never said the US had a completely clean record bud. "2/Trump dispatched the descendants of over 500, 000 US settler-colonialists (a better performance than the real American, Crazy Horse, could have dreamt of) in just a few short months." - Elaborate "His stupid covid management amounted to gross negligence manslaughter." - Considering the situation at the time, I would hardly hold too much resentment towards him, yes he could of done things better. Ok, and? "3/Backing from US capitalists such as Henry Ford and German Nazi capitalists proves NS was just a front for extreme capitalism," - Being backed internationally or even nationally for mutual gain is not the same as ideological alignment. There have been plenty of times alliances are made for such ends "at the time ( straight after the Great Depression, one of capitalisms worst systemic crashes) nearly every party in Europe had to use words like 'workers', 'labour', 'peoples', 'communist' or 'socialist' in its name to get any votes at all, regardless of what it really, secretly stood for." - Trying to make an appeal is not the same as ideology itself. Conservative parties still existed, as did liberal, and even monarchists. The reason why Socialists were quick to take power at that time was people wanted quick solutions. Also this does not even have anything to do with Hitler.
    1
  40.  @alexharrison9340  Ignoring that Bernie himself was hypocritical. Even disregarding that. Yes he was a Racist. And based his ideology on racial theory. Again National Socialism. It was both. But technically he wasn't even National as his ideology required the expansion into foreign territory and included the entire race regardless of nationality. So technically it was international, racist, socialist.
    1
  41.  @alexharrison9340  acting as if capitalism brought such instability. Again capitalism didn’t bring the wars of the 20th century, socialism did. And which system was able to outlast the other was already decided. Also worth noting that Bernie for such a hard core socialist seems to be rolling in quite a bit of money instead of using it to help the poor. Germany’s second war would of happened with or without the industrialists. Because it wasn’t just about gain or ideology. It was also about revenge for previous injustices against the Germans. The people were hungry for blood by this point. Because the Germans by WW2 had a world to gain and very little to lose after so much was already robbed from them during the Treaty of Versailles and the depression. Capitalism isn’t bloodless and is a system that can bring suffering when done wrong. But to act as if socialism is the answer is ignorant upon the many nations that tried and failed and resulted in nothing but complete totalitarianism, suppression of freedom, imperialistic expansion for the sake of “spreading the revolution” or having “living space.” And u see this basic point reflected that both Lenin and Stalin did similar “deals with the devil” when it suited them and their regimes. Hitler is the ultimate failed socialist in history who believes that uniting everything on a pure racial collective would save the world. Instead he made an enemy of nearly everyone (even his own Allies didn’t trust him), and betrayed his own people for not living up to his vision. Hitler can be seen as many things, a capitalist wasn’t one of them.
    1
  42.  @alexharrison9340  once again, his economy did fall into socialism. World war 1 may have been the capitalist war but world war 2 was the socialist one. It was Essentially a socialist civil war between the Marxists, Fascists, and Nazis all of which has their own version of socialist theory with the semi socialist west being involved. Ruling classes wasn’t the motive of world war 2. Ideological purity was. And the war was fought to see which powers would decide the ideological fate of the rest of the world. USA and Soviet Union were the ones that truly came out on top and I would argue were the only ones that truly won the war.
    1
  43.  @alexharrison9340  "There was a great deal of capital surplus acquired from workers by the German capitalist class under the Nazis." - Socialism isn't about the workers, also yes Hitler made deals with many industrialists. Primarily out of necessity or did you forget that Hitler tried a traditional revolution in 1924 and it failed. "The Nazis weren't socialists or capitalists they were basically very odd far-right crooks but were heavily backed by capitalists and a Trumpian mesmerised population." - Again how are they "Far Right" then? What r u even trying to define far right as? "Capitalism is, as we know, driven solely by profit, not morality." - True, but profit motives alone does not make capitalism. "Hitler lied about his 'socialism' to get elected." - Did he though? Also if he could lie to the German people to get elected, what makes you think he wouldn't had lied to the industrialists as well. "Folk who take Trump's, Boris Johnson's or Hitler's word as gospel truth really need to reconsider." - I am not involving modern politics into this bud.
    1
  44.  @alexharrison9340  "Modern politics, past politics, it's pretty much the same struggle of good against the alternative. 1945 isn't that long ago." - It is when factoring how much changes since then. "I agree with you Orange, pretty sure H was a Trumpian crook who lied to everyone, regardless." - Hitler did lie to everyone overall. However, there were still ideals he believed in. "Define right wing? Certainly, hyper nationalistic, racist, eugenicist, Malthusian myth believers." - So by that logic, was Stalin a right winger? There are so many reasons why that categorization does not work. For one Nationalism or even Racism can be associated with capitalist or socialist. Another is it ignores economics, and it ignores political systems placed in. "Belief in the myth that state finance is the same as personal finance, denial of women's rights over their own bodies, that kind of stuff, I'm sure you know it really." - Which I explained before why those don't hold a consistent metric. Otherwise how do u define someone like Stalin, or Mao. Personal bigotry is not ideological alignment.
    1
  45. How much u deluded ur self
    1
  46.  @Suckerx911  Equals 2. Your point?
    1
  47.  @Suckerx911  it isn’t. Again, ur point? We’re not talking about math here.
    1
  48.  @Suckerx911  true. However TIK has thrown a similar connotation at those attempting to detract him. That’s where exchange of thought and discussion needs to be put into play rather than dismissing out of hand. So is that something you would be willing to discuss?
    1
  49.  @Suckerx911  I never did say your right. However I never said your wrong either. I want to hear your logic out.
    1
  50.  @Suckerx911  wait wait hold on. R u seriously suggesting Stalin and Mao are far right?
    1
  51.  @Suckerx911  I’m not discussing modern politics here. And I will ask a basic question to you. When do you define left and right as? What is the metric you are using?
    1
  52. ​ @Suckerx911  "Left looks for equality, Right look for individual freedom." - Then you can't factor totalitarianism in that. Since it represents neither. So that is not a consistent metric. Also that implies equality is the opposite of individual freedom, that doesn't make any sense either. capitalism
    1
  53.  @Suckerx911  "Left looks for equality, Right look for individual freedom." - Then you can't factor totalitarianism in that. Since it represents neither. So that is not a consistent metric. Also that implies equality is the opposite of individual freedom, that doesn't make any sense either. "Guess what, both are fundamental needs of human being. and too much of either is just like drink too much water will kill one. extreme Communism is killed and already proven not working, and capitalism triumphed. China is no longer a communist country, they thrived on capitalism, and yet if one party pushed way too far, problem emerges. Capitalism is great at creating value, yet really poor at distribute it, That's how communism was created, poor living condition and long hours drive those poor people felt resentment. Later on, capitalist learned it's lesson, to leave some money on the table, and improve people's living condition and education system." - Ignoring that you are confusing communism with socialism, I will agree with this point somewhat. But much of it depends on what you define distribution as. The biggest weakness of capitalism is it doesn't value anything passed the commodity or monetary value.
    1
  54.  @Suckerx911  Again, that holds little sense. Again, you can't define right and left based on arbitrary notions. Opposition is not the same as opposites.
    1
  55.  @Suckerx911  again that’s not a consistent logic. U don’t bend definitions to suit a logic. Definitions are meant to put meaning behind terms. If we can’t agree on definitions, we’re not going to be able to communicate
    1
  56.  @Suckerx911  ok and I don’t care about that. You disagree so please tell me your logic and reasoning
    1
  57.  @Suckerx911  I want to hear ur logic and reasoning. Trying to knock down an opponent is easy and cheap. To me it does very little good if you don’t have an argument built up to counter it.
    1
  58. Socialism isn’t about the workers.
    1
  59. Ok then by that logic. Even if the Nazis were privately owned, their still socialists.
    1
  60.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  ?
    1
  61.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  what if it is? Many socialist states have fallen to dictatorships due to the failures of their systems. That’s a product of authoritarian socialism. Like seriously, are we now going to say Lenin, Stalin, and Mao weren’t socialists either?
    1
  62.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  Well a lot would depend on how such dictator took power, on top of that. A dictator is not a one man stand. It still technically requires a community to enforce his or her rule.
    1
  63.  @paidgovernmentshill_6950  Not just military, but also courts, economists, agencies, etc. Not to mention that is why I stated the way they took power holds relevance. However this is not a consistent ground to stand on because again as I mentioned before, by that logic, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Un Sung, and Castro weren’t socialists either.
    1
  64.  @herbertwilkshire4265  lol, so ur logic to go against Hitler’s socialism is to basically try to relabel every failed socialist in history. Lol.
    1
  65.  @herbertwilkshire4265  Also it doesn’t someday benefit me. It already has, as it does most people. Or do u forget that most nations that tried to implement the “socialist paradise” only end in millions systematically starving, mass starvation, and totalitarian control over everything.
    1
  66.  @herbertwilkshire4265  wow, what a comeback. Newsflash buddy trying to detach every failed socialist regime doesn’t change what it is.
    1
  67.  @herbertwilkshire4265  right and by ur logic any socialist regime that fails is declared not “real socialism,” or did u forget that people like u r the reason that became a meme. I’m sure for u it’s easy to try to deny Hitler a socialist when u try to deny people like Lenin, Stalin , Mao, Kim Un Sung, and Castro as socialists and attempt to rebrand them “state capitalists” ignoring that it’s an oxymoron. 😂
    1
  68.  @herbertwilkshire4265  I’m not ignorant to capitalism’s faults either, difference is I don’t attempt to relabel them
    1
  69.  @herbertwilkshire4265  hahahahah. How old r u buddy? Not very adult to throw blind insult. And sorry, trying to rebrand everything into an oxymoronic term is not an argument
    1
  70.  @herbertwilkshire4265  "yes i went into great detail and you have no argument except laughing at me." - Really, because I explained before the definitions and also made clear to you why concepts such as "State Capitalism" is Oxymoronic. Trying to deny every failed socialist in history does not help ur case, and its especially a fallacy when u try to blame capitalism for it. "Look how pathetic you are. I have second hand embarrassment from you." - Really, because I am not the one trying to redefine terms. "I asked you a specific question.. what is social or communal about centralization?" - The fact that the state is the representative body of the community and is the enforcement of communal ownership. The state is the public sector, the body that stands for literally everyone. "It's the opposite of social communal." - It really isn't, private is the opposite of communal. And a state by definition is not private. "That's why the words don't apply. You're using the wrong words. Answer the question peasant" - Oh wow, back to blind insult I see, that ain't very socialistic of you, after all, was it not peasants that stood to bring socialism? Glad to see you're true colors show as well. LOL
    1
  71.  @herbertwilkshire4265  "so if someone misdefines words no one else is allowed to come fix them afterwards right?" - No but the burden falls on u to explain and source why the term is incorrect. Not just dismiss it out of hand. "Society must continue to use the incorrect words for things? Seems reasonable" - Again, strawman. If u wish to challenge a definition, then the burden of proof falls on u to disprove it. "You overuse the words fallacy with apparently little understanding of it's meaning." - How so? Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. "Especially ironic since you commit many logical fallacies yourself." - such as? "No it's not oxymoronic and you repeatedly saying it is, does not make it so.." - Capitalism Definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. State Capitalism Def: a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital. - So tell me how an economic system which is by definition inherently anti state control able to be state control? Lol. "and you have also not provided an argument supporting it either.. whereas i did provide one supporting my claims." - U really didn't. Trying to deny every failed socialist in history is not an argument. Its denialism. "That's means I'm winning." - Keep deluding yourself bud. "Some of the genocidal totalitarians were socialist in nature, and some of them were capitalist in nature. I can admit to that." - Ok, name me some then. Because going by ur previous logic, it was not Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, or Castro. So who then? Or r u even beginning to realize how dumb ur previous argument was? "But you can't admit that any of them were ever capitalist. That's weak. That makes me more of a man than you." - How so? Again I am going by basic concept definitions. Ur trying to turn this into a bash war. Concurring to something that is not true does not make you "more of a man" it makes you a blind sheep. "Lol an anarchist resorts to the mental gymnastics of saying that now suddenly governments actually represent their constituents so long at it supports your current argument." - Who said I was an anarchist? Making assumptions now? "Hilarious and pathetic. You clearly have no spine." - According to you, but you would not know what a spine is if it displayed itself to ur face. "Newsflash.. no, they don't. They only do in theory.. unless it's direct democracy.. which doesn't exist in the world." - Laughs in Ancient Greece. "In practice, they serve corporate interests mostly. Especially in America and other third world shirtholes." - America aint a third world country firstly, secondly, I am not saying capitalism cannot be corrupted. I acknowledge those faults and how often a corrupted capitalism would prevent the state from involving itself in an area that it should be involved in. Legal suing and Unions being good examples. "Please learn the difference between your and You're.. your elementary grammatical errors don't help your messages credibility" - R u not aware of a concept such as spell correction features? Also I didn't know you became the grammar police as well. LOL. Most people on Youtube do not care and write what is most simplistic to get their message across. "My true colors? I'm sick of debating with you degenerates." - More blind insult. "There's only one thing i want with your mentally defective kind" - Go ahead, say it. No spine. Also my kind? Not very egalitarian of you. You must not be a "Real Socialist" either.
    1
  72.  @herbertwilkshire4265  "lol but that's exactly what i did." - Except it wasn't. "You ignored it simply because it destroys your position and you can't accept that. " - None of that destroys my position. Trying to call an apple and orange does not make an apple an orange. "See i figured it out. You can't and won't differentiate between economics and politics." - According to u. "You're weaponizing previous socialist thinkers miss definition of socialism against modern socialist economics and conflating it with totalitarian and even tyrannical politics. That's the issue" - Its not weaponizing anything. Its highlighted what has been done, tying to argue purely theoretical only takes you so far. You have to also look at the consistent patterns most if not all of them fell into.
    1
  73.  @herbertwilkshire4265  Explanations that do not work. Trying to redefine something into an oxymoronic word is not an argument and something I already called out.
    1
  74. Evidence sir?
    1