Youtube hearted comments of King Orange (@kingorange7739).

And nowhere did TIK claim it to be Marxist
13
@AceFromGorillaz That is supreme arrogance at its finest. Also no, you absolutely can be socialist without being Marxist. And there’s many reasons but I can sum it in a single one. Socialism theory predated Marxism. Marx didn’t invent socialism and his theory was but one variant. Just as Hitler rejected Marxism, Marxists rejected Utopian Socialists which was a variant around longer than them
12
Trying to argue that it isn’t socialism just because it is authoritarian is a rather narrow minded thought process. Yes they excluded undesirables, just like nearly every other socialist state.
7
Except they aren’t. Capitalism is about private or individual control. Corporations aren’t private. No one person owns or controls it. It’s collectively controlled by the shareholders. Now I will disagree that they are public. They aren’t completely public, but they aren’t private either.
5
No one says you can’t profit in a socialist society. Profit by definition is a financial gain. Not only does he break down his POV of corporations, but whether or not they profit is irrelevant if they can’t control their own means of production.
4
@slaterslater5944 I already explained this context before. Let me explain it again, you basically put that anything non state is private. I countered and explained this to u. If that was actually the case then it would mean groups like Anarcho Socialists would be advocating private control since without a state there is no public sector by ur very logic. I also explained that since it placed the state as the sole public sector, it would also mean “State Capitalism” is by the very definition you tried to use Oxymoronic. Capitalism is control of trade and industry by private owners for profit. But as your very definition displayed, a state can’t be private. Of course I don’t expect you to read my full statements before just falsifying a conclusion about me. And I’m sorry, u have literally now tried to publicly libel me by commenting about me in a new thread? How pathetic r u?
4
This is actually a good question. A clear solution is this. Socialism is not just defined by state control but also through communal or group control. Capitalism is the promotion of individual control, socialism is promoting collective or communal control.
4
@slaterslater5944 oh wow, back to troll some more. Stop repeating the same thing I already explained to you multiple times. And the fact you jump to every thread to do it is ridiculous. I’m getting close to reporting you for harassment at this point. Knock it off
4
Did u not watch the Rohm fallacy section? He already explains the purge. Maybe watch the video before commenting
4
How so
3
timobrienwells except many historians have already backed the existing oil crisis Germany was facing. Yes, some disagree on the timing. But it was something legitimate. TIK has made mistakes before. And I’m not the biggest fan of his political videos. But for this, he was on the ball.
3
@timobrienwells "No, TIK is not on the ball. His claims are wrong and unsubstantiated.." - Elaborate "Germany did not lose the war because of oil." - Not by itself "The Germans had tight but sufficient supplies of oil through the war until late 1944." - Not necessarily. U have to understand, that while Germany has enough oil to continue to wage the war, it was not enough to sustain any major operation. Hence why Kursk was the last major German offensive on the eastern front. "Operation Barbarossa did not fail because the Wehrmacht ran out of fuel. It failed because of poor decisions at critical times. It also suffered from logistical problems due to distance and weather, as was expected." - I will give u that. But Tik is only saying the oil problem was adding to their logistical issues which were true. Even Potential History covers this. "TIK has claimed that the Germans had more vehicles in 1942, but no fuel to run them." - To run all of them in a consistent offensive, yes. "He makes this claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever." - Watch some of his later videos. He provides more sources during those. "If this ludicrous claim were true then why did the Germans then produce even more vehicles in 1943 and 1944?" - U mean mainly tanks? Because they actually did not produce as many U boats or aircraft. But to answer ur question in the most basic sense, It was because u want good reserve of vehicles when the country sake depends on it. Plus since by 1943 they were fighting a war on the defensive, they could afford more vehicles since oil was not getting consumed as much. "If they had no fuel for them, what would be the use? The whole claim is just ridiculous and uninformed." - Not really. Ur trying to treat it like Tik is saying Germany had zero oil after 1941. What he is trying to say is 1941 was their last chance to get oil before the deficit began affecting the Wehrmacht. This is why only AGS advances in 1942. Since they only had enough oil to supply one army group in a major offensive. "TIK's problem is that he does not know his subject matter." - How so? "He completely ignores, or does not know about, the doubling of synthetic fuel production from 1941 onwards." - He literally has a video link in the description covering Germany's synthetic oil production. "He also ignores the large increase in domestic crude production in and around Germany during the same period." - True, but while that helped a great amount. It was never going to be enough. "TIK reads and believes historical revisionists." - Such as?
3
"No, Hitler was not a total socialist since he acknowledged elements of private economy." - You mean like Lenin did as well? Not being able to go 100% on a system does not mean you aren't a socialist. "I think almost each country or each society includes socialistic elements and capitalistic elements. There are only few purepred socialistic or capitalistic societies. Hence, it is a question of the ratio. USA may have a soialist percentage of 5%," - You clearly don't know much of government control of the economy in the USA nowadays. "Germany today 20%, Third Reich 40%," - Nope. "DDR 80%, UdSSR in 1940 98%, UdSSR in 1990 90%, North Korea today 98% etc." - Thats not how you define an ideology as socialist or not. As TIK highlights in his video. Even if we were to agree that the Third Reich wasn't socialist, which it was, that doesn't mean National Socialism is not socialism from an ideological standpoint.
3
To a degree I would agree with this. But ironically he does call this out stating that there needs to be a term that defines some kind of in between the private and public sector that would describe corporations and that none exist yet. This is something I actually agree with.
2
Except he isn't. Fascism and National Socialism are two seperate ideologies. Also you are seriously trying to say a socialist wouldn't use murder as a political tool when Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim did just that? Bud there are many fronts where you can try to challenge the notion of the Nazis being socialist, the authoritarianism and use of murder is not one of them.
2