Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. There's a thin line between Fascism and Marxism so we shouldn't be surprised.
    5
  2.  @tsoii  Fascism and Marxism are almost the same aside from a small handful of differences. They definitely have more in common with each other than either does with Capitalism.
    5
  3. Fascism is a form of Socialism.
    5
  4. The Bolsheviks persecuted the Mensheviks and Revolutionary Socialists, who were both Socialist political groups. Does this mean the Bolsheviks weren't Socialists? Take a step back and think about how dumb that line of reasoning is. Just because you are rivals with another group, does not mean that you are different. Is Ford suddenly not a car manufacturer because it has a rivalry with General Motors, which is a car manufacturer?
    5
  5.  @ub3rfr3nzy94  Fascism is a variant of Socialism.
    5
  6. ​ @mikemcmike6427  Ahh, another individual who didn't watch the video. The Russian Revolution was partially financed by Wall Street evidently. The Soviets accepted investments from the West in order to industrialize, despite the West being Capitalist. As for conservative groups in Russia itself, many of them went into exile after the civil war. And yes, Hitler abolished all political parties except the National Socialist German Workers' Party after he gained power, including the conservative ones. The National Socialists often targeted Catholic organizations because they did not adhere to the state. The National Socialists used imagery of the Medieval Teutonic Knights as part of their propaganda, but were cracking down on the actual Teutonic Order (which still exists as a charitable organization), making it illegal in 1938 and arresting its members. Religious organizations as a whole were targeted. The National Socialists targeted and persecuted anyone who would not adhere to them, left or right. Much like the Soviets.
    5
  7.  @coop-nr6nm  Command economy.
    5
  8.  @mikemcmike6427  What makes you say that? I don't run from anyone.
    5
  9.  @slaterslater5944  What lies about the German Labour Front, Germany's national labor union? And I run from no one, you stopped responding.
    5
  10. Then the National Socialist state would've collapsed due to a failing Socialist economy. Germany NEEDED to expand beyond its own borders in order to fuel their economy.
    5
  11.  @hafizihilmibinabdulhalim1004  Soviet Union still collapsed
    5
  12.  @cervintano  Wikipedia is notorious for being a poor source of information. It's one of the few things that the political right and left agree on. Pretty much everything he said was refuted in the video by TIK using sources that are actually credible.
    5
  13. I've linked TIK's video to reply to a few comments there.
    5
  14.  @Solep250  Ownership and control are two sides of the same coin, with control being the more important of the two. If those who "own" have no power to remove those who "control," then their "ownership" is nominal at best, as was the case in NSDAP-run Germany when the state seized control of the means of production. Furthermore, the definition of Socialism clearly outlines "ownership AND administration." Administration is essentially control.
    5
  15. Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster) Nothing about "workers" to be found here. You're thinking of Marxist Socialism, which many people mistakenly believe to be "all Socialism" when in reality, it is only one variant.
    5
  16. They're both economic theories. Socialism calls for collective and/or governmental control of the means of production. Capitalism calls for private control of the means of production . . . They're kind of opposites.
    5
  17.  @losgamerveratvgg6220  And who is the one with the legal power in that arrangement? The one actually making things happen?
    5
  18.  @losgamerveratvgg6220  The billionaire has no power to actually enforce bribes. The politician could easily take it and do nothing, and billionaire couldn't really do anything about it since revealing the bride would take down the politician, but it would take him down too.
    5
  19.  @grafgummiente1583  The Mensheviks were Socialists in the actual sense of the word. Their ideology advocated for some form of collective and/or state control of the means of production, that's the dictionary definition of Socialism. And the Mensheviks were far from the only Socialist group the Bolsheviks targeted and killed. After killing the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks turned on the Revolutionary Socialist Party and purged them from society as well. They went after anyone who was not aligned with them, regardless of what their politics were. The argument that it would be impossible for Hitler to be a Socialist since he targeted rival Socialist organizations is an incredibly stupid one considering extremist ideologies do that sort of thing all the time with rival organizations that follow similar ideologies.
    5
  20. It kind of does though in the sense that it throws shade at the true reasoning behind it. For example, many Communists acknowledge that 10s of millions died in famines in Communist countries, but they often blame it on pretty much everything except Communist ideology. They blame the weather, the "kulaks," the foreigners, . . . and so on. By constantly denying the origin of the famines, they've essentially learned nothing from the whole thing and will continue to subscribe to an ideology that regularly causes famines. TIK's explanation of the Holocaust is similar to this.
    5
  21.  @BurtReynolds-qp1jk  Imagine assuming a three line comment can debunk 5 hours of citation-filled reason.
    5
  22. Capitalism is about individuals because there's nothing stopping you from taking part. And no, Capitalists don't have a group mentality, they try to undercut each other all the time.
    5
  23. Entire political ideologies and their economic practices cannot be thoroughly examined in 10 minutes of less. How exactly is it anyone else's fault that you have a short attention span?
    5
  24. It is.
    5
  25.  @Vizardog  No, but hundreds of economists and historians posthumously tearing him a new one for a hundred years does. Marxism is to economics what science fiction is to astronomy.
    5
  26.  @razorwireclouds5708  Evidently you haven't since you promote a very inaccurate view of what each of them wanted. Merriam-Webster defines Socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" The National Socialists controlled the means of production, that alone makes their ideology a form of Socialism. So long as it is the state in control, the method of how it retains control is irrelevant. Business owners in Germany at the time had little, if any, power in their own businesses because the state was in control and made all the major decisions for the business. Communism and Socialism are not two completely different things. Communism is a version of Socialism, like National Socialism is. Socialism is a fairly broad ideology or collection of ideologies. Not all variants of it are the same. You're skipping a few steps in Marx's plan. Marx calls for a stateless, moneyless society, but he outlines a process to get there. One step is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat," which is essentially totalitarian rule meant to actually implement Communism (with force if necessary, since most people don't actually want to collectivize) and then simply wither away once the process is complete. The issue here is that no Communist state ever made it past this step, they all just end up as totalitarians dictatorships. Nobody here is making the argument that National Socialism is Socialism based off of their name, they are making the argument that National Socialism is Socialism based off of their policies, which seized control of the means of production and placed it under the de facto administration of the state. Going back to Merriam-Webster, that's the definition of Socialism. I see you haven't watched the video. TIK addressed the "but Hitler killed Socialists" argument. Hitler killing rival Socialist groups does not disqualify him from being a Socialist. The Bolsheviks killed Mensheviks during the Russian Revolution and Civil War, and the Mensheviks were Socialists. By this logic, one would conclude that Communism cannot be a form of Socialism because it often kills other Socialists. As for killing Socialists within the party during the Night of Long Knives, that doesn't really hold up either since many Conservatives and Capitalists were killed on that night as well and there were a lot more known Socialists in the party than those killed on that night. You say Communism and Socialism are completely different things, yet you appear to be confusing components of the two. Socialism itself does not call for the removal of the state. Hitler being a "statist" does not disqualify him from being a Socialist, nor does being a nationalist disqualify him. Communist ideology does explicitly reject states and nations, but Socialism (which is broad) does not. Being authoritarian also does not disqualify him from being a Socialist. If anything, you can't be a Socialist without also being an authoritarian. Most forms of Socialism have an "in-group" that they base their collective ideology around. The Communists have the proletariat, the National Socialists have the race, and the Fascists have the nation. National Socialism is sort of like a racial Socialism where the "Aryan" race are the collective. This differs from Communism, which is obviously class-based, and Mussolini's Fascism, which is nationalist without a racial component.
    5
  27.  @razorwireclouds5708  And you've obviously never read Marx.
    5
  28.  @razorwireclouds5708  You claim you've read Marx, yet you've never heard of the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a key component of Marxist ideology.
    5
  29.  @razorwireclouds5708  You know exactly who I am talking about, you are subscribed to his channel. You've also evidently never read Marx. I doubt you've read Mein Kampf or The Doctrine of Fascism either.
    5
  30.  @coop-nr6nm  Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster)
    5
  31. Honestly, most people who dismiss TIK's claims by doing that aren't really showing any significant level of convincing on their part. It seems like they do nothing but deny it, but never debunk any specific things about TIK's argument.
    5
  32. Watch the video
    5
  33.  @coop-nr6nm  People who contribute to society
    5
  34.  @coop-nr6nm  And how is it a bad system?
    5
  35. And the Soviet Union banned all Socialist and Communist political parties that weren't aligned with the Bolsheviks and executed them en masse . . . I fail to see the difference.
    5
  36. As a "MAGA conservative" I can immediately tell that you are not one, nor understand their worldview. We do care about economic policy considering how much we complain about inflation, the housing market, and the national debt. Do you live under a rock?
    5
  37. Definition of Socialism according to the dictionary: Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster) Socialism is simply when the means of production are either in collective and/or state control. The NSDAP seized control of the means of production and administered under the state, so they were Socialists according to the dictionary definition of Socialism. The argument that the National Socialists weren't Socialists because they were undemocratic doesn't hold up considering most Socialist societies that existed were not democratic (U.S.S.R., Cold War Eastern Europe, Red China, Cuba, Venezuela, . . .). And in those few cases where a Socialist society was democratic, the people voted Socialism out within 10 years of it being implemented (Sweden in the 80s). Definition of Capitalism according to the dictionary: Capitalism -an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market (Merriam-Webster) Since Capitalism is explicitly when the state is not in control of economic activity or the means of production, so there is no such thing as "state capitalism," which is an oxymoron.
    5
  38. The first people the Bolsheviks went after were rival Socialist organizations. Does that mean the Bolsheviks "weren't real Socialists?" It's actually quite common for radical ideologies to have the most conflict with ideologies cut from the same cloth. Just look at how often Marxism splits into subvariants: Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism . . . and none of them particularly like each other.
    5
  39. Ownership means nothing without control. If you don't have control, then your "ownership" is nominal only.
    5
  40. The October revolution slaughtered many workers and ordinary people.
    4
  41.  @Binzob  So the ideology with a literal 100% rate of failure is what we should turn to to replace Capitalism?
    4
  42.  @Binzob  Again, you want us to look towards a system with a 100% rate of failure, one that has killed 100 million+ through totalitarian regimes and man-made disasters.
    4
  43.  @LeboAnimations  The creation of Fascism had little to do with the existence of Communism. Mussolini was kicked out because he was pro-war while the official stance of the Italian Socialist Party was anti-war.
    4
  44.  @lucasartore161a  Socialism cannot be "anything," it is only when the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by a collective or state entity.
    4
  45. That's a good way of telling us you didn't watch the video without actually telling us you didn't watch the video. TIK debunked pretty much everything you said. The definitions of Socialism and Fascism (which is different from National Socialism) you are using are incorrect.
    4
  46. It's hilarious how the crowd that screams ethnic cleansing with little to no evidence regarding countries like Poland and Ukraine are the same crowd that either ignores or justifies the actual ethnic cleansing undertaken in those areas by the German and Russian Empires during the 19th century.
    4
  47. I did
    4
  48.  @slaterslater5944  The National Socialists did basically the same thing the Soviets and other Socialist nations did. They nationalized the unions.
    4
  49.  @mikemcmike6427  You've given me nothing. If he really said that, provide a timestamp as well.
    4
  50. And you use the often repeated fallacy that because they opposed Bolshevism that means they cannot be Socialists. As if the Mensheviks were suddenly not Socialists because they opposed the Bolsheviks . . . Bolshevism does not have a monopoly on Socialism. Socialism as an ideology existed decades before Marx was even born.
    4