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

  1. Ignore Sally Slater, she doesn't understand what "private" and "public" means and even thinks monarchies were Socialist.
    3
  2. Like what?
    3
  3. Fascism is distinct from National Socialism. And the National Socialists did seize control of the businesses to the point where the businesses were government ministries in all but name.
    3
  4.  @slaterslater5944  "The means of production were overwhelmingly in private hands" Source: "my political ideology" "Who owned Krupp?" Effectively, the state did since Gustav Krupp had little control over his own business and would've been arrested and imprisoned in heartbeat by the NSDAP if he stepped out of line. Do carrots give you dividends, Sally?
    3
  5.  @slaterslater5944  Throughout the video, TIK addressed everything mentioned.
    3
  6.  @celestron9207  I tell you to watch the video because he addresses everything you said and debunked it. It's quite obvious you didn't bother to watch it.
    3
  7.  @celestron9207  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) If the state controls the means of production, then it is Socialist. The NSDAP started seizing control of all of Germany's key industries as early as 1933, in accordance with the ideology, giving them control of the means of production. The NSDAP was the state, so it was Socialism by the actual definition of Socialism.
    3
  8.  @celestron9207  Yes he was, he was obsessed with the American eugenics movement that Planned Parenthood and modern abortion support spurs from. That, however, has little to do with the economy. Economically, Germany was Socialist under NSDAP rule, refer to the definition of Socialism.
    3
  9.  @celestron9207  He uses the dictionary definition . . . I've noticed a trend of denialists rejected all definitions because they don't align with their political beliefs.
    3
  10.  @celestron9207  No, the NSDAP was explicitly anti-Capitalist. Read their literature and look at their policies, they did not support private control of the means of production (which is what Capitalism is). Hitler thought Capitalism was Jewish.
    3
  11.  @celestron9207  The state enacted the Holocaust, and individual companies had little to do with it. The state controlled the key industries anyway, so whatever involvement was there was also orchestrated by the state. Watch's TIK's video, he debunks all of your claims.
    3
  12. Can never happen that way because it ignores the money supply. The reason inflation is a bad as it is is because the government is printing out too much new currency and pumping it into the market. This doesn't make things cheaper. Things have a certain value in relation to the overall supply of currency, so pumping in more currency doesn't make the item comparatively cheaper, it just makes the item cost more currency. This is hard on most people because wages/salaries are more slow to change than prices, so they're using the same income to purchase more expensive goods. The real solution is for the government to simply stop printing out too much money and actually balance its budget.
    3
  13. So seizing control of the means of production and placing in state control was part of that name change?
    3
  14.  @BurtReynolds-qp1jk  They were atheists. For the entirety of their time in power, they routinely sought to suppress and/or subvert Christianity. I'm sure you may know that the NSDAP made heavy use of the Teutonic Knights in their propaganda as a representation of Germany in the past. What you may not know is that the actual Teutonic Order (which still exists) was outlawed with much of its leadership arrested and imprisoned. They also introduced "Positive Christianity," which was a heavily bastardized form of Christianity interlaced with National Socialist philosophy. It even excluded all mention of the Old Testament due to its Hebrew origins. The plan was to gradually erode Christianity over time and replace it with ideology, same as the Soviets only the Soviets sought to do it immediately, not gradually. And never forget that the official the NSDAP "Kirchenkampf" (Church Struggle) was largely presided over by Martin Bormann, who was basically the early 20th century version of a neckbeard reddit atheist.
    3
  15. He actually does make an argument though. Most people opposing him are doing that, but not making any cases afterwards.
    3
  16.  @roberthansen5727  First of all, this is a YouTube channel, and he is free to do with it as he pleases. Secondly, you're ignoring the actual arguments that he made, at least not accurately. Capitalism is not "FREEDUMB," Capitalism is private control of the means of production. The means of production were not in private hands under National Socialism and Fascism therefore, they were not Capitalist. Likewise, Socialism is collective control of he means of production. He uses actual definitions and isn't distorting anything. And I would agree that there is a denialist element to this discussion. I see hundreds of people whose comments make it obvious that they espouse Socialist beliefs, but reject TIK's argument, providing no strong reasoning for rejecting that argument. People of the Left are in denial on the true nature of National Socialist economics.
    3
  17.  @slaterslater5944  If the state was throwing business owners out of their own companies for refusing to do what they say, then the means of production were not in private hands. Even those that complied were turned into little more than figureheads in their own companies, as the state was making all of the decisions for those companies. In what world is this "private" control? The National Socialist state was just as much of a collective as the Soviet Union was, in terms of collective control of the means of production. There is no equivocation fallacy here, only the definition of Socialism, which National Socialist Germany fits.
    3
  18. To be an oligarchy, the oligarchs must be in control of the government. This makes them the state. Socialism is when the state controls the means of production. When the oligarchs control the means of production then you have Socialism, not Capitalism. Simple.
    3
  19.  @harlenmaguire6751  By definition, an oligarchy is a form of government where power is in the hands of a small group of people, who are called oligarchs. If the oligarchs control the means of production, then then state effectively controls the means of production because, as I have explained, the oligarchs are the state. No different from when a dictator controls the means of production. The dictator is the state, so if he controls the means of production, then the state does. And state control of the means of production is Socialism.
    3
  20. Oskar Schindler was a spy who worked for the Abwehr, he was not some private businessman who became wealthy through "Capitalism." His party connections are what gave him his lucrative position. In reality, the NSDAP only allowed people connected to them to run enterprises. This really isn't much different from how Communist party elite end up wealthy by heading different government ministries.
    3
  21.  @slaterslater5944  Excellent comeback. That's the most intelligent sentence to come out of your mouth yet.
    3
  22.  @slaterslater5944  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) Considering the NSDAP seized the means of production and placed it under de facto state administration, they were Socialists since that it the dictionary definition of Socialism.
    3
  23. @Boomstick McNugget Ironically, Marx had a similar view of Capitalism. He believed Capitalism was integral to Jewish culture because of how common it was for Jews to be engaged in mercantile behavior (most likely the result of old Medieval laws barring Jews from owning land, prompting them to become merchants). Marx was also an anti-Semite, but a cultural and maybe religious one, not a racial anti-Semite like Hitler was.
    3
  24.  @slaterslater5944  How's Andy Knowles doing :)
    3
  25.  @slaterslater5944  Re-read the definition, Sally. Socialism is inherently a collective ideology. The biggest reason why it fails 100% of the time is because it requires a degree of coordination and planning that isn't possible for humans to accomplish. We are not hive-minded insects. Ever get tired of replying without reading or thinking while you act purely on emotion?
    3
  26.  @slaterslater5944  If you follow a collectivist ideology, you automatically treat people as groups, "othering" them. This is true for almost every variant of Socialism. The NSDAP saw people as groups, with a special "in-group." Communists have an "in-group." Fascists have an "in-group." Even nominally moderate "Democratic" Socialists have an "in-group."
    3
  27. Every socialist society has an aristocracy. It's called the party elite.
    3
  28. He's done videos on Socialism in Italy as well. Fascism is fundamentally collectivist in nature, meaning it already aligns more closely to the far left in terms of how it's set up.
    3
  29.  @SunsetSecondary  What has that to do with collectivism? Marxists like to play semantic games where they attempt to change the meaning of words to conform to their views, like trying to argue Socialism is only Marxist Socialism, completely ignoring the many other variations of Socialism that exist. Collectivism too, is not "inherently Marxist." the idea pre-dates Marxism by a long time and can be found in many other ideologies.
    3
  30.  @andyknowles772  Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    3
  31.  @andyknowles772  Why should I bother to repeat it here when it was found before? No, absolute monarchies were not Socialist because of the following reasons: - It was a pre-Industrial society and as I said before, historians and economists don't apply modern economic theory to pre-Industrial (not modern) economies. By that same logic, some fools may try to argue that peasant villages of the time were Communist. - The monarchs were not in control of the means of production, but rather they siphoned off revenue utilizing Mercantilism, which was the dominant economic system at the time. - The monarch is not a "collective," but an individual. I would argue Socialism is done in the name of some form of collectivism. Marxists wanted to collectivize by class and National Socialists want to collectivize by race. Instead, the monarch claimed right to rule through God, adding a religious element to the monarch not found in Socialism.
    3
  32.  @andyknowles772  Also, upvoting yourself is extremely cringe.
    3
  33.  @andyknowles772  A quick look at your channel reveals you are subscribed to a couple of other channels with the exact same name as you along with an additional word or two. How pathetic does one have to be to upvote themselves with alt accounts?
    3
  34.  @andyknowles772  The monarch didn't own the fruits of peoples' labor under Feudalism. Monarchs were actually fairly weak at the time, it was nobles who owned land and collected tribute from the peasants who lived on the land. The tribute could be currency if the peasants had it or a share of the peasants' crops. Essentially, "tribute" was functionally the same as what taxes are today. The peasants kept what wasn't taxed, so they retained most of the fruits of their own labor. The more you talk, the more it becomes clear that you've never actually researched the historical realities of the Medieval Era.
    3
  35.  @aAverageFan  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
    3
  36. ​ @DeathRayGraphics  Capitalism does not require "profit extraction" by definition. Otherwise non-profits would not, or could not exist within the Capitalist system. Merriam-Webster defines Capitalism as "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." It is not profit that defines Capitalism.
    3
  37.  @DeathRayGraphics  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) No "profit extraction" to be found. The pursuit of profit is not the core defining characteristic of Capitalism.
    3
  38.  @DeathRayGraphics  "A dictionary is not the arbiter of what capitalism is" It is certainly more credible than the ramblings of an internet ideologue driven by agenda. When you reject the basic definition of these concepts, there's really no point in giving your arguments any more thought since you are establishing your own terms (ones carefully selected to support your own argument) rather than the academic consensus. Profit exists in other systems (even Socialism, where the party elite profit off of the enslavement of the general population). To argue Capitalism revolves entirely around profit and nothing else is roughly equivalent to believing "Socialism is when the government does stuff."
    3
  39.  @DeathRayGraphics  "In what fantasyland do you live where all of these costs aren't factored into the price that a good is sold for?" They are, that is exactly what I'm trying to explain. Economically illiterate morons believe the value of the labor of the workers should be equivalent to the value of the final product of their labor. They don't understand that there are many other factors being put into the final product (most of which is paid for by the employer, mind you). Should something be sold at breakeven price, the total pay of the workers would still be less than the total value of the product because there are additional factors in the product not associated with the labor of the workers, like material costs and utility bills for running the factory.
    3
  40.  @slaterslater5944  Learn how to use a dictionary, Sally. 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)
    3
  41.  @slaterslater5944  Another name for "means of production." Just as "Nature" is referring to the natural economy of a free market, which he calls for collective control of. It's quite easy getting around your semantic jumping jacks, you logic is childish and predictable. As for the Communist Manifesto, please refer to several quotes given to you by King Orange on the subject. Wouldn't want to let him win would ya :)
    3
  42. Exactly, Hitler considered the peoples of those areas to be Aryan, so they would be incorporated into the Reich. It's likely he would've taken Sweden as well had the war gone better for him.
    3
  43. And a few dozen million small business owners and a hundred million property owners.
    3
  44.  @slaterslater5944  Because it is, it simply does not care about what the state does so long as it doesn't interfere in economic matters. Why do you have so much trouble grasping simple concepts?
    3
  45.  @junoobrien5559  He was never anti-Socialist. He was anti-Marxist. He basically viewed Marxist Socialism as "not real Socialism," almost like how modern Socialists argue with one another over their specific flavors of Socialism.
    3
  46.  @slaterslater5944  I don't think equivocation fallacy means what you think it means. You appear to be using it as a shield because you don't have an argument. There is nothing ambiguous about the terms used, I've given you the dictionary definition of Socialism, here it is again: Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods I've explained to you how the National Socialists seized control of the means of production, detailing the process in which they took control. You've given nothing to debunk this process, only claiming "that's not state control," which goes against the evidence. Instead, you resort to the very thing you claim me of doing, you use ambiguous and incorrect definitions in order to distort the meaning of words as to align with your argument. You blur the meaning of "means of production" in an effort to distance it from the economy and businesses once you realized you cannot deny that the National Socialist state controlled the businesses and the economy. You've made claims on why the NSDAP weren't Socialists, which I've debunked using the actual historical evidence of what their economic policies were.
    3
  47.  @okisoba  What do you expect from a guy with literal Communist propaganda as his profile pic. He even admitted in other comments that he didn't bother to watch the video.
    3
  48. ​ @kasunex1772  The issue here is that 100% of the times the "theory" has been applied to reality, hierarchies still existed. Yes, the French Revolution occurred in the 1790s and the only ideologies on the table were Monarchism (Right) and Republicanism (then Left, but now Center-Right for some reason). In the present, many Left-wing ideologies allow for hierarchies. At the same time, we see Right-wing ideologies like Right-Libertarianism that distrust hierarchies. The Left-Right spectrum is obsolete in the 21st century, it was throughout the 20th century as well. There are exceptions to just about every difference one can present between the "Left" and the "Right."
    3
  49.  @leedambis6671  I disagree. As TIK explained in the video, ownership and control are two sides of the same coin, though I would argue control is the far more significant. "Ownership" of these companies in National Socialist Germany was nominal at best, it meant nothing if they had no control over it. "Ownership" was also evidently meaningless to the National Socialists themselves, as business owners that refused to adhere to party demands, like Hugo Junkers, were arrested and removed from their companies entirely, losing their ownership. If this doesn't show that ownership in National Socialist Germany was nominal, I don't know what does. The definition also specifies "ownership AND administration," which implies control.
    3
  50.  @andyknowles772  Have you learned nothing? Must I give you the dictionary definition of Socialism for like the 6th time? Words don't simply mean everything you want them to mean, they have definitions. Use the definitions.
    3