Comments by "earthstick" (@earthstick) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. When people claim that Hitler was a pawn supported by industrialists and other parties, they cite parties outside Germany as well as those within. Many Americans, after all America funded Germany post WWI until their Great Depression in the 30s. I agree that the NAZIs were socialist, and fascism and communism are superficial variations. But that doesn’t mean that people were not interested in profiting from another war.
    4
  2. Socialism is feminine. It is for the dependent people in a group. In hunter-gatherer groups it is the young, old, sick and with child. They are dependent and they know it. That is why they have a strong sense of entitlement and are so interested in looking after the weak but don't do much.
    3
  3. I mean, IBM, Ford, Standard Oil, and more.
    3
  4. This is making a lot of sense.
    2
  5. IMO the division between people is between individualists and collectivists and it has its roots in hunter gathers. Men cannot give birth or rear an infant. Only women can do this. Therefore men have naturally specialised to hunt while women specialise to look after those too young, too old or too weak. Men go out an hunt. While doing so they live mostly by their own rules, some cooperation is required to take down large prey but they are more individualist. Those at a settlement rely on the hunters for food. Once the food is brought back it is divided up, the settlement operates as a collective and in order to maintain that collective there must be authority to enforce the division of food. Furthermore the people in the settlement know they must be given food because otherwise the settlement will fail so they have an intrinsic sense of entitlement. Fascism, socialism and communism are all collectivist.
    1
  6. Fascism is named after the Roman fascio littorio - a bundle of stick bound together as a rod. Each stick alone is weak but when bound together they are strong enough to beat people with. Fascism is a collectivist strategy. All collectives require authority to form and maintain them. This is why fascism in application is almost indistinguishable from communism.
    1
  7.  @ninjasonicteenagewarhead4284  Collectives exist to overcome adversities that are greater than the individual can overcome alone. Working together as you put it, working together to overcome the challenge of surviving in the natural world that will otherwise kill us. There is no collective that is not through coercion, if nothing else, the natural world coerces us. But when the adversity is not great enough people do not need to band together and will naturally seek their independent ways. If the members of the collective perceive the adversity is too great for the collective to overcome they will also seek their independent ways. If there is a famine and you are a farmer in a collective you may very well decide to feed yourself and your family first, thus putting your own individual needs above those of the collective. So it is in times of crisis that authority is required to force the collective to remain together. So you see all collectives require authority and authority operates by force and coercion. Covid is a perfect example of this. Covid is an adversary and people are expected to give up their individual desires for the good of the group by staying at home, wearing masks, accepting a vaccine. All these things have been imposed by authority who are using coercion, like fining people, threatening them with further lose of liberties or simply violently assaulting people. You can see easily if an authority wants to remove individual liberties all that is required is a crisis.
    1
  8. I think your theory is very pursuasive. I have my own thoughts on the subject that do not contradict yours, but they have a physical basis: Humans are born prematurely because we have large brains. When born, we are incapable of sustaining ourselves, so we are dependent on an adult, which is typically the mother. During pregnancy and while supporting an infant, it is infeasible for the mother to work as a hunter/gatherer. This leads to a division of labour between males and females, and from that physical and mental specialisations develop. Men are stronger and more interested in tools, because tools help a man hunt. Women do not need to develop stength, and they are more interested in taking care of people. Women are more dependent, as are young, old, and sick. And we all know the group cannot continue without women raising the next generation, so there is a sense of entitlement. I base my argument on something phyisical, i.e. that we are born prematurely due to a large brain, because it is undeniable, and we are all subject to physics. But once that is established, I believe your theory picks up nicely because socialism is feminine. It is for the dependents.
    1