Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Second Thought"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
HAHAHA!!! The first issue you had is the way you plotted those people on the authoritian right. Because their stances clearly go much more to the left than that chart actually shows such as a lot of economic issues that they clearly displayed. Now since you went on the voting record you can probably find where they voted very much against policies that they advocated for which makes them simply liars. However based on their stances those democrats that you put in the right column is very dishonest (however good to point them as liars) and their platforms mostly equate to center-left authoritarian. Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few at least who puts her money where her mouth is though.
I also find it very dishonest that you put Trump as far-right and he's in the middle of the right at most. He did left many regulations but he didn't de-regulate everything as that far right puts you to no regulations whatsoever. It also is very disingenuous to call him authoritarian when he largely made less laws and many social issues he enforced were more freedom oriented so the most he can be in the authoritarian column is maybe about 25% up.
skip to the bottom for the tldr on this next long section
Finally... on what basis did you put the nazis as right-wing? You put them there saying "yeah socialism in the name doesn't mean it's actual socialism" which is quite obvious. And the argument is far from simply "they had it in the name that's it" and it extends to many of their policies. But I also understand that describing nazi policy is out of the scope of this video. I will also not be calling them left-wing though because I have a very good understanding of their policies and you can largely find a video called "Nazi Economic Policy" on the between two wars channel by Indy Niedell and will be basing my information off of both that video and further readings.
First thing's first: fascism is largely meaningless as a term and has had its most consistent use from 1944 onward (as documented by George Orwell who was actually a socialist btw and can still be seen today) as an insult for people who oppose you and you don't like. Part of this is because fascism is not an ideology beyond power and support of the people to the state. There was little to no overlap in Fascist ideology beyond being nationalists and authoritians which isn't exactly unique to their group. Second: fascism at least on the political compass is largely impossible to document beyond the authoritarian axis because they had a lot of contradictory views such as if they answered "Are the workers or the owners the priority?" the nazi answer would simply be "yes" and then later "no." Fascists just wanted power and do whatever they can to keep it. Probably why they relied so heavily on charismatic speakers.
So now that we've broken down that fascism Isn't an actual ideology, let's look at the nazi economic policy. Nazi economic policy had two goals: money to the party, and growth through conquest. How was this done? First they banned unions as all control was to be given to the state getting people back to work in the factories making military equipment. Then they started to create cartels that had some business and the factories in that got all of the preferential treatment, and everything else outside of the cartel got shafted. Then started taking direct control of many of the industries. As they geared up for war it would become lebensraum where they would make more factories, more war material, to make more lebensraum to make more.
So we've explained the policy, now what? Let's stop and analyze: the first thing you notice is that this Isn't an economic system. It's cyclical and really only has an end when the world is conquered where it just kind of falls apart. It's not a real economic System. It's not meant to work. It's a giant ponzi scheme that either ends in defeat or once the entire world is conquered. Overall it just kind of reaks of a madman who just wanted to burn everything down which if you've studied enough Hitler... you can see it might be the truth. Now for the individual policies:
Worker protections being lifted is definitely right wing... if it benefits the private owners.
Taking over and getting rid of the owners by the state is not right wing at all and very similar to the Socialist systems of state run industry only however the point is for it to be at the control of the people ultimately which it was not which makes it not so cooperative like the left-wing desires.
And now for making business cartels, now that just isn't right. As in not okay. It can't be right-wing as it's an un-free market. However it isn't left-wing as it's not at all a co-operative economy. It's simply arbitration and overall just illegal or... criminal.
Overall that's the whole system, criminal, and why the video I listed actually starts off with this intro: "Nazi economics- not capitalist, not communist, simply criminal."
Now there is one definition that does lend fascism to the right-wing and that is "equality vs inequality" which is fine enough... but it doesn't really fit many people's definition of left or right wing and part of the reason the political compass even exists as a concept. Fascism was envisioned to be this new third way beyond the right or left wing. You don't get to call it either or because it doesn't fit. The best you can do is make the true statement that it formed as an offshoot of the socialist movements of the 1920s and 1930s who were dissasfied with their party and the focus on internationalism (to this extent the USSR under Stalin largely came to fulfill this promise), however the ideologies also took their own routes becoming unique and strange takes that ended up calling for war, conquest, and subservience to the state above all else (except Franco, good on him) leading to their ultimate demise and discredit as a system which largely simply never existed in the first place.
I feel like I should sign off but I don't really know how so instead have this tldr.
tldr; Hitler was a crazy idiot who really just wanted war and cared little on how making him neither right or left wing
Edit: this comment is probably longer than the video if I actually recorded this
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Beardiemom Yeah, the standard of living actually isn't higher. Not to mention, you seem to have completely failed to grasp the nature of the question I was asking:
ideas on progress, what is and isn't right, etc are all HIGHLY variable and you think is harmful is to others completely acceptable and in fact many people here think free college is harmful. Things like public transportation are harmful.
Also while access to medical care is technically more wide reaching, it's not really more effective nor does it have to contend with the difficulties of American lifestyle.
Progress means a better future yes. What does greater access to post-secondary education really give to to that end? They're created as non-essential. It's not meant to be for everyone, nor is it necessary for a good life. They're tools for advancement to the elite of society. However, becoming an elite naturally takes time and resources. If the basic primary and secondary education systems aren't preparing students for life, that's a failure of the education system and not an endorsement of post-secondary education. Also worth noting that the most highly value-added careers are the ones which pay for themselves and thus do not necessitate that change to the system. However, someone going for something far less value added has wasted their time.
Post-secondary education generally doesn't do much better for people unless in specific fields. So why should we subsidize it and give access to more people who won't benefit and perhaps may even end up wasting an extra 2 to 4 years of their life on something which either does nothing for them or actively hurts them? In that case, it's not an investment at all and, in fact, a net loss as instead of people becoming productive from an early age and having 4 years of experience and built skills they're functionally as useful as a high school graduate.
1
-
@Connor Holman Well I did consider it and found quite a long time ago that the rat race was in general the best outcome we have found and basically all other ideas proposed are actually terrible, not to mention the idea of "ever-increasing profits" is a lie pushed by socialists who really don't understand the system beyond a surface level due to the lens of Marx. Also, the reason public transport is a net negative is the encouragement of government dependency, which is an even worse disease than car dependency. I'm actually personally a fan of micro mobility, but I digress. The reason why it's a waste of time to pursue other frivolous degrees is that you are wasting precious time in your life, and the money of not only yourself but often others, for very little gain on your part and on something that doesn't really add much to society. The reason the degrees that make a lot of money are important is that they basically always add direct value back to society with the exceptions in there being things like education degrees (which don't make a ton of money but generally do add far more to society as it's educating the young). But fundamentally, education's primary purpose is to impart skills into people that they will need to succeed in life. Impart skills they will need to better themselves, and hopefully, the broader society as a whole. Far too many degrees have honestly little betterment to society as a whole and produce far more than are actually needed. Scientific research is almost endless in the amount of people who are needed to keep it going, so is medicine (especially since we effectively lose a class a year to suicide), and R&D by engineers just about as important as well. This is why STEM careers are so important. However, almost every other field can genuinely be learned by reading a few books on the subject, and people are wasting years of their life in such degrees. Books which can be read in your spare time as a hobby. Or perhaps you actually chose the arts, in which case almost everything in them has little bearing on your success in said arts, unless you're attempting to teach the arts to others (though I'll admit the band and orchestra credentials of collegiate students do help given their colleges renown in that arena).
Education is fantastic as the central idea is of imparting knowledge and skills. However, knowledge is almost never acquired by just sitting in classes and doing assignments as is done when you're attending an institution. And on a fundamental level, everyone knows this. The knowledge can always be found elsewhere. Universities are not gatekeepers of knowledge. They are facilitators of research more than anything else, and when they're not doing that, they're taking money from gullible people who have been told by everyone that college is the way to succeed in life. Only that information was a lie. The degrees are meaningless pieces of paper that say your institution passed you in whatever field you chose. For some careers, they're simply a necessity to start. For others, there are no careers (besides within the university system), or there are alternative means of getting in.
Fundamentally, everyone should pursue what they're good at to best develop themselves and contribute to society while pursuing the knowledge they desire on their own time. And if you're doing it with any enthusiasm, you'll know more than any degree holder at the end of the same period of time.
1