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

  1. What is even more annoying is that he were given so much help while so many others do not even get close to the amount of help he gets. Once again society helps out those who do not deserve it, and let those that do fall into misery.
    56
  2. That makes no sense because he is selling fabric and not a dress. He say SHE can MAKE a dress, but dresses back in those days were the normal.
    52
  3. "Socialism needs to have a egalitarian aim" - What a bunch of horseshit. They have just defined "socialism" as good guys doing good things. That is no definition.
    49
  4.  @loarmistead  And you do not seem to understand that you are looking at it from a modern perspective.
    36
  5.  @loarmistead  You really aren't. You are projecting your own intentions on the art.
    29
  6. My take on war games is summarized in the following: "Plans Are Useless But Planning Is Indispensable" War games are not realistic. War games are when people have made up rules for what someone can and can't do, and then make a game about it. The game is only as realistic as the rules allow them to be, and no one can make rules that are good enough to accurately predict the real world. Especially not when the enemy haven't yet showed their hand. Should a War Game be able to predict a loss for the US in Vietnam? The US had ground, air and naval superiority and still lost. Should a War Game be able to predict Afghanistan?
    15
  7.  @landofthesilverpath5823  Sorry but what you said was 100% incorrect. Especially that part about Swedish style. I can tell you that because I am a Swed. Hitlers economy was not mixed economy at all. The factory owners were not completely robbed of their factories,but they were no longer in control over them. A fact the book Vampire Economy points out which is a first hand account by a socialist living through that period inside of Germany. By the end of the war. Hugo Junker who was the owner of Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke AG that produced a lot of aircrafts for the war was thrown out of his own factory as the Nazi government took it over by nationalizing it as they were losing the war. Same thing happened to ANY other industrialist who did not agree to work for the state. When a owner did not play ball, they nationalized it and "sold" it to a loyal party member. Germany did actually impose price controls and they also did have centrally planned, the so called Four Year Plan. They had price controls and price commissars to manipulate the market. If you are going to claim that Nazi Germany had a free market. You must be high on something. They did not and they most certainly did not impose anything like how Sweden did things. To make such a claim is to say the USA and Saudi Arabia have the same exact governmental structure. One is a Democratic Republic and the other is a Theocratic Monarchy.
    10
  8. Ofc you can destroy the value of a currency. The value is just a arbitrary number at the end of the day. Spain did that with all the Gold they got from the Inca.
    10
  9. When you project it is easier to accuse other people of what you are yourself. You know yourself best after all, so it is easier to make accusations that reflect you rather then your opponent.
    9
  10. Not at all. The only base definition of socialism that exist is that everything is controlled by the state. There is no where in the definition that say it has to be democratic or that the people should control it. You will also find that every single socialist should fail this if it was the definition. There is no socialist that is willing toe share power once they have gotten the power. If individuals should have power that is capitalism. In Socialism you are supposed to not own and control the stuff you have.
    9
  11.  @TheImperatorKnight  I did the same when I was young and dumb. But that was because I didn't understand what politics meant back then. This is just silly. To define a political ideology based on how "good" they are is silly.
    8
  12. Yes. But no one argued Hitler was a Marxist socialist. That is the whole point here. It is to prove that he is one as socialists today think socialism is synonymous with Marxism.
    8
  13. I recently heard a pretty interesting observation. Fascism shows up when socialism has stagnated, so it shows up in order to give practical solutions to the failings of the current socialistic system.
    7
  14. A socialist will never see a socialist ideology that failed as "real socialism". They will not accept that their ideology failed, so it can only fail because it wasn't their ideology.
    7
  15. Socialism isn't Marxist. Marxist Socialism is just a branch of socialism. Also. A lot of Marxist socialists are hostile towards other Marxist socialists so that kind of defeats your whole point.
    7
  16. You mean exactly what Lenin did?
    7
  17. Sorry mate but China is communist. You are not allowed to own private property and acquire capital in China. If you "own" a home in China, you do not own it. You rent it from the government. State capitalism is contradictory because the if something is owned by the state it can't be capitalism. Its like saying you are the owner of a car, but 10 other people also own the car. To say you own the car is contradictory because it is shared among 11 people. All of them own it, but no one person also does not own it. If the state owns something, it can not be capitalism by definition. Just like a share item can not be individually owned.
    6
  18. ​ @Ushakov_Mykyta  The thing is that class struggle is the definition of marxism or communism. Nothing within Socialism say it exist to equalize the social classes. They define equalize the social classes as something good as it to them fight for justice and against inequality within society. And since only "Socialism" (actually Marxism or Communism) deals with class struggle. They define Socialism as a force for good. What they are actually defining Socialism as is Marxism, and by this logic Marxism = good. To define Socialism as some kind of fight for justice is inherently stupid as it implies that people can not want Socialism just to enrich themselves. Stalin was a big advocate of Social Justice (he literally used those words). It just turned out that everyone are equal, but some are more equal then others.
    6
  19. He didn't say that. He said: "I used to believe in socialism. I thought Hitler was a Capitalist that only put Socialist in the name of his party to trick the workers. After looking into it more, I discovered I was wrong. I then discovered National Socialism was a variant of socialism both hostile to Marxist socialism and capitalism." He never even once said fascism. You are just making things up now.
    6
  20. Hey TIK. Can you cover how Hitler managed to even build up an army using the Mefo bills?
    6
  21. "ideobabble has never been used before" - I disagree TIK. It was used by Gorge Orwell in 1984. There he called it Duckspeak. "Duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking. Duckspeak can be either good or “ungood” (bad), depending on who is speaking, and whether what they are saying is in following with the ideals of Big Brother. To speak rubbish and lies may be ungood, but to speak rubbish and lies for the good of “The Party” may be good." What you are pointing out here is duckspeak. It is talking without thinking. It is talking in lines of ideology. It doesn't matter if what you say is true or not. As long as it is good for the ideology it is good. They sound like ducks because all they do is quack ideology.
    6
  22.  @oscartang4587u3  Good point. Just proves my point even more since it show it wasn't due to the war time restrictions.
    6
  23. The problem with AnCaps is that it is complete wishful thinking that corporations/associations like insurance companies will stay free from coercive behavior. Lets say we have a group of people being protected by an insurance company. This insurance company is in charge of protecting those who pay them. - Since protecting people means you actually need to be able to get there in the first place. This insurance company needs to control a set landmass so they can control its boarders and to make sure they can get to anywhere they are needed within those boarders. (EDIT: A service area so to say) - Since it also can't validate everyone paid their insurance policy when things goes down, they can only accept that those who pay their insurance are allowed to be within the community they protect. If you do not want to pay, you are free to leave and go somewhere else as long as it is not under company protection. - Since the insurance company can not go out and defend people because the people they defend is the cause of a violent issue, the company needs to be allowed to say what is or isn't allowed. Risking lives when it shouldn't be needed is not a good way to live. A terms of service. - Eventually there will be no more freeland. Every single millimeter of land will be owned/claimed by someone. This means that if you want to live somewhere, you will have to pay someone. AnCapistan will not allow you in unless you pay your insurance policy as they can not fulfill their duty otherwise. If you go somewhere else you will have to pay taxes for securities and anything else. You can add more things here, but eventually you will always have taxes, coercion and a state. You can not have a large amount of people without creating a system like a state. Someone will eventually gain power and those people will start to say who can live there and what they are allowed to do and not to do. This can be done for good or bad reasons, but eventually you will get a government that collect taxes and tell you what to do.
    6
  24. Seems like a shit quote if you ask me. It is just saying "fascism = bad". It doesn't actually say much and it isn't a very inspiring thing to say. You don't need to be a philosopher to say something is bad.
    6
  25. So are the social democrats. I think you misunderstand what a populist is. A populist is someone who champion the causes of the common man. Literally someone who runs in politics to represent and protect the average voter. You change this definition that this is somehow supposed to be a bad thing. It is often used like that today, but it is used by the establishement to poison the well against new politicians that advocate against them even if that is what they did in the past to gain power in the first place.
    6
  26.  @hizzaddinno394  To even present a multicellular organism as if it is just single cellular organisms working together is outright dishonest. You are just the new Trofim Lysenko if you think like that. You don't understand science and make up some political narrative and expect nature to act like your politics do. Cells do not work together because they see themselves as a collective, just like corn do not share nutrition and water between each other to help a fellow plant.
    5
  27. Tell me you never tried to understand an ideology without telling me.
    5
  28.  @miketomlin6040  So did every single socialist as well. Both Lenin and Stalin killed many socialist. Socialists kill other socialists because they do not support their kind of socialism.
    5
  29. "But 'State control of the economy' can be applied to any state as virtually all governments exert in some form of "control” on the economy. Based on your definition of 'socialism', Britain and the US, fighting to defeat Nazism, were also 'socialist' when, of course, they were capitalists." - Yes. It is because they are not Capitalistic nations. They are mixed economy. A mix between Capitalism and Socialism. Just like pure Socialism has never existed, pure Capitalism has never existed. Britain and the US are not complete capitalistic nations. You are not free to use your own property as you wish.
    5
  30.  @casaroli  You might think that the question is rhetorical, but it actually isn't. The correct answer is no. Because Apple is not a state or a government. Just because a group controls the means of production does not make them the government/state. However. They are actually socialistic by their very nature. A public corporation is actually publicly owned. Being publicly does not actually mean that they are owned by the government, but that their ownership can belong to anyone in the public sphere. If the employees of Apple want, they can all buy the shares of Apple and they all become owners of the corporation they work for. What is the diffrence between a socialistic coop where the workers own the workplace they work in, and a capitalistic corporation where all employees are the shareowners for the corporation they work for?
    5
  31.  @andyknowles772  "No, it isnt. It is privately owned by its shareholders." When you allow shareholders to buy ownership into a corporation it is by definition no longer private. It is called "going public" for a reason. A corporation on the stock market is not a bunch of corporations that are privately owned. They are all public corporations that have to give reports to their shareholders AND the public as a whole. A private corporation does not have to make their preformance statistics free for the public. A corporation on the stock market has to becauce it is no longer private. If you as an employee wants to become a owner for the corporation you work for. You have every right to become a shareholder by buying some shares. You can literally create the communist ideal corporation within a capitalist system. Many just do not want to for obvious reasons. You can not define a public corporate as privately owned. Just like you can not say that a shared bike is your private bike without breaking the laws.
    5
  32. So did all socialists. A big reason why the socialists failed in Spain was because they fought themselves as much as they did the nationalists. Which is why George Orwell left that war and fled back to England. The Allies was actually planning to stop aiding the France resistance movement with supplies. The reason was that the resistance were all just socialist groups, and they didn't use the resources to fight the Germans. They used it to fight other resistance groups and stockpiled the rest. They did this because they were planning to use them to take over France once the Allies had won, so supplying these groups should only had lead to problems after the war was won. Being a socialist doesn't mean you don't kill other socialists. Hitler wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't a communist. He killed communists because they were rivals that shared core concepts, but not all concepts.
    5
  33. That article is extremely poor for your argument. It absolutely do not, it does not even reach a conclusion on the subject. What it does however is to provide a case for why that is. If you don't want to read, do not bother replying. First off. They do not provide a definition for anything they are talking about. They need at the very least provide the definitions of the following concept: - Socialism - Fascism - Nazism - Right wing - Far-right - Public - Private I find this lack of definitions very troubling. Alpha History claims that they are there to provide free material for teaching. So why do they also not teach the definitions. It sounds very suspect. Almost like they are trying to hide the definitions so the "students" do not know what the words they speak mean. It is also very strange that they do not come to a conclusion Since they do not provide a definition, we have to read between the lines to find how they define it. What they seem to define Socialism as is: "a political system with the aim to eradication of class, private property or redistribute wealth" This is not the definition of Socialism since they are cutting out the most important part of this definition. The part all definitions everyone else have include as the top result. The definition of Socialism is the following: "A set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries" Source: Oxford Dictionary. "Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. ...." Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Their whole argument is in short. "The majority of historians say Nazism along with Fascism is a right-wing ideology. It was hyper-nationalistic obsessed with military, state power and social control. Unlike Marxists they do not want to eliminate classes, remove private property or redistribute wealth." Problems with their argument: 1. This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. It doesn't matter if the majority of historians say or think anything as that doesn't make it true. What makes our understanding of gravity true is not that the majority of physicist say so or agree with it. What makes our understanding of gravity true is the experiments that are repeatable and have predictive power. Experts once used to think the world was flat, but just because the experts said so do not mean it is true. 2. They are making a false comparison. Why in a debate about Socialism do we bring up Marxism and Marxists? Socialism is not defined by Marxism or Communism. Marxism is a subcategory of Socialism, just like Social Democracy is a subcategory of Socialism. There is no reason to even make this comparison for any other reason then that they are trying to poison the well. 3. They are making a speaking out of two mouths. They are trying to say it is right-wing, but do not define right or left wing. They try to say he doesn't want to redistribute wealth when he clearly wanted to redistribute the Jews wealth. From what they have said, it is clear that the idea that Nazism is right wing can not be supported. It does fall under Socialism when you actually provide the definition of Socialism. You can not deny that they wanted complete public ownership and social control because they were those that was in control of the public. They were a totalitarian state. Everything belonged to the government. 4. They are factually wrong. The Nazis did remove private property. So even by the argument they presented with Marxists, they do want to remove private property just like the Marxists. They did so with the Reichstag Fire Decree. In the Reichstag Fire Decree they suspended the among others articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution. The articles they suspended said the following: - Article 115: A German's home is an asylum and is inviolable. - Article 153: Expropriation of property could be made only on the basis of law and for the public welfare, with appropriate compensation. With the suspension of 115 you no longer owned your home and it is not your asylum. Your asylum can be taken away from you as it is no longer inviolable. With the suspension of 153 the government can take whatever they want from you without any legal reasons or for any reasons. They also do not need to compensate you for anything they took. That right was suspended. 5. They never actually came to a conclusion in this article which I find rather strange. Why do they not reach a conclusion if they destroy the notion he was a Socialist? Why do they include the argument that he wasn't, then the argument that he was and then back the argument up that he was with an interview from Liberty magazine where he clearly say he is? It is almost like you didn't read the article yourself. Even if you don't accept it, the interview show that Hitler believed he was a Socialist. 6. They have a clear political slant in this whole article, but they also do not want to outright say it. It is very suspect. 7. The document they provided where Hitler explain Socialism does fall within the definitions of Socialism. He might say " that they do not repudiate private property" but that is also not a requirement of Socialism. What he does do is that he can take your private property away from you for any reasons. This article actually proves Hitler was a Socialist. The elephant in the room There is a big problem in this article is that they do not even talk about what the ideology stands for. How can we talk about what an ideology is when we do not talk about the ideology? Take Fascism for example. Just look at the name alone. It originate latin word fascis which means "bundle" or a bundle of sticks. Fascism is built around the ancient idea that "You can break one stick easily. But if you have a bundle of sticks all working together you cant break it no matter how strong you are". This is itself a "socialistic" view. That everyone in a society should work towards a common goal in a common direction and achieve strength through unity. This is why Benito Mussolini said: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" This is the very definition of Socialism. The state owns and control all wealth, industries and natural resources. In the Doctrine of Fascism Mussolini expressed that he want people to see the state as their god. You do your religious duty to the state, and then carry on with your life. Hitler did the same exact thing as Mussolini did with Fascism. He centralized all power with the state so he controls everything within the state. It was he who was in charge to redistribute it all.
    5
  34. No. That is completely inline with ALL socialists that has ever existed. There is no unified group called "socialists". They all belong to different factions and believe in different but closely related things. Hitler didn't put socialists in camps. He put people who opposed his ideas into camps. Those socialists were socialists of other factions and other beliefs. It is in line with all other socialists because every other socialists state as done the same exact thing. The left wing always fight among each other. That is one of the main reasons that the Republic lost the Spanish civil war. While Francisco Franco and everyone who was on that side was united against the Republic, the republic was split into different factions that all fought each other. You had anarchists. You have Soviet Marxists. You had independent Marxists. You had syndicalists and more. Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell, fought on the Republics side in the civil war. He had to flee Spain because fighting for the Republic was about as dangerous as fighting against the fascists. After his time with the civil war he was pretty disillusioned by the "socialists causes". To think that all socialists are the same should be like having a european look at the USA and Mexico and say "they are all the same country, no difference at all." Or look at China and Russia and say "they are all the same". Or India and China and say "they are all the same". Sorry bro, but what you just said was stupid.
    5
  35. You should look up Thomas Sowell. I really like that guy. Also a former socialist (marxist) btw.
    5
  36. That is actually incorrect. What you have there is the definition "socialism = marxist socialism". Hitler did not hate social collectivization. That is the point he wanted. He wanted to collect the German Folk under one government, one state. Also. "Socialism is when the means of production are owned by society." "In Nazi Germany the means of production were owned by the state." - What you literally said there defeated your whole point. What exactly do you think you mean with "society"? In socialism, the state IS the society. It happens in literally all forms of socialism. Or what exactly do you think social democrats advocate for, or what do you think the Soviet Union was? The reason you defeated your own point here is because you actually proved Hitler was a socialist. You have also shown that you are lying with your definition. The definition doesn't say "means of production are owned by society". It say "means of production are owned by STATE".
    5
  37.  @oscartang4587u3  Should I remind you that this guy claims he is a "history major"? That he is so smart and you are dumb because he went to college. Yet he is unable to read a dictionary and even less the text of his own ideology.
    5
  38. This is literally incorrect. Nazi is short for (NA)tional So(ZI)alist. It is short for national socialist but with german words. The name of the party is actually National Socialist German Workers' Party. Or NSDAP.
    4
  39.  @marlkarx1757  Why does Cole need to define what a "free market" is and why does he need to point out if one has existed or not? You claim TIK does not understand he is using. Cole is only asking you to explain why. You refuse to do so. Maybe you should bring up an example of what TIK is biased on instead of having everyone else trying to read your mind.
    4
  40. You have to if you build your own political ideology on the same exact things he did, but want to call everyone else that disagree with you a Nazi.
    4
  41.  @brixton9655  The definition of Socialism is: The public ownership or control of the means of production, property and resources. You saying public ownership is not about socialism is incorrect. Communism is just an ideology that tries to implement this ideal. "'Public ownership' does not relate to Socialism as a whole since the worker and the proletariat do not and did not have a say in the management of those, the bureaucracy did." - Apart from that they do since the bureaucracy is made up from the workers and represent the workers. You are forgetting that the whole point of a state is to represent the people and work for them. That isn't how it is in reality, but it is what they are supposed to be. Public ownership is socialism because the workers are the public.
    4
  42. All of those people are idiots. You can not talk to them because no one understands what they are even saying. You can literally throw the dictionary at them and they will still not read it.
    4
  43.  @choppergirl  Your idea that say "Socialism is all inclusive" is wrong. This isn't what the word actually means and it isn't what the movement means. You can't just go and redefine what something means and then argue that a correct application of the word is incorrect. As for your argument. Socialism means that it will abolish private property and make it owned by the state who is everyone. If Socialism is about being all inclusive. Doesn't that mean I am also allowed to own my own property and collect my own capital that I can use in which ever way I want. Shouldn't it also allow me to collect enough capital that I can live a better life than most other people because I do things that are more valued than what other people do? I am pretty sure this will not be allowed under socialism. If I want to do this, I will not be included in this little project as the capital I have worked hard for, harder than most other people, will be stolen from me. You say these virtue signaling things but you also actually exclude the ideology behind it. You want to sound like you are nice. But you are very much someone who will send people to concentration camps if you get your way forward. You will become the kind of person that thing that Utopia is only one murder away. You only need to root out the problem in society before it can flourish.
    4
  44.  @richardfield6801  You clearly haven't look at the sources in the description of the video. You also do not say what he gets wrong or even present a false claim and show why it is wrong. Hard to take you seriously when you do that.
    4
  45. There is many places of work today where union membership is also compulsory. Also, the Soviets did the exact same thing. Are they are not socialists or were their unions not real unions?
    4
  46. "Describing their system as socialist is equally as ridiculous, though; they were vehemently anti-Marxist and only used public social policy to gain power, not for the good of the people." - Doing things for the "good of the people" is not part of any real definition of socialism. Socialism has always meant the collectivization of the means or control of production and resources. There is no egalitarian goal in the definition. Any such addition can only be a modern concept which you are discrediting. "They sent union organizers and left-wing dissidents to concentration camps." - So did Lenin and Stalin. You act as if "good for the people" isn't a subjective thing. What someone considers good is what someone else considers bad. He sent those people to camps because they were a national threat. He also made his own unions, but unions alone has nothing to do with the definition of socialism. You don't have to be for unions to be a socialist. Maybe it does to Marxist, but Marxism isn't the definition of socialism. If you think you must be pro unions and pro free choice of unions to be a socialist. You are bringing in a modern concept into the discussion which you blame other people of doing. I should call you a hypocrite at this point to be honest. "The Nazis were neither capitalist nor socialist — they were fascist authoritarians in a political category that doesn't really have a place in modern discourse." - No. They were socialist. Fascism is a socialist movement. It originate from Syndicalism that advocate that the nation should be run by labor union. Which is why Benito Mussolini (socialist btw) created fascism under the idea that corporations should be grouped into a few big syndicates and government control should be issued through these syndicates. For this reason Benito Mussolini created the corporate state in 1922 in Italy. It is implemented syndicalism. Even the word Fascism is socialistic in nature. It comes from the word Fascio which means "a bundle of stick". That bundle goes under the logic "if we are alone we easily break, but if we bunch us up into a big bundle (of sticks) we can't be broken". The "If we work towards a common goal we are strong" logic. It is also what every single socialistic ideology strive for. Everything about this is absolutely drenched in socialistic ideology. The "common good before your own good" is everywhere within Fascism. You should actually read some real fascist literature if you think it isn't socialistic.
    4
  47. "you define socialism as the state control of the economy, which is kind of true" - No. It is true. Not just kind of. It IS true. If you do not have state control, you do not have socialism. "However, you assume that because the government controls the economy it's totalitarian." - I don't believe he ever made such a assumption. Can you give a timestamp? However if you do control the economy you need to be totalitarian. Totalitarian does not mean you oppress people and murder them. If you want control over the economy you need totalitarian control as the economy is tied into EVERYTHING. "It seems you're confusing socialism for communism." - He is not. "In a social democrocy, yes the government controls the economy, but since it's a democracy the people should control the government." - That was a lot of wordsalad that didn't say anything. The government is the representation of the people. It does not matter if they were voted in through democracy or not. The government is the people. It is literally the definition of it. However you seem to think that Social Democracy is some how separate from Communism. Do you not know that the whole point of Social Democracy is to gradually bring in Communism through democratic means and reforms? The Social Democrats are just communists that do not want a revolution and sudden change. "Therefore the people also control the economy, making it the truest form of democracy people claim it to be. " - As someone from Sweden. I can 100% call BS on that. No. If the government controls the economy I will have 0% of power in that economy. Voting does not give you any kind of power over anything. I can not say anything about anything in a economy controlled by the government unless I am the government. What you are trying to say here is that you can own something, without being a owner. It's a oxymoron. "What part of socialism led you to believe its purpose was to divide people?" - Lets see. Eat the rich. Kill the bourgeoisie. Down with the fatcats. Common things socialists say are they not? What part of that does not divide people into them and us? " It's no coincidence that conservatives are the villains in history." - Wow. Just wow. Talk about ignoring history. Do you think Stalin was not a villain? Do you think Pol Pot did not have the killing fields? You are just insane if you think like this. You are outright just ignoring all of the evil that is on your side and then call them "conservatives". The fact you even say something like that show that you are evil as well. Let me guess. You cried your heart out when Jussie Smollett faked his own attack to cause a race war where people like you were supposed to attack and kill the "conservatives". Do you not think that is evil or does that just not count?
    4
  48. I just want to point out that only things such as hyper inflation is when the government counterfeit money. Inflation is actually a sign of a growing economy. When there is more things and transactions in an economy, you actually need enough money to do the trade. It doesn't matter if everyone at a farmers market have everything you can even want, if there is a total of 100 dollars between them all to actually make the trades with. Everyone will just wait as everyone go around on a Zelda trade mission go get enough money to buy what they actually want. You can get just as many economic problems from deflation as inflation. Deflation might just be the easier problem to solve as you just print more money. My point is that inflation is not always counterfeiting money. You can't keep having a growing economy when you can't have a money supply that grows with it. So what if a single dollar can have the same value as 100 dollars today if you can't actually find a dollar to trade with in the first place. This is actually a massive problem with the Gold standard. The Gold standard can only increase the money supply by digging up more gold. The fiat system allows governments control the money supply very quickly and it will not be affected by someone just showing up with a massive amount of gold and make all money worthless. Like Spain once did.
    4
  49.  @kingorange7739  What OP said was just insanity, but I have something to take up with you. "That’s why capitalism isn’t democracies but constitutional republics." - No. You can have capitalism without being a republic. A republic is a state without a monarchy, in other words, no King or Queens. The UK or Sweden are Kingdoms, but they are still capitalistic nations. They are not republics. The UK is a capitalistic nation and is a Kingdom. It is even in the name Untied KINGDOMS. Being a constitutional republic the nation follows a constitution and doesn't have a King or Queen.
    4
  50. Really? Because I hear it all the time. Why do you think people label neo-nazis as far-right? So what exactly does it mean to the average person to be far-right? Well, hyper capitalist most likely. You should also look at the video someone made trying to debunk it. They openly called Hitler a capitalist. It isn't a strawman that people say that people say Hitler was a capitalist. I have heard that for years and years.
    4