General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

TIKhistory
comments

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

Previous
3
Next
...
All

And give them the victory and the narrative?
3
I know what you are not doing at the very least. Making a coherent sentence.
3
The Central Powers existed in WW1. Because they were the central countries of Europe. The Axis were in WW2. Japan clearly have nothing to do with the central of Europe.
3
Did the Communists give the means of production to the workers? No it isn't so the Communists were not socialists. Sorry bro but they were socialists. Just like everyone else who claim they are socialist just wants to move the means of production into the control of the government. If you want the individual workers to own and control the means of production, you should go with Capitalism. Each worker can buy a share in a corporation or start their own business if they want. What "giving the means of production to the workers" actually means is: "All the means of production goes to the state". The state is the representation of the people. If the state owns the means of production, the workers own it as well. The worker is just not in charge over how the means of production is used and will not benefit from it. Hitler was a socialist. He made sure all corporations were aligned to the wills of the state, and if they were not they were taken over. No socialist nation has EVER given the individual any rights of ownership of their work. That very idea is just a big lie.
3
Can't. He needed oil and resources he didn't have. Due to autarky he wasn't able to buy it from other nation, and even if he did the UK blocked his transports anyway. Hitler had to invade the Soviet Union because if he didn't, he shouldn't have a chance to win against the UK due to the lack of fuel and raw materials.
3
@everything1023 No. That is the definition of Communism and not Socialism. Here is the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
3
@vahidfarsi812 First of. Spell terminology correctly. Also no. If you use basic definitions that have existed for a very long time it is still an oxymoron. You can not have private ownership when it is owned by the state. You can not have private state ownership. There is a reason this term comes from Communists and not Capitalists.
3
They didn't have free markets however. It was controlled and price regulated.
3
@alessandrorona6205 "just because someone say they are something, does not mean they are, espetially if they do the exact opposite of what they say." - And just because you say that doesn't mean he did do the exact opposite. I hope you plan show how he did "exact opposite" and not just say it. You spend a whole lot of time talking about Mussolini but do not spend a lot of time proving your case for Hitler. How about instead of making walls of text on something irrelevant you prove your case on Hitler. How exactly is he the opposite of a socialist?
3
"However, USSR continued to thrive decades after the fall of Stalin and didn't need to rely on the enslavement of bourgeois" - The Soviet union formed in 1922. Stalin died in 1953. The Gulag system ended in 1960. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That means the whole nation existed for 69 years. 38 years after the Gulag system ended it was no longer able to exist. A nation as big as Russia do not fall over night. What kept the Soviet going was cold war fear and that the common workers worked themselves to death to make sure their nation and their family was safe from the US. The USSR was never thriving. It always demanded people to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The only thing that held the Soviets together was patriotism among the workers. Also. If the USSR was continued to thrive. How exactly did it collapse? Something that thrive should not just collapse. There is a fundamental problem here and it can not be correct. The only answer can be that it didn't, which also works with all evidence we have today. There isn't a nation that has been within the Iron Curtain that emerged from it better then a nation that was in western control.
3
@casaroli That is because you misunderstand what the word "group" is. A state/government is a group as well. But it is different from a subgroup within the group. A word has several meanings. The correct meaning and context has been given, but you ignored that. You can see it like this. Lets say live in a remote rural area. The people around you is the only people you can interact with. These people belong to 5 families. Those 5 families become organized to decide what to do with the land around you. Within those families the children get friend groups. Not all of the children are friend with each other, so several groups exist. Your misunderstanding that you point to one of the children's friends group and say that is the government. When that group is actually a subordinate group to the 5 families group which are the government.
3
@andyknowles772 "You are arguing that Ferraris are publicly owned because they are available for anyone to buy." - No. Now you are just outright lying. I never said this or argued it. Can you please stop being dishonest. I asked if you think YOU own your car when you are required to ask me for permission to use "your" car. The example is to show that owning and controlling property are inherently linked. If you do not control your property, you do not own it. "In what way is a share NOT private property?" - It is literally in the sentence you just typed. Do you know what a SHARE is? If I own a share in a corporation, in a shared property, that corporation/property is not privately owned but owned by the public. If something has shared ownership it is by definition not private. When you buy a share, you do not buy a private part of something. If you, me and 8 other people buy a share into a Ferrari. Do you think that Ferrari is still only your Ferrari? No. It is mine, yours and belong to 8 other people. It is no longer private since everyone who owns a share can sell that share to anyone who wants to use the car. Because the shares are publicly traded, it is publicly owned. This is why corporations GO PUBLIC when they list themselves on the stock exchange.
3
@andyknowles772 "Then how come it can be traded and owned?" - Pay attention. I know this is hard, but you are clearly willing to lie. A share is a CLAIM of ownership. You can trade your claim of ownership, but it isn't actually a physical thing you can touch. Just like an agreement is not actually a physical thing. You can not touch an agreement. You can touch a piece of paper where the agreement is written down on, but that piece of paper is NOT the agreement. That piece of paper is a piece of paper. The agreement is a abstract concept, just like a share (claim of ownership) is an abstract concept. "No, that would be you. Here is your claim again: "If something has shared ownership it is by definition not private"" - That is not being dishonest. That is the literal definition of it in both legal and dictionary contexts. You however keep ignoring what is said and make up false equivocations. Just like how you ignored that "shares are a claim of ownership" in your previous point. "So if a couple own a house, it is not privately owned by your definition." - That is actually correct. It isn't publicly owned, but it isn't private anymore. It is a share property. It does no longer belong to just one individual, which make it not private. "Find the dictionary definition that defines public as the opposite of individual." - Fine. Dictionary(dot)com 1. of, relating to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole 2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole 3. the people constituting a community, state, or nation 4. a particular group of people with a common interest, aim, etc. Cambridge Dictionary 1. public adjective (PEOPLE) B2: relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people 2. public adjective (GOVERNMENT) B1: provided by the government from taxes to be available to everyone 3. public adjective (PLACE) B1 A public place is one where a lot of people are 4. public noun all ordinary people Marriam-Webster 1. exposed to general view : open 2. of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state 3. of or relating to people in general : universal 4. of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social As you can see. All dictionaries agree in agreement. Public is a word that is used for the concept of People. As in a group of people. It is ALWAYS defined as a group of people. You can not say that a group of people are not a group. Individual is ALWAYS when we talk about one person and their affairs. Public is always when we talk about groups. I think you need to list the dictionaries that say that public means individual.
3
@casaroli The definition you gave is still wrong sadly. You have added a word that does not actually exist in any real definition. The word TOTAL does not belong to the definition. The reason for it because that should be an impossible standard to have. NO ONE has TOTAL control over anything. You have also put in another word that is actually completely meaningless in this context. What do you mean with "social control"? This can mean a lot of different this to a lot of people. Parents have social control over their children for example. The police can have social control from their job as well. However are Parents the same as Police? This word is meaningless as it means just about anything you want it to mean. It is a weasel word. You are also wrong in that Capitalism companies are not controlled by the workers. They very much can and are under capitalism. If all workers buy all the shares in a publicly traded corporation, they are the owners of it AND control it. Ownership alone is not actually what defines what is and isn't capitalism. You have socialism when EVERYTHING starts to become controlled or owned by the state/government. In capitalism, you are free to do what you want with your property without government interference. To a common sense degree ofc. We can not allow someone to dump toxic waste and endanger everyone else because they are to lazy to be responsible. While the Soviet Union went with state ownership of everything. The Nazis went with state control over everything. Sure. The Nazi state might not OWN the factory. But if that factory did not do its part to support their political goals and support the war. The ownership might just be "removed" from the owner.
3
As Rawrbee said. It is already there in the definition. Remember that the state or the government is a representation of the people. When the state or government owns something, it is technically owned by everyone and just managed by the state/government. Which also means, that when something is owned by the state/government it is publicly owned and no longer private. Socialism is defined as the public ownership or control over the means of production. Since socialism involves all means of production, you can not own your own factory or farm. That means there is no public ownership or control of the means of production since you have a factory or farm outside of the public's control. That is why Socialists will seize your property and claim it as their own. Which means. They will take your private property if they think it is of value.
3
@slaterslater5944 The right was persecute. You are just wrong in saying that they were not. Also who say Hitler is a hero to the far right? Your left wing friends? Have you gone out and spoken to these far right people? Because when I look at it, anyone can apparently be "far right" today. In my country the old 90's style Social Democracy politics is today branded "far right". If you look at what Stalin believed, he should be extremely "far right". There is no real definition of what "far right" even is. It is just a swear words people on the left use on people that disagree with them since calling them "nazis" has stopped working as they ruined that word.
3
@mistersolemnis3555 So according to you. Socialism has to be internationalism and about class struggle. What a bunch of BS.
3
@mistersolemnis3555 Also Marxism. Marxism isn't socialism.
3
Or it was born around the Nuremberg trials. It is very easy to blame a dead mad man who can’t defend himself. Then the idea was continued to circulate as you were not allowed to talk about their ideology. Calling him “mad” is the only answer you can reach when you are given BS reason for why he did what he did. Of it doesn’t make any sense, the story you have been told isn’t supposed to make sense. And only a mad man believes in it.
3
"If they are owned by the workers it's socialism." - It is actually public ownership. If the workers owns something it is owned by the community because the workers belong to a community. When the community owns something it is publicly owned. The workers might get to profit from it, but the community still owns it since it is a shared ownership within the community. Since the state is just the governing body of a community, the state or the government is also the community. If something is owned by the workers it is owned by the public. If something is owned by the community it is owned by the public. If something is owned by the state or government it is owned by the public. Socialism is the public ownership of the means or control of the production.
3
That is not actually the case. Just think about what it takes to build a car. Now imagine what it takes to build a car from scratch in your garage by yourself. It will take quite a while and cost a lot of money doesn't it? So clearly. Cars are not possible to be built and they will cause a fortune no one but the richest people can buy. Unless. Unless having dedicated factories, with optimized production lines, with several people working together and through mass production make cars so cheap you by yourself can never compete with them when it comes to price. No. Your chicken might be subsidized, but it can also be cheap because there are systems created to mass produce chicken meat so it can be sold cheaply. So cheap a simple homesteader can not compete as they do not have the infrastructure or the critical mass to make it cheap.
3
@Smoking_Man Maybe you should read what was said. You clearly have not read what I said and do not wish to actually engage with anything I said. If you are going to say I didn't say something. Provide evidence. You say all socialists are the same but they are not. Stalin and Lenin did the same thing, but I guess you will either say "true socialism has never been tried" or you will not deny that they were socialists.
3
@jthemagicrobot3960 1. No they are not. 2. LMAO. Wishful thinking to the highest degree. negative behavior will always exist. If this isn't true you shouldn't ever have a need to protect anything.
3
Because people who have nothing want to get something without having to work for it. When they have nothing, we should all share. When they have something, it is mine and you have no right to it or demand anything off me. You also have the useful-I** who only think they care for people. When in reality they discriminate and hate people without knowing it.
3
Okay. A few problems here. How are the "insurance companies" supposed to enforce their rules that keep people from just stealing your stuff? How are they supposed to protect you? So lets say you have a protection group. This protection group can not operate all over the world. They need to be there when you need them. If you get mugged, they need to be able to get to you within a reasonable time otherwise there is no point in using them. This means they need a piece of territory where they can post guards and centers from where they can deploy. Like departments. They can only protect you while you are within their territory. A service area so to say. Now lets say the same group gets into some bad stuff. There is a massive riot and they are called out to stop and prevent people from getting hurt and hopefully save peoples businesses. There is no way to ensure who has and who has not paid their protection policy. It just isn't possible to do when you may have to fight for your or someone else life. They have to act as if everyone has paid their fees even if they can't check if they have or not. The best way to ensure everyone has paid for them, is to make sure only those who have paid for them is allowed to be within their service area. You are free to not pay them, but you also can't be within their area and gain protection from them without paying. This means you have boarder controls and forced service fees if you wish to be somewhere. Fact is that there is no place on earth that isn't claimed by someone. If you do not wish to pay this protection group, where exactly are you supposed to go? The protection group will force you out by force as they can't do their duty if you do not pay them. This will mean you have two choices. Pay them what they ask for, or leave to some other place that will ask you for taxes. There is no choice unless you have managed to find a way to paddle water in the middle of the ocean forever. The protection group also need to make sure there are terms to who they are supposed to protect. They can't protect a child trafficker and a murderer against his victims just because he has paid their fee. So there need to be rules you have to follow within their service area. Those rules also must exist so the protection group do not make arbitrary decisions. Even if you do not need the protection groups service, you have to pay them. It is the cost of doing business. They are required to be trained and keep themselves ready for anything at any point. You can't arm yourself after you are required to defend yourself. You can't pay for a backup of your business computers after all of your data has been lost in a fire. You are required to pay for the backup service even if you never need the backup. The problem here is that all of these reasons are reasonable. You need to require all of these in a actual situation where you have to deal with hostile people that do not care for your ideologies. The sanctity of the holy church do not prevent the vikings from breaking down the door and plunder the church so to say. Your argument "because they do not coerce people into using them" do not work for the simple fact it does not work in reality. You are forced into paying someone to protect you if you are not going to stand for that protection yourself. They are not going to risk their life for you out of the goodness of their hearts. You are after all not willing to do it for them, which is why you pay them in the first place. At some point. All those associations or groups will start to collect taxes to pay for essential services. You have no other choice than to pay for the simple reason that you have nowhere else to go. There is no more unclaimed land on this planet. You have to pay someone for something eventually. A fee everyone has to pay is a tax by another name.
3
@d133710n Only problem here is that this comment section has a lot of stupid takes as well. Such as calling Nazism far right. It just doesn't make sense. To me it seems the definition of far right have been written in such a way to describe Nazism, without caring if such a definition actually belong to the right wing spectrum of politics.
3
You should read some of the comments in this comment section. Plenty of people making that argument. Just below this comment is one for example.
3
@colebehnke7767 Bruh. The guy is a moron. He is clearly a socialist and he think he can use some claim that he is a "history major" to gain automatic authority in any discussion without actually having to back up anything he has to say. He is clearly stupid as he think "democratic voting" will just solve itself. The problem is that voting doesn't mean anything unless you have the power and authority to enforce it. You can vote all you want, but if no one is there to enforce the votes it doesn't matter. People are not going to honor votes just because they are votes. Voting is as much a governmental institution as collecting taxes is. It is issued by the government because the government wants to do it. It is why a lot of the world is starting to lose a lot of voting power right now. Voting is only allowed when the establishment gets what they want from it. When they lose the power and get something they do not want, it is a "danger to democracy".
3
"what happens when a mob gets rid of all of the factory owners and their management?" - What tend to happen is that the factory completely fall apart and stop existing. The mob is not going to be able to keep it running, so whatever work it provides and whoever needs it to operate will now be without it and has everyone becomes poorer. "What happens to the brain trust of your society?" - It goes down and rot away in brain drain. Because whoever is smart enough to get away will leave when the mob starts to kill the factory owners and their management. Why should people that has knowledge live in a country and society that is more likely to kill them just because they have those skills. "Does your economy collapse when all the factories are shutdown?" - Yes it does. Just look at the pandemic. You don't even need to have complete shutdowns for the economy to be messed up. Right now there is such a high demand for semi-conductors and so little supply that it takes between 6-12 months to order new computers. And we order straight from China and their factories.
3
And just because a branch sticks out and goes in another direction it is still attached to the same tree. Fascism is not a different ideology from Socialism. It is a different way to apply socialism and not something completely new.
3
Apart from that DNA proves that race isn't real. The difference between people can never actually justfy to seperate people into groups based on genetics. The DNA we all have is so similar to each other you can't use the word race based on it.
3
jeff jr huh? Dude. I didn't even read your comment. I have no idea who you even are. I also never called anyone a socialist. I am in fact not even using that word in this comment until now. Are you sure you are not talking to yourself?
3
This video is actually a response video. It is just very poorly labled as one. Also. That isn't an ad hominem fallacy.
3
@1itemorless Plato talked about Socialistic concepts back in ancient greece. The book Utopia literally describe a socialistic society. The book Utopia was published back in 1551. Karl Marx was born in 1818. So for you to say "socialsim was not a thing before marx was born" is 100% factually wrong. It was something that existed over 267 years before Karl Marx was born at the very least. You have no idea what you are talking about.
3
Apparently many people will come to that conclusion. That is why Adpocalypse happened after all.
2
Because the Jews were displaced and forced out. It is called the Jewish diaspora. They didn't leave by choice. That is why a lot of Jews have moved back to Israel and are willing to fight for it.
2
Just remember that minecraft is a videogame you play for enjoyment. When you have a family, kids and more. You are not treating things the same way. I know people that work every day no matter if they are sick or on vacation. When you have done that for the past 20 years and have the money not to do it, it can not be because are not enjoying it.
2
Literally incorrect.
2
A few problems here. 1. High cost of housing isn't a problem caused by capitalism. What cause high costs of housing can be several factors. Factors like: - Not allowed to build houses due to government regulation. (not capitalisms fault) - Not enough time to build houses (not capitalisms fault) - A high demand in areas (not capitalisms fault) Just because housing can be expensive doesn't mean it is caused by capitalism. You must be rather arrogant to think everyone should be able to get a housing in very crowded cities at a cheap price. The more you demand for housing within a set location, the more expensive it become. It isn't caused by Capitalism. It is caused because your neighbor will pay more to live where you want to live than you will. 2. multi- millionaires pay more in taxes than you do. The top 1% pay 38.8% of the total income tax. The bottom 50% pay 3.1%. That means the upper 50% pay 96.9% of all taxes, where the top 5% pay 70.9%. You complaining that the rich isn't paying taxes is factually incorrect. They are paying more than you ever will in taxes. If you don't believe me, just go and look up the statistics from your government. They actually have the evidence for this as it is well known. 3. You claim you are "enslaved" is just silly. You are free to leave when you want, but you do not want to. You think living in those massive cities are so much better because you are not willing to move to a smaller town. You are not enslaved. You have enslaved yourself by not being able to look outside of the box you placed yourself in. 4. Being poor and being broke are not the same thing. When you have no money you are broke. When you are poor you have a bad lifestyle that keep you poor. If you do not want to be poor, you need to lose that lifestyle.
2
I don't agree. Capitalism and Socialism is an abstract concept. Pure Socialism or pure Capitalism has never existed sure. But it isn't name calling to call for example the Soviet Union socialism. At some point your actions do justify a label. If we are going to go with only pure labels on everything we are going to have to label everything "unknown". The Soviet Union was a government based around an unknown ideology. The USA is a government is a government based around an unknown ideology. It gets silly after a while. How was Hitler to the right socially? There was a time where many nations all around the world looked up to Germany as a new and legit way to run things. They subsisted vacations, ensured workers were promised breaks for lunch (was the first to put legally enforced lunch breaks if I remember correctly) and many other stuff. This is not what you see from someone on the right. I want to point out the definition of what Socialism is here. The definition is: "Socialism is a social and economic policy where ownership or control of the production, property and resources belong to the public instead of the private." Every single ideology that belong to Socialism must have the core tenant that everything should belong to the state since it is the representation of the public. The nationalization of industry is part of socialism as it will bring the ownership to the workers instead of just a single or a few individuals. If the nation owns it, the government owns it. If the government owns it the community it represent owns it. Of the community owns it, the workers working their owns it. This is why nationalization = worker/communal ownership. If I get what you are saying correct, I think you are very wrong in saying that Socialists are nationalization. They are very much for it because they are for communal ownership, and a nation is just a big community with a piece of territory. I don't get how you any Socialist should be against nationalization, unless they are the kind of socialist that doesn't understand their ideology.
2
@LibertarianLeninistRants Dude no. The Soviet Union had no economy. Everyone survived on starvation rations. Remember that the whole world though that the Soviets will just fall over when Germany invaded. They didn't think that because they had a good economy. Remembered that Stalins change from rural and agricultural society to industrial required massive amounts of deaths. You can't call a economy from people starving to death to not starve to death as much a "growing economy". Their whole economy was in shambles for political reasons. They avoided the crisis because they were already in one. You can't get burnt to death if you already burnt to death.
2
@LibertarianLeninistRants Pretty sure that starvation because people do not have enough food counts as growing. Dude. People was murdered and starved to death. It was in shambles because Stalin forced the whole economy to change in a inorganic way. You also forget that there was a famine in 1932-33 because of lysenkoism. The idea that you can tell plants to be good communists and share resources to produce better and more corps. The west might have had economic crisis, but the Soviet had death.
2
@LexiOni-n2f Nope. Both were.
2
A Socialist is someone who wants Socialism. Socialism is social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. There are many kinds of Socialists. Not Americans are murderers, but some are. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but some are. Not all Socialists are mass murderers, but some are. Why do you think pointing out that Hitler not only wanted but had a social and economic doctrine where everything was owned and controlled by the state has anything to do with Bernie? Or is the problem that the ideas presented hit to close to him and you see a clear line between what Hitler wanted and what Bernie wanted that you can't accept they share common ideas?
2
Really? That is the whole "far-right" argumemnt. People call Nazism a extreme right wing ideology. Since right wing is capitalism, Nazism must be capitalism. It is also a smear tactics as the left want the right to also have horrible and extreme grups. Even better if "their" extremists are worse.
2
@fun_ghoul And average people are idiots as well. It is average people that believe that NS is capitalistic because they do not understand what capitalism, socialism or what NS is. You have to start using your brain a little. The reason the argument that Hitler was a capitalist exist just because people are idiots and people lie to them because of politics. Start using your brain a little.
2
It is TIK's evil step brother
2
@666mrdoctor I like how you just assume someone is biased because they do not agree with you. Not like you can have missed something or be biased yourself. No one is ignoring anything. You are just making stuff up.
2
The idea that social is left and national is right is more modern day. It is because the left today has anything national. They hate patriotism. This is why national is right. Not because it inherently is, but because the left has discarded it.
2
Albert Einstein also married his own cousin. Just because someone famous said something, doesn't mean everything they say is correct. Socialism is not something we need at all. It always create inefficient systems where all capital become concentrated in few hands. Everyone else will live in poverty unless they are good at kissing ass. There isn't a single good socialistic nation in history.
2

Previous
3
Next
...
All