Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bodombeastmode Well well well. I guess I find you again just copy and pasting the same link over several videos but without actually understanding it. I have already replied to you once so I will just copy that response in this comment.
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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Why should I answer you when you try to put words in my mouth every time?"
- I am not. You are giving "several European countries" as examples of nationalism and nationalistic states, but you are outright refusing to name a single one to back up your claim. That only means one thing, you do not know any that will support your claim which is why you make the statement but refuse to source it.
The reason I brought up the UK was because they are leaving the EU. The European Union is something which is trying to create a new federal super state just like the United States of America is a federal government. If you support the EU, you can not be nationalistic. If you think you can, you do not understand Europe nore its history. Europe have had such a long and strange history that there is no national belonging across the continent. The EU is more and more trying to take over the sovereign power to the point the Union will have its own Military loyal to the Union and not the member nations, there is no way this is just a organisation to make trade, trade regulations and movement easier. You site Poland, a country within the EU as nationalistic when it is actively being incorporated in a project to make Europe a single nation. You site Hungary as a nationalistic nation when they are also being incorporated into a project that is aimed to make Europe a single nation. Just because nationalistic parties exist within a country does not make it a nationalistic country. Every single country in Europe also have communistic parties. Does that make Europe communistic as well? With your logic, yes it does. That is why I ask you to point the countries out. You can literally only point to a few statements made by a few politicians and a few pushes which doesn't in any way show that each nation as a whole is nationalistic. It is most likely the only reason you can give your examples because people are pissed about being forced into globalists politics just because they are being forced into a European super state. Are you going to tell me that the idea that countries should have boarders, and everyone shouldn't be able to live in any country they want freely without the approval of that country first is a nationalistic agenda? If it is, then you have just gone so far into globalism that literally everything is nationalistic to you.
Also. Scotland had their opportunity to leave, they choose to not leave. When they voted for Brexit, they voted as Englishmen just as they voted for. That they have regrets is the result from their own stupidity. But hey, they rather want to belong to a project that wants to make Europe as a continent a nation so they will absolutely not have any power. You can't get fucked by the same mistake twice right? When you give away your sovereignty, don't complain when you don't get your way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maik10mrrck80 Oh I am just talking about then regular before you get to spend your money. Want me to prove it?
You make a salary of 10.000 euro.
The income tax is 25%. Sure it is pretty high but alright.
But hold on. You have already been taxed before you even get to pay income tax. Your employer is forced to pay "Social fees" which is 31,42% of your salary before tax. This means that when your employer hires you, they do not pay out 10.000 euro to you. They pay 13.142 euro to you as that is what you cost to hire. In other words you are actually worth 31,42% MORE than what you are asking for if you can keep a job.
So now you have to pay your 25% in income tax and you have 7.500 euro left. But in reality you have paid 5.642 euro in taxes before you even got your money. That is about 43% in taxes. But where does those other numbers come from?
Now you have your 7.500 euro, but you wish to spend it and actually use it. Lets buy a new TV. However there is Value Added Taxes as well. That is 25%.
So if you wish to spend your money, you need to pay 25% of it in tax before you get to buy anything.
So if we remove VAT you are left with 5625 euro. You have now paid 57.2% of the money your employer paid you in taxes. Just for having the privilege of making and using money you had to give almost 60% of it to the government in taxes. You can see this as you working for free for 7 months and only make money the last 5 months in a year.
However we are not done. Oh no we are not. This is just the basic taxes so far. If you own a car you pay penalty taxes gasoline or diesel. Those taxes stand for most of the price you pay.
If you want to use electricity in your home you also got to pay penalty taxes on that as the government want to "achieve our environmental goal". And ofc these penalty taxes are baked into the price itself so you got to pay VAT on the tax. So you got to pay taxes ON taxes as VAT is applied to the final price and does not exclude any penalty tax.
If you want to buy electronic you get to pay recycling fees even if it is brand new, and chemical fees because it is treated in chemicals to prevent fires.
To calculate the final number is pretty much impossible as it depends on what you do. If you ascetic person that live without running water, heat, home, car and are pretty much always starving. Yeah. You can get away with maybe only paying 50% in taxes. But if you are not. You pay way WAY more. I should say most people pay 70% of everything to the government.
Do you see how much money you pay in taxes and it is hidden to everyone right? Most people think they only pay 25% in taxes when it is over twice that amount.
"What is socialism? I might be wrong. Who knows."
- Socialism is when the government owns or controls the means of production and resources within a nation. In other words. If a government owns a factory, or is in control of the leadership that operate the factory. That is socialism.
Now I have a question for you.
During the pandemic. Where you restricted from going to work or use your property as you wished to? Did Germany have a lockdown that restricted your actions?
I believe the answer is YES.
Now. How exactly can a government tell you what you can and can't do with your property if they do not own it? They can't. The reason they can tell you what to do is because they actually control it. You were not allowed to make your own independent decision on the matter. It was made for you, and you were demanded to follow.
This is socialism. The government might not have their name of the papers. But they still tell you how you can use your own stuff. They have the control over factories and everything that produce value in a society. You do not. They do. If you disagree you will have the police paying you a visit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2