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

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5.  @nicknolte8671  It isn't a "conspiracy theory". Just look at any university and look at the distribution of who the teachers voted for. It is overwhelmingly towards the left. This has been done several times and all have come out with the same result. It is in fact so bad that most people on the right does join the staff, they will not be treated well there. That is why right wing intellectuals join Think Tanks, and left wing intellectuals join Colleges and Universities. Colleges and Universities today simply do not want you to think freely and openly, no matter how much they say they stand for those values. That is why "free speech zones" have been established in several Colleges and Universities. Why do you need a "free speech zone" if you are allowed to speak freely and openly? Are you calling factual and observable behavior and evidence a "conspiracy theory"? Also. I just need to go to my local school to see that education have a very heavy political bias. I never heard so much marxist crap that I heard from teachers. They all think that you can put people in groups based on class and think everyone of that "class" are the same. Also. Cultural Marxism has nothing to do with "cultural Bolshevism". Cultural Marxism is a real thing and not a conspiracy theory. It was created as a respons to the fact that the theory Marx had was clearly incorrect. Marx thought that the worker should eventually be fed up working for the capitalists and revolt to create a socialist society. That clearly didn't happen, so Cultural Marxism was created to explain why. A few things that was born from that was Critical Theory. If you ever heard something like "Critical Race Theory" (and not racial sensetivity training. They are not the same thing) you have heard of Critical Theory. Critical Race Theory is a breakdown of Race from a Marxist perspective. Cultural Marxism was invented AFTER WW2 and not before. What you are reading is just pure lies because those that made that information has no reason to tell you the truth as they are themselves politically motivated. They do not want to tell you that Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory is just a Marxist take on social philosophy.
    2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14.  @juicyjames2074  "That’s doesn’t seem that different from US capitalism where employees are literally breaking their backs and dying in warehouse industries for a livable wage and yet we call that thriving…" - In Capitalism they are free to quit. In the Soviet Union you were not. In Capitalism, the workers are free to try their hand in creating their own business since they are not actually forced to work for anyone but themselves. You are only a wage slave if you have the slave mentality. You are not forced to work for any corporation in the west. Do not sit here and think I should care about this kind of sob story. You are not forced to do this kind of work, so stop crying and go and do something that pay better if you don't like it. If you can't get anything better, maybe you can't produce anything actually worth paying any more for. "Really, the issue in the world in this entire time is that the elites in general have been the only ones thriving." - Funny definition. It seems you are saying thriving is the same as being rich. That is not thriving. I am a common worker, and I have plenty of money for my needs. I am thriving and have no worries. I am also not chained to some giant corporation and instead work for a small corporation with less then 10 employees. You just have a messed up definition, and that is your own fault as you have lost touch with reality. "The USSR fell because Gorbachev established a multi-party voting system during a time where not only was his power and image damaged by a coup" - What you said simply do not make sense. You do not have people that want to make coups if your nation is thriving. Things were bad long before then if you even get to that stage. Also. The coup was unsuccessful which is something you seem to forget. The decision to slowly democratize the USSR was not the only thing that brought it down. The core was already rotten and that decision only contributed to the collapse. " but all these people were livid about being invaded by the iron curtain and other countries." - I don't think you understand what the Iron Curtain was. The Iron Curtain was the Communist block. All communist nations didn't allow travel and trade into and out from the rest of the world, and the west especially. It is called the iron curtain because the boarders where protected by razor wire. A curtain of iron, razor wire iron. The nations within the Soviet Union were not invaded by themselves. The satellites maybe, but not the USSR. It wasn't invasions that brought the USSR down, but discontent among its own people. When elections and freedom was given, communism was rejected.
    2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. "However, I have never heard anyone on the left make this argument. The statement that most people on the left get irritated by (in my experience) is calling Hitler any form of socialist at all." - You have not been hanging around for long enough then. It is actually a VERY common argument. It is not a false dichotomy at all since this whole video is actually a response video. If you doubt that anyone make this argument. Go and watch TIK's video named "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" where to socialists "debunk" this video. They among many other things double down on that Hitler was a Capitalist because "he worked with the capitalists". "The statement that most people on the left get irritated by (in my experience) is calling Hitler any form of socialist at all." - Well. The problem is that most people gets irritated because they never once actually looked into what socialism actually is, or what the Nazis actually believed in. They have never read the books they produced. They never listened to any speeches. They never really looked into their actions. The problem here is that most people do not want to be associated to the Nazis due to the deserved stigma. And when they hear that the ideology is inherently a socialistic ideology with is origin from syndicalism they will find out that they are associated. They are not being honest with you. They will deny the statement that Nazism is socialism because of that they want to reject the association. Not because they are honest. "Let me present one of the basic tenets of Socialism;" - Do you happen to have a source for these tenents? Because to me this all seems like YOUR interputation of it and not actually the definition. Where exactly do it say socialism "need for universal rights that can only be attained through suffrage". That is not a tenent of socialism but of Marxism. Marxism is not socialism. Marx did not invent socialism. Where exactly do it say socialism wants free elections? Do you have any source for this claim or is it just what you believe? What is even more haliarious with this "basic tenets" is that you 100% miss the most basic and longest accepted defnition of socialism that can be found in every single dictionary of the word. Socialism is an ideology that advocate of state ownership or control of the means of production and resources. The very fact you skipped this definition and instead focused on rights and free voting clearly shows that you are reading from a very VERY biased source written by current day marxists and socialists. What you presented as basic tenants are not basic tenants. It is just marxist gaslighting as they are trying to change the definition and meaning of the word hoping you will never see it. They are engaging in orwellian behavior. Let me be clear here. THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NO REQUIREMENT FOR SOCIALISM TO BE EGALITATIAN IN ANY WAY FOR IT TO BE SOCIALISM. ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT SOCIALISM IS. "You do mention that the Nazis were hostile to 'Marxist Socialism", which is essentially like saying that "fire is against some forms of water"." - I have no idea what you are even trying to say here. What you just said means nothing. Marxist socialism is clearly defined. The fact they are hostile against each other doesn't mean they are not socialists. It is very common among socialists to fight each other over who has the correct version of Socialism. That is why the fascists in spain won of the socialists. The socialists fought each other as much as they fought the fascists. EDIT: Also. Do you honestly think the German Social Democratic Party is an honest unbiased source? The whole point of Social Democracy is to turn Socity into a communism Socity through democratic means. They were literally founded while showing Karl Marx as one of the founders in their imagery. You are just giving a Marxist take on Socialism and is therefor not unbiased at all.
    2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. And what was it that everyone say about Wikipedia? I believe it is: "As a source Wikipedia is the absolutely worst source of information you can find. It is completely untrustworthy for the simple fact anyone can write whatever they want there which makes it subjected to all faults and biases of humanity. Sometimes you can find correct information on Wikipedia, but the only real use it has is the list of sources you can look through to find the sources for the information they use." Dude. Wikipedia is lying. Wikipedia is extremely biased towards the left wing. If you write anything that contradict the idea that the DAF was actually a trade union, they will censor it for "being lies". There actually are moderators on Wikipedia, but they are all politically compromised as they themselves will only allow new moderators if they are part of the same group and believe the same things. Even one of the original founds of Wikipedia points out how politically biased Wikipedia has become since he left. There is literally subjects on Wikipedia you can not cover without left wing bias. Example. Look up the page for Gamergate. Wikipedia say it is a "harassment campaign". Or more correctly a "loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign and a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture." Fact is that it wasn't. What gamergate was about was that there is a journalistic breach of ethics. Where it was routine for videogame developers to do backroom business deals with journalists that include everything from bribes to sexual favors to get good reviews in order to promote their games and do marketing for the devs. A example of this was brought to light, the whole sphere of game journalism went out and literally attacked normal gamers as a response as they were all working with each other. This was gamergate. But if you read wikipedia. You will get nothing but nonsense as you are not actually allowed to present another point of view.
    2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. "The holocaust was a form of capitalism/Fascism where a certain group of people became a commodity or a means of production. It was very much like slavery." - The death camps wasn't slavery, it was just execution. Also. If people are treated like commodity, why is the focus on breaking or destroying the commodity. I have never ever seen any functional corporation that focus on breaking their own commodity before they can sell them to a consumer. "You seem to miss out the egalitarian nature of socialism. Socialists aspire to equality. Nazism is the opposite." - Egalitarianism isn't part of the definition. You are also wrong. No matter where in history we look, this idea only go as far as words being spoken. When it comes to practice however we see that the leaders have more than 3 foreign luxury cars, while the average person is not allowed to have more then 1. In all socialist nations, everyone has been equal, but some has been MORE equal then others. Also about the Nazis. No socialist has been different. Marxists blamed the bourgeois. The Nazis blamed the jewels (Censorship due to YT). All socialists nations has been just as unequal as everyone else. All of them found a target to steal their money from. "There are many definitions of socialism." - There actually isn't. There is many different versions of how to achieve socialism, but the definition is actually pretty clear and agreed upon. Don't confuse ideologies with definitions. Marxism isn't socialism. Marxism is a version of socialism in practice. "Your definition is very close to state control of production but leaves out all the egalitarian stuff." - There is no egalitarian part in the definition of socialism. You have just made that up and act as if it is true. It isn't true and you are incorrect. Socialism is literally defined as state control. That is it. I also think you forget that Hitler wanted to make a egalitarian state. A egalitarian state for the Germans. Just like Marx wanted to make a egalitarian state for the workers at the expense of the bourgeois.
    2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46.  @raydavison4288  1. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a real question I am asking you. You are acting like heavy regulation is not controlling the means of production. Which is why I am asking you. When do heavy regulation stop and control begin? When you have very heavy regulation on a corporation of how and what they can do, you no longer have capitalism. You do in fact have socialism. At that point the government has seized your corporation and not letting you do what you want with it. This is literally socialism by definition. 2. If you don't disagree with what I have said. Why do you put socialism under quotations? What Hitler did was 100% socialism. He made it so the government gained control over the means of production. He didn't outright take it over like in Russia, but he did make sure they followed what the government wanted them to do. This is socialism. "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership OR control of property and natural resources." - Encyclopedia Britannica By definition, there should be no "socialism" here. It is just Socialism. It doesn't matter if the industry was officially owned by private hands. Do you really think a industry or factory had the right to deny any demand the government made of it? What do you think happened to any owner that did not support the Nazis or didn't want to produce what they wanted? They got Synchronized. Arrested and shipped of to a camp. Then the Nazi party "sold" the corporation to someone else who was loyal to the Nazi party and beliefs. If you have a private corporation and has to answer to someone else who is not the owner. It isn't private anymore and you are not the owner.
    2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2