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

  1.  @LD-wm7jm  Nothing of what you said makes any sense at all. First of. duel economies have nothing to do with your argument. Socialism is the prinicple of having the state controlling the means of production. When you look up what statism is it falls right into the socialism branch. The opposite of socialism is that private individuels controls the means of production. You can't say statism isn't socialism when it on ideological terms are the end result. That the Fascism always kills other socialists first is just nonsense. They didn't and it doesn't mean anything on if Fascism is a branch of socialism or not. Both Fascism and Communism are branches of the same tree. They are just different ideologies that do not work with each other because they believe in different end results and goals. Have you not heard that the left always fight within itself?
    2
  2.  @Lazy949  No they are not equivocal. They have differences and they do not believe the same things. To say they are the same is like saying the US believe the same things as the UK does.
    2
  3. Okay. Before watching this video I will say that the Soviets turned the war around before lend-lease really started to take a big effect. However I have never said that they won alone. After all. The UK refused to give in making the invasion of Russia a two-front war. That is not "alone" in any way. I do think americans are kind of blowing themselves up and trying to make themselves more important then they are. The Germans are more then able to lose a war without the US involvement.
    2
  4. The nazis were socialists. They were national socialists and not international socialists like the communists. You throwing out a bunch of crazy sounding words is not going to change that fact.
    2
  5. If you watch until the end TIK actually point that out. TIK has not agreed with their definition, but rather acknowledged that he now understand what they mean when they say something.
    2
  6. I do not like the Godwin's law. It is used as an excuse for declaring an automatic win just because someone said the name Hitler or Nazi without even evaluating if it is valid or not.
    2
  7.  @enysuntra1347  We are also not talking about what those people think or say. You say Semites are not real. That they are fictional. Elves and dwarfs are fictional. The ethnic group that was once called Semites are not. Are you American by any chance?
    2
  8. No. Fascism is a subcategory of Socialism. Just like Communism or Social Democracy is a subcategory. There is no pure Socialism ideology. Fascism is as much Socialism as Social Democracy is Socialism.
    2
  9. I don't think Japan can be considered fascist at all. It is fascist in games like Hearts of Iron, but that is mostly to get the factions (Democratic, Communist, Fascist, Unaligned) to work. Now I am no expert, but this is what I know. Japan considered themselves the first and most pure empire and people in the world. It is a belief that date back to ancient times. For example. They thought that the emperor of Japan was a literal God. The beliefs they had about themselves is exactly why they were so extremely brutal during the war, and why they now do not have armed force and not allowed to render aid in any offensive from. Japan is as much fascist as the old kingdoms in Europe during the middle ages were. It had no relationship to socialism or syndicalism at all. It had ancient roots that goes through Japans history as a whole. In fact. Japan hated Europeans and thought they were inferiors, just like Germany thought Japan were inferior to them. The reason they worked together was for political and strategic reasons. Not because they shared a common ideology. Germany wanted a friend in the east with a large navy, and Japan wanted a strong friend in the west. They joined an alliance out of mutual benefits, not because they liked and agreed with each other. Kind of like how the UK and US joined forces with the Soviets. I should not even give a label to Japan as some kind of follower of an ideology. They were a militaristic, imperialistic and authoritarian regime. You can't call them Fascist as they were not.
    2
  10.  @milkmen2914  Most likely because he thinks like a brainwashed communist.
    2
  11. It is because they keep redefining what the words mean. Just like the comment above you. "State Capitalism" can not exist. You can not have a privatly owned corporation that is owned by the government.
    2
  12. "if you define socialism as increasing state control over the economy then Hitler was a socialist." - Which is the real and simple definiton of it. Any ideology that believe in this is socialistic. It is the core principle. It can be expressed in several ways, but all ideologies that believe this are socialistic. "But then Marxists will simply say you're ignoring the class nature of a state and social democrats will tell you that just because nazis had more state-control and their socialism = more state control. " - Well here is the problem. You can not trust the Marxist in being honest. They want to have a monoply on the framing of their ideology, so they do want to accept any definition, no matter of fair or accurate it is, that paint them into a bad light. This means they will claim Hitler wasn't a socialist because that means they and Hitler share some views in their ideology. You also forget that social democrats are not some seperate branch from Marxist. Social Democracy was initially an attempt ,and in some way still is, a way to change a society gradually into a communistic state through democratic means rather than blood revolutions that are unpopular. Their ideology is literally still Marxism since they actually first originated from communist movements. So to ask the definition of what Socialism is, you can not trust what either Marxist or Social Democrats say. They will lie to you only so they can distance themselves from Hitler and sound more appealing to the voting population. They will give you THEIR definition, the definition that suits them and not the rest of the world. Do not ask a politician to give you an honest answer. It is part of their job to lie.
    2
  13. But at that point it is no longer capitalism. Ofc you are fine with capitalism is you don't have capitalism and just take all of what capitalism produce.
    2
  14.  @LSgaming201  The economic ins and outs of the Third Reich doesn't matter here. No one has said that the Third Reich ran on jewish capitalism. They might have shoot themselves in the foot and crippled their own industry to get rid of it however. They were blamed for everything before the Third Reich, that is why the Third Reich tried to get rid of them. Hitler thought the Jews were behind capitalism and Marxism and he blamed them for both.
    2
  15. You do know that Fascism is just a part of socialism right? Socialism is about taking the means of production and gathering it into the hands of the state. The communists was just lying about what they did by claiming they represent the people, while the fascists was just honest and said all that shit is now theirs.
    2
  16. Are you claiming that National Socialism and Fascism support small government and private ownership of production? Also National Socialism IS fascism. Maybe you can explain what "right wing ideologies" are because it seems you do not know what you are talking about.
    2
  17.  @alexgaelsotorodriguez3870  LMAO. WHAT! Right wing socialism exist? What the hell are you talking about. What you are pointing out with Bismarck and Franco is not Right wing but authoritarianism. It is not Socialism.
    2
  18. What made Europe prosper after WW2 was not the labor unions. That is such a nonsense statement it is outright laughable. What made Europe prosper after the war was because of the cold war and the immense need to push ideology into Europe, which made huge amount of money flow into Europe in order to quickly rebuild it. What made Europe prosper again was stuff like the Marshall Plan. Not labor unions. If the Soviets should have had their way, Europe should have been made into a third world country so it should never again become strong enough to threaten Russia. The Western allies and USA rejected this idea totally.
    2
  19. When were these established? Benito Mussolini had to establish some due to German pressure. Also. That camp was actively managed by Nazi Germany from 1943 to 1945. Most camps were built from 1939. Meaning when the invasion of Poland and the war actually started. Most camps were deportation camps and not actual death camps. The killing was actually done by the Germans (deported to death camps), but ofc I guess Italians did some of it as well. However lets not forget that it was the Germans pushing for this and not Benito Mussolini. If he wanted death camps. He should have established them earlier. Remember that the Holocaust only started in 1941. Before then they tried to remove them in other ways. Like deportation or forced sterilization. - So we got camps built from 1939 to 1943. - The Holocaust started in 1941. - Germany took control over Italian camps from 1943. That means the Italian only had control over the killing from 2 years. Doesn't really show a clear dedication to it if you ask me. Also. Russian POW's in Italy? What why? Why are there Russian POWs in Italy? There is no front there. The Russians only reached Italy when they had stomped Germany. Why take prisoners and spend resources on sending them literally FROM Russia to Italy? That means you literally passed ALL death camps in Poland along the way. Also. It was Germany that had the front so they most likely dealt with most POWs. You just don't send POW's all that way when you can spend those resources to send supplies instead. That should be like sending POWs in Iraq to the USA in the Gulf War instead of having a POW camp in Saudi Arabia. You must be thinking of Allied POWs from North Africa. There were however Italian POW's in Russian camps however.
    2
  20. Sorry what? When was TIK in anyway antisemitic? The Nazis are antisemitic, but it isn't antisemitic to explain their reasoning for being antisemitic. You do not take part in the activity when you describe the activity. You do know that the Nuremberg Trials was planned to not even bring up the horrors of the death camps and concentration camps right? The trials was made to show the systematic discrimination and oppression that was in the Nazi government. No eye witnesses was ever needed because of the amount of documentation. If you are going to explain the ideological reason behind why that systematic oppression was created you need to explain the ideology which include why antisemitism in the explanation.
    2
  21.  @bv2623  "So why does TIK keep referring to the dogwhistle "they"?" - In common speech it is common to say they or them when you are talking about a group so you don't have to say the same thing over and over again. Example: If am making a long argument why PETA is a horrible orginization that kill more animals then they help. I will often refer PETA to they or them so I do not have to say PETA in every sentence as that make the argument kind of harsh to listen to. "Also his constant blabbering on cultural marxism, a derivative of the "jewish bolshevik conspiracy" plot propagated by the nazi's (sharing the mutual love for anti-intellectualism), is much worrying." - Now that just isn't true. The Nazis did have a jewish bolshevik conspiracy, but if you are going to explain why the Nazis had a jewish bolshevik conspiracy you need to explain that conspiracy. It kind of belongs to the topic. "I don't say he is a full blown fascist but he is very much on the road to become one." - You don't know what the word Fascist even means. No, he is not even close. "And thus ,ironically, proving the marxist narrative of radicalized capitalism ending in fascism." - Again. You don't even understand what Fascism means. Fascism is not the end point of capitalism. You are doing nothing but listening to Communist propaganda at this point. Maybe you should actually study fascism some more. On the otherhand you shouldn't as the communists found out it was easy to make Fascists become Communists and vise versa through brain washing. Its easy because they are very much alike. "Also why is it a problem people calling this out?" - Because you are incorrect and say things you have no understanding about.
    2
  22.  @bieberle4  All I heard was common ways to speak when you are talking about a topic. Them or they are common words in the English language. I also do not buy the dogwhistle BS. If you are acting like that you are most likely engaging in identity politics. Only in circles like that are common word uses dogwhistles. Also. If you have irrational and trained reactions to hearing some word as if it is a dogwhistle. Maybe you should look up your own behavior and see if your behavior is healthy and well reasoned. You might simply react without not actually using your brain.
    2
  23.  @bieberle4  Yes, it is obvious just because he have established who he is talking about. It is perfectly normal in English to use they and them when you have established who you are talking about as it is rather silly to keep establishing who you are talking about when you have already done so. In literature it is called reading comprehension. The only people you keep having to reestablish who you are talking about are children and idiots. If someone is doing it to you, they most likely either trying to make something extremely clear or are looking down on you. You are doing is trying to make up some nonsense that the use of "they" and "them" is somehow used to not say the word Jew or Jews because it for some reason to disgusting to say. This is just utter nonsense. Let me show you some examples of how to use them and they in English. Example 1: The Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division (also known as SHIELD) is an American extra-governmental military counter-terrorism and intelligence agency, tasked with maintaining both national and global security. SHIELD include several members such as Melinda May and Leo Fitz. Example 2: The Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division (also known as SHIELD) is an American extra-governmental military counter-terrorism and intelligence agency, tasked with maintaining both national and global security. They include several members such as Melinda May and Leo Fitz. As you can see in example 2 "they" is used just like it is used in common tongue. It isn't as formal as in example 1 but no one actually speak in formal language. Saying "they" in example 2 does not in anyway imply SHIELD is in some way disguesting. It is as ridiculous to call the use of "they" in example 2 antisemitic as it is calling any use of "they" or "them" when talking about Jews. You have to imply that TIK was for some reason antisemitic please provide the timestamp in the video. I want to note that if he uses it in a qoute or in a explanation it does not apply to TIK. You do not adopt what is said in a qoute or explanation unless your point is that the qoute of explanation is something that you subscribe to. I do not become a member of the KKK just because I use an example for why they are horrible by using qoutes KKK members have said.
    2
  24. Now that is grade A stupid from you. No. Fascism is not corporatism. "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - Benito Mussolini That just screams corporatism to me doesn't it. It is all about giving power to private individuals and let the state stay out of there way. No. Fascism isn't corporatism. Fascism is a branch of Socialism. It wants to control everything within society and own the means of production.
    2
  25. And what makes it a commodity? It is a commodity because someone say it is, not because it is one inherently.
    2
  26. Depends. Dyslexia is a mental disability, but it is not a mental illness. It affect your ability to learn, but have no impact on your intelligence. ADHD is a mental disability and a illness as it is a medical condition that affects both your brain development and brain activity. You can also have PTSD which is a mental illness, but not a mental disability. Even the most normal person can get this if they have suffered trauma and can't let it go. It depends a lot on what type of issue you are talking about and they are not the same as each other.
    2
  27. Yes. Socialism belongs to the left and Hitler belongs to the far left. You can't go to the right where you go to increasing degrees of personal freedom and then somehow end up with no freedom outside of what the government tells you. You should actually read Mein Kampf or The Doctrine of Fascism if you do not understand why Fascism is a socialist ideology. Also your comment about venn diagrams and compass charts is nonsense. What do you even mean with "venn diagram". What you do with a venn diagram is that you take two or more things and show how much they overlap. Just because venn diagrams exists does not mean they are correct. The same applies for compass charts. Hitler and Fascism is an extreme authoritarian left wing ideology. It wants extreme control of the people and extreme control of the means of production as everything belongs to the state. If you read The Doctrine of Fascism you will hear clearly that Benito Mussolini claims that Fascism is like a religion and you should dedicate yourself fully to the state just as if the state is a God. That individualism should be abolished. This is one of the great things I think really shows the separation between communism and Fascism. At least individualism exist within communism as the people are made up out of individuals.
    2
  28. They won because the right wing refused to vote. They refused to vote because when they did, the party they voted for backstabbed them and went with left wing politics anyway. There is no point to vote because all parties just pick the same things, which the public is against.
    1
  29. There is no difference. All of socialism will destroy a nation through incompetence and inefficiency. "what part of the population do the movements spring from, what is the rhetoric that draws people in." - That is very simple to answer. The poor, the young and those who want to assume power. Karl Marx thought communism should take hold in the rich United Kingdoms. It didn't. It instead took hold in poor Russia. What people want is to improve their own lot in life. They do this by taking from those that have stuff. This is why left wing politics and socialism is popular among the young. They do not have stuff and they see adults with stuff. They think it is unfair and feel entitled to the adults stuff. You get socialism when that want to assume power uses these feelings to get power for themselves. They will not keep what they promised however. They never have and never will. There is a reason the poor didn't have stuff, and it will not change as those that take power just want to be the new rich people. That is the end goal.
    1
  30.  @gavinrebtoy3375  It actually was.
    1
  31.  @gavinrebtoy3375  And that was also later on. For a long time early on they were funded only by their own members. They nly started to take money from industrialists when they realized membership contributions where not going to be enough. The Nazi members where not rich snobs, old men and industrialists. Do you think it was old men that broke the windows and harassed people? Also taking the aid from industrialists do not mean what I said was wrong. Do you think industrialists do not aim to take power or want influence? Do you think the Soviets did not flirt with industrialists as long as they needed them? Do you think the first people to join the Nazis where industrialists? You asked for whom socialism appeals to and why. That question means "who are the average member". I gave you the answer. The average member is the average worker who is not rich and want to improve their life. They want to do this by taking wealth from someone else. The Soviets and all other socialists took from the rich. The Nazis took from the jews.
    1
  32. ​ @gavinrebtoy3375  Yes they are, but they are also the members who is drawn to the movement. Have you forgotten your own question or something? You seem to not really understand what you are arguing.
    1
  33. I have yet watched the video. But what has to be argued is that if "conductional surrender" was allowed that literally meant that the Allies had to give ground to the Germans. Like giving up a large part of France, eastern countries like Poland and even parts of Russia. And lets not forget. Allow the Nazis to still remain in power. The leadership was not unaware of what was going on in Germany. I doubt anything but unconditional surrender was the right decision. A world with the Nazis around should not have been a better world.
    1
  34. There is never going to be a prefect system, to look for one is a wild goose chase. You will always have people trying to exploit and use whatever system you have. You are always going to have poverty and the poor as what poverty even is is just a subjective term.
    1
  35. Why?
    1
  36.  @ScuttlersUnited  State Capitalism is an oxymoron.
    1
  37. "how is that different to a private group of individuals controlling the means of production like in capitalism? " - You mean going public and putting it on the stock market? Yeah that is not a group of private individuals taking control anymore. That is literally going public (as the word say) and putting out the ownership to whoever wants to own it. If you are actually talking about a private group of individuals in the real terms, the answer is simple. In one case they are just stealing someone's wealth through illegal action. In the other, it is a legal transaction where both parties agree on a price. You must also remember that "seize the means of production" is not ever made by the workers. It is just a new government that wants to take control and seizing it for their own. Since the government represent the "workers", why shouldn't the government own everything? Do not believe that these are the same thing. Worker ownership can be done in capitalism right now. Every worker can start their own business. Capitalism allows for that. Socialism however does not allow for it. If a skilled worker start their own business and hire people to help them out.... that is a class problem isn't it. One side have, and the other have not. That the skilled worker created that something by themselves is irrelevant.
    1
  38.  @zpatrickz81  So? How is the building time a problem caused by Capitalism? If anything, Capitalism should make it short so they can build more and sell more. Unless you have a monopoly you do not benefit on not building. Most of the time is because of regulations and red tape from bureaucracy. You know. When the government gets involved. If bureaucracy gets in the way, that is not caused by Capitalism.
    1
  39. He never said Marx was a member. He said it was one of the earliest Marxist-influenced parties in the world. This is very much 100% true. The SPD was founded around Marxist ideology, to the point they even put Karl Marx as a founding "member" in their propaganda.
    1
  40. I wonder that as well. He is clearly against socialism. Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) died at the age of 46 years old. When he was younger he was a socialist and even fought in the Spanish civil war for the socialist side until he was forced to flee as the socialist side comletely imploded on itself after all the infighting it had. So my guess is that Eric was a socialist in his youth as he gained his socialist perspective from his time in Burma, which made him strongly against imperialism. He was later disillusioned by revolutionism in the Spanish civil war. It is rather had to say if he was or wasn't. The best you can say is that he was a social democrat and against all forms of authoritarianism. I do wonder how much of a social democrat he should be if he was alive today however. If I should place my bets, I should place them against it.
    1
  41. Well... There is a case about using the dictionary. A dictionary does not define words, it only shows common usages of a word. If people use the dictionary as what define words, that means language can not evolve. I disagree with the common definition of Atheism for example. I find it lacking as it have a heavy bias on religions and beliefs that believe in some kind of God. It will also define Buddhist as a Atheist just because the religion does not have a God. It also means any religion or belief that lack any clearly defined God are atheists by definition. So the vast majority of religions that have ever existed on this planet are simply atheistic as they didn't believe in a God. When we talk about a atheist. We are talking about someone that does not believe in any Gods or religions. This is not agnosticism. Agnosticism is a knowledge question about if you believe we can or can not know if a God really exist. It is because of this reason I reject the common definition and instead define Atheism as: The rejection in believing any religious claim as true. This way. Believers and followers of the WORLD RELIGION of Buddhism can not be called atheism. You can not be a follower of a religion and be a atheist. I understand very well what dictionaries are made for and why it is important for people to understand each other. But we must also be open to that words are not defined in such a way that they can't change over time. If we allow our language to stagnate it is dying. TIK. You are correct in your arguments here. I just have a small problem that it seems you invalidate the very notion of words change over time.
    1
  42. @Di Fox The Russian Empire did not have man made famines that was created and planned to be famines before. It is well know that all across the Soviet block the Communists created famines knowing full well that they will create a famine. Millions starved to death just because Stalin and many other communists wanted to force a agricultural nation into an industrial nation without having to do the groundwork it required. Sweden is one country that managed to do that very rapidly. You also assume that no other capitalist country had famines under the same period. There is a reason why people started to eat their own children in Russia during a famine while in Australia they started a war against the Emu empire.
    1
  43. @Di Fox Look up the soviet famine. A great cause was the the execution "liquidation" of the kulaks. Richer farmers that produced food. It isn't a belief that this happened. It is more a debate if this famine is an act of genocide or not. Also look up the Holodomor. A man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine. It is well recognized and even publicly honored for those that had to suffer in Ukraine today. To deny these famines are man made is on the same level as denying the holocaust. It is as well sources by first hand accounts. By those that had to live through it.
    1
  44. Sorry but price inflation is not always caused by monetary inflation. If 2/3 of all semiconductors are made in Taiwan, and China declares war on someone. The rest of the world is only going to get 1/3 of the total production of semiconductors. This cause prices to sky rocket and the price has been "inflated". This is however, this is not inflation since it is caused by a decreased supply more money was created. That people treat "price inflation" as a definition for inflation does not make it correct. Price inflation is a syndrome of the cause, but not the cause itself. You might think it is "common knowledge", but it isn't. The reason it should be changed is because in current language you are getting wrong information. Its like saying smoking is coughing. Not because the smoke damage the lungs which cause coughing as a syndrome, but smoking = coughing.
    1
  45.  @LexiOni-n2f  He objectively was. Just like all other socialists.
    1
  46. Because it paints all other socialists into a bad corner.
    1
  47. No. He was not. You are right now devaluing how horrible things can happen. With your behavior you will excuse when "normal" people walk down the same path because "hitler was a madman" and these people are not. He was a human being. He had horrible ideas, but that is something humans have. You should never call his behavior or thoughts mad because that will cloud your judgment of people in the future.
    1
  48.  @slaterslater5944  In retoric it is. And retoric does not need to match reality. It is in fact easier if it doesn't as it can become a white vs black, us vs them argument.
    1
  49.  @floridaman318  I don't agree with the statements that ideogies are not real. They most certainly are. An ideology is just a system of ideas and ideals. If those ideas and ideals match and work in reality is a completely different matter. Ofc people that actually follows NS shouldn't think it is capitalistic. But the argument has not been owned and defined by those that believe in NS. It has been defined by the Communists that won WW2, and the Allies didn't really care to contredict them when they took the debate. Why should the US or UK go into a argument with the communists about what NS really was about? Are they defending the NS or something? That is at least what the communists are going to say, and many people are stupid enough to believe it. To call anyone that disagreed with the left wing a NS has been something that existed since the end of WW2. When I asked people what a Far-Right person was back in 2016, I always got the answer; "You know, a NS". People think far-right means NS because that is what people have been pushing. It is also why all NS today are called Far-Right wing. It isn't true, but truth does not stand in the way of smear tactics and retoric. Fact today is sadly secondary to being corrrect. Feelings over reality is how the world works today.
    1
  50.  @slaterslater5944  Do you know what rhetoric is? What someone say doesn't have to match reality. You can say whatever you want, even if it isn't true. Nothing is stopping you. If you look at the rhetoric people uses when they are talking about politics. Capitalism, conservativism, traditionalism boarder protections, nationalism and more is right wing politics. Meanwhile, Socialism, internationalism, collectivism, progressiveness and open boarders are left wing politics. That Capitalism isn't right wing doesn't matter in rhetoric because it is all just lies anyway. The left wing that wants socialism and more power to the government will smear capitalism with things it isn't because it doesn't matter to them if it true or not. Those people are against individualism and private ownership so they will label Capitalism whatever they want to in an attempt to smear the term in peoples minds. Truth does not matter when you are dealing with people. Only feelings matter. That capitalism isn't right wing is irrelevent if people feel it is.
    1