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

TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "Getting OWNED over Hitler's Socialism" video.

"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
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
@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
@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
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
uhmm... You do know the Soviet Union were autocratic right? Or are you going to tell me Stalin wasn't the undisputed ruler and Communism has never been tried?
3
@mladen5016 So. Do you deny that the book "On the Jewish Question" was written by Karl Marx in 1843? Do you deny what is said in that book?
3
@mladen5016 Do you deny that the book "On the Jewish Question" was written by Karl Marx in 1843? It is a simple question.
3
@mladen5016 You write quite a lot when you get a simple question. No. You have not answered the question. A yes or a no is an answer. Insulting me is not an answer. What you have done is to deny the accuracy of Wikipedia on this subject, so we have to establish things from the ground up. Is this book written by Karl Marx. This is a Yes or No question for you. If you wish to verify this from other sources then Wikipedia do so, but is Wikipedia correct in saying this book is written by Karl Marx? Why do you think I only look at things on its face value? We have not even managed to establish that you accept that Marx is the author of this book so why should we continue to its content of the book? You are already wriggling like a worm and I wonder why. Why do you think this book is antisemitic when you yourself just look at the title and judge it by its face value? Might it be that you do not want to actually address the content of the book and instead just want to dismiss it because the information is on Wikipedia? You do know that what is true is true even if it is written on Wikipedia right? I think you are wriggling like a worm because you know that the book will prove Karl Marx was antisemitic.
3
@mladen5016 I have not read anything on Wikipedia so far. I have only asked you a simple question and you keep refusing to answer it and instead respond with insults. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Since you only have slander to respond with, I see no point in continue to talk with you. If I told you water is wet or you breath air, you will just deny it and throw out insults.
3
"They are also are likely completely deceived themselves and really believe it." - That part remind me of the ending to 1984. Where Winston sees 4 fingers but is forced to not only say there is 5 fingers, but really believe he sees 5 instead of what he actually see. Even if his eyes tell him it is 4, he must find a reason to see it as 5 regardless.
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
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
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
Damn. That is some hard stuff right there.
2
@mladen5016 Marx was a open anti-Semite. Have you tried even looking it up on wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question
2
@thefrenchareharlequins2743 It actually isn't. You can just mute him. There is no cure for stupidity so it is better to just let him be stupid alone.
2
@Paul197A Do you understand what you are saying yourself? If someone is "taking it back", they are calling themselves a Socialist. By saying that, you literally contradicted yourself just now.
2
Are you a capitalist? Hitler: "No. Capitalism as to be removed" Leftist: "He is lying. He is just saying that to win support"
2
State Capitalism is an oxymoron. This is a matter of ownership. Capitalism is where private individuals own their own businesses and work seperate from government control. They can sell their services to the government, but the government does not own the business. You can not have Capitalism if the people are not allowed to own and control their own businesses. When something is state controlled it means the ownership belongs to the government. That means the corporation is owned, controlled and have to follow all rules and regulations that apply to any governmnet institution. The opperators of a state controlled corporation may be able to run it for profit, but the ownership of that corporation belong to the state and not the individuals that opperate it. What you are saying with "State Capitalism" is: "A government owned corporation owned by private individuals" This just doesn't work. There is a reason this term only comes from Socialists, Maxrists and Communists. It is a term they have made up that do not apply other terms correctly. In other works. This term does not mean what the words that make up the term means.
2
I believe he did talk about that. There is a reason Hitler wanted syndicates and nationalized unions. It is easier to control a Syndicate then 10.000 corporations, and a nationalized union can not strike against the government.
2
"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
@dukeofmonmouth1956 You didn't answer the question. That you think TIK isn't a good historian is irrelevant. Are those people you want to push historians at all? Seems to me you want to act like credential matters, but only as long as it doesn't apply to those you like.
2
@dukeofmonmouth1956 Funny how you have made up a claim TIK never claimed or said. He never said "MarxismLeninism = NatSoc = anarchism". You said that, not TIK. Saying X is socialistic doesn't say X = Y because Y is also socialistic. X is socialism. X+4 is socialism because X is socialism X+7 is socialism because X is socialism (X+4) is not (X+7) even if both of them are socialism. You are trying to say TIK said this when he didn't.
2
@dukeofmonmouth1956 So in other words, you have been lying. Why should I trust you again? No the values are not incompatible. You have not proven that they are. I think you forget that Hitler never managed to implement his version of Socialism as he was only in power for 12 years. Then a war removed him by force. You saying "he didn't do X" forget that his first goal was to conquer land in order to establish his version of socialism.
2
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
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
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
@ScuttlersUnited State Capitalism is an oxymoron.
1
How can they refute anything when they can't get past the introduction. I have the same problem that wants to argue about a subject, but when you go into it they complain about you making an essay when it is not even half a A4 page.
1
Why do you think that source isn't biased? Three Arrows is part of something called Breadtube. A community filled with socialists and communists. It is rather obvious that they are not going to accept the idea Hitler was a socialist as that will be agreeing that their ideology make room for his ideology.
1
trainbomb How exactly do you know I don't speak German again? Where do I live? Who are my parents? What languages do I speak? What kind of work do I have? Exactly how much do you know about me and how did you attain this information?
1
trainbomb You are not answering the question. How do you know anything about me. I am just going to play dumb until you answer the question. That is irrelevant. Do you know that the Germans were famous for their excellent record keeping right? The reason the Luftwaffe was not a as heavily punished in the Nuremberg trials was because their HQ was bombed and most evidence was destoryed. You seem to forget that we have the German records provided by the Nazi administration themselves. We are not dealing with hearsay accounts from cold war propaganda. You can read the documments yourself in German. It is also not impossible for non-germans to learn german You are treating this like you are dealing with the Quran or something. Stop being stupid.
1
@sethd2119 Then why do you not declare the bias openly and present Three arrows as if he doesn't have a horse in this race? Should you ask a Nazi if they are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and expect an honest answer? Ofc they will lie deny it because they have a horse in the race. You can not expect a open Socialist to be honest with their definitions.
1
@sethd2119 I have not stated anything about TIK, nore have I used him as a source. You are different as you have linked someone else as a source in an attempt to refute.
1
TIK. You are wrong about one thing in your public vs private video however. You defined what a corporation was in a very strange way. Now I am no legal expert in corporate classification. But I know for 100% that a corporation does not need to be trading stocks in order to be a corporation. A corporation is a organization with the aim to produce value where the finances are separate from the owners personal finances (apart from a few structures). To define corporations like you did goes against the literal legal book about what is and what isn't a corporation in my country. So sorry TIK, you are wrong there.
1
@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Don't bother with this guy. He is not all right up there.
1
I just noticed a thing. TIK - "The National Socialism is National Socialism argument is superior to the National Socialism is Capitalism argument" These guys - "But who is saying that" These guys - "The problem is that the National Socialists were a Capitalists" So. Are they not saying that National Socialism is Capitalism here?
1
He also literally called himself a socialist in an interview to an american magazine. He was and called himself a socialist. Just not a Marxist socialist.
1
Yes, it means National Community. But doesn't a National Community to Hitler mean a Germanic Race Community? Wasn't that why purging the J was more important than winning the war at the end?
1
What I wonder is why you need to be pro unions to be a socialist. Why exactly?
1
TIK. You are again wrong with corporations. NOT ALL CORPORATIONS ARE ON THE PUBLIC STOCK EXCHANGE. A corporation can be privately owned as you can have a corporations of just 1 person. If I own a farm here in my country. I can work on that alone if I wish to. I can tie it to my personal funds, or I can have the corporations funds separate from myself. That means my farm gets burnt to the ground, lawyers can not go after my personal assets if I fail my contracts if the corporations funds are not tied to my personal funds. This is what you can find in the legal definitions used by governments today. Going public on the stock market is not a requirement for being a corporation.
1
Just a question. Do you come from Scandinavian?
1
@MrBears25 That is not the definition.
1
@georgechristoforou991 Just how the Communists only applied equality to some people. Do you understand the term "Everyone are equal, but some are more equal then others"? Socialism has absolutly no egalitarian part in it. You do not have to be egalitarian or equal to be a socialist. That is something you made up.
1
@georgechristoforou991 Socialism was not created in 1830. It can be describe by Plato and the book Utopia from 1516 describe a socialist society. If Merriem-Webster say socialism is from the 1830, they are just wrong. Merriem-Webster is not an authority all by themselves.
1
@georgechristoforou991 Because it shows how all socialist governments behave in practice. You should provide a socialist state where they ever made everyone equal. Where the revolution hasn't just replaced the ruling elite with a different ruling elite. Equality is not and never has been part of the definition of Socialism. You do not have to work for or demand equality of any kind for it to be socialism. You have invented that definition.
1
When it comes to TIK on his definitions of what corporations are, it is just incorrect. You can just look at your local laws about corporations to see what seperates them. A corporation exist to seperate your personal finances from your business finances. So if the corporate finances goes bad, your private finances are not directly involved. Unless you uses as business model which does that, but then we are talking about very small businesses. What TIK means is that anything that opperates in the public sphere is part of the collective whole, but that is just incorrect. If I have a corpration and 4 employees, it is still a private corporation since I own 100% of that corporation. My employees do not own the corporation, even if we work towards the same goal. For my corporation to be Socialistic in some way, I need to be controlled and owned by the government. I might then opperate like a private corporation, but the ownership is the state and not me. I have critized TIK a lot on this subject as he just wrong.
1
@wf4919 I want to point out that "Capitalism" is not an American ideology. There are no "founders" in Capitalism. What you are talking about is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Most "Capitalists" nations are running on a system with a mixed economy. Not pure Capitalism and not pure Socialism. Paying taxes is not the same as being controlled by the state. Having to follow regulations is not being controlled by the state. If you and me live by a lake and I start dumping my sewages into that lake, you are not going to go "well it is a free country so I just have to deal with his sewage". We have to follow laws so we all know what we can or can't do. We pay taxes so we can fund public work that is in the interest of everyone, or fund things to expensive for a few individuals alone. Like public roads and military security. Income tax is not inherently anti-freedom. It is built on the idea that a part of your income should be sent to the state so they can use it to fund goals everyone need or want. Property tax is harder to explain but that doesn't disprove the point that tax by itself is not anti-freedom. The problem I think TIK have is that he thinks "Going public" as in allowing the community as a whole to share the ownership of a corporation is the same as state ownership. That is just incorrect as corporations do not need to go public, and when shareholders buy shares they do not create a state. If I have a corporation and open it up for shareholders and you buy some shares in that corporation. That does not you and me are now in a state together. We might have a connection with each other as you own part of what is my corporation, but that does not mean we have created a government with each other.
1
@wf4919 Do you utilize public utilities? Do you utilize police and fire fighters? Just because you do not use fire fighters right now, do you not want them to be on hand and trained before your home catch on fire? If you don't want to pay taxes just move to a place where no one else live. Survive on what nature provide and live the life you want without taxes. I will not stop you. You are not paying taxes just for existing. You are paying taxes because you uses services just for living where you are. Having trained fire fighters cost money to maintain as they are a drain to society as they do not produce anything that can be sold. Just because your home is not on fire does not mean you do not have to pay for having that service available to you. To frame taxes the way you are doing is extremely unfair. You can argue that tax money is being misspent, but you can not honestly say that you are being taxed just for existing while you benefit from a lot of public services.
1
@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Nah. Insurance is a scam. You just keep paying and paying and when it is time to use it they always try to find a way to not pay you, or do it in the cheapest way possible.... Okay government programs are just insurances and are scams.
1
Noticed what?
1
Ofc they have. It just doesn't apply to them in this subject. They are knowledge enough for it to not apply you see.
1
"In corporations you have winners and losers" -....... What? Just what? Corporations exist to produce value other people want. Who is the loser for the small corporation I work at? We are only 7 people yet we outcompete other corporations with 1000 people. Where is the loser here?
1
I also have a problem with TIK on this one but I do understand where he comes from. Here is the reason. What TIK is saying is that when a corporation open itself up for stockholders, it open itself up to be publicly owned. It means it is no longer private property as it is communally shared among all stockholders. Nothing prevents all of the workers from buying up the stocks so the workers own the factory. When something is shared among people it is public even if it isn't tied to the government. Something doesn't need to belong to the state to be public. If you should have a society where there is no government and everything is owned by the inhabitants, that should not be a capitalistic society because it is the definition of Communism. He is not technically wrong in calling a corporation that is on the stock market a public corporation. The public is after all invited to buy a share and own a part of it. He just isn't correct in the actual business legislation and how the law view it. But that is also a matter of perspective which we should not tie down words with.
1
@andylake9793 Okay. I come from Sweden. Do you think you and me is from the same community? Who do you think belong to the same community as you; the Sweds or the Scots? You say a country is made up from many cultures and communities. But as GAC said before. A state is not the same as a nation. However. If you have many incompatible cultures and communities you also have civil war around the corner. Everyone within a state needs to have something which tie them together, something which makes them think "this is my tribe" even if it is filled with people you never meet before. A nation is a community of people. A nation is defined as: "A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." Are you going to tell me that the Welsh, Scots, Irish and the English haven't a shared history? They haven't inhabited a particular territory? They haven't a shared culture and they haven't a shared language? Are you going to tell me that the British didn't fight two world wars and won, is that a lie? Are you going to tell me you share common history and culture with me as a Swed?
1