Why they don't tell you about Hitler's "Shrinking Markets" problem
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 07. 2019
- In my previous video "The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to start WW2" (link • The REAL Reason why Hi... ) we saw how Hitler's "Shrinking Markets" problem as a central ideological reason for why Hitler had to go to war. Without it, the explanation for WW2 makes no sense. And yet, it's not talked about in most of the books, or taught in schools. Many of you wanted to know why. Well, here is the answer.
This video will no doubt by targeted by Nazis, inter-Nazis and Holocaust denialists. Ignore them. The Holocaust happened, the Holodomor happened, and their ideologies are immoral.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Sources and notes will be in the pinned comment. Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Please subscribe to my BitChute channel www.bitchute.com/channel/aqCv...
Here’s some other videos you may be interested in -
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
The audiobook of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson • Video
The audiobook of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics • Video
and Thomas Sowell explaining the Great Depression • Thomas Sowell explains...
And for good measure, part of Mises' book "Socialism" which deals with National Socialism • Planned Chaos - by Lud...
My video titled “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it”
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
My video titled "Concepts of History: What is History? No seriously, what is it?" • [Out of Date, see desc...
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do. #history
*Sources*
Can’t wait to get put on “Bad History” again on Reddit to be ‘refuted’ by an inter-Nazi using two sources, one of which is Wikipedia… or to be told to “read a book” by other Nazis...
Aly, G. “Hitler’s Beneficiaries: How the Nazis Bought the German People.” Verso, 2016. (Original German 2005).
Barkai, A. “Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy.” Yale University Press, 1990.
Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany." Universitat de Barcelona, PDF.
Birchall, I. “The Spectre of Babeuf.” Haymarket Books, 2016.
Bosworth, R. “Mussolini’s Italy: Life under the Dictatorship 1915-1945.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2006.
Brown, A. "How 'socialist' was National Socialism?" Kindle, 2015.
Engels, F “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Written, 1880. Progress Publishers, 1970.
Evans, R. “The Coming of the Third Reich.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2004.
Dilorenzo, T. “The Problem with Socialism.” Regnery Publishing, Kindle 2016.
Farrell, N. "Mussolini: A New Life." Endeavour Press Ltd, Kinde 2015.
Feder, G. "The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and its General Conceptions." RJG Enterprises Inc, 2003.
Feder, G. "The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation." Black House Publishing LTD, 2015.
Friedman, M. “Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition.” university of Chicago, Kindle 2002. (originally published in 1962)
Grand, A. "Italian Fascism: It's Origins and & Development." University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
Geyer, M. & Fitzpatrick, S. "Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared." Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2009.
Hazlitt, H. “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics.” Three Rivers Press, 1979. (originally published 1946)
Hibbert, C. “Mussolini: The Rise and Fall of Il Duce.” St Martin’s Press Griffin, 2008.
Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932). (English translation)
Hobsbawm, E. "The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991." Abacus, 1995.
Hoppe, H. “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.” Kindle.
Hitler. A. “Mein Kampf.” Jaico Books, 2017.
Hitler, A. "Zweites Buch (Secret Book): Adolf Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017.
Kershaw, I. “Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis.” Penguin Books, 2001.
Kershaw, I. “Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison.” Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2003.
Keynes, J. "National Self-Sufficiency," The Yale Review, Vol. 22, no. 4 (June 1933), pp. 755-769.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume I Book One: The Process of Production of Capital.” PDF of 1887 English edition, 2015.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” PDF of 1894, English edition, 2010.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” PDF, English edition, 2010. (Originally written 1894)
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” Penguin Classics, Kindle edition. (Originally written 1894)
Mises, L. "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." Liberty Fund, 1981. 1969 edition (roots back to 1922).
Moorhouse, R. "The Devil's Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941." Random House Group, Ebook (Google Play) 2014.
Mosley, O. "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered." Black House Publishing, Kindle 2019.
Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle.
Mussolini, B. “The Doctrine of Fascism.” Kindle, Originally published in 1932.
Newman, M. “Socialism: A Very Short Introduction.” Kindle.
Luxemburg, R. “The Accumulation of Capital.” Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1951. (Originally written in 1913.)
Luxemburg, R. “The National Question” 1910.
Reimann, G. “The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism.” Kindle, Mises Institute, 2007. Originally written in 1939.
Siedentop, L. “Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.” Penguin Books, Kindle.
Smith, A. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Kindle.
Sowell, T. “Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition.” Kindle.
Sowell, T. “The Housing Boom and Bust.” Kindle.
Spengler, O. “Prussianism and Socialism.” Isha Books, 2013. First Published 1920.
Temin, P. “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s.” From The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Nov., 1991), pp. 573-593 (21 pages). Jstor.
Tooze, A. “Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of The Nazi Economy.” Penguin Books, 2007.
Young, Adam. "Nazism is Socialism." The Free Market 19, no. 9 (September 2001).
Zitelmann, R. “Hitler: The Politics of Seduction.” London House, 1999.
The American Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, Papers and Discussions of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting (Apr., 1911), pp. 347-354
Hitler’s Confidential Memo on Autarky (August 1936) germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English61.pdf
Deficit Spending in the Nazi Recovery, 1933-1938: A Critical Reassessment personal.lse.ac.uk/ritschl/pdf_files/ritschl_dec2000.pdf
Sir Oswald Mosley | Interview | Thames Television | 1975 czcams.com/video/HNhF28fzN9I/video.html
(Accessed 04/10/2018)
de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichstagsbrandverordnung
home.wlu.edu/~patchw/His_214/_handouts/Weimar%20constitution.htm
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution
www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php
www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Inflation_in_Nazi_Germany
“A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/state
Mises "Planned Chaos" (an excerpt from "Socialism: An Economic & Sociological Analysis) czcams.com/video/7EnHeZXLzTc/video.html
For a list of all my books on WW2 and similar, please visit this link docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing
You were on bad history?
Yeah, some Marxist said I was lying and misleading people, and 'refuted' me with two sources, and basically rejected everything I said... except he completely missed the elephant in the room - the socialist shrinking markets problem.
Oi, u forgot to cite the pages! Thats actually, what did u exactly read? Are u doing the same video that u did a long time ago with more citation without actually citing anything?
@@TheImperatorKnight what is a inter-nazi
Inter-National Socialist (Marxist)
I'm getting the idea that TIK doesn't really like socialism.
Yeah. Pretty much.
Or even understand, considering he called Hitler socialist.
@A retarded in the white house well it works, at the expense of the population...until it doesn't and it all falls apart.
@A retarded in the white house the moral story of all socialist countries
@Fragenzeichenplatte He demonstrated that. Hitler thought himself as a socialist, used socialist ideas and concepts, and just remplaced a few things by his own ideas on race.
It's in the fucking party name, national socialism, and no, the first part doesn't mean you can ignore the second.
Socialism ; Policies so good ,that they need to be mandatory.
🤣🤣🤣👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
@Olefante no, policies do not need to be mandatory. they are merely normative opinions. only when you gain power and implement your policies as mandatory for all, that becomes true. e.g a policy becomes law.
@@claudedolorossa5607 "Do not murder children, a policy so good, we had to make it mandatory." Every law can be criticized by this metric.
try reading again what i wrote. i guess i forgot a comma...
and yes. i know what a policy is. you dont?
noun
a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual.
@@thisprojectisretired1055 yes. i do. do you? otherwise i added the definition.
Naming inflation as a "silent tax" is brilliant!
It is indeed
Wait a minute, that’s brilliant! We gotta use this for policy
That's a pretty old term bro
@@jintarokensei3308 I hadn't heard of it before, but I really figured it out living in Israel during the 1980's. Owning dollars was a crime and you spent money as fast as you got it.
@@jintarokensei3308 Our socialist education system failed them severely
When I entered college I was a keen, and devoted Econ major. After two years of only being taught Keynes, and Marx I finally switched majors to data science and haven’t looked back since.
I had a totally different experience, in my time in the mid 90s, macroeconomics was all about so called neoliberal school, and keynes was mentioned for about 15 minutes. That way, the economists should not wonder when others think of them as cultists who follow shifting truths.
@@swashbukk The reason for that is that it was in the wake of the fall of the soviet union. In the mid to late 80s academics where forced, by an influx of overwhelming evidence, to change their tunes and disavow socialism. Of course, after a couple of decades had gone by, the details where forgotten and/or deliberately erased.
@@swashbukk As a side note, that neoliberal school was forced on Yugoslavia from the outside, which, in my theory, lead to inciting the Croats to rise up. This separatist movement was embraced in the West as soon as it started (first by Germany), painted with colours suiting the separatist side in the media, funded for war and so on. The privatization of the Serbian economy according to the new neoliberal economy was not started until the 2000, the same year that marked a coup, overthrowing the regime from within. The remaining factories that were not affected by the last year's bombing were sold for peanuts (under their market value). Nowadays, Serbian government gives out, I kid you not, 15,000 EUR per workplace, land ownership over factory grounds for free and other bonuses for every *foreign* company that wants to invest in Serbia. It is utterly stupid imho.
That's the kosher sandwich for ya; a false dichotomy where both options are ultimately from the same source and neither is good for you or what you really want.
Data science??? What the heck is that? All sciences, and the now defunct profession of journalism, used data.
"When two girls share one cup"?! Long forgotten images suddenly come back to mind while I'm having dinner. Thanks for nothing, mate.
I thought that was a great one. I actually had to stop the video until I finished laughing...
@@TEbersberger same... lol
the best description of socialism I heard in a while...
@Rend TO THE GUILLOTINE
That was a fire joke though!
Never saw it... now 2 girls one finger and one guy one jar...
I was taught “shrinking markets theory” in my economic classes as well, but it wasn’t taught me by a Marxist. Honestly, I couldn’t tell you what the political leanings of my economics professor was because he kept it to himself. Instead the “shrinking markets theory” was a passing subject.
easy fix, does he teach you about keynesian or austrian economics? ones about centralizing while the other is more individualistic.
@@imperialnerd7026 can you tell me what you mean by state before i reply.(also did you mean barely or barley)
@@imperialnerd7026 it's cool. In america sometimes you have to differentiate between the state and states(new york, california, or georgia). The state usually means government while it could also mean state individual rights. its can be confusing without right context
@@imperialnerd7026 and both are glass cannons at best. While im not one of those hippies in the street chanting about fairness Keynesian economics does bare evidence to some of their claims. In time the rich will get richer as poor get poorer.
@Gordon Brown hey man, if walks likes a duck, quacks like a duck, ect., but i'm all ears if you care to elaborate
"Propaganda ministry... also known as the BBC"
*Korp you HitLer Loving, Trump Voting Inbred DeMonic IDIOT!!!!*
@@americanmartyr9268 yes. Totally me.
@@americanmartyr9268 Judging from the title on your latest video I'm guessing you regretted not being a Trump Loving, Trump Voting Inbred Demonic Idiot
Damned right! BBC are a vile institution
So... Fox News?
I have heard of the WWII shrinking markets theory, but never studied it in depth. Thank you for delving into this issue.
We covered Hitler's Germany back when I was in yr11, we didn't really go into the in's and out's of the economy but our teacher made it imperative that we remembered that Hitler was a socialist, one person eventually asked how he was a socialist and my teacher dedicated pretty much half a lesson as to why Hitler was a socialist
How long ago was that? Never ask a fella his age directly. LOL.
I have to kinda wonder how many folk were as lucky as you to get a teacher who understood, and more importantly gave a toss.
I also have ponder on how much it would happen these days.
czcams.com/video/YHAN-RPJTiE/video.html
Full on capitalism is also evil, which why is Karl Marx even had a platform to stand on.
Full blown capitalism with no regulation leads to monopolies, led by tycoons, and no incentives to do anything that does not boost their bottom line.
Thus you would be unable to get most services in the rural areas, you would be working as much as you possibly can without losing productivity, and you would be given a wage just high enough so you can live and buy a few products to keep the economy going.
It is why most developed countries are a mixed bag between Socialism and Capitalism, and with USA calling western and northern europe socialist.
Karl Marx in Das Kapital even made it clear in his analysis, that the push towards socialism and further to communism was a bound process. It is one of reasons even the biggest capitalists looks at the inequality of a country with great care.
Hitler never nationalized industry. Kind of blows up your whole statement.
@@ericanderson7346 Some of that boils down to technicalities. The state made huge public spending's on projects to be carried out by the private companies.
The private companies got quotas that had to deliver, and the ones that failed would be bought up and transferred to the ones that could. Creating as many monopolies as possibly, as a way to produce as much as possible.
For example Göring that gets in charge of steel production, makes it so that pretty much every steel producer is only selling to the government and that there are gonna be a monopoly around the best producer.
It is kind of state owned, but still private companies, using mafia/mobster methods to enforce monopolies and they remove almost all the previous regulations on businesses and workers rights.
Did Tik just say “Two Girls One Cup”???
2 girls 1 cup is REAL socialism!?!
@@TheImperatorKnight So, what is really going on in shadow cabinet meetings behind closed doors?!! 😲
@@TheImperatorKnight you know about the 2 girls 1 cup video? best joke about socialism ever. you know became god of humour
Looool!! Two guys one hammer is a Ukrainian serial killer snuff film too.
@@dannyboi986 that would be grimm
"when two girls share one cup ,now thats real socialism!"
I'm dying. XD
The worst part i understand that reference...
😂😂
I don't get it. Why is it supposedly so funny?
@@ClearOutSamskarasGoogle it. You have been warned
@@ClearOutSamskaras you're one of the lucky ones don't look it up it will traumatize you.
"Das Krapital" had me actually laugh out loud
Not saying that your point is wrong, but I dont believe that you can just plot political idealogies on a 1D scale
The political compass is actually 2d but whatever, you have a point
@@daniturrocap791 2D is way better than 1D.
in a previous video he demonstrated this exact same point on a 3D scale lol
Yes but this is the real version of the simplified scale, on a line. A 3D scale is better for specific ideals but this works as a generalization
*fixed*
However I kind of agree with you on this point. I think political spectrum is more than 1D. At most simple way it would be 2D but 3D would describe the case as best as possible.
authoritarianism-Individualism X axis
Socialism-Capitalism Y axis
Conservatism-Liberalism Z axis
Keynes was a revolutionary socialist?
You on the spice?
He was a massive advocate of deficit spending and a lot of modern socialists or do we call them social democrats now. All follow his ideas . He is credited with being a key figure in moving from the gold standard and quantitative easing . The flooding the market with money to increase inflation and somehow stimulating growth . I doubt he was a revolutionary socialist but he did change the world
He was, tik isn't, you have been lied to by a history written by Marxist socialists.
Always one conspiracy idiot who thinks he knows the truth.
TFW the entire modern world is socialist! yay!
I think the point was that he agreed with some concepts
You just earned yourself a subscription. Finally a historian who doesn't just study the past out of obsessive curiosity, but who actually seek to make apply its lesson for today
Except he's a LIAR in every way!
NOT ONE CAPITALIST calls to make military, police and fire PRIVATIZED, see?
@@professorcranium4792 If you want a privatised police force, come to South Africa. Here, private security companies are outnumbering police and are better equiped and trained.
@@Hannodb1961 I fear you missed my point completely.
the people who slam BIG GOVT SOCIALISM....are the same people who tell us to OBEY police and military (aka BIG GOVT SOCIALISM) blindly (while Libs say "never trust police or military"!)
These cons are total liars.
@@professorcranium4792 Lol. The people who bitch about the police are also the first ones to call the police when they're offended by something juvinile. The leftists are total liars.
i love this subsection bc its needlesly angry, makes few points and doesnt adress that most history cant be mapped onto today since back in the day surprise surprise things where diffrent.
you had blaitend racism running wild tons and tons of plpl starving due to the hyper inflation and we just barely had the radio as one of the fastest and overall best news sorces.
When you mentioned Khmer Rouge Cambodia, I remember my relatives who went missing there. Others were running to Southern Vietnam. My grandpa and grandma were lucky that they fled to South Vietnam before 1975 due to mass bombing from the Americans, knowing nothing about the Khmer Rouge.
I was so glad that my government reformed in 1986, allowing private businesses and foreign investments to happen. No more equal food portion distribution system or taking away rich people's properties and goods in the name of socialism. We are getting further away from poverty slowly. Our lives are much better than post-1975 era. Only if the government becomes a socialist no more.
I've been there once for a day , i lived in Thailand and then went to poipet for a day.. it's a big difference to thailand. I hope your country becomes as great as it was in the 60s
I was under the age of 10 when I started studying military history--I'm 55 now, so I don't remember exactly--and by the time I was a teenager I was faced with the problem of how these supposedly ideologically-opposite dictatorships managed to work out to be essentially the same thing. I finally decided that the political spectrum was a circle rather than a line, and that Hitler and Stalin were at the ends and standing back-to-back, being the same murderous things while screaming that the other one sucks. Your explanation makes a lot more sense.
In Suvorov's "Icebreaker" I've read once that nazis and marxists had to clash because their ideologies were in a competition. And it's true, since both of them want to liberate working class, each on it's own way. The funniest thing is, that even thou Suvorov was a GRU officer, thus indoctrinated throughout his military career and chosen to be an intelligence resident in West as a loyal Soviet soldier, he knew what bullshit idea bolshevism and socialism are.
68 and believed the same thing, until just now!
I graduated with honors with a political science degree and your view point I agree with. I thought people were just ignorant of the lies they believe. Now as a older person I think people want to believe the lies so they are not responsible for the truth.
Hitler: a racial-class-ist
Marx: a classial-race-ist
You sir, History hustle and Mark Felton are my favourite historians. Let's hope that I'll also become one.
I watch Mark.. He's too mainstream... I will try history hustle... The armchair historian speaks some good truths too
Is history hustle that "dutch teacher guy"? I liked some of his stuff but his videos were really short so they didn't get into details much
Mark Felton does not understand or explain the reality of history as TIK does. TIK gets it and is the best historian I have seen in over 60 years...
I'm not hoping that. I'm fine with what we already have. Have a good day Hrvoje.
@@Gaviid Vodka plz!
Keynes really isn't marxist, nor revolutionary. He was a conservative trying to save the capitalist system and he utterly hated marxism.
If conservatives want to conserve a socalist state they become socalists.
@@Marc83Aus the fuck are you saying
Keynes was the biggest advocate of restraining capitalism. He is a socialist in all but allowing money and markets to exist.
@@CrabtechIndustries The USSR had conservatives who wanted to keep course, but Mikhail Gorbachev, the reformer won and got control.
There is exactly no way in which keynes is economically conservative, he was a large advocate of state intervention into the market, something which a conservative would not do, while I wouldn't call him socialist (he was definitely adjacent to socialism, but he wasn't quite at the full state control stage) he was by no means anywhere close to a economic conservative, he was far left economically, especially for his time
Yeah, as an econ grad the idea that Keynes is a socialist or resembles socialism in any way is just not true. He said in a seminar “I can be influenced by what seems to me to be justice and good sense, but the class war will find me on the side of the educated bourgeoisie.” He is, in fact, a strong capitalist who only believes in market intervention because he believed unfettered capitalism would lead people to socialism. In that sense too he was also strictly against socialist revolution.
Please read more about this topic regarding Keynesianism and socialism here: www.pragcap.com/myths-keynesian-economics/
>He is, in fact, a strong capitalist who only believes in market intervention because he believed unfettered capitalism would lead people to socialism. In that sense too he was also strictly against socialist revolution.
Why would think that? There's no historical examples of it. Rather it sounds like a justification for Keynes creeping socialist program that FDR implemented. Eventually you had farmers arrested for growing food on their own land under FDR.
@@MrJackjimmyson so if you read the link it has all the evidence about his position.
I don't know what you mean by historical examples. Examples of what?
There is no concept of creeping socialism that exists that I'm aware of historically. Socialism comes with revolution, not evolution. Marx was against social democracy and bandaid solutions for this reason. Marx spoke in favour of free trade for example because it would supposedly make things worse for workers and hasten the revolution. So in Marx's ideology, Keynes' policies would be anti-socialist.
@John Wolf idk who these socialists are that you're referring to or what Keynesian theory justifies socialism but my guess is that if you're an ideologue you'll use anything to justify your ideology if it's close enough but ignore all the contradictions. So if you were a socialist you'd have to ignore everything Keynes said against socialism and everything Marx said against reformist policy to use Keynes.
@@DMAN123223
>There is no concept of creeping socialism that exists that I'm aware of historically.
Both FDR's and Chávez's socialist policy where implemented in an incremental fashion, IE creeping socialism.
@John Wolf Yeah sorry that 'you' isn't about you it's a third person you. I was talking about ideologues including socialists in general. That's why I said "if" you were an ideologue. idk what you are dude lmao.
This was exceptional. Not only is the research excellent, the injection of humor (into a very unpalatable topic) was welcomed. I actually laughed out loud a couple times, which I certainly didn’t expect.
Keep your head up, and keep doing the incredibly important work that you do, good sir. Don’t let hateful socialists get you down, you’re on the path you belong.
This.
Truth doesn't care about your feelings. Stay strong, TIK!
Which is why it's too bad that shrinking markets theory is true, but it causes the man such severe feelings.
@@imperialnerd7026 let me ask you three questions:
Is Supply and Demand real?
Is the planet Earth infinitely large?
Can you generate things like steel and limestone by wishing real hard, or do they have to come out of the ground?
@@imperialnerd7026 I'm not in the mood to kill the easter bunny and santa claus in the same day, but the economic validity of mining space for earth has been outright fabricated. File under T for total bullshit.
Why haven't I found this channel sooner?
The CZcams algorithm doesn't like me much :/
@@TheImperatorKnight Honestly not surprised. Our enlightened Silicon Valley overlords know better than we do what we want to see
Or had did I find this so soon? The fact is that you did find it even though the people who created the algorhythm does not like TIK..too much. Because they are in fai.th socialist?
@@TheImperatorKnight I sure wish I could spend the day with you talking. I am greatly saddened by the death of critical thinking and denial of the past. It's all for the indoctrination of the youth. Please.keep it up. Keep battling Tik. You are a Godsend for our kids....the ones that will listen.
I was also taught about the Shrinking Markets theory in economics class too but the teacher was pretty clear about not being correct.
How clear was she that that concept originated in socialism? lol
TIK at the airport
*Picks his suitcase off the carousel*
"But is that really the case?"
Two girls, one cup - thats a very nice touch, mate 😎
Hungry bitches. That's the real name of the two girls one cup film for anyone who wants to see the most disgusting thing ever
thank god i only had to hear about it and didnt stumble across it
I am not really on the same boat considering your rant on: socialism => Totalitarism => Marxism. Any state that is democratic in nature, will in some presence, have the tendency to distribute means over a its population: e.g. it be infrastructure, educational / medical support programs, subsidies, etc.
Reasons for this can be very practical: Improving education, health, infrastructure and reducing severe poverty helps reducing crime, promote satisfaction of the populous and helps maximizing productivity of a population. This is not an artificial thing either, if a government would not do this on state level, than other social constructs like local municipalities, neighborhoods, family ties or clans would take their obligation to redistribute means to the extend they seem fit. The liberal mind-set would make this completely voluntary (alto social and/or family pressure still would impose some obligation) or you make it mandatory by means of jurisdictional means, which at least (should) make redistribution simpler to interpret and 'fairer', cause it will be mandatory for everyone. Might not be the best, but it is a practical solution an nation wide populations. (excuse me, if I make errors in this reasoning, I am not claiming to be an expert on state-craft, but I'm willing to discuss).
The way how you want to promote it can be on the left side (with a tendency to make it state controlled) or right side (a tendency to promote private corporations to take up the distribution of means). In al practical senses, you still end up with some part of this redistribution mechanism to be state controlled, cause public outrage when faults (inevitably) occur demand action from politics.
Your presentation goes into a way where 'socialism', as currently used modern political systems, is in essence and unavoidable on the path of totalitarians. Especially with the pictures you show at the end. (IMO teachers striking for more funds makes sense, as most social-democratic still promote private property / private income, where in a lot of countries the education system is (partially) state-funded. Striking makes sense, as it asks for another balance of state expenses). I don't know if this is really your point of view or maybe is is a way showing how you object to modern political systems to use the term socialism, while this is probably not the goal for the majority of their voters (or party) anymore. (And lets be honest, Marxism is a very radical way of creating something like an economic Endlösung, that in reality is probably not compatible with how human nature works. It is by all means a theoretical approach).
My personal opinions are a bit conservative / technocratic: but making something purely private or purely state-owned does not at all guarantee at all that something works as intended or at all. Especially if you remove means to make people accountable (e.g. monopolies, political corruption, nepotism) even the nicest 'dressed up' ambitions risk ending up in the gutter. This is where totalitarian states, or nations with a heavy balance on state control, risk up ending into. But, if wealth is power (IMO wealth opens possibilities), an to much uneven distribution of means is also a way of control, as long as society does not raise possibilities to improve your social status if you don't have the wealth. How to balance this, is the challenge. IMO no extremist solution will suffice, as they always are based on the view that 'somebody is smarter, righteous, or strong enough' to decide how to govern, not humble enough to realize that they inevitably will end up creating organizations that are 'strong' and efficient, but also easily manipulated, mismanaged or abused from within because they are from the start created on a basis that excludes open discussion.
Well in the end it comes up to this,
In a perfectly democratic state where everyone makes perfect decisions an accountable well run government economy is the best.
In the state where everyone is benevolent genius capitalists will benefit everyone.
No one has ever really been able to find out what will anything work like if neither of those is met under any system. And how well they run.
Next time edit some grammar into it.
@@pd4165 yeah, sentence structure is a bit wonkey, but as non-native English speaker with better stuff to do, it will have to suffice. It isn't like this is my job, is it?
I'm not sure how TIK views this (he does sound ancap at times).
I would consider as core views (just my labels, feel free to use your own):
- Ancap: no state at all
- Libertarian: the state protects life, liberty and property. Redistribution is not a goal of the state.
- ("classical") Liberal: Minimal redistribution is a goal of the state, so as to ensure social mobility and minimize problems caused by abject poverty. Regulation is necessary to prevent political/economic abuses.
- Social Liberal (social-democrat): extensive redistribution is a goal in and of itself, so as to create equality of outcome. Regulation is desirable to create a more desirable society.
- Socialism: That is not enough. Society must be in full control.
It can easily be argued that social-democrats do often seek socialism, or if not consciously, stand on a slippery slope. Indeed, many such parties used to be openly socialist before the USSR collapsed, and seem to now revive that view, perhaps as the new generation doesn't know the USSR.
I think the distinction is important, but it's fair to argue this point, and a due warning.
Finally, probably worth pointing out that most people in the West are inbetween Liberal and Social-Liberal views. With most of the right liking the Liberal principles but accepting some social programs as useful; and the left preferring social-liberal principles but recognizing that moderation is needed to be able to pay for it.
I'm with you on this one. You cant build an anarchic society and hope it goes well. The idea that societal problems will resolve themselves naturally banks on the same false premise as socialism - that common sense and empathy will trump the individual greed. Hint: it won't.
Hold on, why of all people is Keynes considered a MARXIST Socialist? Where did that come from? Keynes supported capitalism through his concepts of government interventionism and deficit spending to get out of an economic recession or depression rather than the reckless concept of laissez-faire. And never have I ever read that he supported the Shrinking Economy. Did you confuse the concept of Shrinking Economies with the concept of shrinking production during an economic downpour?
Keynes is not considered a marxists socialist, TIK is making shit up
Keynes isn't considered a Marxist Socialist, but TIK does seem to consider him a socialist. One of the things I disagree with him in this video.
thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/maito-esteban-the-historical-transience-of-capital-the-downward-tren-in-the-rate-of-profit-since-xix-century.pdf
Did you confuse the concept of Shrinking Economies with the concept of shrinking production during an economic downpour
-its basicly the same thing ,Keynes took it from marx and changed it
yeah the fabians are well known capitalists.
Now I know why I watch you. Always well thought out and backed up with the receipts! Great job
Just found this channel and it’s just what I needed!! Appreciate all of the knowledge and history presented
This new Stefan Molyneux video is great.
@Nuclear Confusion So? He doesn't have to make one. There are plenty of arguments already made. Engage one of those.
He’s a lot more thoughtful and articulate than him. But yeah I can see the similar lines of reasoning.
@John Wolf Please don´t tell me that Netflix just was used as a source?!
most ww2 historians are Jews or socialists. the trouble with socialism is that thugs always take control of a socialist governments, because the original brains behind the concept are geeks and geeks don't do violence. they are physically weak.
czcams.com/video/cXJ4wCrL_jU/video.html
Also, Keynes is Marxist? WTF?
TIK is an ultra-libertarian. According to them even Hillary Clinton is a Bolshevik.
TIK is no longer believable. His early stuff was cool but now he just went batshit insane
@@Blunderbussy I think his videos on military history are still very good. This branch of his videos suffers from his very libertarian point of view, thinking that Maynard was a marxist is just a big fail. And he just makes a big mistake by thinking that totalitarianism=socialism. He still might have a good point with Hitler believing in shrinking markets, but I have to find first where he found that information. Still, he should read some other books on economics that just Hazlitt and Sowell, which are both libertarians.
Well, if you see the common point that is state intervention, it kinda makes sense
@@Baamthe25th It doesn't really make sense if you look at how bizarre TIK's idea of a state is. Basically every organized group that has power to influence stuff is a state, and if an individual is in charge of it, he suddenly "becomes the state", so every exercise of power is somehow marxist.
Your channel is the best thing I found on CZcams in DECADES.
CZcams hasn't existed for decades. Only 1.8 decade.
Amazing video. Been binge watching your videos they're informative af , keep it up mate.
At this rate TIK will be an AnCap by the end of the years screeching on about anime and roads.
... or that :D Like, holy shit that primitive accumulation myth right there. Guy must be born into money.
czcams.com/video/cXJ4wCrL_jU/video.html
Jesus Christ its like his brain melted
One has to be rather uneducated to support AnCap in general first of all because its impossible to have.
Capitalism is basically two things free markets and private property, the second of which has to be protected by a state with laws against theft and so on. So if a person is an AnCap they are uneducated about what capitalism is.
And we got someone openly showing video of the bolsheviks I suspect non of you are really under a communist threat never really feel it before and that why people are so ignorant about it. Being a communist before your thirties is romance after your thirties that will be stupidity.
9:46 Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, also known as the BBC.
😂😂😂
That bit is actually true when you hear BBC's reports on Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Russia and Eastern Europe in general.
Literally copied from Goebbels.
What? The Big Black Cock? 😂
Crazy how much we get from the nazis.
Theo Bolt
Big British Cock.
@@RedVelvetBlackleather I prefer the Big British Cock myself. Lmfao!!!
Outstanding video and history lesson, sir! Well done!
What i hate about my government (can you guess which country) that it's too socialist with the economic policies and too fascist with social policies. How we are still a 'democracy' is beyond me.
India
Fascism is Socialism.
The UK.
Good points. And the strangest thing of it: all the information were in front of literally everyone in the whole time...
that's why we already knew
At 7:47 you talk about a passage from Mein Kampf in which Hitler clearly states the opposite of what you are claiming:
"If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating the personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism"
So Hitler was specifically stating that the idea of replacing a personality (in your example the "governor") with the multitude ("government" in your example) is Marxism. Instead of proclaiming that to be his goal too, he specifically calls it a "poison" that would corrupt National Socialism.
Yet you claim that his goal was identical to Marxism, contrary to his own words. Why is that?
It's actually a fundamental contradiction in Nazi/Leftist ideology (to do with the theory of race and social-Darwinism) I plan to explain in full in the future, but I'm having to get the basics down first - Hitler was a socialist - before I explain the ideological problems Hitler struggled with. In a nutshell: Hitler believed in survival of the fittest, which means individuals who are fit can survive, and therefore he wanted individuality in with his race (group) ideology. Well, it's impossible to do that - if you're a group, you're not an individual. If the individual is important, then your race is not as important etc. But he tried to balance the two somehow in his ideology. I'll go into more detail in the future video, but he actually had this problem his entire life and died having not resolved it.
@@TheImperatorKnight very cool video please use some charts to show the differences in the administration and organization. I also feel like if you ever redo this video maybe use shindlers list to help explain the appropriation
@@TheImperatorKnight "Hitler believed in survival of the fittest, which means individuals who are fit can survive, and therefore he wanted individuality." That sounds like capitalism, the idea that the fittest will survive, so giving them freedom will lead to the fittest giving most to society.
It's not impossible at all, every society has certain groups. Citizens will be treated differently than non-citizens. Yet we have individuality.
@@TheImperatorKnight OMG, did TIK just consider the possibility, that the NS ideology wasn't a consistent theory at all, but could be just a made-up hodge podge, thrown together to impress people? Just what people wanted to hear, with glaring contradictions, just barely smoothed over by Hitlers charisma as an orator?
But that wouldn't support TIK's overall idea, that everyone who advocates for public education is secretly a raving massmurderer, does it?
@@TheImperatorKnight lmao every time someone approaches one of you "Hitler was a socialist" dingbats with an example of how Marxism and Nazism are incompatible you always respond that way "well see it's a very contradictory set of ideas..." Or maybe you're a liar spreading ahistorical nonsense, who's to say?
A great discussion of the spectrum between Tyranny and Liberty is in the book "The Hobbit Party" by Witt and Richards - it talks about Tolkien's philosophy as a backdrop to a discussion of Tyranny and Liberty.
You are teaching me political science class in five minutes faster than my college political science class at 15 credit hours. I want my time back.
ehh, did you just call Keynes a marxist? Keynes was member of the liberal party, and he argued in favour of capitalism against socialists. He just argued that it should be regulated. And his basic approach to macroeconomics is still in use today. Or are you arguing that ANY strategic use of fiscal and monetary policy is marxism? If so, you are really stretching the definitions here!
You're a fine historian, and I've thoroughly enjoyed your accounts of Crusader and Courland, but I think you should delineate between your historical analyses and your opinion pieces more clearly. I am aware that the two are not entirely inseparable, but I think you've clearly failed when you manage to call Keynes a marxist. You're are a better historian than economist, and I think you should be wary with grandiose claims when you venture outside your area of expertise.
I'm sorry if this comes out rude, because I have enjoyed much of your work. PS: I'm not a socialist.
To be honest this whole piece seems to basically position the entire political spectrum between some weird anarcho-capitalist lassez faire wonderland, and everything beyond that being nazi, socialist, communist hell. Like really 5th grade Libertarian logic.
@@ChaplainDMK I just feel like he is trying to put everyone with differing opinions from himself into one Box to have an easier time arguing against them. If you say Keynes=state interventionism=marxism=communism=socialism=Nazism you have a pretty easy time arguing against Keynes, because only crazy people people will argue that any of those last ideologies are not horrible. The same goes for his move to call "taxation" "theft". Those two are clearly not the same, it's just an easy way out of a difficult argument.
@@sebastiaankruis3006 I was interested in his opinions but at 23:00 he just goes full-on conspiracy theory and his earlier points are almost all questionable at best.
Comment is spot on, couldn't have said it better myself. It's kinda weird, you have folks either denying the Nazis were a branch on the tree of socialist theories or agreeing but then including damn near everything left of laisse-faire capitalism as well; seems to me there's a great deal of folks on all sides who just want to maximize their own ideology's strength and prestige while tear down others, rather than assigning things to categories without any vested interest beyond the organization of said information into a coherent and sensible framework.
@@theeccentrictripper3863 It's pretty crass to me. Has history not taught us that extremes are always bad? I keep hoping that people will try to find a middle ground for these systems but people keep insisting on extremes, on assigning political ideas on a bloody 2d scale!
Same argument, turned arround: How was slavery not capitalist?
It was private individuals owning a means of production, which also happened to be private individuals.
Because Slavery is a broad term that can and has existed under a variety of different economic and political systems, not just "capitalism".
@@leonardwei3914 so is genocide
Jacob Furrow You need voluntary ownership and voluntary exchange for capitalism. The slaves didn't give away their freedom or their work voluntarily. They also weren't able to do voluntary exchange of goods and services. They didn't own anything from the place they lived in. They didn't even own their own lives.
How could that possibly be capitalism? They were treated almost like cattle, sometimes worse. They had no freedom whatsoever, not economic or otherwise.
No, slavery was never capitalism.
@@ETBrooD How is saying "it wasn't capitalism because it was involuntary" not the same as saying "it wasn't socialism because it wasn't about the workers owning the means of production"?
If the defining aspect of capitalism vs socialism is "X is done by individuals, it's capitalist" and "x is done by collectives and governments, it's socialist", then slavery was largely capitalist.
Also, since being "voluntary" is a criteria for a practice to be capitalist, what counts as voluntary vs extortion vs force?
Is peonage slavery?
Is land ownership uncapitalist, since, assuming a hypothetical system where all land is privately owned, non-land owners cannot choose _not_ to live on somebody else's land. Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, and Henry George all talked about this issue.
I'm not saying that all capitalists should think that slavery is good, but instead that boiling down issues into "capitalism vs socialism" is a very 2 dimensional way of looking at complex issues such as the holocaust.
Jacob Furrow Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services and the private ownership of the means of production. It says nothing about property rights. It says nothing about what things you can or can't own. It says nothing about whether you can or can't own human beings. Capitalism only describes economics as an individualist endeavor. If you include all human beings in your equation, then slavery cannot be capitalism. If you argue that some humans are sub-humans, then you can argue that slavery can exist within the framework of capitalism (however, it can also exist in the framework of socialism. In fact, more often than not it's in the socialist framework, because socialism is a collectivist ideology, thus it already offers the foundation for slavery).
Slaves are considered property on the basis of class. They're on the same level as cattle, or machines. Thus slaves have no human rights.
Slavery in the context of human rights (if all humans share the same basic rights) can therefore be neither socialism nor capitalism, it's a separate idea. It's simply classism.
You can try to combine slavery with capitalism or with socialism (with the aforemention criterion of classism), but that doesn't mean slavery itself is either capitalism or socialism.
Involuntary economics can, by definition, not be capitalist.
So slavery can't exist in an individualist setting. It has to be authoritarian because it's involuntary. Capitalism (the ideology of individualist economics) coupled with authoritarianism (the antithesis to individualism) is a paradox and thus not a real concept.
Peonage is involuntary, so it also doesn't fall under capitalism.
Land ownership can be either capitalist or socialist, that depends on who owns the land and what is being done with the land. Is it owned privately and being used to produce goods or offer services? Then it's capitalist. Is it owned collectively and used to produce goods or offer services? Then it's socialist.
If nothing is being done with the land (produce, service), then it's neither socialist nor capitalist. If nothing is being done with it, then it's simple ownership, private or collective.
OK, this is phenomenal!! I must begin incorporating your videos into my kid's schooling. This is the kind of historical details that must be shared. In almost every case the version of history that is being taught in public (State) schools fails to make sense. Hence, the need to simply teach things like Hitler was crazy. I seriously wish there was a way to express how much I like these videos. Well done, Sir!!!
I must admit this worries me a tad, I am not sure how many curriculums argue that Hitler was outright insane pre-war, make sure you take a look for yourself. If you can always encourage your kid to use multiple sources, cross-check them and to avoid biases. Make sure that if you can argue for a point, you understand the points against it.
All he does is giving his opinion here. It's not objective what so ever.
This is one of your best summations yet. There are a lot of nuggets to mine here.
On the subject of Keynes and Marx - Keynes flirted a bit with Marxism in his early years, but eventually concluded it was nonsense. Their was a tendency during the 20's and 30's to associate Keynes with Marxism, because of Keynes's critiques of capitalism as it was then defined on the left. Keynes's "The End of Laisse Faire" and "General Theory" both had some fairly strong critiques of capitalism as a system.
That said, Keynes was most emphatically NOT a marxist or socialist. He believed that free markets were efficient, and allocated capital to its best (most efficient) uses. The problem was, it would not allocate enough money to capital, leading to a slowing economy - a problem caused by the tendency of the Rich to save more than they consumed, which caused money to leak out of the economy. This so called "paradox of thrift" meant that as economies grew, more and more wealthy people would under-consume, and since one mans consumption was another mans income, this would lead to rising levels of unemployment. So the great depression was NOT a temporary downturn, it was the inevitable result of consumption rising slower than income.
Keynes solution was to increase government spending - primarily through deficit spending. The deficits (in the form of government bonds) would soak up the excess spending, and turn it into increased consumption and investment. This would in turn stimulate the economy, and restore confidence and employment. His famouse example was of 1 million unemployed workers digging holes in the morning, and another million filling them in in the afternoon. The work is pointless, but the wages they get will spent, creating (useful) employment and goods for others. Of course, he did not advocate wasteful spending, he mearly asserted that even if the government was as dumb and wasteful has free market economists said it was (and Keynes had as dim a view of politicians as any of us) it would still be beneficial.
When Keynes died in 1946, his theory was still a real mess, it wasn't for another decade until other economists (the kaldor/Hicks synthesis) were able to formalize it and straighten out the worst of Keynes' many mistakes, and he made a lot. I am not a Keynesian economist myself, but it is unfair to lump Keynes in with Marx.
Ohh bonus point, since I am much more of Micro guy than a Macro guy, I like to analyze these things at the ground level, so....
Q. What was the main difference between the Nazis and the Commies?
A. The Nazis had better uniforms
or...
Q. What is the main difference between the Nazis and the Commies?
A. Nobody goes around saying that Nazism was a fine system in principle, it just was poorly implemented by Hitler.
czcams.com/video/cXJ4wCrL_jU/video.html
I don't understand why people WOULD lump Marx with any of the names above. Marx wasn't an economist. Psychology didn't even exist in Marx's time as a formal science. How the hell could he attempt to quantify human desires and needs as most economists do?
"Shrinking markets" - Oh, if only Mises was there.
Just found the channel. Wonderful content, thank you.
Brilliant work, subbed.
Can you do a separate video explaining how Keynes is a socialist?
There is no fucking world in which Keynes is a socialist. He’s a liberal through and through and tik is being an idiot either willfully or unintentionally. It’s honestly making me worried he’s making stuff up in his other content.
@@6idangle Tik reminds me of a friend of a friend who back in high school after getting through like Econ 101 and then doing some 'studying' on his on went full on anarcho-capitalist basically. All the signs are visible; calling Keynes a socialist (something the ancap/libertarian hard fringe likes to do a lot in order to claiim that 'mainstream economics' is socialist, which is essentially what Tik is poorly trying to do here), calling any transfers of income 'theft' (usually worded as 'taxation is theft', whereas Tik used the 'Theft, redistribution of wealth', which is just as wrong) etc.
I could go on but basically it's common for this to happen to people when they start getting into economics studying online without any academic education in the field. It usually goes into 1 of 2 extremes: either the person starts from the assumption that the root of all evil is capitalism and thereby anything wrong anywhere is because of capitalism and becomes a modern day communist, or (such as was the case with said friend of a friend and Tik) the person starts from the assumption that the root of all evil is socialism and any problems in modern day societies are because of 'socialism' and becomes a ultra-libertarian or an anarcho capitalist.
It's very understandable with younger people, especially when the internet is so effective at pushing confirmation bias, but I expected someone like Tik to understand better, but evidently not. Look at his 'sources' list up above in the pinned comment: not a single book by Keynes or Keynesian economists. What's his source for the 'Keynes was a socialist' -remark: CZcams comments in his other video, he outright says so in this video.
Yup, that's massive confirmation bias at work, and enough of a reason for me to stop following this channel really, because I already witnesses this 'everthing's socialism and the world would be a perfect capitalist paradise if they just stopped stealing by taxes' -nonsense (btw, the ancap argument is precisely the same as the communist argument: 'real communism/capitalism has never been tried!') with said high school friend, I have no desire to watch a grownass intelligent man fall through the same nonsense.
how is keynes a liberal if his theory is adapted to totalitarianism? Keynes himself said this
@@6idangle How liberal is the state if it demands X portion of your lifeblood? X% portion of your sweat and struggle, it takes for itself and uses on increasingly useless shit. Keynes was the best disguised socialist ever, and the best propagandized for.
Tyler Potts Never heard of a liberal who supported strong state intervention.
Was waiting for this. Awesome!
Well, I hope it didn't disappoint!
@@TheImperatorKnight you didn't
@@TheImperatorKnight Not at all man. Excellent stuff as always.
@@AutismIsUnstoppable your name is....confusing
@@HistoryMarche You are a capitalist too....
5:15 “When two girls share one cup, now that’s real socialism”...I would have to agree. It’s repulsive.
It was indeed socialism
*National
@@boggy.subtitulos of the socialism kind
I'm disappointed TIK hasn't included 2 girls 1 cup in the reference list.
That would definitely get my channel taken down...
Can you plz explain?
@@danieltsiprun8080 See TIK's comment. Googles your friend.
Do NOT Google this. Sometimes being slightly ignorant of a subject is a good thing.
Ok, so, I won't google it. I'm guessing that term is sexual?
I think I should go out, meet people and socialize a bit
the incel TIK vs the chad Potential History
Glockenbeat In that case i think you are a socialist then (or a nazi because thats basically the same) LMAO
Lol stfu commie
Took me a minute to get that....
Throw a virgin on the fire for me 🤣
I am so glad I discovered this channel!
5:15 "or when two girls share one cup" actually laughed out loud at this one
That two girls joke was on point! Great video as always
Haha I'm glad someone got that :)
@@TheImperatorKnight Really dates it though, and I suspect some of the youngsters won't pick that one up.... and I AM NOT EXPLAINING!
Man, I was chuckling for a good 5 mins.
@Tuning3434 yeah I'm not explaining it either... I can remember the day I say a "Grandma reacts to 2 girls 1 cup" video, and was like "what's that?" ... and then... "oh... oh... OOOOOHHHH .... AWAHSHDASHDIAKHDKJASHDKJAH!?!?!?"
I had never heard of "2 girls 1 cup" before this video, thank you TIK 🤢🤮. Hitler would have approved of such an act, if rumours are true.
"You don't know what you're talking about" is a great phrase you should ironically make tshirts with it on them
1) 5:23, 6:28 TIK, paraphrased: "Socialism in practice is when the workers rise up and kill their (jewish) factory *governor* and create a factory *government"*
2) 6:42 TIK: "Nazi Germany was Socialist"
3) Modus Ponens from 1) and 2): "In Nazi Germany, the people rose up, deposed their factory governors and created local independent sovereign factory governments"
4) Premise: Nazi Germany had thousands of factories.
5) Modus Ponens from 3) and 4): Nazi Germany was a collection of thousands of completely sovereign factory-level government states.
Yeah... There's not knowing what one is talking about, and then there's being so completely illogical that it takes a 9-year-old's level of intelligence to laugh off as completely bonkers.
The problem with you spouting facts and explaining history in a rational way is the people are goi g to say you’re pro-nazi. That’s just the way the world is.
Damn dude, if I had found that video before I would have subscribed earlier.
Could you do a video on the UK's economy post WW2? I'd like to see your ideas about the post war consensus, BBC, NHS and how the UK economy could be improved! Great vid by the way, it's worrying to see so many socialists still struggling to maintain faith despite the overwhelming arguments against their religion.
It’s entertaining watching capitalist accuse Fascism of being left wing socialism, and Marxists accuse Fascism of being capitalism. It’s almost like there was aspects of both capitalism and socialism in the ideology making it a third position if you will. But nah I'm sure lumping everything into 2 economic systems isn't a simplistic world view or anything...
You do realize that Stalin was promoting that idea to the Soviet people as propaganda against a geopolitical enemy? Why would he in his right mind tell them that him and their mortal enemy were in anyway equal?
@@MrStasyan2013 Good point, i never thought of it that way
It is interesting watching the left claim they aren't.... Adolf forgot more about Socialism than your Professors knew and he says they were as the only difference was who was allowed into the party.... Sad when primary sources are ignored so you can pretend differently...
Yes, it's unfortunate that it's just two groups trying to shove more dead bodies in front of each other. It's hard to classify since it had elements of both and major differences with both.
Was fascism socialist? Yes, in the sense that any collectivist regime is socialist.
Was fascism Socialist? Hell no. Not an egalitarian bone in his body, this Hitler guy.
dude, at the very end od the argument there indeed are 2 options. Freedom or enslavement, life or death. Now, if you want to feel comfortable and believe in endless relativism then go and wake up someone in your family who is dead, tell them that there is a "third way"
this video is incredible. keep up the good work pal. Subscribed!
It's really fascinating how general agenda turned tables and forced the side with overwhelming evidence to defend against side with barely any. Great video
Love your channel mate, keep up the amazing work.
*LAST DAYS, & your NAZIS are PROLIFIC & wiLL Soon be in Burn Cages, for ALL ETERNITY!!!*
So was FDR a socialist as well
What about Lee Yuan You socialist as well as Singapore which has free healthcare and State schools
So should we have private armies as well
Was the US wrong to take control of the economy during the War like the take over of the car industry
Was Eisenhower a Socialist for building the Interstate highway system
@K yeah, and have you noticed how policemen have become armed thugs who kill at a drop of a hat with near impunity?
Yes to all.
K the police and fire departments are a result of capitalism, not the cause of it. And a lot of townships dint have firefighters paid by the state. There are a whole lot of volunteers.
Ashan Mendis Ike didn't build the interstate system, private contractors bid on the projects and built them. The government doesn't build or produce jack, only private industry does. In Hitler's Nazi Germany, the state took control of those industries and Nazi leaders ran them. Quite the opposite in a capitalist economy.
Ashan Mendis and yes, F D R wad a socialist, his new deal bs made the depression worse, not better.
You are a Godsend for this stuff. I studied economics in college and can say socialism doesn't work.
Thanks for putting it out there. Great 👍 work.
19:20 I always loved those types of diagrams because somehow when you get more freedom loving than Ron Paul you end up at Hitler...
isnt that amazing. the very people who want a system that would preclude anything like Hitler Stalin Lenin or any other totalitarian murder regime must somehow be the path to the totalitarian murder regime. I dont personally believe Ron Pauls Ideas can work but everyone should have a healthy distrust of giving the state more power. It has never been small private groups that have been able to pull off massive holocausts. it has always been those who hold absolute power, the sort of power you get when you take power away from the individual and give it to 'the people' 'the community' which is nothing more or less than the state.
individuals can commit murder, even a mass shooting here or there. the state can murder an entire people as they demonstrated with the Nazis, The USSR, Maoist China, and the US towards the American Indian. Give the state the power to do whatever it wants and it usually finds the simplest solution to a problem is to kill those who represent the problem.
The view from the bottom of the horseshoe is that both legs are at the top. Verticality on this model means something like "how pissed off are you at moderates?" which is, of course, all that most moderates really care about.
How can two different types of Socialism be polar opposites, unless you limit your political spectrum to include ONLY Socialism?
Global(ist) Socialism, or National(ist) Socialism... they are STILL Socialism... and thus CANNOT be opposites if anything else (such as Capitalism) is allowed.
Only capitalism (economics) and preserving the rights of the individual (politics) can truly be polar opposites of ANY AND EVERY form of Socialism.
The attempt to place the Nazis on the Right end of the political spectrum is nothing more than an attempt to demonize anyone who is not socialist.
I believe that ONE reason that the Socialist Left tends to eventually degenerate into blatant evil... what almost EVERYONE would agree IS evil...
ex - Mao's Great Leap Forward, Stalin's famine, Hitler...
They BEGIN with a major character FLAW... the BELIEF that their "need" gives them the RIGHT to TAKE what they want/need (steal from others).
Indeed, Karl Marx's famous quote exemplifies this:
*"From Each According to Their Ability... "*
Then, compound that primary character flaw with another... the WILLINGNESS to use the FORCE of the State to take what they "need".
These two things combined thus ATTRACT people with a desire to not only HAVE power... but USE that power... AGAINST other people.
Thus, Socialism is a MAGNET for people like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.
(Note, I'm not saying that it doesn't also attract other types of people.)
Further, because those like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler have both the desire for power and willingness to use it... to extreme degrees... they will inevitably end up in control of the Socialist movement... because they will exterminate their opponents/rivals within the party... exactly as Hitler and Stalin did.
(Note to OP/Philip - this is an agreement with your original post.)
You had me interested until your video turned into some sort of Road to Serfdom conspiracy theory. I won't dispute your sources, but this whole video is a major failure of analysis, at least regarding its title. For Shrinking Markets being a direct cause of the 1938/39 decisions to go to war would require evidence that '38/'39 Hitler was primarily motivated by the threat of Shrinking Markets. Your references show that Shrinking Markets was something that Hitler was worried about during his rise and also something that influenced NSDAP economic policy in the years after the 1933 takeover. Yes, that economic policy created later conditions that motivated the 38/39 decisions, but that's a second (or even third) order effect and "schools" are lucky if they can get kids to retail first order causes. What schools should be teaching is the general fact that NSDAP economic policy put pressure on Hitler's house of cards in the 1938 time period, resulting in a turn towards conquest.
What was 1938 Hitler actually scared of? Not Shrinking Markets, but the 5 year "Mefo bills" (shadow debt) his government had issued in 1934 for the express purposes of re-armament. NSDAP juiced the economy with a debt funded building programme and in 1939 the bill was coming due. The decision to use the armed forces as a productive asset and seize wealth from surrounding countries was also motivated by NSDAP racial theories, the militaristic Junker class and the existence of German-speaking minority populations in surrounding countries who had been dispossessed by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler's tactics through 1939 had proven successful, which not only made the extension of those tactics to Poland tempting, but also provided the necessary political and popular support. Shrinking Markets is so far down the list of factors that from a high level perspective it borders on unimportant.
In the context of using Shrinking Markets to paint Hitler as a socialist, sure, I'll give you that, but the debate over how socialist the NSDAP was is more complex than that. The 1933 NSDAP takeover was predicated by the support of the ownership and military castes. Look at what Hitler does, not what Hitler says. Earnst Rhom and the old SA leadership was purged at the behest of the ownership caste due to their support of nationalization and other hard socialist policies. Even if it was for the sake of expediency, Hitler still sided with the industrialists. He was also still beholden to the capital markets as we can see with the Mefo bill crisis. As much as there was state control, the industrialists were still able to profit. It's nice to equate capitalism and liberty, but part of capitalism is an ability to take advantage of market failures, like rigged markets and theft. The Allgemeine SS delivered substantial profits to the Party due to mandatory apparel sales. The VW Factory was funded through fraudulent savings stamp books citizens though would actually get them a car. SS death camps had a revenue stream selling the hair of their victims. Communist states would just order people to do stuff. In Germany it was all a business opportunity. So yeah, the NSDAP sponsored socialist vacation packages, but some dude with "Von" in his name would be getting a more equal cut of the revenue.
Thanks for the way of explaining Racial Socialism vs Class Socialism etc. That's a good explanation of the theories behind the various movements.
I actually agree with pretty much everything you just said. I don't quite see the shrinking markets and the Lebensraum theory as the primary reason to go to war in 1939 as well as it being the reason for Barbarossa, but more something of an idea to be implemented in the long run.
As far as the socialist vs. capitalist nature of Nazi Germany, I think it's fairly accurate to say that Nazi Germany found a way to make a 'socialist' economy viable by implementing capitalism within a 'socialist' structure (or the other way around: capitalism with a layer of socialism on top of it, whatever you want to call it). Basically: if you do what we (the state) want you to do, you get to keep how much we allow you to keep. It's private property and profit, unless seized by the state.
@Czekot By Occam's razor the most likely motivation for self sufficiency was simply to have a free hand in "international affairs" aka invading people. WW1 Germany was strangled due to the dependency on raw materials imports and WW2 Germany was impacted the same way. Germany wanted captive resource supplies to never be at the mercy of the international community.
My understanding, probably originating from Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", is that the Nazi economy was essentially a bubble. The German economy was on the brink of collapse by 1939. But war justified all sorts of economic controls and reallocations that prevented that collapse.
Almost right, but the economic controls were implemented in the mid-1930s. If you go into the description of the video I'm about to link, and find the timestamps, skip to the "Privatisation" section. I go over the policies they implemented as soon as they got into power czcams.com/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/video.html
In fact, as I explain in that video, these policies actually compelled the Germans to go to war because their economy was on the verge of collapse in 1938. Only by invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, the West, and especially the Soviet Union, and by exporting their inflation and importing/stealing goods from the rest of Europe, did they temporarily stop the collapse until 1944/45 when their currency hyperinflated.
@@TheImperatorKnight I understand now. I'm American. Inflation is our number one export.
Since subscribing to your channel today, I’ve noticed your subscriptions have gone from 199k to 200k, I like to think it was me that did this.
Hey tik, i got a question for you. i heard you talked about in one of your videos that nazi germany had some food shortages before the war. how big of a impact had those food shortages?
That was the previous video, link: czcams.com/video/PQGMjDQ-TJ8/video.html I gave a few answers in that video, and some examples. Will be doing a follow up soon and I'll do my best to show you how bad it was.
I can report from my parents about this question: 1.) my father told me taht during WWII there was alwasy enough food available but from winter 1945/46 unitl 1947/48 there was terrible hunger. 2.) may mother' s father owned a food store in Silesia. Both my mother and my grandparents told me that until 1945 there was always enough food available.
@@TheImperatorKnight thanks
@@berndf.k.1662 were they from germany? Cause all the food germany captured went straight to germany and not their occupied lands
@Crystal Dreams its the Day that Judea declares war on germany. Are you trolling?
so the short summary is that he viewed resources as finite, and the more industrial nations in the game, aka players, meant less resources to go around.
Which is still true, apart from efficiency. Advances in technology mean we can do more with less. Still, the Capitalist Vs Socialist argument is probably redundant since we are still rapidly depleting the Earth's resources.
You really, really shouldn't try to summerize something that you clearly didn't understand.
The shrinking markets have nothing to do with finite ressources.
(Capitalism knows that ressources are finite, which is why it works)
The idea of shrinking markets is counter intuitive.
Sometime I would love to hear your take on Trickledown Economics!
He has said that trickle down economics isn't real and is a strawman
Another great one Tik. It's sad that saying these things are no longer healthy discourse. It has to be cancelled. Thanks for saying them anyway. WW2 is making more sense to me. Still getting my head round WW1
TIK at 1:48 in the video you made me fall off my chair. You state that the theory about the rate of profit falling as a tendency has something to do with falling profit and population increase. Now I know that Smith Ricardo and Marx all had theories about the falling rate of profit. None to my knowledge thought that population increase was a function. Here's the Wikipedia explanation "Smith
In Adam Smith's TRPF theory, the falling tendency resulted from increased competition which accompanied the growth of capital. Intensifying competition itself would drive down the average profit rate.[13]
Ricardo
Criticizing Adam Smith, David Ricardo argued that competition could only level out differences in profit rates on investments in production, but not lower the general profit rate (the grand-average profit rate) as a whole.[14] Apart from a few exceptional cases, Ricardo claimed, the average rate of profit could only fall if wages rose.[15]
Marx
In Capital, Karl Marx criticized Ricardo's idea. Marx argued that, instead, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is "an expression peculiar to the capitalist mode of production of the progressive development of the social productivity of labor".[16] Marx never denied that profits could contingently fall for all kinds of reasons,[16] but he thought there was also a structural reason for the TRPF, regardless of conjunctural market fluctuations.
Marx argued that technological innovation enabled more efficient means of production. Physical productivity would increase as a result, i.e. a greater output (of use values, i.e., physical output) would be produced, per unit of capital invested. Simultaneously, however, technological innovations would replace people with machinery, and the organic composition of capital would increase. Assuming only labor can produce new additional value, this greater physical output would embody a gradually decreasing value and surplus value, relative to the value of production capital invested. In response, the average rate of industrial profit would therefore tend to decline in the longer term.
It declined in the long run, Marx argued, paradoxically not because productivity decreased, but instead because it increased, with the aid of a bigger investment in equipment and materials.[17] .....
The central idea that Marx had, was that overall technological progress has a long-term "labor-saving bias", and that the overall long-term effect of saving labor time in producing commodities with the aid of more and more machinery had to be a falling rate of profit on production capital, quite regardless of market fluctuations or financial constructions.[19]
Marx falling rate of profit & population -> that was one piece of nonsense that caught my attention too. I did choose to put my attention on all the other bull TIK was telling. It was too much bull to easily address them all.
@Pedro Parica Did you also know that the state doing stuff is socialism too? The whole WORLD is socialist! Your firefighters are communists! EVERYONE IS A COMMUNIST! AAAAAAAH!
Well, I actualy am, but psht!
Of course, a company that has no one to sell to will go out of business, so prices have to fall accordingly. And if prices fall, then People have more money to spend on new kinds of things, which creates new industries, and new jobs.
Marx may explain why the copper industry is a bad investment, but he never made the leap of explaining this in a macroeconomic sense.
Also TIK don't understand Marx.
Stop lying, u werent laughing unless u were high on farts
Hey TIK couple of things:
I) I think you are mixing a wide range of view into one vague stereotype. For example All Academics are Marxists + Marxists deny the Holocaust would mean that the majority of published books deny the Holocaust which is not the case.
It maybe that a lot of academics tend to be left, but there is no such thing as a big Marxist conspiracy.
To underline my point: Im studying at maybe The most left Uni in Germany and the things you've said in the video were all mentioned in my introduction to Nationalsocialism. Although I admit they were not directly formed into a giant HITLER WAS SOCIALIST. But the facts are on the table for everyone and you can't explain the success of the Naziregime without its socialist policies.
II) I think you are simplifying NS ideology to fit your argumentation. Because the disapproval of the liberal capitalist world market is heavily linked with a general disapproval of modernity. Especially modern culture as in art or architecture. III)Also were the Nazis less focused on the socialization of the economy in general. They were only a few great efforts to create large directly controlled companies, the question is whether the regime felt that it had the power to do so. Instead was the acquisition of resources the focus of the wars in the east. Because resources rather than trade were in the minds of Nazi ideology the key to wealth.
IV) You really should get of you high horse when it comes to the supposed greatness of capitalism. I won't say that it's inherently bad, you should remember that most big bankers after the collapse of 2007 came to the central banks pleading for as much state intervention as they could get to save their asses. So much to the great ability of the markets to regulate themselves.
It's a false dilemma fallacy and a straw-man argument.
@@arsarma1808 a through analysis
Point IV is s good one . It's not so much socialism critique as the capitalism is right. .. it's a very childish take . One can argue all the theory stuff but the bias is inexcusable. Of course the Nazis ran socialist style policies as long as you were ethnically correct...which is kinda of the crux of the think. Racial theory and Nazi was a BIG THING which is absent from other economic theories thou not in practice.
The free market is responsible for exploitation of limited world resources for private gain, promotes inequality and human society seems to be running headlong into oblivion. Saying that, socialism never seems to have any answers either except for mass murdering it's subjects and ends up with a ruling class of it's own and is equally eistructive to our beautiful planet. Unless we wake up soon we're doomed, to quote Private Fraser in Dad's Army.
2 girls 1 cup refrence is gold
People need to see your videos about all this right now!
Absolutely fantastic history---keep it up!
I regret that I have but one upvote to give this video. Don't get discouraged. Keep telling the truth.
Your videos should be what we watch in school
Thank you so much for this - it is a timely explanation!
Stunner video, thanks man ❤️
Bruh actually your content leaves me speechless. Not because I am a socialist, which I have, thank god, also never been, but because it is very good researched and it provokes deep thoughts, which have only rarely been triggered yet in my history study. Keep it up! Your material is very good for further research!
This episode has convinced me that the man running this channel should run for public office. Doesn't have to be the UK, could be the US. Please respond to my comment here (I know its been 3 years but I'm just discovering) and I swear to God I will find a way!
Free market system combined with some touches of reasonable regulation IS THE BEST ECONOMIC SYSTEM EVER MADE.
Norway
@@TheNikolas995 Possibly. Yeah. I think so quite too as well.
@@TheNikolas995 Sideshow based on minerals consumption by more developed and diversified economies
Not much competition though is there.
@@wallonmcwoolworth819 Again most of the countries now are economically fascist!
Your overreaching and cherry picking facts, definitions etc.
Dont just complain, give examples or counter arguments. Otherwise your comment is empty and meaningless.
@JohnnyGotHisGun Most of his videos are generally neutral. He provides facts and statistics and information. this is the first vid of hist that is completely clear his opinion on the matter meaning its biased and I can't draw as much info as usual. If you believe he is cherrypicking, please explain how and elaborate. provide facts and statistics and such. I am quite interested indeed in this subject, and the internet is quite blank when if comes to information on either side. If you had the time and the will to do so, please tell me what he is saying is wrong or right. my facebook is same name as here with a pfp of a drawing of a bunch of kids with a group of red balloons. if you wouldn't't mind helping me understand the subject better.
@@timothyhofmeister1832 provide facts that his understanding of Keynes as a socialist is wrong? Reading fucking Keynes himself.
Provide statistics that "tax is theft" is wrong? That's a political value that he holds. Not an objective truth. It's his subjective view on the interpersonal relations between humans.
He sees "money" and the profit schema as an entirely natural (a la gravity or electromagnetism) and seemingly bases this mostly off of econ 101?
The mechanics of state stimulus in economic growth are complex papers and year 4 econ courses. Import substitution industrialization is something that's proven to work AND doesn't follow either shrinking markets.
The creation of relative ricardian advantage is basic ass economics. It's the American school, it's Alexander Hamilton. If he's gonna call Hamilton a socialist too then it's true insanity. Heck, the set up of the current Pareto optimal free trade system was recognized as being hostile towards development of domestic capability, that's why GATT has articles 19 and 21. the wto's regime enshrines the GATT.
to explain: e.g. Japan's car industry sucked and couldn't compete. It would collapse completely in the face of ford and Chrysler. Through government subsidization and tariffs on foreign cars, their domestic industry had enough backing until their technology and costs were able to compete globally, without this backing. Tik would seemingly declare this socialism.
De gaullism under France is another interesting view point. Either way, the right wing gov in Japan and de Gaulle are hardly socialist.
And last point, find me a socialist who says all those gov services he lists early on aren't socialism. They are literally espoused as socialism by socialists.
Tik is presenting his own political leanings and valuations and theorizing as facts, when it's at best the Austrian school of economics.
You know why economics has schools? Because there's no single factual economics. They're all in argument with each other due to their presumptions regarding how the economy works. The underlying axioms they present on reality are nigh impossible to objectively verify due to complexity of human society, it's international interconnection, and the sheer amount of differing trendlines in humans' behavior.
I can NOT prove his opinions and interpretations and values are NOT facts using facts and stats because facts and stats prove objective things and he's posing entirely subjective points in here. They're categorically different.
@@PejmanMan A very intelligent and well-argued post. I would interject that while it is very difficult to prove in economic terms the absolute truth of any of TIK's assertions about economics per se, I do think there is a great deal of historical evidence that the concentration of political and economic power into the hands of a small number of people leads to a corrosive conflation of the nation's interests with the personal interests of the people in power. Perhaps the reason why the American and British systems have endured for so long is that political and economic power there have been relatively diffuse.
Finally, the question of whether "tax is theft" is a political question and not one of economics. If there is a voluntary, general will to submit to taxation for perceived common good, it is not theft. If taxation is based solely on coercion and/or deception, it is truly theft. If it is something in between, well that's the real world, and it's a matter of social dialogue, political struggle, and negotiation.
These pepole are ignorant they dont want anybody to challenge their false veiws thats problely why this guy says anyone who voices objectins are nazis
Best explained video I have watch for long time.
Love your channel, love your videos.
April Fools day is late this year
So 1: I grew up in a commie, and soon after, an ex-commie country. Had to be a pioneer, had to learn Russian as mandatory language. I agree completely with the part of the video that Leninism-Stalinism/Soviet Socialism have striking resemblances and common practices with Naziism. I myself resorted to simply call them extremes, and it does not matter if they are 'left' or 'right', because, indeed, they pretty much came up with the same practical solutions to all their problems.
2: However, I do not agree with the insinuation that any kind of common good, state healthcare, pension, or unemployment payment is the door to Naziism and/or Stalinist oppression. I believe that these are neccessary elements and safeguards of a modern, competitive society.
3: I'd also point out that extreme individualism can manifest in similar fashion to said Leninism/Stalinism/Naziism. The leaders and acolytes of these systems proclaimed that they have been raised to power because they are the most capable individuals who understand the people's needs. (see Fuhrerprinzip) Both extremes cultivated very similar individuals as leaders, who were very political, extremely untrustworthy, disloyal, and opportunistic. The opulence of the Gauleiters of the Nazis were mirrored by the local party secretaries in Communism; both were de facto viceroys, both were highly individualistic and unaccountable.
4. Thus I think that extreme capitalism, where a person can do anything as long as they have the largest amount of money and wealth, is a similarly extremist ideology as Naziism/Stalinism.
If I misunderstood the creator, then apologies; I really liked some of his prevous material. However, in this clip, there seems to be a tad too much liberal-bashing for my taste.
#2 a State-ran anything sounds like a good idea in principle, but is ALWAYS inefficient and poorly ran in practice. Since there is no competition nor incentive, these burocracies eventually collapse under their own bloated weight. They collapse even faster when you open them up to non-altruistic people and scammers. #4 you are correct, but that is why the US has anti-trust and monopoly busting laws in place. As long as they are upheld, titans of industry must compete against each other. Until they form a cartel or cabal of course, which they will. Which is why we then have the 2nd amendment.
@@bbooth1229 My good Sir, I believe you are mistaken.
As for #2: state healthcare may be less 'efficient' than certain private healthcare providers - but what do you use as the measure of efficiency? Money earned? If so, then the privatised US healthcare indeed could be considered efficient, since its one of the three most expensive healthcare systems in the world for per capita spending. (i.e. it is certainly efficient as a means of lining the pockets of healthcare providers) But, if we consider the lives saved, or the general health of the population the measures, the US system is much, much less 'efficient'; in fact it fares rather poorly compared many other developed countries. The US trails every Western European country in life expectancy (38th place, right after Lebanon); it trails even post-communist EU contries and Cuba in child mortality; rates worse in obesity than most European countries, etc.
Further to dispel the free-market dogma that private-run businesses are always better than state - could you tell me a place in the US where the military, or the police, or the courts are run by a private company? How about me buying a nuke as a private entity? Or could I build one for myself? I'm pretty sure I could do it way cheaper than Sandia. Can I do that? Of course I cannot. The state has to monopolise and control these areas, otherwise it would cease to function as a government (since it could not protect its citizens from anything). Also, could you tell me how come that in all militaries around the world healthcare comes free to all members? (Well, to be fair, it's not free, but built into the cost of the service) There is no one at the field hospital asking for your insurance - I wonder why?...
I also wanted to note, that despite its troubles, state heathcare is pretty well and alive in most Western democracies. Germany, Sweden, France, etc. all had some form of state healthcare for the past 60+ years, and, as discussed earlier, their population is generally in better health compared to the US. Furthermore - private healthcare is also alive and well in these countries! Yes, there are private health providers around Europe, and if you wish, you can go and pay $300 for an inhaler. But, if you don't have the money - you don't have to!
As for #4: As far as the connection of the 2nd amendment to anti-trust laws goes - in my limited knowledge of US history, no 'well regulated militia' or private citizens 'bearing arms' have ever, ever dissolved a single monopoly or cartel. On the other hand, the Federal Court, i.e. the state, did: like in the case of Standard Oil, or the Hollywood film studios (and in a few other cases).
In conclusion, Sir: I am not advocating that all private enterprise should be sacrificed for the sake of state providence; but I do advocate that a modern state should take responsibility for the general wellbeing of its citizens. And, if a state claims itself to be the 'best in everything' in the world, it should be ready to put its money where its mouth is.
kisfekete very well. A good example of a state run healthcare in the US was the Dept of Veterans. Before Trump cleaned house, it was a sluggish nightmare for most people. As far as European state healthcare, these populations are more healthy because of better diet, excursive, and work/life balance, not because their healthcare system is better. Also, we are talking about largely homogeneous populations around 5 to 15 million compared to our population of 300 million and 50 million illegal aliens. As far as better healthcare in Canada, Cuba, etc, most recognize our healthcare as tops in the world and would come here for treatment if they could. I have seen and experienced socialized healthcare in England for example. No thanks. That is NOT to say ours is perfect, it’s definitely not, but socializing it would be an unmitigated disaster. As far as socializing nuclear...of course. Police I am not too sure about. We used to socialize space travel, and them Musk, Bezos, and Richard showed up and made it far more efficient. We privatize military with Blackwater with mixed results, so police I am not sure about. #4. The second ammendment hasnt been used, thank God, but it is the ultimate fail-safe against any tyranny, both left and right generated. The capitalist oligarchs may eventually join forces and buy the entire government, Lord knows they are trying, at which point our laws are no longer enforceable. THAT is when the 2nd comes into play.
@wagner1va so what you're saying is that the two aren't really comparable. Thetefor there's no way to know if U.S private health care is more efficient.
That moment when you _want_ to argue against a position, but realize that the argument is solid, and you cannot refute the initial assumptions. You haven't completely changed my mind (I've always had severe concerns with state run socialism of any stripe for a LONG time), but you've definitely given me some things to think on and integrate/refute after this thought.
19:02 I fear there is a gross oversimplification here. Not all politics fall under a right-left dichotomy, this doesn't allow for group liberty or individual tyranny (e.g. friend groups and monarchies respectively).
21:41 Really? Ad hominem and insults? You're acting in the manner of the opponents you seek to discredit.
Ah, it just got worse from 22:00 onwards. It completely disregards the various ways that private individuals/groups can be authoritarian and exploitative. Yes, while the state can (and I'd argue that all states by design must) be exploitative in some fashion, so too can these private entities. I'll try and peel off the good parts of your original arguments (and they are there) from the unexamined and inaccurate false dilemma that comes later.
Jesus!!! ... I didn't saw this ... ...
How I do to un-saw this video?