Play World of Warships here: [wo.ws/3Te9v0H] Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code HPPYNWYR2024 to receive a huge starter pack including a free ship, 300 Doubloons, 1 million Credits, 7 days of Premium Account time, 1 ship, 3 Santa's Gift containers, the New Year Constellation flag, and 10 New Year Sky camouflages. Applicable to new users only.
thank you for doing this video - having seen some of your stuff before, I know it's going to be good. I can already hear TIK fans emailing him and begging him to respond to it. I'm betting that he'll either pretend he isn't aware of it, or, if he does address it, he'll make up some BS about how the definition of socialism was changed in the 1960's by all those post modernists who took over the west and turned everyone into 'trans atheists'.
citing communists and their critiques of nazi germany's economy in order to prove that communism is exactly like nazi germany is the most insane thing ive ever seen
there's no stretch to far for a monarchist. imagine how much mental gymnastics you have to do to convince yourself that some family of people deserve to not only own your life, but decide what gets to happen to everyone on earths lives. because reasons
~be me ~be commander of battalion of troops ~be on defense of nearby important city ~return to local supply depot for reasupplying ~quartermaster refuses to resupply my troops because I can't give him good offer ~return to frontline armed just with cold steel ~we're routed because we can't put up defense with just bayonets and shovels fml
@@tbotalpha8133A lotta good that budget does you when you already are broke from arguing prices with the people sent to take you to the hospital or put out your burning house.
As a long time former TIK enjoyer who was gobsmacked by his steady decline into ideology, I'm really glad to see someone addressing his crap. A personal favourite of mine from his body if work was when he suggested that military logistics would be better if drivers privately owned their truck. He apparently forgets that it isnt exactly in someone rational self interest to drive into a bloody warzone when they are responsible for buying a replacement if their truck, through some mysterious means, should be damaged or destroyed.
Libertarians think people shouldn't have to get driving licenses and that age of consent should be lowered. They aren't really rational. Plus the whole libertarian/ancap ideology started with rich people that loved gold standard founding a cult.
Reject modernity, embrace the military provisioning of antiquity! Nothing better than going bankrupt after your truck gets blown up, leading to considerable personal debt and the military loosing a driver while you struggle to come up with the money to buy a new one.
I think I can agree with Tik's ideology in on historical circumstance only. Remember his documentary on courland? There was a bit where Latvian fishermen were willing to take German soldiers away from the shrinking pocket but only if the Germans paid them in gold. Tik was like "this is fair and moral" (paraphrasing). You know what I can't disagree charge those nazi fucks an arm and a leg. And in the process wreck your whole argument about "private" logistics Tik 😂😂
You gotta admit though that, 'However, this caused the destruction of private property, the Jews and prices' is an absolute banger of a line. It's so stupid and funny
@@brotlowskyrgseg1018 The SS going the Hutu Power route of “Chop down the tall trees” and using machetes because FDBrandon’s economy has inflation that’s so bad that it FUCKED UP my ammo prices.
TIIK's whole diatribe about "not being a member of society" sounds eerily similar to Thatcher's parliamentary speech about how there's "no such thing as a society" lol
That's the bit that everybody remembers. The full quote is: "They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." She said all that to "Women's Own" magazine (UK) in 1987. The forgotten bit of Thatcher is that she hoped that by deregulating the markets, private charity would step in for the factory workers who would be fired and all the other lower class people badly hit by this "market dynamism." Nothing of the kind happened.
@@ThatOneGuy7550it’s also because a lot of Thatcher’s world view descended from individualist/libertarian thinkers. It’s why her ‘New Right’ deviated from the old right as Thatcher believed more in the individual then in collectives. And the same is true for TIK
TIK: If humans historically defined something as X, then I can't say it's Z, even if I personally disagree. TIK after two beers: So anyway, socialism is when people live in society...
Okay on an actually serious note tho, this is the crux of bourgeois ideology, especially the kind as espoused by right-libertarians. It essentially wants to pretend that we are all separate, completely autonomous, in-control, isolated little islands that make rational economic decisions. This culminates in such statements as "there is no such thing as society, only individuals". This is a fantasy. Since the earliest days of humanity, there have been human societies. They differed greatly and had vastly different socio-political and economic systems, diverse to such a point most people today would not believe it (thank you Mr. David Graeber, RIP). But they were always societies, no human being inside any of them was separate from other people and from the context in which they lived in. Capitalist ideology of the variety TIK history subscribes to wants to present the other view I just lined out. That "in a state of nature", humans would live separate from each other and that this is what would make them free. In doing so, it basically wants to give the impression that people coming together to do literally anything as a group, collective, or social body in some way actually limits freedom, and for some reason they choose in particular to focus on democratic, co-operative forms of human organisation, such as those advocated by most revolutionary socialists. Their answer to this is to declare that things must not be this way, and that when we start to act that way, society as such won't exist and we will a be free. The reality ofc is that this is literally impossible. We humans evolved as social creatures, we are still gonna live together and function as part of something larger. The only effect this variant of bourgeois ideology then has when it chooses in particular to emphasize its anti-democratic character is that it simply acts as an excuse for political and economic autocracy, veiled under the terms such as "private". It acts as an excuse for alienation and isolation we all experience under capitalism, to tell us that this is in essence the default way of functioning for humanity. Most tragic of all, this is not at all how the bourgeoisie themselves acts when push comes to shove, not even those that would explicitly adopt the right-libertarian label. When their interests are in danger, they act as a class. They temporarily drop their competition with one another and co-operate, they collaborate, they prop each other up and show massive solidarity for one another, they are extremely well-organized. But then they still push this way of viewing the world onto us, most of the time not even requiring their vast capitalist media to propagandize us directly, but just requiring the more implicit effecta of capitalist socialization we all already experience, and the result is that most of the working class is in competition with each other, left divided fighting for scraps, and being told that acting in this individualist manner will emancipate them. This is one of the greatest tools the rulling class has. Outwardly, they push the ideology of atomizing individualism, but inwardly, they act as a class.
socialism is when there are multiple people, and the more people there are, the more it is socialism, and when there's a lot of people - that's commulism!
The shame is that TIK wasn't always this bad. His videos on the Eastern Front of WW2 were pretty entertaining. But the moment he started making these insane takes his quality took a nosedive.
I used to watch him too years ago. His videos were very detailed and interesting. But then I started noticing him saying things like "Hitler and the Nazis were totally left wing and actually they were socialists, it's right in the name 'National Socialism'!" so I stopped clicking on his videos. I didn't know much about politics at the time, but even still I could just _feel_ that what he was saying was wildly wrong, even if I didn't know exactly why.
Completely agree! He's literally done the same thing Metatron has done except no, NO WAY near as bad imo TIK is just hella misguided as where Metatron has dropped his history to purely mix it with politics now another Medieval TH-camr going shit isn't a surprise though.
As opposed to "Socialism is when good things happen. If bad thing happens, is not true socialism, even if it was true socialism until bad thing happend"
@@McHobotheBobo "Not real socialism" is used all of them time, and when pushed, the justification is always "because bad things happened, therefore not socialism"
@@jgomo3877or better yet, “it wasn’t workplace democracy!” Like what do you expect? Workplace democracy by itself cannot handle large scale supply chains that are required for modern society, you need something with more reach.
TIK history is what is called a "lost cause". The only hope is that your subscribers and their opinions do not create stupid people. A shame, their history videos in general are quite good.
I remember one video where he started talking about how the NHS is a money pit that the government keeps on throwing money into, of course it is it’s a service it’s designed to be a loss making organisation it’s not designed to make profit so of course, we have to keep putting money into it.
It's an important lesson, that just because someone makes good videos, doesn't mean that all their videos are good, or that they should be trusted. I remember stumbling onto Tik's channel before. I watched a couple videos and decided to look into him more to see if I wanted to sub. The fact that he took such a strong stance on the Nazis are socialist thing put me on alert. I watched it to see his arguments, and he literally said at the beginning that all Historians are completely wrong and just are ignoring it and his arguments just not being convincing. That's when I decided to drop him. It's fine to disagree with them, but to say every historian is completely off base without good evidence to back that up, rubbed me the wrong way.
TIK's political ideology is the an amalgamation of every dumb High Schooler libertarian take mixed with an American understanding of Socialism. This is gonna be one funny ride.
you all really should stop projecting the behavior of 1% of americans onto the rest of us. ffs just stop. well off americans are dumb yes, but they are european loyalists. not americans. and privilege makes everyone extremely dumb
I've not watched one of TIK's videos in a while. I enjoyed his WW2 stuff, and after he had clearly been slapped with a 'cease-desist-retraction' order over one of his comments about Anthony Beevor's "Arnhem", I actually sent him a message of support. With hindsight, I shouldn't have, because he was free to say , but not He also lost me when he said National Socialism and Socialism are the same thing. The problem with that, in my opinion, is that although it might be a good 'wind-up' point, it's quite clearly f-ing stupid and shouldn't be made seriously.
@@frostyrobot7689you should actually watch his videos, he clearly points out that national socialism is a distinct branch of socialism, like marxism or fascism.
As someone who actually read Wolmer's work on trains, he is not pro-privatization of the railways by any means. Indeed, he cites the numerous problems that private ownership of railways has. This ranges from having towns connected by multiple stations in the initial boom stage with a mess of redundant lines spread out (in his words) "higgledy piggledy" to operating in a way which maximize profits at the expense of service quality. Most nations had at least the government footing a good chunk of the bill in building their rail network, if not building it from the ground up. Pretty much only the UK (not the British Empire, as there was substantial state subsidy in Canada, Australia, Company Rule India/the Raj and New Zealand, but only in the British Isles) was private capital the only driver of railway investment in the initial stages. He also says that when the US Government briefly effectively nationalized the Railways in 1917 to 20 they did a better job and much of the lessons were soon lost. There are also specific points about railways and how they operate that Wolmar stresses. He also stresses that Railways are by their nature natural monopolies. There is theoretically a best root between two cities in a straight line. Similarly are very capital intensive to build, especially in the early stages. They also are hard to mothball as tracks need regular maintenance, which is something that companies will skimp on once the network reaches. Similarly much of the benefits of railways come in positive externalities that they generate. TLDR: Wolmer's attitude towards Railways is not pro-privatization by any means.
@@night6724 Which is a pretty valid take. He reads oppositional ideas to simply come to his own rational conclusion. It makes sense after all. If I remember correctly Norway and Swedens road are pretty privatized and seem to be the best + safest there are.
@@bycreay3647 Wolmer's works on railways actively refutes TIK's position. It's like Climate Deniers citing a NASA source that says that Antarctic sea ice grew during the winter of a year, which overlooks that this was an overall blip in the general trajectory.
@@bycreay3647 The Swedish road "privatization" can be summarized as the state being responsible for maintenance, building, planning etc, but they hire private companies to do the physical work - colloquially referred to as "putting out to entrepreneurship". This manner of public procurement, or government contracting, has caused massive issues in terms of mandatory bidding systems where the state is forced by law to accept the company that offers to do the job at the cheapest price, which more often than not results in the company either doing a shit job, not finishing the job at all because they keel over economically before finishing it, or they overshoot the price they promised by miles and demand to be paid the new amount to finish things, all incredible annoyances and inefficiencies that forces the state to pay more than they would have compared to how things would be if they were just operated by a state company that wasn't motivated by the profit margin.
TIKHistory is hilarious! He makes incredibly well-sourced and well-researched videos about things like the fuel shortage of Germany in WW2 and then in the same breath makes the wildest assertions about things like the Third Reich and socialism quoting Thomas Sowell of all people! 😂😂😂 This guy is the perfect example of what it's like when you have a fervent belief in an unfounded idea and desperately try to make it fit with the real world. Anarcho-capitalists have given me the biggest laughs over the years. I used to align with them during my initial phase of atheism because of people like Penn and Teller but then quickly saw through the ridiculousness of their libertarian side. Still an atheist but definitely not a libertarian.
@@andreydoronin6995 the difference is that those who claim to be ancap dont actually understand what that truly means. they say it to sound edgy but what they believe in is eurocentric feudalism and monarchy. what ancap is would fuel their nightmares. anarchy doesnt mean no government. it means no rulers. no ruling class. only horizontal power structure. so take that idea and apply it to market economy and you have a perpetually successful form of socialism that still allows the people to have control of their own lives as opposed to some unelected party members and their families. ancap means things look similar to what we have now in terms of labor thats done, except people get paid better and no one is getting more pay than anyone else is for doing the same labor or less. and no one gets to make laws that effect others without their input and consent etc. honestly its just functional capitalism. capialism without the parasitic cancer inducing activities and behaviors. capitalism that aims to generate profit to spread wealth to all the species. not just one country like "socialism" and "communism" have done and will only ever be able to do.
@XxSeedOfEvilzX What is wrong with Thomas Sowell, I ask? The way you comment when criticizing people makes you look like an ideologue, with all due respect. Before we move on, I couldn’t help myself from asking what specific arguments you take issue with that Thomas Sowell expresses. I am a part-time reader of Thomas Sowell myself, and from my observations, his arguments are valid, sound, and adhere to human nature. It seems to me that you do not care to hear the points made but rather attack and slander them for who you perceive them to be, am I right? So again, what do you take issue with?
Already know this is gonna be juicy. I bounced off of his channel after I saw a video where he was arguing (as he always does) that Hitler was a leftie and socialist because he "strengthened" the Unions by... making them subordinate to the state and the party. And then in the same video he went into a tangent about how he hates taxes in the modern day UK because why not.
That's not exactly all that different from communism in action. Anyone not espousing communist politics has "false consciousness". This is a way to force top-down compliance (someone will define and arbitrate who has false conciousness or not, otherwise chaos reigns, as everyone will accuse everyone else of having false conciousness, ergo "top"). In practice this means that unions are subordinate to the state/party (false conciousness accusations ensure unity once again). Does that make Hitler socialist? No, because action does not equal intention/goal. Hitler saw unions as a way to unify society and have everyone fulfil "their own role" (a right-wing view) in society. Socialists wish to unify society for more freedom, after all the ultimate goal is to remove all barriers (good or bad).
Lol there was one single "union" which all workers were a part of, but conveniently wage negotiations and strikes were banned entirely and would get you sent to the concentration camp.
@@lamename2010 Yeah I get your point about the Real socialism, I come from Poland so I know more or less how state-run unions used to work before the "Solidarity" appeared. The latter part of your comment is crucial here though; lobotomizing the unions does not make a regime socialist. What TIK was trying to do in that video if I remember correctly after all this time was that he described how the unions became subordinate to the state and the Party and then he tried to flip it onto its head, as if all this was proof how the unions were actually dictating what the Party could or could not do. And then he started bitching about his taxes. EDIT: Found it! The title is "But Hitler Crushed the Trade Unions!". I won't be rewatching it anytime soon but it's this one.
@@colebehnke7767 The stated goal, as stated in the internationales is anarchy or rather a stateless society. But the overall goal of socialists and proto-socialists as seen by all the causes they champion is freedom. Freedom to do whatever they want, good or ill. Karl Marx wanted to be free of the burden of society (which exists to facilitate survival), so we get anarchy as the ultimate goal of communism. A state where survival is guaranteed, money is no longer a worry, etc. Other socialist-minded people champion for the freedom of body, to remove any barrier (like responsibility) that impedes who they can sleep with. The list goes on. The theme is freedom. The result is usually chaos, so you can pick either one. Depending on whether you want to portray it positively or negatively.
Whilst parodying Jorbson Peterpan's discussion of the "extreme male brain" hypothesis for autism, Nick Mullen said "actually, it's gay to get pussy". That moment stuck with me as paradigmatic of people who love to say "you've been lied". To me, TIK is a turbocharged instance of an "actually, it's gay to get pussy" guy.
@@Mortablunt cuz they are real evidences of many,many nazis being in ukraine of course. Like 3 clips of broken ukrainian speaking dudes, giving the hitler greating or so...
@@MortabluntHow does killing other socialists prove that you’re not a socialist? Especially if they belong to a different kind of socialism than you? Forgive me, but don’t socialist countries have a track record of doing this that’s at least a mile long?
"BUT THEY DIDN'T """PRIVITISE""" THE RAILWAYS!!!!! THERE IS STILL GOVERNMENT INVOLVED!!!! NETWORK *FAIL* IS MAKING TRAIN COMPANIES A LIVING HELL!!!!!" -- my Interpretation of his video on Britain's railways (After I took a break from his videos I came back just to see him make a mockery of the British railway system)
The rail companies are genuinely my main enemy in my life honestly, and should be for the average working class young person/environmentally conscious person who can't afford / doesn't want to drive
@@Denkmaldrubernacht Every problem I ever had with public transit by train in Germany comes form some shitty small private company running them. I pretty much agree.
@@eightcoins4401Really? I mostly drove with HLB, mostly on time, except when DB proper was delayed or occupied the line. Still glad to say I don't need to drive by train anymore, although I'd really like to manytimes, depending on my mood
@@eightcoins4401 I recently came back to my old stomping grounds in Hessen where the Vias railway is in charge of much of the network and they were just as bad as they were 10 years ago, repeatedly having delays of up to 1 hour on a fairly short route on top of regularly giving false information on which track a train will leave.
It's funny cus he has some legitimately good videos, mostly the ones where he's just going over the order of battle and events etc of specific battles. Then interspersed between them, there is "Why Hitler was a Socialist Part 18"
@@MaoZedongGaming_ naming your TH-cam account after the largest mass murder in history? Cool! Socialism/communism has the highest starvation count of any ideology ever, congratulations! First at something for once.
Tik is such a weird case. On the one hand there's all his insane ideas about economics that defy all sense and logic, and on the other hand he's one of the few guys to say that maybe the Red Army was in fact a modern army and not a horde of peasant barbarians. A man of extremes if nothing else. I wonder if his video about Germany losing WWII because of oil shortages still holds up, I remember that one being pretty decent at least.
Well his strictly operational level videos about WW2 all are based on the big names in current research, namely Glanz (sp?), I imagine it's still valid
@@kenon6968 Considering he functionally plagiarised Glantz, it's hard to completely go off the rails, but even his operational videos are polluted with his 'Revisionism'. Without actually reading the books, you have to question if he is cherry-picking. One bat crazy claim he made was Lend-lease was immaterial to the USSR, and they could have won without it because they were just that good, a massive overcompensation of the competency of the combatants. Fast-forward to full scale invasion of Ukraine, oh, it's a Russian propaganda talking point.
@kenon6968 This. Tik calls himself a historian (granted he has a history degree) yet does no primary research. What he did well was taking other people's dense work and presenting in a easy to follow visual format. That doesn't necessarily make you a historian as opposed to a history video essayist or a history hobbyist.
For what i underestant i think i got his posture, which is quite funny. The most evident isghe use of "red pill" unironically, and his anti goverment set mindset is the nail in the coffin:He Is a medium-low income person, who has live under a 100% capitalistic system and has grown disingenious with it, specially when you co cider the twisted the use of mefia by the american state is and how it has been use si ce it time as a colony to control jts population so he HATES the state, knows is a buch of fat fucks, so not really trsut their bable anymore, but also is disapointed with masses allowing it and as much as he tried deprograming himself he still belive some of that propaganda. Maybe one day he would realize the nature of capitalism as an individualistic paradigm of power greed, but i fear it will be only when he is one of those at the top and he would spew the same propaganda after all, he is now one of those with control.
I mean TIK's "Bullet price" argument also falls apart for the simple reason that the person you killed might have had a lot of valuables you can sell, y'know looting and stealing.
My favorite part about libertarians, specifically AnCaps is that for any of what they say to hold water they have to conveniently forget some of t he oldest human activities and institutions. Monopoly of force? Never heard of it. Violence for economic gain? Nope Feudalism? Never happened. It’s so god damn stupid
@@enider All of these arguments apply to Anarcho Communism as well. You just believe worker coops wouldn't do those things while le evil capitalist would because you've been brainwashed by MSM and popular media showing le evil rich guy in pretty much everything.
One of the funniest things about TIK is that his arguments about definitions are all based on a logical fallacy, that being the etymological fallacy, which states that the historical meaning of words is their "real" meaning. His entire arguments rests on basically ignoring one of the central foundations of linguistics.
@@troopersteve2992 Except he's trying to use them _only_ on the basis of their historical meanings, not more modern and more currently relevant meanings and contexts. You can't ignore what it is: Disingenuous wordplay.
@@SpaceMarine500They definitely do, would you genuinely with a straight face say that gay still means happy? The meaning of the words we use are not objective, they rely entirely on cultural consensus which is why many words have come to mean different things relevant too different time periods, a liberal in 1760 is so far from a liberal of today they are entirely different sets of beliefs, even in within our time there are many political terms with no objective meaning because there is no consensus on what they even are.
This video has caused me a great deal of anguish, why does something being publicly traded mean its in the public sector??? is he just playing with words???? Your point about using secondary sources over primary ones was very good tho
@@die1mayer primary sources are more valuable, but my analysis of a primary source in a field I don't specialize in is less valuable than a secondary source which analyses that primary source from the perspective of someone who specializes in that period of history
@@mothra727 If Hitler says in his own words: " I am a Socialist", what gives historians the right to deny this? Hitler truely believed that he was a Socialist and that his Socialism was not against private property but for the common good. Just like other moderate Socialists (Social Democrats etc.).
@@mothra727 If Hitler says in his own words: " I am a Socialist", what gives historians the right to deny this? Hitler truely believed that he was a Socialist and that his Socialism was not against private property but for the common good. Just like other moderate Socialists (Social Democrats etc.).
_"Amazon is socialism because it's publicly traded?"_ Well, Amazon is collectively owned by multiple people ... just like worker co-ops would be. So you tell us.
TIK outright dismisses the concept of State Capitalism and says it's an oxymoron because he can't fit it into his world view, so naturally this would make the East India Trading Company's rule of India would be completely Socialism. India run as a for-profit state, makes it state run in his eyes.
@@DeFlaminPigs If there were a legitimate historical source that agreed with his narrative, he would have used it. The fact that he didn't use one means that he couldn't find one.
I love when the actual definitions of words or concepts go completely against conservative’s ideologies, so they just make up a totally new definition that fits their narrative. They are always “right”, and don’t use books to inform themselves and learn, but to reaffirm their what they already believe, in a world where they are the center of the universe. Ignorant arrogance is one of the most obnoxious personality traits someone can possess, and these people have it in spades.
I've begun saying that conservatism is merely the politics of narcissism because that's entirely what it is. Core to the ideology is strictly enforced social hierarchies where one's rights, wealth, and power in society is determined by one's rank on the hierarchy, and they always conveniently think of themselves as being the top of that hierarchy being enriched off the labor of those lower on the hierarchy. They simply believe society and the state should serve themselves and exclusively themselves, much like a narcissist (in the clinical sense) has a superiority complex and believes other people exist only to give them what they want. Conservatism is their own superiority complexes turned into a political ideology.
@@moosesandmeese969 >Core to the ideology is strictly enforced social hierarchies where one's rights, wealth, and power in society is determined by one's rank on the hierarchy Literally no conservative thinks this.
I think of my favourite thing about this channel is when Fredda critiques someone, he doesn’t just go “You’re wrong and here’s why” he goes in-depth about why something is a problem and the background to it, so we the audience are learning too. I found this channel through the video on Kraut, a channel I like, and was genuinely impressed by how well Fredda made and explained his criticisms instead of just dunking on Kraut. Except for whatifalthist. That guy’s such a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual egotistical wacko he deserves to be mocked.
It's not exclusive to Libertarianism; it happens to communists, conservatives, socialists, theologians, everyone who is seduced by the "One true faith" approach to philosophy and ideology.
@@jgomo3877 Libertarianism is not a real ideology, at best it's a Think Tank Construct for the purposes of manufacturing instability and power vacuums for manufacturing Privatization schemes. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, the very people that promote and fund it would never allow it to take total power because it is functionally built to collapse. It's basically Liberalism without any of the structural support systems that allows it to work, even with all the problems Liberalism has, it doesn't have those issues; issues that neither Socialism or Fascism has either.
Why would he respond to some gaming channel boasting only 1/6th of his subscriber count? I mean, it would definitely entertain, to see back and forth between some economics bachelor (or whatever he is) and a bald retail man, who nonetheless is capable of investing an impressive amount of effort into some of his works. But "some" works rather better than "none", innit?
@@intensiveintensives4887 That's not the point, anyway. The point is to have discussion about what he says. He will eventually garner more attention with his slow descent into his antics. This is the first step. Nobody should have immunity from being called out. It doesn't matter how many subs Fredda has. People with less subs should just remain in silence? Is that what you trying to say? Like Fredda does not deserve response? Dude, please.
On one hand I actually really like TIK, but on the other his content is becoming insufferable. I’ve been subscribed to him for going on five years now and to see him slide into ancap bs is really sad to watch. I still consider him a net positive for my own education since he A.) gives very detailed deep dives into whatever subject he is rambling about, and B.) is obviously wrong about so much that I find myself constantly fact checking him and coming to a much better understanding of the subject. While I know I needed this video, it’s gonna be sad to watch. I don’t think TIK is a bad guy or being consciously dishonest in his ramblings, I just think he is too far gone into the neoliberal/ancap echo chamber. As much as it pains me to say this, he should just “stick to tanks”.
He's not a terrible guy, but I think something has to be said about the dogwhistles, conspiracy theories and so on, a thing I don't really address in this video since I'm not making a moral judgment of his character, only a judgment of his content.
@@FreddaYTI think the issue is that his kind of libertarianism use "logic" as their main method and argue based on individual action from a theoretical standpoint and the argue "logically" on from that. They claim that empiricism is useless and TIK even at one point claimed that "Praxeology" as so much more fun than dry statistics.
@@FreddaYT I would argue that he is a terrible guy. He's an anti vax, anti liberal who thinks James Lindsay is a valid source. I don't think there's any real difference between him and the average American Christian nationalist. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he thinks evolution is some socialist plot.
Except He didnt all His political Talk IS about the political in the 20th century very important and If you dont Talk about politics you will never understand WW2. Germany changed politically completely in barely 20 years Not to mention the turmoil that happened all over the world Post ww1 that Led to the rise of the third positions in the First place. If they remained the monarchical Status quo WW2 would never happened especially since more Like Germany would have broken apart again into the little noble realms that were sneakingly brought together by prussian Manipulations
funnily enough. Richard Wolff says that socialism has nothing to do with the government and in the same breath says that you need the government to make the transition.@@adsaa5852
If that central government is controlling or directly owning the means of production and economy in general, then by definition it is socialism. Not sure how you could have a central government and not have at least control over the economy.
This is the definition by the greatest source of information "Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership" exactly what Tik says. Socialism is not Marxism, Socialism is not communism either
Your professor being Jonas Scherner was unexpected surprise, I’ve read some of his work bc I nerd out about this a lot (economic and military history of ww2 and post Europe rebuilding) that’s so cool!! Keep up the good work as well! Sorry if this is awfully formatted im almost fluent jn english but I was raised by my German grandmas who fled from the holocaust lol-
@@bv2623Never mind that the entire point was how the term National Socialist came into being and why. At the end of World War I, socialists thought they had a perfect opportunity to create their classless utopia because of the power vacuums left behind after the revolutions against the Imperial Eagles, and Russia was already seen as a precedent (what socialists failed to understand is that without Germany smuggling Lenin in, Russia would not have succumbed to socialism in the first place). Things did not pan out as the socialists expected, and when Nationalists stamped out their attempted socialist governments, they needed something to excuse the failure and a new plan to make the next attempt successful. Some went to Frankfurt to study what went wrong, examining the problem from all angles EXCEPT the one where socialism was a garbage idea and a fraud. Others decided that they needed to synthesize nationalism with socialism, to create a national socialism, as it were. In other words, national socialism was all about denying the evidence of recent events as a sign that the people rejected socialism, and setting about trying to engineer it instead.
I have waited so long for someone to absolutely dismantle TIK. I tried it myself along with DemocraticMarxist101 way back in the day. But I know Fredda is going to absolutely DEMOLISH this.
Thank christ, I was like days away from making my own essay channel just to push back on Tik's unchallenged unhinged historical revisionism and misleading ideas on the topic. Veritas and you are nailing it hard, top of the line content that Im suscribing into both channels, thank you for doing this. Hope Tik responds to this so the cracks in the rethoric are out to reveal themselves more clearly to his community
@@justaguyyouknow7139 Im well on my way to scripting a video about UN’s SDG, Soros-fear mongering, cultural Bolshevism to dunk on these weirdos obsessed over these things a because in Latin American societies it has been successful in driving people conspiratorial and far right minded, some pushback is kinda urgent
Unchallenged? He has made multiple response videos. He has received a lot of push back. The thing is, all the criticisms are garbage and things TIK addressed a million times. This and the Veritas video are both terrible. Both rely on apply to authority. "Because the historians say so it is true." and take an uncritical approach to the topic.
Let's break down why TIK is right and why Veritas and Fredda are wrong *Definitions* TIK despite what Fredda says defines socialism and capitalism extremely simply. Socialism is the state control of the means of production. TIK cites numerous references from Dictionary (Oxford) to capitalists (Mises, Friedman) to socialists themselves (Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg) and although they might differ slightly, they all come to the same conclusion. "Socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with nature instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of nature." - Marx, Das Kapital V3 593 State - A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government - Oxford Dictionary Third Edition Private - belonging to or for the use of a particular person or group; not for public use - Oxford Third Ed. So we got the definitions nailed down. Next phase *National Socialism's Ideology* Nazism is socialism. Hitler believed the wealth of Germany was being stolen by jews and their international stock exchange. The solution is to create a "volksgemeinschaft" or people's state which controlled all aspects of society. "Because this capital is international, the holders the jews are international because of their being spread all over the world. And here everyone should actually throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, if this capital is international because its holders the jews are spread internationally all over the world, then it must be insantitt to think that one will be able to fight this capital of the same members of this race internationally" - Hitler Aug 13, 1920 Hitler also believed in the shrinking market theory which would serve as justification of his invasion of Poland for "liebestraum" "What I call a heathy proportion is that in which the support of a people is guaranteed by the resources of its own soil and sub soil. Any situation which falls short of its condition is none the less unhealthy even though it may endure for centuries or even a thousand years. Sooner or later this lack of proportion must of necessity lead to the decline or even annihilation of the people concerned." Mein Kampt 581 Nazism was also anti-capitalism believing it to be a tool of the jews to expand their influence in society. "It is conceivable that in Russia itself an inner change within the Bolshevist world could take place insofar as the Jewish element could perhaps be forced aside by a more or less Russian national one. Then it could also not be excluded that the present real Jewish-Capitalist-Bolshevisk Russia could be drive to national-anti-capitalist tendencies." Hitler's Second Book 120 He would defeat this threat with National Socialism. "The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people those who spread the international poison among them are exterminated." Mein Kampt 307 Next is economic policies. *Privatization* Despite claims of privatization and a hands off approach to the economy primary sources, and even the secondary sources often cited by marxists show that was not the case. The nazis suspended the right to private property after the Reichstag decree. This meant people only had property by the good grace of the state. While this was primarily meant to nationalize Jewish property, it was used against Germans who refused to cooperate such as Hugo Junkers who lost his airplane factory. "Prof. Junkers refused to follow the government's bidding in 1934. The Nazis thereupon took over the plant, compensating Junkers for his loss. This was the context in which other contracts were negotiated." Temin, Soviet and Nazi Economics Planning in the 1930s 576-577 Even the famous Germa Bel piece "Against the Mainstream, Privatization of the Nazi Economy" makes a distinction between the state and the Nazi party and the DAF and claims that it was privatization by giving those entities industry despite being controlled by the government. So no, TIK is right. The Nazis were socialists
Actually, TIK's politics is more akin to "Government can never be counted on to do things well, so we should entrust it with as little authority as possible without everything going to hell."
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896I am sure rich people won't create their own states after all governments are dissolved. Amazon Empire and Tesla Theocracy will surely take care of Americans.
You literally don't understand socialism. Public ownership of the means of production IS socialism and this quote just confirms that not even socialists understand socialism lmaooooo
Edit: "Jeff Bezos and Amazon are what socialists have been asking for" is not a take I expected to hear, but my word, this guy said it. I'm super new to your channel, having literally just found you yesterday, and I have to say I'm super stoked to see more actually historically literate people on youtube! As I'm in the process of getting a second undergraduate degree in history (and archaeology) with very little idea of what I want to do with said degree, seeing channels like yours are awesome and inspiring! Also I like Norway and kinda wanna move there someday >.> So yay!
I actually read a book recently for a history essay (the dawn of Everything) that argued our conception of "the state" is fundamentally kinda silly, instead the authors chose to define societal structures by modicums of control, essentially they define three ways a social structure justifies itself and asserts control over a wider society (control of force, control of knowledge, and charisma/prestige) and societies are placed based on how many forms of control they exercise, a first order society primarily uses 1 form of control and the others are either non-existent or largely ceremonial, second order primarily use 2 forms, and third order societies use all three. As an example the modern United States is a third order society, people are voted into office based on social prestige, said office-holders make laws that are enforced by armed policemen (control of force), and a bureaucracy (which requires substancial knowledge in order to properly understand and interact with). Addendum because some people aren't getting it. This isn't just about states or government, nor is this just about deliberate choices. This is about any social structure that gives certain people more power and access than others, whether or not that's an intended effect of the system or the system is technically a government or not.
@@BigFormula93 The entire point of that bit is that the idea of the "state" itself is stupid, and to propose a different method of categorization of various social structures.
@@BigFormula93 It's fundamentally not talking about states, it's not trying to categorize different states nor is it trying to determine who is a state and who isn't, it's proposing an entirely separate way of thinking about various social structures that include more than just the modern "state"
Control of knowledge seems like an incredibly vague idea and seems somewhat oxymoronic when knowledge is usually defined as a proven true belief, thus in order for something to be knowledge you need to be able to prove it and proving is a form of communication. So to me it seems like actually truly controlling knowledge is impossible, you can only control specific bits of knowledge. Like with the example of state bureaucracy it's not like the US government has much direct control over who can become a lawyer, sure there's some economic control in who can afford to take the education required to become a lawyer but that's nowhere near the kind of direct control of violence that the US has through the police or military. And it's even possible to educate yourself in law DIY and it's a fairly common thing, lots of US inmates do it and become prison lawyers and they aren't treated as quacks or anything and there are several programs to help them pass the bar and become proper licensed lawyers. And that's just knowledge of the law, it doesn't even cover all of the knowledge contained by science which by design has to be freely communicated and is frankly incredibly easy to obtain even without getting a degree, there's a near infinite amount of free science courses online and loads of universities just upload entire courses.
@@hedgehog3180 It is always specific bits, in the Case of the United States it is who has access to knowledge on how to work the Bureaucracy has more power. But it can also be religious or spiritual knowledge. We fundamentally aren't talking just about states and governance but any social system that gives someone more power over others. Even if the state doesn't explicitly limit who can obtain it there's still a power discrepancy between those who know how to work the system (or at least can hire someone who does) and someone who doesn't, a religious entity that reserves specific knowledge of the gods (or whatever the religion believes in) to specific groups does much the same thing, people who are able to obtain that knowledge are put in a position of power over those who aren't.
That’s a really, really good book. I haven’t read it myself but I’ve heard really really good things about it. I am asking for it for my family’s secret Santa so maybe I’ll get it and if I do I will read it. One of my anthropology professors was friends with one of the authors (the one who has died, sadly) and she actually gets cited in the book, so I’ve been told!
No, they may look strangely similar and both be British, but Unlearning Economics is actually one of the most sane channels I've seen. Like Fredda, UE specialises in debunking mainstream economics.
imagine if they were the same guy that'd be hilarious the ultimate long con, making the worst arguments for liberal capitalism possible and then secretly running a second channel all about debunking them
Absolutely agree that TH-cam is not the place for novel research. I think the goal for history TH-camrs needs to be highlighting the research being done by the academy in the hopes of increasing funding for history research.
TH-cam is an incredible platform for outreach, terrible platform for academic works themselves. I think it's cool when people post new things they find, but it's much cooler when they leverage the strength of TH-cam as a platform to help make the sources more accessible to the general public.
The problem is that Tik didnt even do novel research lol . Ive seen college dissertations on YT and the thing about original research is that it’s usually extremely complicated and boring to the general public. Tik is much closer to Pop History like a certain irresponsible television channel . I dont even think it makes sense to act like Tik did novel research lol
35:00 this is the reason most history youtubers are so bad, they all make the same short videos on the same topics with very little research. I thought TIK was diffrent in this because he uses a lot of sources in his videos and covers more topics than the few same battles but as I studied more ww2 history I realized he doesnt use enough sources. The best example of this is his battlestorm on the Courland Pocket, he uses mainly four books for the entire battlestorm. He describes the battles in less detail than usual and most of the time he is criticizing his own flawed sources. If he had used german and soviet war diaries instead of these books he would have made a better video. I once asked TIK in the comments on one of his videos why he doesnt use archival material in his videos, he said because he cant speak german or russian and doesnt have the time to learn them. Because of how youtube is there is no reason to take your time with your research.
Soviet accounts are super thin on the ground in english, because Russia le bad and German accounts are preponderately written by officers who are at best apologists or likely unrepentant nazis who had their screeds translated and published by Anglophone unrepentant Nazis so they could fill their basement libraries with accounts of the unrivaled prowess of the waffen ss. Though in all honesty if you had the language chops that's a field that's pretty wide open in academia, much less TH-cam. Heck get some Italians and Romanian speakers to get some insight from the two flanks of stalingrad from armies that are barely mentioned in English.
Funnily enough you get way more scources about WW2 German Military in the anglosphere than in Germany because they Germany is very afraid of anything remotely involved with their past and prefer to lock you Up especially when you ASK too much about WW2 Germany
Yeah I was a fan for a while because I enjoyed his WW2 battle analysis videos, but then he came out with that five hour long political philosophy rant and I realized that the dude is legitimately nuts.
I think TIK is a great example of somebody who thinks he is a polymath just because he knows a lot about one specific topic (Modern military history in his case). His "Fall Blau" introduction video is imo one of the best history videos on TH-cam and it got me interested in the topic ever since I watched it. It was the first Video by him I watched and because I held it in so high regards I watched more and more stuff by him. But I quickly noticed his, let's say weird political takes, even in Videos that weren't really connected to politics. I remember watching the many hours long Video about the Kurland pocket. The military stuff was really really great, lots of details and so on, but for some reason he threw in little bits of his politics into it which kinda killed the video for me. It was really a contrast of day and night imo, some of the best military analysis paired with some of the most braindead political takes I've ever heard. All in all, if he would just stick to military stuff and wouldn't unnecessarily throw in politics into his videos he probably could be one of my favourite channels but doing what he does I have to cringe hard at most videos, therefore I don't really watch him as much as I'd like to, to prevent psychological damage to myself. Kinda sad actually now that I think about it :/
I found this guy one time that said that "the word capitalism didn't exist until people who were against capitalism made it a word" as his argument for why his definition of capitalism was the right one and that felt like the nost TIK thing I've ever read
Marxists use semantics as weapons, and you continue to do so now. If socialism and capitalism were definitionally opposites, it would be much easier to explain why socialism is wrong, and not even well intentioned in many cases. But this would hurt marxists and so they try to change the definition
TIK is literally the Elon Musk of history TH-camrs, he went from a respected WW2 historian who everyone felt was extremely precise and thorough with his research (the competent man) to being a discredited laughing stock desperately trying to remain relevant and slowly becoming more and more unhinged in his attempts while endearing himself to fascists since they're the only people who take him seriously anymore because the very few fascists who don't think he's a Jewish plant feel "seen" by his "explaining the differences between X, Y, and Z fascist ideologies" videos. Other than the fascists, his audience consists of edgy ancap teenagers or boomers who genuinely think that the US fought in WW2 to fight against communism
No fascist I know likes Musk, he's like 12% Jewish lol Not everyone in the dissident right is autistic about the JQ but everyone sees the tribe as a red flag. He made some based takes on the ADL but eventually was revealed to be just a 90s liberal
Please still watch TIK's WW2 history videos, particularly earlier ones they are some of best analyses of battles that are grounded in logistics and operational theory and critical analysis of traditional narratives, he just goes batshit when it comes to his personal politics
He lets his personal politics seep into a lot of it as well, which I normally would say is fine, but his politics cause him to reject common definitions and theoretical frameworks rendering his analysis of many things kind of absurd and chaotic.
a military historian who thinks that army logistics can be solved by just allowing every member of a country's entire armed forces source their own equipment, provisions and uniform is not a very good military historian
who cares about what happened in europe during ww2. we should have never allowed europe to rebuild after they proved two times in a row that they are incapable of doing anything besides trying to kill everyone outside their countries/continent. lets talk about the logistics of how the uk caused a hundred million or two people in india to starve to death during ww2. thats a far more important and interesting topic. why do we ignore all the non europeans who were killed during ww2? they exceeded dead europeans by HUNDREDS of millions... yet dont get a single consideration in all discussion of that stupid war...
@@richardvlasek2445 That's kinda what Rome did before the Marian reforms, but there's a reason the size of Rome exploded in size in the decades/centuries after that, moving into the imperial era. It's just not that efficient of a way of having an army
If someone unironically thinks Hitler is a Socialist you are genuinely a lost cause, I stopped watching him 5 years ago when he went Joe Rogan Brain He claims to hate socialism yet loves to be publicly owned Tik looks like he took the Bordiga Pill
Hitler was a socialist, Marxian socialism is a very new post industrial version of socialism and Marx did not come up with nor is he the arbiter of what is socialism and what isn't. To call the National Socialists Marxists or Capitalists would be wrong
cass7448 I love it when socialist can't actually argue that that hitler wasn't a socialist, so they just attempt to ostracize people who can argue that hitler was a socialist as being part of the out group.
Im a bit confused about your point regarding the source "MacDonald, Supplying the British Army, p. 22-23". From what I can read there, Nothing indicate the British had full knowledge beforehand. Then again everyone was unprepared for the logistical challenges far from home
they did: Article 153: “Property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its content and its limitations result from the laws. Expropriation can only be carried out for the public good and on a legal basis. It takes place against appropriate compensation, unless an imperial law stipulates otherwise...” was scrapped in the Reichstagsbrandverordnung.
@@Echo5427_that doesnt look like the abolition of private property to me. That looks like fascists just broadly being in disdain for any limitation on their power.
Article 153 (which the Nazis abolished) protected private property from expropriation. After the national socialists (not fascists) abolished that article they went on to nationalize industries which didnt align with Nazi policy like Hugo Junkers and the jews.@@seekingabsolution1907
When I cited Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" to TIK, he called Tooze a part of the cultural Marxist conspiracy, which is a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory. TIK also wildly misrepresents who Oswald Spengler was and what he wrote. Oswald Spengler tried to reconcile a socialist vocabulary with Manchester liberalism. He constantly wrote against the trade unions, he once wrote than working 40 hours was "half the normal human output" (alas, the Nazis only instituted a 72-hour workweek) and called any form of taxation "Bolshevism". Just one of the intellectuals which gave the Nazis an air of respectability.
@@nicknolte8671 Cultural Marxism is literally just the theory of applying to classic Marxist theory of some people oppressing others in an economically sense towards a cultural sense based on races. Just because some stupid nazis use the term too, doesn't make everyone using the term a nazi.
@@YangChuan2001 Come on, man. "The term 'Cultural Marxism' refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values." These people obviously aren't referring to the Frankfurt School applying classic Marxist theory and criticizing society, they're claiming there's a vast conspiracy to undermine the Western world. Yeah, not everyone who promotes it is a Nazi but parroting neo-Nazi conspiracy theories radicalizes more and more people. This conspiracy theory has been used by white supremacist terrorists to justify their beliefs.
The shame of this guy is that he seemed to offer some decent coverage of WW2, going into individual commanders and battles and trying to cite primary sources (I.E., quotes) when he can. Sadly it all got infested with socialist fear-mongering, anti-Keynesian slop, so I had to just stop watching after a while due to the lack of this guy's self-awareness.
@@seekingabsolution1907What makes someone an expert? A costly degree? A decade-long career? Citations? Recognition as an expert? What if your supposed experts tended to hold a particular ideology? Would you have to accept that ideology as fact? Just because, so-and-so is the expert, not you?
you have literally been part of and made videos about ukrainian soviet histoy with people who actively spread the narrative of the ussr was a fascist state during the project ukraine. You have literally played a part in spreading the view of communism=fascism
Bruh. How could you possibly agree with Tankies? How could you as Historians, respect someone who stands by an authoritarian ideology that has caused so much suffering?
I remember browsing through the comment section of his 5 hr-long behemoth of a video. Some guy made an argument that by TIK's logic Roman Empire was a socialist state, since they collected taxes and built roads and temples and other public projects, paid for by those taxes. It wasn't really an argument, more like a playful exaggeration, but TIK himself came to that thread to confirm that ancient romans were indeed socialists. Ave, true to Marx.
That’s where I disagree with him, for something to be socialist it has to call itself socialist and be descendant from socialist thought, on top of everything TIK says.
@@colebehnke7767he doesn’t say everything is socialist. And TBF the Roman Empire was more socialist than capitalist. There was no property rights or free trade
@@night6724I agree with TIK that the Nazis were socialist, as you can see by my definition. I just don’t l think labeling everything that’s against free markets as socialist is productive.
On this situation, I blame popular definitions of fascism that circulate in Western liberal infosphere, (especially Eco's definition, which I consider no less than intellectual sabotage). Basement philosophers are so obsessed with comparing explicit manifestations of fascism in Reich to other 'totalitarian' regimes (military parades and other external cosmetic features), that they completely miss the essence of their ideology. It gets even worse, when a regime is not considered fascist if it lacks some of those explicit features (say, antisemitism).
@@Joebob1119 : I can. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, it comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
@@catholicpog7183 Fascism is a nationalistic 20th century historical movement that typically subordinated economic topics to the perceived national interest is a terrible definition, I think it would apply to the vast majority of the states on the planet at that time
@@catholicpog7183that sounds like you haven't really read his work. I hope for your own sake that you don't live in a country where every ideology paints it's enemys as to strong and too weak or where there is a constant obsession with a plot. Or where everybody has it out for modernism and is opposed too any kind of disagreement.
By pop standards Hitler and Stalin are pretty much functionally equivalent, highlighting the regimes' similarities is comparative politics 101, I mean Trotskyites were essentially making that critique in the 30s.
32:07 Mao Zedong being a capitalist of course Who would have guessed that Steinicke, a commited communist, would say nationalsocialism or fascism has nothing to do with socialism. (in a rather self contradictory way in his book highlighted on page 13)? Who would have guesses that any of the far left leaning authors Tik quotes are not precise in their usage of the term fascism? Orwell truly coined this phenomenom in his "What is fascism" in 1944 really well. All in all, Tiks only mistake was to have a too broad definition of socialism. But considering the Gleichschaltung of the economics, the huge german workers union DAF, the price fixing and the market/property regulations in "national sense", we can say that 3rd reich economics were mostly left wing with sparse elements of (perhaps forced) capitalistic investment to at least have something.
I enjoyed your well-researched review of the book "the Vampire Economy" I agree with you, that the book has many problems as a historical source, however, I found the book to be a very fascinating read to better understand the German economy under Nationalsocialism. Especially how the corruption/party control over the bureaucracy/price-commissars etectera, linked all aspects of the economy to the NSDAP (pre-war).
I got recommended his Why Hitler was made "Man of the Year" video, instead of explaining why, it just derails into how Hitler and the Nazis were socialists and the same as the soviets and how Stalin was as anti-Semitic as Hitler but he hid it better
Tik has an extremely broad definition of socialism and a very restricted one of capitalism. I tried telling him that meaning is made by usage rather than cherry-picked etymology but he wouldn't have it, saying my sort didn't know what socialism actually was.
poisoning the well and calling someone a nonce isnt an argument. also most pedos are left wing, cope and seethe the ussr fell nearly 40 years ago get over it
I used to watch a lot of Tik years ago. Was very impressed by his work. Assumed that when he flashed up a citation he was doing all the right things. Then these video started dropping. I had pegged him as right of center, but had totally failed to see that one one coming. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But when he just kept doubling down I cut my losses and have never gone back. It's sad to see he hasn't gotten any better.
TIK is infuriatingly perplexing. On the one hand, he produced an excellent series on the Battle of Stalingrad (+ other battles) that critically analyses high quality sources such as David M. Glantz. Fuck, he even discovered that Wilhelm Hoffman's diary was a fabrication. On the other hand he produces this shit. How?!?!?!
If you pay a little more attention, he isn't critically analysing Glantz, he is plagiarising. He covers this up with 'Mad Hitler', Glantz love of Exclamation marks, and 'I am not a revisionist'. He was visibly losing it around the start of the Eastern front.
He sees things from an anarcho capitalist view. Basically any amount of taxes is theft and is socialism. Of course Nazi Germany was socialist when in his view literally every state ever is socialist. They are just more or less socialist. I was introduced to the concept by him since I have always been interested in WWII. Then spent years trying to be a libertarian/ anarcho capitalist and read Sowell and Friedman and Hayek etc. I was always a leftist being born in social democratic Sweden. But their view offered a simply explanation. We had been lied too. Corporations were evil but they were socialism not capitalism. In true capitalism no corporations exist. And government was always evil. I don’t really know what to believe these days. Marxists TH-camrs seem to be extremely biased which they happily admit to as well. I’m probably back to being a boring old social democrat like most of the people around me. It was fun to be the “only one who had seen the truth” for awhile though😂
@@wertywerrtyson5529I’m not a libertarian either, but I actually agree with Tik that the nazis were a type of socialism. In Nazi Germany, everything was under the control of the state, except the Catholic Church. The problem with Tik is that he’s an ANCAP, and that makes people dismiss his legitimate arguments about Hitler being a socialist (because as everyone knows, capitalism is when government thugs show up at your business, tell you to fire all your workers of a certain ethnic group, and join the ruling party, or lose your business, ahh, capitalism). And again, I’m not a libertarian, but this is what frustrates me about Tik, his ancapism discredits his main argument that Hitler was a socialist, because Tik views publicly traded corporations as socialist, because they’re publicly traded. Obviously publicly traded corporations aren’t socialist, and you might say the Nazis weren’t either, because they wanted to destroy Bolshevism or communism or whatever, and you’d be wrong. Socialist A killing socialist B isn’t evidence that socialist A isn’t a socialist, because you know, socialists kill other socialists all the time, especially different kinds of socialists.
@23 min re post war train nationalisation . Theres a video somewhere on the nationalisation of the railway lines -part of the reason the british govt did it was because competing private corporations rain different time schedules and and had different line gauges so trains would stop at certain point and you had to switch to the competitors train whether you wanted to or not if you wanted to travel further ie they were highly inefficient
9 times out of 10, if somebody who isn't an actual religious scholar even mentions the word gnosticism then you're about to be fed a metric ass-ton of absolute garbage speculation which is, amusingly enough, more akin to the way spiritual practices are depicted in video games or TTRPG type games. BECMI Dungeons and Dragons stands for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal, the literal final stage of character development is to become an immortal, which is what all of the gods in the Mystara setting ultimately were. That type of "leveling up" into divinity is almost precisely what people think gnosticism (and countless other spiritual practices) are actually like, ignoring g the fact that people didn't even look at their personal lives in such a "heirarchy of achievement" until after the industrial revolution in the west, much less in their spiritual constructs. Just look at pop culture "shamans" it's the same thing, taking a belief structure which is largely ad odds with consumer based capitalism and achievement based heiraechies, at least as wee construct them today, and applying it to that consumer based model, I call it the "Jazzercise-ization of spirituality.
I was actually happy to see this video pop up in my feed. I used to watch Tik's history videos quite regularly but everytime he talked about economics or politics it always left a bitter taste. I could never really see or respect his other work after i saw parts of his 'Hitler was a socialist' video, It was really bad. Guess this video was kind of closure for me, so thanks for providing Fredda!
_" It was really bad."_ Bad or not, it was still historically accurate. By definition, Hitler was a socialist. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae. so by that definition is every authoritatian state socialist? Every protectionist kingdom in the 17th century were socialists? How about anarchists, they can't be socislists since they don't advocate for an economic centralisation? I'm not a theory head, but i think whatever definiton you're using for socialism is a tad limited.
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae.Firstly, strong government control of the economy does not equal socialism. Secondly, Hitler was a liar. He was a fascist who, being a skilled orator, co-opted leftist ideas and speech to take advantage of working-class agitations. Hitler and Nazi Germany’s actions clearly demonstrate that neither he nor his party were aligned with socialism.
@@colebehnke7767 They did not fulfil the fundamental tenner of socialism, that being the workers owning the means of production. They also killed a lot of socialists.
Thank you for finally addressing TIK. For some reason he's remained somewhat untouched by other youtubers. I really enjoy these videos and they are super insightful. Keep up the great work
@@colebehnke7767 TIK is not a historian. The sources authors are mostly historians. The video mentions them such as Adam Tooze and Ian Kernshaw. They all say based upon their research of the sources that the Nazis were not socialists. Despite that TIK still uses them as sources and comes to the opposite conclusion. Your definition applies to analyzing documents, letters, diaries, speeches, etc. not saying stuff like the Nazis were socialists. If you can provide a single contemporary historian that says this then please provide.
@@generalfred9426 you need to expand your worldview, there are numerous credible historians who claim the Nazis were socialists, many whom TIK reference in his videos. Also you understanding of how historians operate is sorely lacking, like saying TIK shouldn’t use sources that disagree with him is like saying a scientist shouldn’t test for things that work against his hypothesis. You might as a scientist disagree with the conclusions of a study, but you can and should still use the credible data of the study to showcase a different opinion. It’s really annoying arguing about history with people who don’t know how to preform historical analysis.
Unfortunately that is the real way to be libertarian now. While it started as a left wing term, it’s now never used by lefties without qualifiers (i.e. libertarian socialist, libertarian communist etc) the political identity of “libertarian” is now expressly right wing, borderline fascistic, or cryptofash.
@@colebehnke7767 old definitions are useless. By that logic it’d be fair for someone to refer to me as “swarthy” because I have Germanic heritage, even though I’m paler than snow. Definitions and their usage have to shift with the social world around them. The only publicaly identifying “libertarians” these days, without qualifiers, are free market capitalists or crypto fascists. To the vast majority of people, that’s now what it means.
I remember commenting on Tik's "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhealimg" video. As a german, on the inside I was already fuming, but I gave it the lightest chance I could and it imediantly crumbled when he said that denying Hitler was socialist is denying the holocuast. I kept as calm as possible, commented a critique with a request for a civil discussion, only to get the answer that I didn't watch the video.
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae. Was just calling out general problems with the video, such as holes in his argumentation and stuff. Would have to look up exactly what I said.
I stopped watching tik a long time ago when he went down the rabbit hole of nazi germany is Marxist and did an interview with chieftain where he basically said presenting history should be moralized rather than just be presented as is.
Fredda I Love your videos. You’re quickly becoming one of my favourite history channels. The way you make citations on screen is a breath of fresh for someone studying history. I Discovered your channel when through your videos on what if alt hist, more videos like this dismantling other peoples subpar content please. Also massive respect for not putting a sponsor on your Greenland video.
I swear I begged for you to make a video on TIK when I met your channel. I first came across his videos on Steam, of all places, under the community posts of Red Orchestra 2, about the story behind Pavlov's house and the mythicism surrounding it. I first thought "oh great, this dude makes some interesting history videos about WW2, and explains how fighting actually was done, something I just wished to see more here on this platform". I immediately subscribe to him. Few months later, I find out he had uploaded a new video, curious I check it out. I don't remember what it was called, but it kinda weirded me out since he was saying some pretty wild stuff about politics, which, admittedly, I did not quite understand, so I just left the video with a taste of cynicism left in my mind. Looked at his other stuff to see if he had something more to say about it, and ooooh boy. Still subscribed to him, year later after first checking him out, more politically informed, I just watch him completely butcher the definitions of capitalism and socialism, that even most right-wing neo-liberals would disagree on. My mind just exploded, how could a man make such great videos on the battles of WW2 and then say the most insane, self-proclaimed BS to be ever seen on TH-cam? For months I looked for people that would go dive in on his channel, remember finding BadEmpanada that way, and along the way saw your channel, thought to myself "if this mf did a video on TIK I'd be sure he'd finally put an end to this lunacy". Disappointed at first that you hadn't at the time, but oh man, so glad you did now. Love the videos on WhatifAlthist as well. Personally love how you dissect videos that on surface to the untrained eye seem very convincing but are rooted in deception and lies. Thank you for your service Fredda. Keep uploading bangers.
This video needed to happen, when he 1st came out with this nonsense he would argue with people in the comments & assume no one read military history, economics & political theory to the extent he did. The fan boys who egged him on have led to him having these insane takes. It’s funny 😂😂 but TIK actually sounds deranged now, some of what he say is not based in reality of what actually happened in history or an understanding of the motives of Nazi’s. Thinking they went after small businesses & then the Jews is like something from a comedy show.
![The Complete Story of Destiny! From origins to Shadowkeep [Timeline and Lore explained]](/img/n.gif)
Play World of Warships here: [wo.ws/3Te9v0H]
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code HPPYNWYR2024 to receive a huge starter pack including a
free ship, 300 Doubloons, 1 million Credits, 7 days of Premium Account time, 1 ship, 3 Santa's
Gift containers, the New Year Constellation flag, and 10 New Year Sky camouflages.
Applicable to new users only.
Respect you chasing the bag brother
Would love more game analysis videos.
thank you for doing this video - having seen some of your stuff before, I know it's going to be good. I can already hear TIK fans emailing him and begging him to respond to it. I'm betting that he'll either pretend he isn't aware of it, or, if he does address it, he'll make up some BS about how the definition of socialism was changed in the 1960's by all those post modernists who took over the west and turned everyone into 'trans atheists'.
Such a bad look to have WoWS sponsor this video
@@slorvidask5867 why?
"This killed small businesses, small companies, the Jews, and prices" is certainly...a line
man is a walking, talking Onion article
*sees the Holocaust happen* oh no, the economy 😭
@@kuman0110really telling on themselves
At least he puts the Jews above prices (?)
It's an accurate line.
Socialism isn’t when two girls one cup? Astonishing
No, TRUE socialism IS when two girls one cup. Do not let yourself be swayed comrade.
@@rhogal8310 In TRUE true socialism, every girl gets their own cup!
No, socialism is when seizing the cup factory.
@@rhogal8310True socialism can only be achvied by every worker participating in a lemon party
@@yaboye3791a Vladimir Lemon party
citing communists and their critiques of nazi germany's economy in order to prove that communism is exactly like nazi germany is the most insane thing ive ever seen
You don’t discard sources because they may be biased, instead you consider their bias when analyzing them to from your opinion.
there's no stretch to far for a monarchist. imagine how much mental gymnastics you have to do to convince yourself that some family of people deserve to not only own your life, but decide what gets to happen to everyone on earths lives. because reasons
@@colebehnke7767 Source criticism doesn't just mean "making up whatever the fuck I want so it agrees with me".
@@hedgehog3180 what is he making up?
@@colebehnke7767 Which is called "biased reporting" xD. Yes, you do discard sources because they are biased.
minor spelling mistake. It's over for you.
fixed ty
~be me
~be commander of battalion of troops
~be on defense of nearby important city
~return to local supply depot for reasupplying
~quartermaster refuses to resupply my troops because I can't give him good offer
~return to frontline armed just with cold steel
~we're routed because we can't put up defense with just bayonets and shovels
fml
Loss of the city leads to the tank battalion that had outbid you every fucking time being cut of and killed to a man.
-yay
lmao even literal mercenaries understand the concept of "budgets".
That’s economic’s if your battalion was self employed maybe it would of helped in TIK’s world.
Jesus 😂😂😂
>implying squiggles are arrows
@@tbotalpha8133A lotta good that budget does you when you already are broke from arguing prices with the people sent to take you to the hospital or put out your burning house.
As a long time former TIK enjoyer who was gobsmacked by his steady decline into ideology, I'm really glad to see someone addressing his crap.
A personal favourite of mine from his body if work was when he suggested that military logistics would be better if drivers privately owned their truck. He apparently forgets that it isnt exactly in someone rational self interest to drive into a bloody warzone when they are responsible for buying a replacement if their truck, through some mysterious means, should be damaged or destroyed.
Libertarians think people shouldn't have to get driving licenses and that age of consent should be lowered.
They aren't really rational.
Plus the whole libertarian/ancap ideology started with rich people that loved gold standard founding a cult.
I wouldn't be worried about the bloody truck getting destroyed, as much as I would be worried about ME getting DESTROYED!!
Reject modernity, embrace the military provisioning of antiquity! Nothing better than going bankrupt after your truck gets blown up, leading to considerable personal debt and the military loosing a driver while you struggle to come up with the money to buy a new one.
I think I can agree with Tik's ideology in on historical circumstance only. Remember his documentary on courland? There was a bit where Latvian fishermen were willing to take German soldiers away from the shrinking pocket but only if the Germans paid them in gold. Tik was like "this is fair and moral" (paraphrasing). You know what I can't disagree charge those nazi fucks an arm and a leg. And in the process wreck your whole argument about "private" logistics Tik 😂😂
that sounds like a joke - but having seen him say some incredibly ridiculous stuff, I have to say it doesn't surprise me. The man's an idiot.
You gotta admit though that, 'However, this caused the destruction of private property, the Jews and prices' is an absolute banger of a line. It's so stupid and funny
i think it is so funny because it is so stupid
It is INSANE!
"So you want our Einsatzgruppen to use bullets? In this economy??!"
@@brotlowskyrgseg1018 The SS going the Hutu Power route of “Chop down the tall trees” and using machetes because FDBrandon’s economy has inflation that’s so bad that it FUCKED UP my ammo prices.
I like to think he knew what he was doing; of you're self aware enough to know what you're doing, it's perfectly absurd
TIIK's whole diatribe about "not being a member of society" sounds eerily similar to Thatcher's parliamentary speech about how there's "no such thing as a society" lol
That's the bit that everybody remembers. The full quote is: "They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." She said all that to "Women's Own" magazine (UK) in 1987.
The forgotten bit of Thatcher is that she hoped that by deregulating the markets, private charity would step in for the factory workers who would be fired and all the other lower class people badly hit by this "market dynamism." Nothing of the kind happened.
@@MrJohndoakes Ah, thanks for the context!
@@MrJohndoakes You think that Thatcher gave a rats ass about ordinary working people? xD
@@ThatOneGuy7550it’s also because a lot of Thatcher’s world view descended from individualist/libertarian thinkers. It’s why her ‘New Right’ deviated from the old right as Thatcher believed more in the individual then in collectives. And the same is true for TIK
@@MrJohndoakes yeah that's totally insane why would that happen wtf
TIK: If humans historically defined something as X, then I can't say it's Z, even if I personally disagree.
TIK after two beers: So anyway, socialism is when people live in society...
AND I DON'T LIVE IN A SOCIETY
Okay on an actually serious note tho, this is the crux of bourgeois ideology, especially the kind as espoused by right-libertarians.
It essentially wants to pretend that we are all separate, completely autonomous, in-control, isolated little islands that make rational economic decisions. This culminates in such statements as "there is no such thing as society, only individuals".
This is a fantasy. Since the earliest days of humanity, there have been human societies. They differed greatly and had vastly different socio-political and economic systems, diverse to such a point most people today would not believe it (thank you Mr. David Graeber, RIP). But they were always societies, no human being inside any of them was separate from other people and from the context in which they lived in.
Capitalist ideology of the variety TIK history subscribes to wants to present the other view I just lined out. That "in a state of nature", humans would live separate from each other and that this is what would make them free. In doing so, it basically wants to give the impression that people coming together to do literally anything as a group, collective, or social body in some way actually limits freedom, and for some reason they choose in particular to focus on democratic, co-operative forms of human organisation, such as those advocated by most revolutionary socialists. Their answer to this is to declare that things must not be this way, and that when we start to act that way, society as such won't exist and we will a be free.
The reality ofc is that this is literally impossible. We humans evolved as social creatures, we are still gonna live together and function as part of something larger. The only effect this variant of bourgeois ideology then has when it chooses in particular to emphasize its anti-democratic character is that it simply acts as an excuse for political and economic autocracy, veiled under the terms such as "private". It acts as an excuse for alienation and isolation we all experience under capitalism, to tell us that this is in essence the default way of functioning for humanity.
Most tragic of all, this is not at all how the bourgeoisie themselves acts when push comes to shove, not even those that would explicitly adopt the right-libertarian label. When their interests are in danger, they act as a class. They temporarily drop their competition with one another and co-operate, they collaborate, they prop each other up and show massive solidarity for one another, they are extremely well-organized. But then they still push this way of viewing the world onto us, most of the time not even requiring their vast capitalist media to propagandize us directly, but just requiring the more implicit effecta of capitalist socialization we all already experience, and the result is that most of the working class is in competition with each other, left divided fighting for scraps, and being told that acting in this individualist manner will emancipate them. This is one of the greatest tools the rulling class has. Outwardly, they push the ideology of atomizing individualism, but inwardly, they act as a class.
@@Gordon_Freeman_PhDgot to love your Marxist insanity.
socialism is when there are multiple people, and the more people there are, the more it is socialism, and when there's a lot of people - that's commulism!
@zunlise2341 very true
The shame is that TIK wasn't always this bad. His videos on the Eastern Front of WW2 were pretty entertaining. But the moment he started making these insane takes his quality took a nosedive.
I used to watch him too years ago. His videos were very detailed and interesting. But then I started noticing him saying things like "Hitler and the Nazis were totally left wing and actually they were socialists, it's right in the name 'National Socialism'!" so I stopped clicking on his videos. I didn't know much about politics at the time, but even still I could just _feel_ that what he was saying was wildly wrong, even if I didn't know exactly why.
@@choronos Same, stopped watching after that he started with the "nazis are socialist" thing
I disagree, his videos on battles (Battlestorm series) are just as good, I just never watch his political stuff.
Completely agree! He's literally done the same thing Metatron has done except no, NO WAY near as bad imo TIK is just hella misguided as where Metatron has dropped his history to purely mix it with politics now another Medieval TH-camr going shit isn't a surprise though.
@@omarhanbali4953 his purely historical work is still great and his stalingrad series is well worth a watch.but his political stufff??????
This isn’t even “socialism is when the government does stuff”. It’s “socialism is when someone I don’t like does stuff”.
As opposed to "Socialism is when good things happen. If bad thing happens, is not true socialism, even if it was true socialism until bad thing happend"
@@jgomo3877 Except no one actually says that
It's not even that, it's like "socialism is when more than one person work together"
@@McHobotheBobo "Not real socialism" is used all of them time, and when pushed, the justification is always "because bad things happened, therefore not socialism"
@@jgomo3877or better yet, “it wasn’t workplace democracy!”
Like what do you expect? Workplace democracy by itself cannot handle large scale supply chains that are required for modern society, you need something with more reach.
if socialism is not when 2 girls 1 cup, then is 3 guys 1 hammer also not socialism?
true socialism is 1 hammer 1 sickle
I googled 3 guys and 1 hammer. DONT DO IT
0:47 Socialism is not 2 girls and one cup? I suspected that tik was on the freakier side, but damn.
That video was extremely viral dude, it's common knowledge for anyone from the 2000s-2010s
TIK history is what is called a "lost cause". The only hope is that your subscribers and their opinions do not create stupid people. A shame, their history videos in general are quite good.
I remember one video where he started talking about how the NHS is a money pit that the government keeps on throwing money into, of course it is it’s a service it’s designed to be a loss making organisation it’s not designed to make profit so of course, we have to keep putting money into it.
TIK history is what is called a “schizophrenic”
It's an important lesson, that just because someone makes good videos, doesn't mean that all their videos are good, or that they should be trusted.
I remember stumbling onto Tik's channel before. I watched a couple videos and decided to look into him more to see if I wanted to sub. The fact that he took such a strong stance on the Nazis are socialist thing put me on alert. I watched it to see his arguments, and he literally said at the beginning that all Historians are completely wrong and just are ignoring it and his arguments just not being convincing. That's when I decided to drop him. It's fine to disagree with them, but to say every historian is completely off base without good evidence to back that up, rubbed me the wrong way.
@@TheContrarianMind why would you seriously take a political speech at face value? Let alone one by THE main nazi, Hitler himself?
Which is extra fitting, considering that he'd totally be a Lost Cause proponent if he were a US historian.
TIK's political ideology is the an amalgamation of every dumb High Schooler libertarian take mixed with an American understanding of Socialism. This is gonna be one funny ride.
wrong.
u ah
you all really should stop projecting the behavior of 1% of americans onto the rest of us. ffs just stop. well off americans are dumb yes, but they are european loyalists. not americans. and privilege makes everyone extremely dumb
I've not watched one of TIK's videos in a while. I enjoyed his WW2 stuff, and after he had clearly been slapped with a 'cease-desist-retraction' order over one of his comments about Anthony Beevor's "Arnhem", I actually sent him a message of support. With hindsight, I shouldn't have, because he was free to say , but not
He also lost me when he said National Socialism and Socialism are the same thing. The problem with that, in my opinion, is that although it might be a good 'wind-up' point, it's quite clearly f-ing stupid and shouldn't be made seriously.
@@frostyrobot7689you should actually watch his videos, he clearly points out that national socialism is a distinct branch of socialism, like marxism or fascism.
@@colebehnke7767 Which is f-ing bullshit.
The classic "everything that involves two or more people is socialism" bit
breeding is socialism so wealthy people should just not do that.
So Christianity is also socialism...
Matthew 18:20
@@PobortzaPlwell yes. Thats the entire Objectivism shtick.
@@PobortzaPlI mean. Jesus was a commie hippie that did not despise sex workers.
Omg! The woke mind virus got Jesus as well!
Aaaaaaaaaah!
As someone who actually read Wolmer's work on trains, he is not pro-privatization of the railways by any means. Indeed, he cites the numerous problems that private ownership of railways has. This ranges from having towns connected by multiple stations in the initial boom stage with a mess of redundant lines spread out (in his words) "higgledy piggledy" to operating in a way which maximize profits at the expense of service quality. Most nations had at least the government footing a good chunk of the bill in building their rail network, if not building it from the ground up. Pretty much only the UK (not the British Empire, as there was substantial state subsidy in Canada, Australia, Company Rule India/the Raj and New Zealand, but only in the British Isles) was private capital the only driver of railway investment in the initial stages. He also says that when the US Government briefly effectively nationalized the Railways in 1917 to 20 they did a better job and much of the lessons were soon lost.
There are also specific points about railways and how they operate that Wolmar stresses. He also stresses that Railways are by their nature natural monopolies. There is theoretically a best root between two cities in a straight line. Similarly are very capital intensive to build, especially in the early stages. They also are hard to mothball as tracks need regular maintenance, which is something that companies will skimp on once the network reaches. Similarly much of the benefits of railways come in positive externalities that they generate.
TLDR: Wolmer's attitude towards Railways is not pro-privatization by any means.
Just because he cites someone doesn't mean he believes everything they say is right.
@@night6724 Which is a pretty valid take. He reads oppositional ideas to simply come to his own rational conclusion. It makes sense after all. If I remember correctly Norway and Swedens road are pretty privatized and seem to be the best + safest there are.
@@bycreay3647 Wolmer's works on railways actively refutes TIK's position. It's like Climate Deniers citing a NASA source that says that Antarctic sea ice grew during the winter of a year, which overlooks that this was an overall blip in the general trajectory.
@@bycreay3647 The Swedish road "privatization" can be summarized as the state being responsible for maintenance, building, planning etc, but they hire private companies to do the physical work - colloquially referred to as "putting out to entrepreneurship". This manner of public procurement, or government contracting, has caused massive issues in terms of mandatory bidding systems where the state is forced by law to accept the company that offers to do the job at the cheapest price, which more often than not results in the company either doing a shit job, not finishing the job at all because they keel over economically before finishing it, or they overshoot the price they promised by miles and demand to be paid the new amount to finish things, all incredible annoyances and inefficiencies that forces the state to pay more than they would have compared to how things would be if they were just operated by a state company that wasn't motivated by the profit margin.
No man is an island, except for TIK history.
Don’t you know he personally hand made everything in his house?
Two men on an island is apparently socialism
😂😂
Let’s hope another person doesn’t wash up on the island and make it a socialist island
TIKHistory is hilarious! He makes incredibly well-sourced and well-researched videos about things like the fuel shortage of Germany in WW2 and then in the same breath makes the wildest assertions about things like the Third Reich and socialism quoting Thomas Sowell of all people! 😂😂😂
This guy is the perfect example of what it's like when you have a fervent belief in an unfounded idea and desperately try to make it fit with the real world.
Anarcho-capitalists have given me the biggest laughs over the years. I used to align with them during my initial phase of atheism because of people like Penn and Teller but then quickly saw through the ridiculousness of their libertarian side. Still an atheist but definitely not a libertarian.
What's the difference between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists? Oh, it's a spectrum really, like autism.
@@andreydoronin6995 the difference is that those who claim to be ancap dont actually understand what that truly means. they say it to sound edgy but what they believe in is eurocentric feudalism and monarchy. what ancap is would fuel their nightmares. anarchy doesnt mean no government. it means no rulers. no ruling class. only horizontal power structure. so take that idea and apply it to market economy and you have a perpetually successful form of socialism that still allows the people to have control of their own lives as opposed to some unelected party members and their families. ancap means things look similar to what we have now in terms of labor thats done, except people get paid better and no one is getting more pay than anyone else is for doing the same labor or less. and no one gets to make laws that effect others without their input and consent etc. honestly its just functional capitalism. capialism without the parasitic cancer inducing activities and behaviors. capitalism that aims to generate profit to spread wealth to all the species. not just one country like "socialism" and "communism" have done and will only ever be able to do.
It's a lot like watching creationists.
I kinda followed the same track, but i don't think i ever really fell into the right-libertarian rabbit hole.
@XxSeedOfEvilzX What is wrong with Thomas Sowell, I ask? The way you comment when criticizing people makes you look like an ideologue, with all due respect. Before we move on, I couldn’t help myself from asking what specific arguments you take issue with that Thomas Sowell expresses. I am a part-time reader of Thomas Sowell myself, and from my observations, his arguments are valid, sound, and adhere to human nature. It seems to me that you do not care to hear the points made but rather attack and slander them for who you perceive them to be, am I right? So again, what do you take issue with?
Already know this is gonna be juicy. I bounced off of his channel after I saw a video where he was arguing (as he always does) that Hitler was a leftie and socialist because he "strengthened" the Unions by... making them subordinate to the state and the party. And then in the same video he went into a tangent about how he hates taxes in the modern day UK because why not.
That's not exactly all that different from communism in action. Anyone not espousing communist politics has "false consciousness". This is a way to force top-down compliance (someone will define and arbitrate who has false conciousness or not, otherwise chaos reigns, as everyone will accuse everyone else of having false conciousness, ergo "top"). In practice this means that unions are subordinate to the state/party (false conciousness accusations ensure unity once again).
Does that make Hitler socialist? No, because action does not equal intention/goal. Hitler saw unions as a way to unify society and have everyone fulfil "their own role" (a right-wing view) in society. Socialists wish to unify society for more freedom, after all the ultimate goal is to remove all barriers (good or bad).
@@lamename2010what are you talking about goal of socialism?
Lol there was one single "union" which all workers were a part of, but conveniently wage negotiations and strikes were banned entirely and would get you sent to the concentration camp.
@@lamename2010 Yeah I get your point about the Real socialism, I come from Poland so I know more or less how state-run unions used to work before the "Solidarity" appeared.
The latter part of your comment is crucial here though; lobotomizing the unions does not make a regime socialist.
What TIK was trying to do in that video if I remember correctly after all this time was that he described how the unions became subordinate to the state and the Party and then he tried to flip it onto its head, as if all this was proof how the unions were actually dictating what the Party could or could not do.
And then he started bitching about his taxes.
EDIT: Found it! The title is "But Hitler Crushed the Trade Unions!". I won't be rewatching it anytime soon but it's this one.
@@colebehnke7767 The stated goal, as stated in the internationales is anarchy or rather a stateless society.
But the overall goal of socialists and proto-socialists as seen by all the causes they champion is freedom. Freedom to do whatever they want, good or ill. Karl Marx wanted to be free of the burden of society (which exists to facilitate survival), so we get anarchy as the ultimate goal of communism. A state where survival is guaranteed, money is no longer a worry, etc. Other socialist-minded people champion for the freedom of body, to remove any barrier (like responsibility) that impedes who they can sleep with. The list goes on.
The theme is freedom. The result is usually chaos, so you can pick either one. Depending on whether you want to portray it positively or negatively.
Whilst parodying Jorbson Peterpan's discussion of the "extreme male brain" hypothesis for autism, Nick Mullen said "actually, it's gay to get pussy". That moment stuck with me as paradigmatic of people who love to say "you've been lied". To me, TIK is a turbocharged instance of an "actually, it's gay to get pussy" guy.
“Actually it’s socialist to oppose socialism.”
- TIK
He reminds me of all the pro Ukraine people who say “It’s Nazism schism to oppose Nazis.”
Status gets pussy. Anyone who doesn't get that truth is an incel in denial
@@Mortablunt cuz they are real evidences of many,many nazis being in ukraine of course. Like 3 clips of broken ukrainian speaking dudes, giving the hitler greating or so...
@@MortabluntHow does killing other socialists prove that you’re not a socialist? Especially if they belong to a different kind of socialism than you? Forgive me, but don’t socialist countries have a track record of doing this that’s at least a mile long?
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Good thing the UK listened to TIK and hyperprivatised the rails so they make so much profit and provide so little service 😂
"BUT THEY DIDN'T """PRIVITISE""" THE RAILWAYS!!!!! THERE IS STILL GOVERNMENT INVOLVED!!!! NETWORK *FAIL* IS MAKING TRAIN COMPANIES A LIVING HELL!!!!!"
-- my Interpretation of his video on Britain's railways (After I took a break from his videos I came back just to see him make a mockery of the British railway system)
The rail companies are genuinely my main enemy in my life honestly, and should be for the average working class young person/environmentally conscious person who can't afford / doesn't want to drive
@@Denkmaldrubernacht Every problem I ever had with public transit by train in Germany comes form some shitty small private company running them. I pretty much agree.
@@eightcoins4401Really? I mostly drove with HLB, mostly on time, except when DB proper was delayed or occupied the line. Still glad to say I don't need to drive by train anymore, although I'd really like to manytimes, depending on my mood
@@eightcoins4401 I recently came back to my old stomping grounds in Hessen where the Vias railway is in charge of much of the network and they were just as bad as they were 10 years ago, repeatedly having delays of up to 1 hour on a fairly short route on top of regularly giving false information on which track a train will leave.
31:27 "Russia is a country filled with many Russians"
Now THIS is why I subscribed to FreddaYT
FreddaYT is so real for this
Yeah can I get a source on that?
It's funny cus he has some legitimately good videos, mostly the ones where he's just going over the order of battle and events etc of specific battles. Then interspersed between them, there is "Why Hitler was a Socialist Part 18"
rightist conservatism really is a giant rabbit hole
Socialists when someone calls themselves a national SOCIALIST…”that’s not socialism bro”
@@morganwartman8507this is unironically the strongest argument the right has. no facts, just vibes.
@@morganwartman8507do you chow on the sponge in the urinal just because it has cake in its name?
@@MaoZedongGaming_ naming your TH-cam account after the largest mass murder in history? Cool! Socialism/communism has the highest starvation count of any ideology ever, congratulations! First at something for once.
Tik is such a weird case. On the one hand there's all his insane ideas about economics that defy all sense and logic, and on the other hand he's one of the few guys to say that maybe the Red Army was in fact a modern army and not a horde of peasant barbarians. A man of extremes if nothing else. I wonder if his video about Germany losing WWII because of oil shortages still holds up, I remember that one being pretty decent at least.
Well his strictly operational level videos about WW2 all are based on the big names in current research, namely Glanz (sp?), I imagine it's still valid
@@kenon6968 Considering he functionally plagiarised Glantz, it's hard to completely go off the rails, but even his operational videos are polluted with his 'Revisionism'. Without actually reading the books, you have to question if he is cherry-picking. One bat crazy claim he made was Lend-lease was immaterial to the USSR, and they could have won without it because they were just that good, a massive overcompensation of the competency of the combatants. Fast-forward to full scale invasion of Ukraine, oh, it's a Russian propaganda talking point.
Huh?
@kenon6968 This. Tik calls himself a historian (granted he has a history degree) yet does no primary research.
What he did well was taking other people's dense work and presenting in a easy to follow visual format. That doesn't necessarily make you a historian as opposed to a history video essayist or a history hobbyist.
For what i underestant i think i got his posture, which is quite funny.
The most evident isghe use of "red pill" unironically, and his anti goverment set mindset is the nail in the coffin:He
Is a medium-low income person, who has live under a 100% capitalistic system and has grown disingenious with it, specially when you co cider the twisted the use of mefia by the american state is and how it has been use si ce it time as a colony to control jts population
so he HATES the state, knows is a buch of fat fucks, so not really trsut their bable anymore, but also is disapointed with masses allowing it and as much as he tried deprograming himself he still belive some of that propaganda.
Maybe one day he would realize the nature of capitalism as an individualistic paradigm of power greed, but i fear it will be only when he is one of those at the top and he would spew the same propaganda after all, he is now one of those with control.
I asked ThreeArrows about TIK during a live stream a few years back.
His reply was. "Oh... That guy, well..."
who? Peak leftoid argumentation.
I mean TIK's "Bullet price" argument also falls apart for the simple reason that the person you killed might have had a lot of valuables you can sell, y'know looting and stealing.
My favorite part about libertarians, specifically AnCaps is that for any of what they say to hold water they have to conveniently forget some of t he oldest human activities and institutions.
Monopoly of force? Never heard of it.
Violence for economic gain? Nope
Feudalism? Never happened.
It’s so god damn stupid
@@enider
All of these arguments apply to Anarcho Communism as well. You just believe worker coops wouldn't do those things while le evil capitalist would because you've been brainwashed by MSM and popular media showing le evil rich guy in pretty much everything.
Theft is not creating. Good job.
@@Jayare175it is to the communists, why do you think they love BLM?
@@Jayare175Stealing is quite profitable. Just ask the British.
One of the funniest things about TIK is that his arguments about definitions are all based on a logical fallacy, that being the etymological fallacy, which states that the historical meaning of words is their "real" meaning. His entire arguments rests on basically ignoring one of the central foundations of linguistics.
He is a history content maker, he is teaching the historical meaning behind things which is still a relevant definition
@@troopersteve2992 Except he's trying to use them _only_ on the basis of their historical meanings, not more modern and more currently relevant meanings and contexts.
You can't ignore what it is: Disingenuous wordplay.
When discussing historical statements and works, the contemporary meaning is the "real" (relevant) meaning in context.
@@WoobooRidesAgain Meanings don't suddenly change because people come to commonly use them to mean the wrong things.
@@SpaceMarine500They definitely do, would you genuinely with a straight face say that gay still means happy? The meaning of the words we use are not objective, they rely entirely on cultural consensus which is why many words have come to mean different things relevant too different time periods, a liberal in 1760 is so far from a liberal of today they are entirely different sets of beliefs, even in within our time there are many political terms with no objective meaning because there is no consensus on what they even are.
This video has caused me a great deal of anguish, why does something being publicly traded mean its in the public sector??? is he just playing with words????
Your point about using secondary sources over primary ones was very good tho
Because socialists don't believe in a real distinction between public and private so you don't understand the most basic capitalist concepts.
He's wrong though, primary sources have way higher value and credibility than secondary sources.
@@die1mayer primary sources are more valuable, but my analysis of a primary source in a field I don't specialize in is less valuable than a secondary source which analyses that primary source from the perspective of someone who specializes in that period of history
@@mothra727 If Hitler says in his own words: " I am a Socialist", what gives historians the right to deny this?
Hitler truely believed that he was a Socialist and that his Socialism was not against private property but for the common good. Just like other moderate Socialists (Social Democrats etc.).
@@mothra727 If Hitler says in his own words: " I am a Socialist", what gives historians the right to deny this?
Hitler truely believed that he was a Socialist and that his Socialism was not against private property but for the common good. Just like other moderate Socialists (Social Democrats etc.).
Wait... Amazon is socialism because it's publicly traded? Damn... I knew the guy was out there but this is a joke...
Socialism is when government, and public is when government, so public trading is socialism.
@@MrGoldfish8 I call Poe's law on that comment.
_"Amazon is socialism because it's publicly traded?"_
Well, Amazon is collectively owned by multiple people ... just like worker co-ops would be. So you tell us.
@@MrGoldfish8is short selling reactionary? Counter revolutionary?
TIK outright dismisses the concept of State Capitalism and says it's an oxymoron because he can't fit it into his world view, so naturally this would make the East India Trading Company's rule of India would be completely Socialism. India run as a for-profit state, makes it state run in his eyes.
It is somewhat telling that TIK can't find any historians who agree with his views
You don't watch the videos so how would you even know...?
@@DeFlaminPigs
If there were a legitimate historical source that agreed with his narrative, he would have used it. The fact that he didn't use one means that he couldn't find one.
@@Nn-3 : Go and read the book "Hitler's True Believers" by Robert Gellately for starters.
@@Nn-3 Same reason Creationists never argue the evidence.
@@Nn-3he does use one. It’s called ‘Hitlers National socialism’ it’s written by a German historian translated into English.
I remember commenting on one of his videos “imagine falling for Nazi propaganda from 80 years ago” lmao good times
Since you are an expert in Nazi Propaganda how did the Nazis demonized the jews?
no worries :D
@@supremegroden3021Tik did
They were socialists regardless buddy
@@Joebob1119 They lied about being socialists
I love when the actual definitions of words or concepts go completely against conservative’s ideologies, so they just make up a totally new definition that fits their narrative. They are always “right”, and don’t use books to inform themselves and learn, but to reaffirm their what they already believe, in a world where they are the center of the universe. Ignorant arrogance is one of the most obnoxious personality traits someone can possess, and these people have it in spades.
I mean they do often use "books" but they're generally AU fanfiction
I've begun saying that conservatism is merely the politics of narcissism because that's entirely what it is. Core to the ideology is strictly enforced social hierarchies where one's rights, wealth, and power in society is determined by one's rank on the hierarchy, and they always conveniently think of themselves as being the top of that hierarchy being enriched off the labor of those lower on the hierarchy. They simply believe society and the state should serve themselves and exclusively themselves, much like a narcissist (in the clinical sense) has a superiority complex and believes other people exist only to give them what they want. Conservatism is their own superiority complexes turned into a political ideology.
I mean, leftists do the same thing, ngl.
But socialists who Always Claim to be the nice and good Guys are Just doing that of the goodness of their Hearts?
@@moosesandmeese969
>Core to the ideology is strictly enforced social hierarchies where one's rights, wealth, and power in society is determined by one's rank on the hierarchy
Literally no conservative thinks this.
I think of my favourite thing about this channel is when Fredda critiques someone, he doesn’t just go “You’re wrong and here’s why” he goes in-depth about why something is a problem and the background to it, so we the audience are learning too. I found this channel through the video on Kraut, a channel I like, and was genuinely impressed by how well Fredda made and explained his criticisms instead of just dunking on Kraut.
Except for whatifalthist. That guy’s such a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual egotistical wacko he deserves to be mocked.
Fredda’s greatest accomplishment: convince a gaggle of people with room temperature IQ that he is super smrt
@@GigglelandEmperorSo he convinced you?
@@soulknife20 yes I am 200 iq super genius. You can tell because I agree with the two bit “academic” on youtube
@@GigglelandEmperorare you 13?
@@typhlosionproductions5970 You must be very smart… I am so envious
TIK- A textbook example of what Libertarianism does to a once functioning brain.
Libertarianism gave me +20 iq
@@GoldenRedder At a cost of -80 critical thinking.
It's not exclusive to Libertarianism; it happens to communists, conservatives, socialists, theologians, everyone who is seduced by the "One true faith" approach to philosophy and ideology.
@@jgomo3877essentially the goal is to combine multiple faiths, that there is no one true faith, belief, lifestyle?
@@jgomo3877 Libertarianism is not a real ideology, at best it's a Think Tank Construct for the purposes of manufacturing instability and power vacuums for manufacturing Privatization schemes. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, the very people that promote and fund it would never allow it to take total power because it is functionally built to collapse. It's basically Liberalism without any of the structural support systems that allows it to work, even with all the problems Liberalism has, it doesn't have those issues; issues that neither Socialism or Fascism has either.
Now we wait for the 10 hour response from TIK ^^
Where he repeatedly says one thing over and over, breathing in astonishing amounts of copium.
Why would he respond to some gaming channel boasting only 1/6th of his subscriber count? I mean, it would definitely entertain, to see back and forth between some economics bachelor (or whatever he is) and a bald retail man, who nonetheless is capable of investing an impressive amount of effort into some of his works. But "some" works rather better than "none", innit?
@@intensiveintensives4887 Because TIK is an egomaniac idiot. I´m pretty sure he googles him selves.
@@intensiveintensives4887 Because TIK is an egomaniac idiot. I´m pretty sure he googles him selves.
@@intensiveintensives4887 That's not the point, anyway. The point is to have discussion about what he says. He will eventually garner more attention with his slow descent into his antics. This is the first step. Nobody should have immunity from being called out. It doesn't matter how many subs Fredda has. People with less subs should just remain in silence? Is that what you trying to say? Like Fredda does not deserve response? Dude, please.
Can't wait for the absolute gooberyness 💀
(Also as someone in the live feed said, contradicting has a typo in the title lol)
On one hand I actually really like TIK, but on the other his content is becoming insufferable. I’ve been subscribed to him for going on five years now and to see him slide into ancap bs is really sad to watch.
I still consider him a net positive for my own education since he A.) gives very detailed deep dives into whatever subject he is rambling about, and B.) is obviously wrong about so much that I find myself constantly fact checking him and coming to a much better understanding of the subject.
While I know I needed this video, it’s gonna be sad to watch. I don’t think TIK is a bad guy or being consciously dishonest in his ramblings, I just think he is too far gone into the neoliberal/ancap echo chamber. As much as it pains me to say this, he should just “stick to tanks”.
He's not a terrible guy, but I think something has to be said about the dogwhistles, conspiracy theories and so on, a thing I don't really address in this video since I'm not making a moral judgment of his character, only a judgment of his content.
@@FreddaYTI think the issue is that his kind of libertarianism use "logic" as their main method and argue based on individual action from a theoretical standpoint and the argue "logically" on from that. They claim that empiricism is useless and TIK even at one point claimed that "Praxeology" as so much more fun than dry statistics.
@@FreddaYTI stopped watching TIK, because he strayed from his strengths, ie. HISTORY.
@@FreddaYT
I would argue that he is a terrible guy. He's an anti vax, anti liberal who thinks James Lindsay is a valid source. I don't think there's any real difference between him and the average American Christian nationalist. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he thinks evolution is some socialist plot.
Except He didnt all His political Talk IS about the political in the 20th century very important and If you dont Talk about politics you will never understand WW2. Germany changed politically completely in barely 20 years Not to mention the turmoil that happened all over the world Post ww1 that Led to the rise of the third positions in the First place. If they remained the monarchical Status quo WW2 would never happened especially since more Like Germany would have broken apart again into the little noble realms that were sneakingly brought together by prussian Manipulations
17:29 "karl marx was doing the bidding of wall street"
he could also say it was ran by "moneymen" but that would be too blatant
Are people really still spreading the "any kind of central government is socialism" meme or did I somehow get sent back in time to 2012?
Yea this guy thinks anything other than a Randian failed state is socialist lmfao
funnily enough. Richard Wolff says that socialism has nothing to do with the government and in the same breath says that you need the government to make the transition.@@adsaa5852
@@andymccallum8090 Its not exactly insightful to mention that a government needs more than anarchy to function.
If that central government is controlling or directly owning the means of production and economy in general, then by definition it is socialism. Not sure how you could have a central government and not have at least control over the economy.
This is the definition by the greatest source of information "Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership" exactly what Tik says. Socialism is not Marxism, Socialism is not communism either
New Fredda video just dropped
We getting outta CAPITALISM with this one💯🗣🔥🔥🥶
we on the road to serfdom with this one 💥🥵🥶🥶🥵👽
Your professor being Jonas Scherner was unexpected surprise, I’ve read some of his work bc I nerd out about this a lot (economic and military history of ww2 and post Europe rebuilding) that’s so cool!! Keep up the good work as well! Sorry if this is awfully formatted im almost fluent jn english but I was raised by my German grandmas who fled from the holocaust lol-
I gave up on him after he claimed that Edvard Beneš was a first nazi.
Worst part is his arrogant and doubling down stance in the comment section of that vid towards multiple Czech viewers, telling him he is wrong.
@@bv2623Never mind that the entire point was how the term National Socialist came into being and why. At the end of World War I, socialists thought they had a perfect opportunity to create their classless utopia because of the power vacuums left behind after the revolutions against the Imperial Eagles, and Russia was already seen as a precedent (what socialists failed to understand is that without Germany smuggling Lenin in, Russia would not have succumbed to socialism in the first place). Things did not pan out as the socialists expected, and when Nationalists stamped out their attempted socialist governments, they needed something to excuse the failure and a new plan to make the next attempt successful. Some went to Frankfurt to study what went wrong, examining the problem from all angles EXCEPT the one where socialism was a garbage idea and a fraud. Others decided that they needed to synthesize nationalism with socialism, to create a national socialism, as it were.
In other words, national socialism was all about denying the evidence of recent events as a sign that the people rejected socialism, and setting about trying to engineer it instead.
I have waited so long for someone to absolutely dismantle TIK. I tried it myself along with DemocraticMarxist101 way back in the day. But I know Fredda is going to absolutely DEMOLISH this.
Who the fuck let the anarkiddie nafo imperialist come here.
@@supremegroden3021just you wait sunshine :)
aaaaaaaaahahahaahahahaaha
"I can't find fallacies in his arguments so I hope someone else does" is pathetic lmao
Thank christ, I was like days away from making my own essay channel just to push back on Tik's unchallenged unhinged historical revisionism and misleading ideas on the topic.
Veritas and you are nailing it hard, top of the line content that Im suscribing into both channels, thank you for doing this. Hope Tik responds to this so the cracks in the rethoric are out to reveal themselves more clearly to his community
You still should!
It's rather well challenged, among commie TH-cam at least.
@@justaguyyouknow7139 Im well on my way to scripting a video about UN’s SDG, Soros-fear mongering, cultural Bolshevism to dunk on these weirdos obsessed over these things a because in Latin American societies it has been successful in driving people conspiratorial and far right minded, some pushback is kinda urgent
Unchallenged? He has made multiple response videos. He has received a lot of push back. The thing is, all the criticisms are garbage and things TIK addressed a million times. This and the Veritas video are both terrible. Both rely on apply to authority. "Because the historians say so it is true." and take an uncritical approach to the topic.
Let's break down why TIK is right and why Veritas and Fredda are wrong
*Definitions*
TIK despite what Fredda says defines socialism and capitalism extremely simply. Socialism is the state control of the means of production. TIK cites numerous references from Dictionary (Oxford) to capitalists (Mises, Friedman) to socialists themselves (Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg) and although they might differ slightly, they all come to the same conclusion.
"Socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with nature instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of nature." - Marx, Das Kapital V3 593
State - A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government - Oxford Dictionary Third Edition
Private - belonging to or for the use of a particular person or group; not for public use - Oxford Third Ed.
So we got the definitions nailed down. Next phase
*National Socialism's Ideology*
Nazism is socialism. Hitler believed the wealth of Germany was being stolen by jews and their international stock exchange. The solution is to create a "volksgemeinschaft" or people's state which controlled all aspects of society.
"Because this capital is international, the holders the jews are international because of their being spread all over the world. And here everyone should actually throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, if this capital is international because its holders the jews are spread internationally all over the world, then it must be insantitt to think that one will be able to fight this capital of the same members of this race internationally" - Hitler Aug 13, 1920
Hitler also believed in the shrinking market theory which would serve as justification of his invasion of Poland for "liebestraum"
"What I call a heathy proportion is that in which the support of a people is guaranteed by the resources of its own soil and sub soil. Any situation which falls short of its condition is none the less unhealthy even though it may endure for centuries or even a thousand years. Sooner or later this lack of proportion must of necessity lead to the decline or even annihilation of the people concerned." Mein Kampt 581
Nazism was also anti-capitalism believing it to be a tool of the jews to expand their influence in society.
"It is conceivable that in Russia itself an inner change within the Bolshevist world could take place insofar as the Jewish element could perhaps be forced aside by a more or less Russian national one. Then it could also not be excluded that the present real Jewish-Capitalist-Bolshevisk Russia could be drive to national-anti-capitalist tendencies." Hitler's Second Book 120
He would defeat this threat with National Socialism.
"The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people those who spread the international poison among them are exterminated." Mein Kampt 307
Next is economic policies.
*Privatization*
Despite claims of privatization and a hands off approach to the economy primary sources, and even the secondary sources often cited by marxists show that was not the case. The nazis suspended the right to private property after the Reichstag decree. This meant people only had property by the good grace of the state. While this was primarily meant to nationalize Jewish property, it was used against Germans who refused to cooperate such as Hugo Junkers who lost his airplane factory.
"Prof. Junkers refused to follow the government's bidding in 1934. The Nazis thereupon took over the plant, compensating Junkers for his loss. This was the context in which other contracts were negotiated." Temin, Soviet and Nazi Economics Planning in the 1930s 576-577
Even the famous Germa Bel piece "Against the Mainstream, Privatization of the Nazi Economy" makes a distinction between the state and the Nazi party and the DAF and claims that it was privatization by giving those entities industry despite being controlled by the government.
So no, TIK is right. The Nazis were socialists
TIK's politics: government does thing = socialism.
Lefty humour
You know the saying: Socialism is when the government does something and the more the government does it, the more socialist it is!
Actually, TIK's politics is more akin to "Government can never be counted on to do things well, so we should entrust it with as little authority as possible without everything going to hell."
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896I am sure rich people won't create their own states after all governments are dissolved.
Amazon Empire and Tesla Theocracy will surely take care of Americans.
You literally don't understand socialism. Public ownership of the means of production IS socialism and this quote just confirms that not even socialists understand socialism lmaooooo
Edit: "Jeff Bezos and Amazon are what socialists have been asking for" is not a take I expected to hear, but my word, this guy said it.
I'm super new to your channel, having literally just found you yesterday, and I have to say I'm super stoked to see more actually historically literate people on youtube! As I'm in the process of getting a second undergraduate degree in history (and archaeology) with very little idea of what I want to do with said degree, seeing channels like yours are awesome and inspiring! Also I like Norway and kinda wanna move there someday >.> So yay!
I lost it when he started unironically talking about getting red-pilled 😂😂
I actually read a book recently for a history essay (the dawn of Everything) that argued our conception of "the state" is fundamentally kinda silly, instead the authors chose to define societal structures by modicums of control, essentially they define three ways a social structure justifies itself and asserts control over a wider society (control of force, control of knowledge, and charisma/prestige) and societies are placed based on how many forms of control they exercise, a first order society primarily uses 1 form of control and the others are either non-existent or largely ceremonial, second order primarily use 2 forms, and third order societies use all three. As an example the modern United States is a third order society, people are voted into office based on social prestige, said office-holders make laws that are enforced by armed policemen (control of force), and a bureaucracy (which requires substancial knowledge in order to properly understand and interact with).
Addendum because some people aren't getting it. This isn't just about states or government, nor is this just about deliberate choices. This is about any social structure that gives certain people more power and access than others, whether or not that's an intended effect of the system or the system is technically a government or not.
@@BigFormula93 The entire point of that bit is that the idea of the "state" itself is stupid, and to propose a different method of categorization of various social structures.
@@BigFormula93 It's fundamentally not talking about states, it's not trying to categorize different states nor is it trying to determine who is a state and who isn't, it's proposing an entirely separate way of thinking about various social structures that include more than just the modern "state"
Control of knowledge seems like an incredibly vague idea and seems somewhat oxymoronic when knowledge is usually defined as a proven true belief, thus in order for something to be knowledge you need to be able to prove it and proving is a form of communication. So to me it seems like actually truly controlling knowledge is impossible, you can only control specific bits of knowledge. Like with the example of state bureaucracy it's not like the US government has much direct control over who can become a lawyer, sure there's some economic control in who can afford to take the education required to become a lawyer but that's nowhere near the kind of direct control of violence that the US has through the police or military. And it's even possible to educate yourself in law DIY and it's a fairly common thing, lots of US inmates do it and become prison lawyers and they aren't treated as quacks or anything and there are several programs to help them pass the bar and become proper licensed lawyers. And that's just knowledge of the law, it doesn't even cover all of the knowledge contained by science which by design has to be freely communicated and is frankly incredibly easy to obtain even without getting a degree, there's a near infinite amount of free science courses online and loads of universities just upload entire courses.
@@hedgehog3180 It is always specific bits, in the Case of the United States it is who has access to knowledge on how to work the Bureaucracy has more power. But it can also be religious or spiritual knowledge. We fundamentally aren't talking just about states and governance but any social system that gives someone more power over others. Even if the state doesn't explicitly limit who can obtain it there's still a power discrepancy between those who know how to work the system (or at least can hire someone who does) and someone who doesn't, a religious entity that reserves specific knowledge of the gods (or whatever the religion believes in) to specific groups does much the same thing, people who are able to obtain that knowledge are put in a position of power over those who aren't.
That’s a really, really good book. I haven’t read it myself but I’ve heard really really good things about it. I am asking for it for my family’s secret Santa so maybe I’ll get it and if I do I will read it. One of my anthropology professors was friends with one of the authors (the one who has died, sadly) and she actually gets cited in the book, so I’ve been told!
So this isn’t about Unlearning Economics right?
I mean I know it probably isn’t but the guy looks similar.
Nah it's not, I know TIK works a lot but I feel like he couldn't run another channel next to this one that'd be too much
Yeah no, I don't think this is Unlearning Economics.
No, they may look strangely similar and both be British, but Unlearning Economics is actually one of the most sane channels I've seen. Like Fredda, UE specialises in debunking mainstream economics.
imagine if they were the same guy that'd be hilarious
the ultimate long con, making the worst arguments for liberal capitalism possible and then secretly running a second channel all about debunking them
@@richardvlasek2445 He's playing both sides so he always comes out on top.
Absolutely agree that TH-cam is not the place for novel research.
I think the goal for history TH-camrs needs to be highlighting the research being done by the academy in the hopes of increasing funding for history research.
TH-cam is an incredible platform for outreach, terrible platform for academic works themselves.
I think it's cool when people post new things they find, but it's much cooler when they leverage the strength of TH-cam as a platform to help make the sources more accessible to the general public.
The problem is that Tik didnt even do novel research lol . Ive seen college dissertations on YT and the thing about original research is that it’s usually extremely complicated and boring to the general public.
Tik is much closer to Pop History like a certain irresponsible television channel . I dont even think it makes sense to act like Tik did novel research lol
@@FreddaYT Absolutely agree.
@@ultravioletiris6241 I don't think he did novel research, he wants to present it as such though.
35:00 this is the reason most history youtubers are so bad, they all make the same short videos on the same topics with very little research. I thought TIK was diffrent in this because he uses a lot of sources in his videos and covers more topics than the few same battles but as I studied more ww2 history I realized he doesnt use enough sources. The best example of this is his battlestorm on the Courland Pocket, he uses mainly four books for the entire battlestorm. He describes the battles in less detail than usual and most of the time he is criticizing his own flawed sources. If he had used german and soviet war diaries instead of these books he would have made a better video. I once asked TIK in the comments on one of his videos why he doesnt use archival material in his videos, he said because he cant speak german or russian and doesnt have the time to learn them. Because of how youtube is there is no reason to take your time with your research.
Anglosphere texts can be decidedly lacking
Soviet accounts are super thin on the ground in english, because Russia le bad and German accounts are preponderately written by officers who are at best apologists or likely unrepentant nazis who had their screeds translated and published by Anglophone unrepentant Nazis so they could fill their basement libraries with accounts of the unrivaled prowess of the waffen ss.
Though in all honesty if you had the language chops that's a field that's pretty wide open in academia, much less TH-cam. Heck get some Italians and Romanian speakers to get some insight from the two flanks of stalingrad from armies that are barely mentioned in English.
Funnily enough you get way more scources about WW2 German Military in the anglosphere than in Germany because they Germany is very afraid of anything remotely involved with their past and prefer to lock you Up especially when you ASK too much about WW2 Germany
Yeah I was a fan for a while because I enjoyed his WW2 battle analysis videos, but then he came out with that five hour long political philosophy rant and I realized that the dude is legitimately nuts.
I think TIK is a great example of somebody who thinks he is a polymath just because he knows a lot about one specific topic (Modern military history in his case). His "Fall Blau" introduction video is imo one of the best history videos on TH-cam and it got me interested in the topic ever since I watched it. It was the first Video by him I watched and because I held it in so high regards I watched more and more stuff by him. But I quickly noticed his, let's say weird political takes, even in Videos that weren't really connected to politics. I remember watching the many hours long Video about the Kurland pocket. The military stuff was really really great, lots of details and so on, but for some reason he threw in little bits of his politics into it which kinda killed the video for me. It was really a contrast of day and night imo, some of the best military analysis paired with some of the most braindead political takes I've ever heard.
All in all, if he would just stick to military stuff and wouldn't unnecessarily throw in politics into his videos he probably could be one of my favourite channels but doing what he does I have to cringe hard at most videos, therefore I don't really watch him as much as I'd like to, to prevent psychological damage to myself. Kinda sad actually now that I think about it :/
“Your wrong because” ~most intelligent socialist in history
@GigglelandEmperor Oh, it's TIKs alt account, nice to meet you!
Everything is connected to politics, specially war. By neglecting one you will fail to grasp the whole concept.
Psychological damage comes due to the fact it is hard to accept being wrong. Stay well.
@@r-gartEvidently, since the whole consensus of the field is against TIK and he keeps getting worse.
I pray for him.
I found this guy one time that said that "the word capitalism didn't exist until people who were against capitalism made it a word" as his argument for why his definition of capitalism was the right one and that felt like the nost TIK thing I've ever read
Marxists use semantics as weapons, and you continue to do so now. If socialism and capitalism were definitionally opposites, it would be much easier to explain why socialism is wrong, and not even well intentioned in many cases. But this would hurt marxists and so they try to change the definition
TIK is literally the Elon Musk of history TH-camrs, he went from a respected WW2 historian who everyone felt was extremely precise and thorough with his research (the competent man) to being a discredited laughing stock desperately trying to remain relevant and slowly becoming more and more unhinged in his attempts while endearing himself to fascists since they're the only people who take him seriously anymore because the very few fascists who don't think he's a Jewish plant feel "seen" by his "explaining the differences between X, Y, and Z fascist ideologies" videos. Other than the fascists, his audience consists of edgy ancap teenagers or boomers who genuinely think that the US fought in WW2 to fight against communism
No fascist I know likes Musk, he's like 12% Jewish lol
Not everyone in the dissident right is autistic about the JQ but everyone sees the tribe as a red flag. He made some based takes on the ADL but eventually was revealed to be just a 90s liberal
Please still watch TIK's WW2 history videos, particularly earlier ones they are some of best analyses of battles that are grounded in logistics and operational theory and critical analysis of traditional narratives, he just goes batshit when it comes to his personal politics
He lets his personal politics seep into a lot of it as well, which I normally would say is fine, but his politics cause him to reject common definitions and theoretical frameworks rendering his analysis of many things kind of absurd and chaotic.
a military historian who thinks that army logistics can be solved by just allowing every member of a country's entire armed forces source their own equipment, provisions and uniform is not a very good military historian
who cares about what happened in europe during ww2. we should have never allowed europe to rebuild after they proved two times in a row that they are incapable of doing anything besides trying to kill everyone outside their countries/continent. lets talk about the logistics of how the uk caused a hundred million or two people in india to starve to death during ww2. thats a far more important and interesting topic. why do we ignore all the non europeans who were killed during ww2? they exceeded dead europeans by HUNDREDS of millions... yet dont get a single consideration in all discussion of that stupid war...
@@richardvlasek2445 That's kinda what Rome did before the Marian reforms, but there's a reason the size of Rome exploded in size in the decades/centuries after that, moving into the imperial era. It's just not that efficient of a way of having an army
@@TheArrowedKnee Its also what Putin is partially doing in Russia right now lol.
If someone unironically thinks Hitler is a Socialist you are genuinely a lost cause, I stopped watching him 5 years ago when he went Joe Rogan Brain
He claims to hate socialism yet loves to be publicly owned
Tik looks like he took the Bordiga Pill
Hitler was a socialist, Marxian socialism is a very new post industrial version of socialism and Marx did not come up with nor is he the arbiter of what is socialism and what isn't. To call the National Socialists Marxists or Capitalists would be wrong
Hitler was a socialist , He was Just did socialism only for Germans everyone Else gets the short Stick. Not every Form of socialism is marxism
@@GigaNietzsche Found the lost cause.
cass7448
I love it when socialist can't actually argue that that hitler wasn't a socialist, so they just attempt to ostracize people who can argue that hitler was a socialist as being part of the out group.
@@GigaNietzsche Hitler was actually some secret fourth thing
Im a bit confused about your point regarding the source "MacDonald, Supplying the British Army, p. 22-23". From what I can read there, Nothing indicate the British had full knowledge beforehand. Then again everyone was unprepared for the logistical challenges far from home
“Although demanded from the UK immediately, these all took weeks to arrive” clearly supports TIK’s argument there
25:22 "my ears immediately perked up" wtf furredda confurmed?
Ladies and gentelmen...
We got him.
"Raich abolished private property" says person who probably never heard of Herman Göring
they did: Article 153: “Property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its content and its limitations result from the laws. Expropriation can only be carried out for the public good and on a legal basis. It takes place against appropriate compensation, unless an imperial law stipulates otherwise...” was scrapped in the Reichstagsbrandverordnung.
Yeah, Herman Goering! That famous entrepreneur who did everything by himself and was not totally granted everything by National Socialist state!
@@Echo5427_that doesnt look like the abolition of private property to me. That looks like fascists just broadly being in disdain for any limitation on their power.
Article 153 (which the Nazis abolished) protected private property from expropriation. After the national socialists (not fascists) abolished that article they went on to nationalize industries which didnt align with Nazi policy like Hugo Junkers and the jews.@@seekingabsolution1907
@@Echo5427_ By that logic that means the US has abolished private property because eminent domain exists.
TIK is where you go when you want to learn about the history of every brick and every shoe size of the soldiers of Stalingrad
When I cited Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" to TIK, he called Tooze a part of the cultural Marxist conspiracy, which is a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory.
TIK also wildly misrepresents who Oswald Spengler was and what he wrote. Oswald Spengler tried to reconcile a socialist vocabulary with Manchester liberalism. He constantly wrote against the trade unions, he once wrote than working 40 hours was "half the normal human output" (alas, the Nazis only instituted a 72-hour workweek) and called any form of taxation "Bolshevism". Just one of the intellectuals which gave the Nazis an air of respectability.
Not a conspiracy theory. Not even antisemitic.
@@DjDeadpig Sure, Nazi.
@@nicknolte8671 Cultural Marxism is literally just the theory of applying to classic Marxist theory of some people oppressing others in an economically sense towards a cultural sense based on races. Just because some stupid nazis use the term too, doesn't make everyone using the term a nazi.
@@YangChuan2001 Come on, man.
"The term 'Cultural Marxism' refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values."
These people obviously aren't referring to the Frankfurt School applying classic Marxist theory and criticizing society, they're claiming there's a vast conspiracy to undermine the Western world. Yeah, not everyone who promotes it is a Nazi but parroting neo-Nazi conspiracy theories radicalizes more and more people. This conspiracy theory has been used by white supremacist terrorists to justify their beliefs.
@@nicknolte8671yeah but it’s still a true movement isn’t it? doesn’t refute the fact is it.
a british person saying that trains are better when privatised is very funny to me
The shame of this guy is that he seemed to offer some decent coverage of WW2, going into individual commanders and battles and trying to cite primary sources (I.E., quotes) when he can. Sadly it all got infested with socialist fear-mongering, anti-Keynesian slop, so I had to just stop watching after a while due to the lack of this guy's self-awareness.
You can’t put the Disco Elysium soundtrack behind this and not have my heart soar away into the cold wet streets of Revachol
That last part of which is more likely to be right, "Tik or all the other historians" feels like an ironic appeal to authority
Appeal to expertise is not the same as an appeal to authority.
@@seekingabsolution1907What makes someone an expert? A costly degree? A decade-long career? Citations? Recognition as an expert? What if your supposed experts tended to hold a particular ideology? Would you have to accept that ideology as fact? Just because, so-and-so is the expert, not you?
Good job!
you have literally been part of and made videos about ukrainian soviet histoy with people who actively spread the narrative of the ussr was a fascist state during the project ukraine. You have literally played a part in spreading the view of communism=fascism
Yeah great contribution lol
Bruh. How could you possibly agree with Tankies? How could you as Historians, respect someone who stands by an authoritarian ideology that has caused so much suffering?
@@how4646 reality has a tankie bias now go read theory
I remember browsing through the comment section of his 5 hr-long behemoth of a video. Some guy made an argument that by TIK's logic Roman Empire was a socialist state, since they collected taxes and built roads and temples and other public projects, paid for by those taxes. It wasn't really an argument, more like a playful exaggeration, but TIK himself came to that thread to confirm that ancient romans were indeed socialists. Ave, true to Marx.
That’s where I disagree with him, for something to be socialist it has to call itself socialist and be descendant from socialist thought, on top of everything TIK says.
You didn't scroll far enough. Another was just "so taxes are socialism?" And he answered "yes"
Marx was all wrong, we already won comrade
I mean, the definition of socialism is state ownership of the means of production.
@@colebehnke7767he doesn’t say everything is socialist. And TBF the Roman Empire was more socialist than capitalist. There was no property rights or free trade
@@night6724I agree with TIK that the Nazis were socialist, as you can see by my definition. I just don’t l think labeling everything that’s against free markets as socialist is productive.
On this situation, I blame popular definitions of fascism that circulate in Western liberal infosphere, (especially Eco's definition, which I consider no less than intellectual sabotage). Basement philosophers are so obsessed with comparing explicit manifestations of fascism in Reich to other 'totalitarian' regimes (military parades and other external cosmetic features), that they completely miss the essence of their ideology. It gets even worse, when a regime is not considered fascist if it lacks some of those explicit features (say, antisemitism).
Can you define fascism
@@Joebob1119 : I can. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, it comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
@@catholicpog7183 Fascism is a nationalistic 20th century historical movement that typically subordinated economic topics to the perceived national interest is a terrible definition, I think it would apply to the vast majority of the states on the planet at that time
@@catholicpog7183that sounds like you haven't really read his work.
I hope for your own sake that you don't live in a country where every ideology paints it's enemys as to strong and too weak or where there is a constant obsession with a plot. Or where everybody has it out for modernism and is opposed too any kind of disagreement.
By pop standards Hitler and Stalin are pretty much functionally equivalent, highlighting the regimes' similarities is comparative politics 101, I mean Trotskyites were essentially making that critique in the 30s.
32:07
Mao Zedong being a capitalist of course
Who would have guessed that Steinicke, a commited communist, would say nationalsocialism or fascism has nothing to do with socialism. (in a rather self contradictory way in his book highlighted on page 13)?
Who would have guesses that any of the far left leaning authors Tik quotes are not precise in their usage of the term fascism?
Orwell truly coined this phenomenom in his "What is fascism" in 1944 really well.
All in all, Tiks only mistake was to have a too broad definition of socialism. But considering the Gleichschaltung of the economics, the huge german workers union DAF, the price fixing and the market/property regulations in "national sense", we can say that 3rd reich economics were mostly left wing with sparse elements of (perhaps forced) capitalistic investment to at least have something.
great things are coming 🔥
I enjoyed your well-researched review of the book "the Vampire Economy"
I agree with you, that the book has many problems as a historical source, however, I found the book to be a very fascinating read to better understand the German economy under Nationalsocialism. Especially how the corruption/party control over the bureaucracy/price-commissars etectera, linked all aspects of the economy to the NSDAP (pre-war).
I got recommended his Why Hitler was made "Man of the Year" video, instead of explaining why, it just derails into how Hitler and the Nazis were socialists and the same as the soviets and how Stalin was as anti-Semitic as Hitler but he hid it better
Ah yes, so antisemitic that some of his right-hand men (e.g. Lazar Kaganovich) were Jews
I wish you a lot of success and a lot of good tacos in your life Mr. Fredda!
Not only on Tuesdays... Tacos are for breakfasts, lunch and dinner all days of the week
A great drinking game idea. Watch this video and take a shot every time Fredda says the word "insane"
Tik has an extremely broad definition of socialism and a very restricted one of capitalism. I tried telling him that meaning is made by usage rather than cherry-picked etymology but he wouldn't have it, saying my sort didn't know what socialism actually was.
Ironically, using his restricted definition, you could argue that “true capitalism has never been tried.” 😂
@@Zarastro54 I wouldn't be surprised if TIK tried to make that argument
@@pax6833 He has.
cause it hasn't lol. the UK for example is a mixed economy @@Zarastro54
what's the definition of socialism? is there one? or multiple ?@TheRedHand101
I wonder what TIK thinks of age of consent laws
French marxist petition
Laws are socialism and age is just a social construction, and he doesn't exist in a society!
Check his computer, that's all I'm saying.
@@zacheryeckard3051 Yeah marxists are accusing people of calling things "social constructs" lmao
poisoning the well and calling someone a nonce isnt an argument. also most pedos are left wing, cope and seethe the ussr fell nearly 40 years ago get over it
Marxists french petition
TIK sounds like he wants to make the armored core world into a reality
Which, as anyone who has played those games will tell you: IS INSANE by default.
Well this comment section is pretty much exactly what i expected
do tell of what expectation is that then
I used to watch a lot of Tik years ago. Was very impressed by his work. Assumed that when he flashed up a citation he was doing all the right things. Then these video started dropping. I had pegged him as right of center, but had totally failed to see that one one coming. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But when he just kept doubling down I cut my losses and have never gone back. It's sad to see he hasn't gotten any better.
TIK is infuriatingly perplexing. On the one hand, he produced an excellent series on the Battle of Stalingrad (+ other battles) that critically analyses high quality sources such as David M. Glantz. Fuck, he even discovered that Wilhelm Hoffman's diary was a fabrication. On the other hand he produces this shit. How?!?!?!
If you pay a little more attention, he isn't critically analysing Glantz, he is plagiarising. He covers this up with 'Mad Hitler', Glantz love of Exclamation marks, and 'I am not a revisionist'. He was visibly losing it around the start of the Eastern front.
He sees things from an anarcho capitalist view. Basically any amount of taxes is theft and is socialism. Of course Nazi Germany was socialist when in his view literally every state ever is socialist. They are just more or less socialist. I was introduced to the concept by him since I have always been interested in WWII. Then spent years trying to be a libertarian/ anarcho capitalist and read Sowell and Friedman and Hayek etc. I was always a leftist being born in social democratic Sweden. But their view offered a simply explanation. We had been lied too. Corporations were evil but they were socialism not capitalism. In true capitalism no corporations exist. And government was always evil. I don’t really know what to believe these days. Marxists TH-camrs seem to be extremely biased which they happily admit to as well. I’m probably back to being a boring old social democrat like most of the people around me. It was fun to be the “only one who had seen the truth” for awhile though😂
@@wertywerrtyson5529 Same lol 🤣
@@wertywerrtyson5529I’m not a libertarian either, but I actually agree with Tik that the nazis were a type of socialism. In Nazi Germany, everything was under the control of the state, except the Catholic Church. The problem with Tik is that he’s an ANCAP, and that makes people dismiss his legitimate arguments about Hitler being a socialist (because as everyone knows, capitalism is when government thugs show up at your business, tell you to fire all your workers of a certain ethnic group, and join the ruling party, or lose your business, ahh, capitalism). And again, I’m not a libertarian, but this is what frustrates me about Tik, his ancapism discredits his main argument that Hitler was a socialist, because Tik views publicly traded corporations as socialist, because they’re publicly traded. Obviously publicly traded corporations aren’t socialist, and you might say the Nazis weren’t either, because they wanted to destroy Bolshevism or communism or whatever, and you’d be wrong. Socialist A killing socialist B isn’t evidence that socialist A isn’t a socialist, because you know, socialists kill other socialists all the time, especially different kinds of socialists.
Your analysis, @@konstantinosnikolakakis8125 , is one with which I agree. Well said.
@23 min re post war train nationalisation .
Theres a video somewhere on the nationalisation of the railway lines -part of the reason the british govt did it was because competing private corporations rain different time schedules and and had different line gauges so trains would stop at certain point and you had to switch to the competitors train whether you wanted to or not if you wanted to travel further ie they were highly inefficient
Bro he's the reincarnation of Sargon of Akkad.
try to find the Sargon subscribers in the comment section
poor guy hasnt even died yet and hes already reincarnating
What's with these libertarians using vibes and political theory instead of history. Glad you keep calling people like Kraut and TIK out on this.
Simple: vibes and thought experiments make their theories sound palatable, while history proves they are false (and mostly just reheated fascism).
9 times out of 10, if somebody who isn't an actual religious scholar even mentions the word gnosticism then you're about to be fed a metric ass-ton of absolute garbage speculation which is, amusingly enough, more akin to the way spiritual practices are depicted in video games or TTRPG type games. BECMI Dungeons and Dragons stands for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal, the literal final stage of character development is to become an immortal, which is what all of the gods in the Mystara setting ultimately were. That type of "leveling up" into divinity is almost precisely what people think gnosticism (and countless other spiritual practices) are actually like, ignoring g the fact that people didn't even look at their personal lives in such a "heirarchy of achievement" until after the industrial revolution in the west, much less in their spiritual constructs. Just look at pop culture "shamans" it's the same thing, taking a belief structure which is largely ad odds with consumer based capitalism and achievement based heiraechies, at least as wee construct them today, and applying it to that consumer based model, I call it the "Jazzercise-ization of spirituality.
I was actually happy to see this video pop up in my feed. I used to watch Tik's history videos quite regularly but everytime he talked about economics or politics it always left a bitter taste. I could never really see or respect his other work after i saw parts of his 'Hitler was a socialist' video, It was really bad. Guess this video was kind of closure for me, so thanks for providing Fredda!
_" It was really bad."_
Bad or not, it was still historically accurate. By definition, Hitler was a socialist. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae. so by that definition is every authoritatian state socialist? Every protectionist kingdom in the 17th century were socialists? How about anarchists, they can't be socislists since they don't advocate for an economic centralisation?
I'm not a theory head, but i think whatever definiton you're using for socialism is a tad limited.
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae.Firstly, strong government control of the economy does not equal socialism. Secondly, Hitler was a liar. He was a fascist who, being a skilled orator, co-opted leftist ideas and speech to take advantage of working-class agitations. Hitler and Nazi Germany’s actions clearly demonstrate that neither he nor his party were aligned with socialism.
@@rosballhow exactly do they demonstrate they were not aligned with socialism?
@@colebehnke7767 They did not fulfil the fundamental tenner of socialism, that being the workers owning the means of production. They also killed a lot of socialists.
Thank you for finally addressing TIK. For some reason he's remained somewhat untouched by other youtubers. I really enjoy these videos and they are super insightful. Keep up the great work
The main reason is he actually sources his arguments, witch most TH-camrs can’t actually do.
@@colebehnke7767 Surprisingly, most of his own sources refute his claims
@@generalfred9426 refute, or come to different conclusions? Like to be a proper historian you have to study the sources and consider their biases.
@@colebehnke7767 TIK is not a historian. The sources authors are mostly historians. The video mentions them such as Adam Tooze and Ian Kernshaw. They all say based upon their research of the sources that the Nazis were not socialists. Despite that TIK still uses them as sources and comes to the opposite conclusion.
Your definition applies to analyzing documents, letters, diaries, speeches, etc. not saying stuff like the Nazis were socialists. If you can provide a single contemporary historian that says this then please provide.
@@generalfred9426 you need to expand your worldview, there are numerous credible historians who claim the Nazis were socialists, many whom TIK reference in his videos.
Also you understanding of how historians operate is sorely lacking, like saying TIK shouldn’t use sources that disagree with him is like saying a scientist shouldn’t test for things that work against his hypothesis. You might as a scientist disagree with the conclusions of a study, but you can and should still use the credible data of the study to showcase a different opinion.
It’s really annoying arguing about history with people who don’t know how to preform historical analysis.
Man who knew making arguments was as easy as changing the meanings of words to fit your narrative!
Disco Elysium music goes hard
Also music from Workers and Ressources: Soviet Republic. great OST
He's "libertarian" the way Milei is "libertarian", the way Pinochet was "libertarian".
Unfortunately that is the real way to be libertarian now. While it started as a left wing term, it’s now never used by lefties without qualifiers (i.e. libertarian socialist, libertarian communist etc) the political identity of “libertarian” is now expressly right wing, borderline fascistic, or cryptofash.
@@l.t.c3847you do know that libertarian is still a left wing term, if you use the old definitions.
@@colebehnke7767 old definitions are useless. By that logic it’d be fair for someone to refer to me as “swarthy” because I have Germanic heritage, even though I’m paler than snow. Definitions and their usage have to shift with the social world around them. The only publicaly identifying “libertarians” these days, without qualifiers, are free market capitalists or crypto fascists. To the vast majority of people, that’s now what it means.
@@l.t.c3847so the left is for more government control?
There is a point where something like TH-cam becomes a Utility
I remember commenting on Tik's "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhealimg" video. As a german, on the inside I was already fuming, but I gave it the lightest chance I could and it imediantly crumbled when he said that denying Hitler was socialist is denying the holocuast. I kept as calm as possible, commented a critique with a request for a civil discussion, only to get the answer that I didn't watch the video.
What was that critique?
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae. Was just calling out general problems with the video, such as holes in his argumentation and stuff. Would have to look up exactly what I said.
I stopped watching tik a long time ago when he went down the rabbit hole of nazi germany is Marxist and did an interview with chieftain where he basically said presenting history should be moralized rather than just be presented as is.
1) Quotes The Matrix.
2) Names himself after Warhammer.
3) Still lives at his mum's house.
Fredda I Love your videos. You’re quickly becoming one of my favourite history channels. The way you make citations on screen is a breath of fresh for someone studying history. I Discovered your channel when through your videos on what if alt hist, more videos like this dismantling other peoples subpar content please. Also massive respect for not putting a sponsor on your Greenland video.
I heard the Disco Elysium music and immediately soyfaced and knew this is a channel I need to subscribe to.
I swear I begged for you to make a video on TIK when I met your channel. I first came across his videos on Steam, of all places, under the community posts of Red Orchestra 2, about the story behind Pavlov's house and the mythicism surrounding it. I first thought "oh great, this dude makes some interesting history videos about WW2, and explains how fighting actually was done, something I just wished to see more here on this platform". I immediately subscribe to him. Few months later, I find out he had uploaded a new video, curious I check it out. I don't remember what it was called, but it kinda weirded me out since he was saying some pretty wild stuff about politics, which, admittedly, I did not quite understand, so I just left the video with a taste of cynicism left in my mind. Looked at his other stuff to see if he had something more to say about it, and ooooh boy. Still subscribed to him, year later after first checking him out, more politically informed, I just watch him completely butcher the definitions of capitalism and socialism, that even most right-wing neo-liberals would disagree on. My mind just exploded, how could a man make such great videos on the battles of WW2 and then say the most insane, self-proclaimed BS to be ever seen on TH-cam? For months I looked for people that would go dive in on his channel, remember finding BadEmpanada that way, and along the way saw your channel, thought to myself "if this mf did a video on TIK I'd be sure he'd finally put an end to this lunacy". Disappointed at first that you hadn't at the time, but oh man, so glad you did now. Love the videos on WhatifAlthist as well. Personally love how you dissect videos that on surface to the untrained eye seem very convincing but are rooted in deception and lies. Thank you for your service Fredda.
Keep uploading bangers.
This video needed to happen, when he 1st came out with this nonsense he would argue with people in the comments & assume no one read military history, economics & political theory to the extent he did.
The fan boys who egged him on have led to him having these insane takes.
It’s funny 😂😂 but TIK actually sounds deranged now, some of what he say is not based in reality of what actually happened in history or an understanding of the motives of Nazi’s.
Thinking they went after small businesses & then the Jews is like something from a comedy show.
I cant wait for TiK's 2 hour long response video where he doesn't adress any of your claims.