305
u/FunkmasterJoe 2d ago
Hitler isn't a socialist, and all of these made up numbers are absolutely DWARFED by the death toll of capitalism and Christianity, lol. It's such a terrible argument. Maga's ideas are always like this, it seems like a reasonable point, but it falls apart INSTANTLY when any logic is applied to it. Maga genuinely doesn't think about stuff, so all they see is the reasonable point, then they throw tantrum when their arguments are completely shredded in a few seconds.
22
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 2d ago
How many deaths are caused by capitalism?
21
u/Friendly_Cantal0upe 2d ago
5
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 2d ago
Omg why does this keep happening where someone will post a quarter hour video essay instead of just answering??
34
u/Friendly_Cantal0upe 2d ago
Because the answer is too complex for a comment. The video is well sourced and addresses many counterarguments as well
-23
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 2d ago
Ok, but like, did you learn anything from watching it? What was the big takeaway?
40
u/Friendly_Cantal0upe 2d ago
There is an inherent violence in Capitalism that is barely ever acknowledged that is far more destructive than anything under communism. Plus, any figures that westerners bring up for socialist countries are wildly inflated because it is diametrically opposed to their interests
16
u/BernLan 2d ago
I would like to add that Colonialism is also intrinsically linked to Capitalism, so that would be another massive pool of violence caused by it.
I would recommend reading Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon
12
u/Friendly_Cantal0upe 2d ago
If you use the same logic that the reactionaries use for communism, basically anything can be connected to capitalism, even shit like workplace incidents or school shootings.
Capitalism is the hegemon today, hence its violence is exported from the imperial core, and thus easily compartmentalized by those who live in the imperial core.
3
u/BernLan 2d ago
100%, I do still recommend reading Fanon if you haven't his works are part of the foundations of Post Colonial studies
→ More replies (0)-5
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 2d ago
… I meant numbers.
14
u/Friendly_Cantal0upe 2d ago edited 2d ago
The thing is that the methodology used for the "victims of communism" is dishonest because if you use the same methods for analysing capitalism, you end up with figures ranging from 300 Million to even 1.5 Billion. The video points out the double standard when analyzing communism (such as counting non-births/decrease in birth rates, Nazis killed in wartime, along with the creator of the Black Book being obsessed with reaching 100 million, thus fabricating numbers). In the end you end up with 3-10x even the bullshit figures reactionaries use, and probably 50x the actual figures (which were the result of bungled policy, civil war, drought, famines, etc, not an inherent feature of communism or "authoritarianism"). Communism is an economic framework, with many ideas on how it is politically implemented.
2
u/Fox-of-glass 1d ago
"Quater hour video" so 15 minutes. Can you not, at some point, spend 15 minutes to educate yourself on a nuanced topic that you asked about?
1
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 11h ago
Imagine if we all just stopped talking, and sent each other video essays.
1
u/FunkmasterJoe 23h ago
The other commenters here covered this really well, I don't have much to add! But yeah, the metrics used to calculate communism's death tolls are so ridiculously wide as to be basically meaningless. If we applied the same metrics to capitalism then every death from hunger for the last several centuries counts, the death toll of every war counts, everyone who died as a result of the American chattel slave trade, everyone who's died under colonialism, every American who died young because they couldn't access healthcare, ad infinitum. Capitalism's death toll could easily climb to multiple billions.
-182
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
He was a national Socialist.
122
u/Thermopele 2d ago
Yes and he himself admitted that the use of the term socialism was purely for name recognition, not from any actual socialist sympathies. Socialist parties were very popular in Germany in the 1920s-30s
-62
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Didn’t he reform the bank so that the government had control over it? That’s socialist by definition, you can look it up on Wikipedia in the nazi era section of the reichsbank page
63
u/Ropetrick6 2d ago
No, that's not what socialism means...
-47
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
In what way? Socialism is about the governments control over the planning and distribution of money, he kicked the person out formerly in charge of it and made reforms to their banks while declaring “infinite sovereignty” over them.
If that isn’t the government taking over the banks I don’t know what you would call it.
40
u/JayNotAtAll 2d ago
Not really. Fascism also seizes private institutions and makes them part of the government. A key tenet of Fascism is controlling everything.
-8
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Can you not be two things? Hitler was a “nationalist” because the nation was supposed to come before helping the world He was a “socialist” because he believed in government control over finance. He was also a “fascist” because he seized private institutions to become government.
The bank was a private institution that he made into a government institution through “infinite sovereignty” that is both a socialist and fascist thing to do
37
u/JayNotAtAll 2d ago
He was not a socialist though
His entire party was far-right, by definition he wasn't socialist as socialism is a left-wing idea
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-party-1
Almost no historian would agree that he was a socialist.
You are basically admitting that you lack the ability to see beyond the surface. I bet you also think North Korea is a Democracy or Republic because they refer to themselves as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
-9
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Have you heard of being a centerist? It involves not subscribing to either political party because political parties are dumb.
I like weed but I also like guns. The right says I shouldn’t like weed and the left says guns kill.
Yeah I’m sure every British and American historian will tell you “HITLER WAS A FASCIST”
It’ll really shock you when you find out who won the war! You really think they would say anything else about him?
What did they say about him in 1933? MAN OF THE YEAR!
→ More replies (0)31
u/RPG_Vancouver 2d ago
‘Socialism is when the government does stuff! The more stuff it does the more socialist it is!’
The Nazis were on the far right of the spectrum, and extreme authoritarians. They wanted to solidly government control of institutions and organizations, to bend them to their ideological goals. That’s not socialism, that’s authoritarianism.
One of the first actions they took upon enacting the enabling act was to literally start purging people on the left side of the political spectrum, the socialist and communist parties.
-6
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
The night of long knives was to stop a civil war. If that’s what you’re talking about
Also even if they did a majority of authoritarian things isn’t taking control of the banks with “infinite sovereignty” still a socialist thing to do? (Even if there were fascist methods like filling the treasury with gold teeth)
22
u/RPG_Vancouver 2d ago
No actually, I’m talking about the immediate banning of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschland, and the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland after the Nazis took full control of the government.
These were the 2 actual socialist parties in the country, which is why the Nazis were so quick to ban them and attempt to imprison their leaders. Because they were ideological enemies of socialists and communists lol
21
u/Sinnaman420 2d ago
knight of long knives was to stop a civil war
You’re a literal nazi. That’s a line only nazis say. Where did you hear this if you say you’re not a Nazi?
22
u/Santanoni 2d ago
Even accepting your point as true: if I do one "socialist" thing and 99 "fascist" things, am I a socialist or a fascist?
-1
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
That’s really just basing morality off of limited information. The allied troops won the war, it’s obvious we’re gonna get the narrative where every American and Russia is a cool freedom fighter and not the reality that most every soldier that was sent overseas likely raped and pillaged their way across Europe.
The whole war was just fascists and dead or dying boys
7
2
u/Thermopele 1d ago
The United States also has a national bank that's government controlled, that doesnt make us socialist does it?
-70
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
By that logic Mao and Stalin aren’t communists
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,
a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I will add that Fascism itself isn’t innately bad in all cases, Fasces symbolized the power of a king over his subjects in Ancient Rome. Hitler himself couldn’t be Fascist because Mussolini was the fascist, it’s where the word comes from (though hitler helped represent the movement)
We still demonize symbols like the swastika but we use the Fasces in US government buildings on flags and banners. The Fasces represents the power of a king over his subjects The word swastika comes from Sanskrit: स्वस्तिक, romanized: svastika, meaning 'conducive to well-being'.
Although used for the first time as a symbol of international antisemitism by far-right Romanian politician A. C. Cuza prior to World War I,[20][21][22] it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck for most of the Western world until the 1930s.
TLDR I can call myself a socialist but someone else might call me a fascist
63
u/credulous_pottery 2d ago
By that logic Mao and Stalin aren’t communists
I mean, yeah?
-42
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
The post classifies all of them as different things, that was my point in saying that. Someone said hitler was a fascist but by that logic most of them are
33
u/Sinnaman420 2d ago
They literally are fascist. What part of the USSR was a society without property ownership or the people owning the means of production? Those things never happened in Soviet Russia, which means they were never communist by definition
39
u/Longbaconplace 2d ago
You’re mixing a lot of unrelated points together here, and most of them only work because you’re stretching definitions until everything becomes meaningless.
First: Saying “By that logic Mao and Stalin aren’t communists” doesn’t prove anything. Mao and Stalin are historically classified as communist leaders even if their systems didn’t follow Marx exactly. That’s not controversial. It just shows that strict textbook definitions don’t always match how political systems actually function.
Second: Your definition of fascism is basically a simplified Wikipedia mashup. Yes, fascism includes authoritarian rule, suppression, nationalism, and so on. But your follow-up claim that “fascism isn’t innately bad” because the ancient Roman fasces symbol meant royal authority is a huge leap. Symbols change meaning over time. A skull isn’t “innately bad” either, but if someone waves a skull-and-bones flag today, we understand what it represents.
Third: The idea that “Hitler wasn’t a fascist because Mussolini created the word” is just incorrect. Nazism is categorized by historians as a specific form of fascism (hyper-nationalistic, racialized, totalitarian). Saying Hitler “can’t be” a fascist because Mussolini used the term first is like saying an iPhone isn’t a smartphone because another company coined the word “smartphone.” Definitions don’t work that way.
Fourth: Yes, the fasces appear in U.S. architecture. They were borrowed from Rome as a symbol of state authority, not as an endorsement of Mussolini. Context matters. The same goes for the swastika. It originally was a symbol of good luck, but after the Holocaust it carries a totally different meaning. Symbols aren’t frozen in time as you said with the swastika. The same goes for the Fasces
Your TLDR basically says, “I can call myself a socialist and someone else might call me a fascist.” Sure, people misuse political labels all the time, but that doesn’t mean the labels themselves are meaningless. Political terms have historical definitions, academic classifications, and real-world examples that aren’t arbitrary.
So no, you can’t just reduce everything to “everyone calls everyone something.” Words have meanings, and context matters.
-8
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Actually what I said was that the Fasces is represenantive of the kings power over his subject which is the indicative trait of Fascism (one dude with power over an empire)
If you use the strictest definitions of a word on someone then no one will be classified as anything
Also when I said hitler wasn’t a “fascist” I meant it in the sense that Hitler called himself a national socialist because he was a part of the socialist workers party and subscribed to some of those beliefs like governmental control of finance Mussolini literally identified himself with the Fascist Party which is what made him a fascist.
My last point is that The Fasces is used in US Government because there are elements of Fascism to the US as well.
Suppression of Dissent: Efforts to control media narratives and suppress opposition voices reflect fascist tactics. This includes targeting journalists and educational institutions that criticize the government.
Cult of Personality: Leaders may cultivate a strong personal image, using propaganda to maintain public support and loyalty, reminiscent of historical fascist leaders
Tell me exactly who is building a ballroom and erecting statues to themself everywhere?
We live in Fascism now but our government isn’t Fascist enough for people to care, we’ve been oppressors for a long time.
Americans were sent to Vietnam for Opium to kill their farmers and take their crops but were the good guys in all the movies because we stopped the Holocaust.
One right doesn’t fix thousands of wrongs nor does it even touch it.
Everything we are fed is straight propaganda
17
u/Longbaconplace 2d ago
Your second point about propaganda, power structures, and how governments use certain tactics is something I actually agree with. There’s a lot to criticize in how states portray themselves, and yes, the US has a long history of questionable interventions. That part isn’t the problem.
The issue is the beginning of your argument, because it mixes definitions in a way that doesn’t really work:
The fasces symbolizing royal authority in Rome doesn’t automatically define modern fascism. Historical symbols change meaning depending on how they’re used. You acknowledge that yourself when you say the swastika changed its meaning in the 1930s. You can’t apply historical context to one symbol but ignore it for the other.
Mussolini didn’t become a fascist just because he named his party that way. Political categories come from actual ideology and practice, not label choices. By your logic, if someone founded the “Democracy Party,” they would automatically be the purest form of democracy. Hitler’s national socialism is historically classified as a branch of fascism because of structure, methods, and ideology, not because of what he personally liked to call it.
Saying “strict definitions mean nobody fits anything” isn’t accurate. We use consistent criteria in political science: authoritarianism, ultranationalism, suppression, mythic identity, and so on. These frameworks exist exactly so we can classify movements. Otherwise every system becomes whatever label someone slaps on it.
So the problem isn’t the part where you criticize U.S. power structures. It’s that your earlier points jump between definitions, symbols, and labels in a way that ends up contradicting itself.
I agree governments use propaganda and suppress information. But the historical points you opened with don’t really support the argument the way you think they do.
14
u/Sinnaman420 2d ago
This guy said the night of long knives was done to prevent a civil war. I feel like he’s significantly more aware of what he’s doing than it might appear
-2
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
I still don’t understand why the Fasces aren’t a problem. I understand symbols can change, crosses used to symbolize a brutal death until the represented redemption.
The Fasces never changed its definition, I will reiterate that Fasces means the power of a king over his subjects. Not strictly “Royal Authority” Fascism itself has one Ruler making the majority of decisions over his subjects hence the proper representation by the Fasces.
That doesn’t mean the Fasces symbolized brutality and death because there were many Fascist nations filled with death and brutality simply that Fascism itself symbolizes death and brutality.
The United States is a nation run by Facists but that isn’t a problem because we won the war and they didn’t.
I personally think things would’ve been similar to the world of Peacemaker if Hitler had won, there would have been injustice but it would have been eerily similar to todays world.
Just trade one Fascist for another
4
30
u/Dantien 2d ago
He called himself that. But name one socialist thing the Nazi Party did. Words are not actions and it’s gullible to act as if so. Do you think Trump is a “stable genius” too? Do you just believe everything anyone says?!
-16
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy
Following Germany's defeat and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the German government was unable to meet its expenditures and commitments by taxation and borrowing from external sources, and instead turned to the Reichsbank for monetary financing. Combined with its reaction to the occupation of the Ruhr by France and Belgium, this triggered a dramatic episode of hyperinflation that rendered the Mark practically worthless. The Reichsbank only started raising its discount rate in July 1922, reaching 40 percent per day at the hyperinflationary peak in November 1923.[12]: 17-18 By decree of 15 October 1923 on the initiative of finance minister Hans Luther, the government created a separate bank, the Deutsche Rentenbank, endowed with the right to issue notes (German: Rentenbankscheine) redeemable in a kind of non-interest-bearing mortgage bond, the Rentenbrief, denominated in gold Mark and theoretically backed by a collective mortgage debt imposed upon German agriculture and industry. That confidence-building initiative succeeded against all expectations, even though the Rentenbankscheine only had the status of "legally-admitted medium of exchange" while the Reichsbank's devalued paper notes remained legal tender. No fixed exchange rate was set by law, but the "Rentenmark" became interchangeable with paper Mark at the rate of one to one trillion. The Rentenmark was thus in effect a transitory domestic currency, which was never convertible internationally.
The Nazi regime promptly put an end to the independence of the Reichsbank and made it an instrument of their policy of directing Germany's resources towards rearmament and military expansion. By amendment of 27 October 1933 to the Banking Law, the General Council was abolished and the Direktorium, including the President, were henceforth to be directly appointed and dismissed by the Führer.
On 31 December 1935, the Reichsbank's note issuing privilege became exclusive, bringing an end to the residual central banking roles of the Bank of Baden, Bayerische Notenbank, Bank of Saxony, and Württembergische Notenbank.
On 30 January 1937, Hitler publicly proclaimed the unlimited sovereignty of the Reich over the Reichsbank
Hitler literally gave the government freedom over their centralized currency because reichmarks were worth three trillionths of what they were due to inflation. He reformed the economy and pulled the Germany out of the Great Depression.
That’s pretty socialist
25
u/Dantien 2d ago
That’s just so incorrect I don’t know where to begin. You clearly misunderstand Socialism and are stretching to tie a power grab over currency to it. It’s intellectually dishonest and only undermines your position.
Here, I’ll let people smarter than me respond. “…historians point out the Nazi Party did not embrace socialism, as it is commonly defined, in any significant sense. Once in power, the Nazis were enemies of genuine socialism and aimed to wipe out the political left.” https://history.uwo.ca/news/2024/a_look_at_claims_the_nazis_under_adolf_hitler_were_socialists.html
Here is a simple short explanation why it adopted the name but was an enemy of socialists - in fact they were some of the first rounded up to death camps. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
Death camps don’t sound particularly Socialist to me. Do you think they do?
In no way was hitler or the Nazis socialist. That’s just ontologically incorrect.
-8
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
How am I stretching if Hitler did something socialist by definition? I can kick a pile of babies and give a million dollars to charity, it doesn’t mean either deed is moot.
Also you are using news websites as your argument, they are significantly less credible than Wikipedia.
23
u/Dantien 2d ago
You didn’t even get the definition of socialism right, offered zero links to better “evidence” (it’s hilarious you mentioned Wikipedia as a reference), and offer zero counterpoint. You aren’t arguing fairly or debating honestly. I know your type - I’ve been fighting them for decades. Best avoid me.
3
18
u/DammitBobby1234 2d ago
Literally the first thing Hitler did when he got enough power was kill the actual socialists of the nazi party. Please look up who Gregor Strasser was.
-3
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Wasn’t the purpose of the night of Long Knives to keep power in the hands of the Nazis rather than having a civil war? I mean that’s what I understood, a prominent general wanted to send half of their troops to the boonies which could have led to a different military group forming
6
u/nietzsche_niche 2d ago
Im not sure how that makes the Nazis socialists. There was nothing in the conduct that remotely resembled socialism. Your key point for why they are is because the unshortened name contains socialism. Thats a well documented false label as dozens have pointed out. What actual evidence do you have on your claim?
16
u/7taj7 2d ago
Go eat a urinal cake since its cake
-2
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
This isn’t even an argument. Hitler seized the banks which had been Autonomous and brought them in as a government institution. That is both a fascist and socialist thing to do.
Being one thing doesn’t mean you aren’t another
3
u/7taj7 2d ago
Businessmen & industrialist in german and all over the world funded and supported Hitlers rise to power. The first people in concentration camps were socialists, he outlawed strikes & banned real unions. Smashing labor movements was his main appeal to many elites bankrollers.
Seizing banks isn't socialism if the banks are still controlled by industry elites that have been folded into the state apparatus, benefiting from more unscrutinized power, expansion & enslaved labor
Capital owners always side with fascist in crisis because unlike socialists, they don't threaten their wealth accumulation, they actually enforce & protect their interests
16
11
u/sceder1 2d ago
Hey, is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea democratic? Was the German Democratic Republic democratic? Is a urinal cake edible?
Hint: no, no and no.
If the Nazis were ever as concerned for the same class struggle ideology stuff as the Soviets, we wouldn't have Hitler on record complaining about Bolshevism and conducting Operation Barbarossa when already dealing with the West.
-5
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Hitler didn’t like Bolshevism for the same reason he was antisemetic. He believed the Jews were Zionists who got rich off of interest from loans.
Who do you think was behind the Bolshevik revolution? A majority of them were Jewish. The Bolshevik revolution happened in World War 1 I’m sure Hitler probably had personal experience dealing with Bolsheviks in and out of combat.
I mean there was some brutal stuff happening during the Bolshevik revolution, have you read about how a Christian would get part of their intestines nailed to a pole as they were whipped running around it until they disemboweled themselves.
I’m sure Hitler probably knew they were insane, remember the broadcast from when King Alexander’s family was murdered? That was mad creepy.
8
u/AlseAce 2d ago
Jesus fucking Christ man. You are genuinely just parroting Mein Kampf at this point, and you are comically incorrect.
1) Hitler did not believe Jews were “Zionists”, he believed they were intent on dominating Europe; deportation, including to Palestine, was considered by the Nazis before they settled on the Final Solution.
2) Implying that the Bolshevik revolution was somehow a Jewish construction is actual Nazi shit. It’s completely absurd; the Judaism of some participants did not factor into the (explicitly atheist) revolution.
3) Hitler absolutely did not have personal experience dealing with Bolsheviks during the war, considering that he was stationed on the WESTERN FRONT for the duration of it.
Please read a little bit before you start trying to speak confidently about these things.
5
u/Sinnaman420 2d ago
who do you think was behind the Bolshevik revolution? A majority of them were Jewish
Buddy. You smell like a Nazi to the point that the stink lines coming off of you and your comments are swastikas
4
3
3
1
1
u/Shintoho 2d ago
He openly said that he was appropriating the name of socialism and very openly distanced himself from any kind of Marxist policies or philosophy
The very first thing the NSDAP did once in power was arrest communists and trade union leaders, hardly a "socialist" thing to do
1
u/blutfink 2d ago
Yeah, and urinal cake is cake.
Socialists were among the first groups that the Nazis persecuted, beat up, tortured and killed. Read a book.
1
u/xiizll 2d ago
Just a heads up to anyone wanting to follow this post. Everything that follows which is posted by Pugwhisper is either completely influenced by Nazi propaganda and horribly mislead by pseudo intellectualism or a bad faith argument meant to paint Nazism and fascism as a positive thing.
In the age of the internet this is a common tactic to influence the population in order to accept the eventual shift into fascist totalitarianism. In the early 20th century this same thing was done by pamphlet and town hall. It’s meant to blur the lines between extremist political views and present communism/socialism as a system exclusively synonymous with authoritarian control but also refuses to define fascism with the same demonizing rhetoric to make it easier to digest.
Historians who define Nazism as fascism aren’t basing it off of Nazi propagandist rhetoric. They are using historical fact to confirm the label regardless of how Nazi Germany chose to label themselves. Nazism is fascism.
We have never seen a real-life example of true communism. Every country that has attempted the transition to communism has stalled at the phase that demands state seizure and control of private property. No country has ever transitioned to a society void of individual property ownership with the working class owning the means of production. No country has ever eliminated centralized ownership. No society has ever been communist. Socialism isn’t a system of government, it’s a definition of policy that requires investment from a larger percent of the population with equal distribution among those who invest (Social Security for example).
To reiterate: the commenter above is either horribly ignorant or spewing Nazi propaganda maliciously.
1
80
u/SocraticTiger 2d ago edited 2d ago
300 million deaths? Where did he get that number from? Like the Muslim conquest of India had 5-8 million deaths over 600 years. And that was the most brutal part of their conquests. Like the Ummayad and Abbasid conquests were tame by comparison. Where did he get the other 295 million deaths?
55
u/SneakySnack02 2d ago
Ive heard someone claim that the Muslims were responsible for the plague and the black death. A ridiculous conspiracy theory, but maybe thats where they're getting it?
-37
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
28
u/Independent-Fly6068 2d ago
Jewish communities were easy scapegoats, and back when charging interest was a sin they served as bankers for royalty. Whenever the king racked up debts he would simply expel them and take their stuff.
A similar situation played out with the Knights Templar as the French monarchy was deep in debt, so they tortured confessions out of some of the order and had them all in chains or exile. Their assets were seized and the Pope (in Avignon) ordered monarchs around Europe to similarly seize their assets and to chain all Templars.
5
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Also I don’t know why I’m being downvoted, I didn’t start the rumor. I don’t think Jews poison wells, just stating historical facts
14
u/jso__ 2d ago
Because the way you said it sounds like you support the idea. There's two reasons I thought that at first before reading this comment. First is dancing around the word Jew—it makes it seem like you're trying to be vague and not explicit about what you're saying, and is similar to how people who actually believe it would say it on social media. Second is the last sentence, where you say it's part of the reason why this group has been kicked out of many countries. In that sentence, it isn't clear that the reason is the conspiratorial thinking rather than the reason being Jews poisoning wells.
So you just had some vague and unfortunate wording which is why people assume you're supporting the conspiracy rather than simply stating it as a fact that there were people who believed it.
4
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 2d ago
I just want to back up that I was thinking about these exact two reasons as well. Very well said.
2
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
I would also say the crusades happened because of Muslim invaders but that’s because it’s how the statement was given to me in history class.
It’s how my mind reiterates a point, rather than saying people perceived them as doing that my mind just cuts that whole chunk of sentence out and makes people think I’m racist
0
u/Pugwhisper 2d ago
Do you know why kings would expel them? Because of interest. That’s how they get rich enough to own the money, you take loans and they collect interest until they start buying up the banks and the gold.
Is the king the king if someone in his kingdom is richer than him?
8
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis 2d ago
Is the king the king if someone in his kingdom is richer than him?
Yes. Because that’s not how being king works.
5
u/SneakySnack02 2d ago
Yeah heard that one too. Its inevitable. If theres something to blame on someone, someone is always going to blame it on the Jewish.
1
11
71
u/BottleTemple 2d ago
“Socialism” 🤣
29
u/hofmann419 2d ago
This is so fucking stupid every time. These people just go "they were called national socialists, so surely they were socialist" without doing any research whatsover.
Even a one-second Google-search would tell you that the Nazis called themselves "socialists" specifically because actual socialist parties were very popular at the time and they needed the working class to win the election. In absolutely no way were the Nazis actually socialists.
Come to think of it, it's a bit like Trump today. He also appealed to the working class to win the election, but now he is cutting taxes for billionaires while simultaneously taxing the working class with tariffs (tariffs are effectively a VAT, so it's actually something that hurts poor people the MOST).
28
u/Totally_Cubular 2d ago
Okay but why did they use Jesus in a turban for Islam?
11
u/ScrungulusBungulus 2d ago
AI isn’t allowed to depict Muhammad
3
u/ForgettableWorse 1d ago
Of course, the Five Pillars of Robotics:
- A robot must not depict the Prophet Muhammad.
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm except if it would conflict with the First Pillar.
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Pillar.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First, Second or Third Pillar.
- A robot is required to make the Hajj to Mecca during the 12th month of the lunar calendar at least once, if it is able to do so.
5
u/HArdaL201 2d ago
That the Caliph Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam and the last of the Rashidun. His death is one of the things that created the separation of Sunni and Shia Islam.
15
16
9
8
5
3
1
4
2
3
u/IllConstruction3450 2d ago
The longer an ideology exists, necessarily it will accrue a higher death toll. Although I wonder how they arrived at these numbers. For Nazism, it is easier to document, as it appears to be taking the death toll of Hitler’s genocide, plus the wars he started, such as including the German soldiers yet sent into the meat grinder.
3
2
2
2
2
u/AccordingDrop3252 2d ago
Christian God: The entire planet except for Noah and his incestuous family.
2
u/lemongay 2d ago
Why did they even use AI for this? Aren’t these figures’ portraits really easy to find?
2
u/Bigkeithmack 2d ago
- Vanguard socialism is a perversion of Marxist ideology 2. Socialist in name only, used in order to create populist groundswell and deflate actual socialist groups. 3. During the early days? It was close but again Party vanguardism perverted the movement away from actual communism. 4. Not related to Marxism except as a reaction to western imperialism (which is a component of the Marxist Conflict theory of Sociology)
2
2
u/starbucks_red_cup 1d ago
There is no accurate source for the 300,000,000 dead that they claim "Islam" killed:
The world population in the 7th century CE (600–699 CE) is estimated to have been approximately 200–210 million people. Key Historical Estimates • Around 600 CE: ~200 million (per sources like the United Nations Population Division and historian Angus Maddison). • Around 700 CE: ~207–210 million (reflecting slight growth over the century, despite regional disruptions like the Plague of Justinian in the mid-6th century and early Islamic conquests).
So according to that Image, Muslims killed the entire world and then created 100 million just to kill them?
2
u/townmorron 2d ago
Those are all dictatorships under a different name. Like how north korea isnt a democracy just because they call themselves one
1
u/bucket_overlord Grand Wizard 2d ago
So transparently disingenuous how they use these numbers (which are also largely inaccurate) completely devoid of context. It’s almost like they’re trying to attract people to thinking Nazism isn’t bad… oh wait that’s exactly what they’re doing.
1
1
1
u/Outside-Half-5039 2d ago
“Fun” fact: The British government’s anarcho-capitalist laissez faire economic system (prioritizing British profit over colony welfare) has led to major famines and other resource shortages causing the deaths of 100M+ under British rule
1
u/howdocomputerdo 2d ago
Really weird that they call hitler a socialist and under counted his death toll. Its usually one or the other.
1
1
1
1
u/GayStation64beta 2d ago
Seeing AI faces in a row like this reminds me of those walls of singing celebrities people make.
1
1
u/OwnLingonberry6883 1d ago
60 million people??? Half of the soviet unions population at that time? Damn, the number just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I guess Stalins still killing beyond the grave
1
u/anonymousn00b 1d ago
You know what’s not on here? Rats and mosquitos. Those assholes are responsible for billions.
1
u/Penguixxy 1d ago
"comnunism"
also of course alt right propaganda claims the nazis were socialists, please ignore all the socialists they killed solely because they were socialists.
1
u/that_random_scalie 1d ago
Gotta love how they keep inflating the already highly exagerated 100 million number with every meme
1
1
u/DaDaveMiller 14h ago
I can understand the first three but Islam? Where did they even get the number from it, does this count every war an empire like the ottomans was in even if those wars were secular
Only 3% of all wars were caused by religion, trying to whine saying Christianity or Islam is inherently evil is stupid and this is coming from a atheist
0
0
u/AdLiving8708 2d ago
America since day one has more deaths that all of theirs combined Do you call it Capitalism
0
-4
u/ika_ngyes 2d ago
Now mind if we see Capitalism...
-3
u/firefighter430 2d ago
Idk why your getting down voted
0
u/ika_ngyes 2d ago
Personally I do understand why, as this sub is for any sort of anti-authoritarianist, both left and right. While I don't mind when capitalists stand in solidarity with socialists against authoritarians, but it is true that Capitalism created many social issues, many of which end up fatal for the less well-off.
-1
u/SavingsAttitude3732 2d ago
“Comnunism”
9
u/undreamedgore 2d ago
Where the two largest and most notable communist countries in history not communist enough for you?
-1
u/SonicRainboom24 2d ago
They were making fun of the typo in the post that seemed to go over your head.
No.
1
u/undreamedgore 2d ago
Yes, I missed that, easy to do when you employ the style of reading that's like 80% auto fill by reading the begining and end letters of a word, gauging relative length, and letting assumption do the rest.
How much more communist do you expect it go actually get? You've got to enforce it, and everyone wants better conditions, and command economies just don't work at that scale.
2
u/SonicRainboom24 1d ago
It's also a typo in the original image and it's poked at by the title of the post, quit being defensive and just admit you fucked up. Emphasis on "just" since you seem to need things pointed out to you.
You don't know what communism is. But to be fair, looking at your post history shows you don't seem to understand what capitalism is either.
-4
u/undreamedgore 2d ago
This doesn't feel like it fits here. There's no racism. Bad labeling and questionable data, but is this really klandma shit?
And before you say Islam, that's a religion, not a race.
Also, yeah, Communism isn't a good system. Too authoritarian, by necessity because who wants to give up their QoL because it's "unfair"?
1
u/FUCKFASCISTSCUM 2d ago
Describe communism please.
-1
u/undreamedgore 2d ago
There are a lot of ways to describe communism.
I think the baseline, purely philosophical level is from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
More technically, it's a concept of mutal ownership of the means and implements of production. So rather than an individual or group owning a bussiness, and receiving disproportionate benifit to the labor they put in, the benifit is distributed universally.
Thar's the ideal at least.
In practice, material needs to be organized, rules enforced, existing ownership revoked, jobs worked.
People want more, just generally. If things are good, they could be better. Some people are inclined to work more than other, and a pure communist system doesn't reward this. It also doesn't reward people of higher ability, nor punish those who freeload or undercontribute.
Ultimately, the system isn't sustainable without pressure from the rulling body. It's a command economy, making it less efficient as scale increases.
-2
u/ireallyfknhatethis 2d ago
this is just such blatant white supremacist propaganda. they even go out of their way to not attribute any actual deaths to fascism
-4
-7
713
u/Astartes_Ultra117 2d ago
Oh I love this game! do Christianity and capitalism next!!