I know the majority of your audience is here for war history and tanks and whatnot, but I'm thoroughly enjoying your videos on history of economic thought.
@@TheImperatorKnight I think this is where you shine, to be honest. I stumbled into you on an an-cap Reddit sub, and I’ve been hooked ever since. Maybe I’m alone, but I prefer you in these sorts of videos. Keep up the good work!
If you want to do some tank videos.. then do them and take a break from the ideology videos.. remember you shouldn't geelong guilty...you owe no one anything
@@samsonsoturian6013 Start your own channel, mate. Where are you anyhow, "feudalism" wasn't the same across Europe, nevermind England. What we had is described as "Bastard Feudalism" which isn't at all the same thing.
Should we expect something else from a man who made a summary of Operation Barbarrossa and cataloged and discussed the moverment of every unit BY THE METER!?
The life expectancy of 35 years is obviously also linked to the high mortality rate of babies and children. He said that, but often people have the tendency to think that the majority of adults died at around 35.
I think that is actually included as child-death often was not recorded in dire times! However getting to the age of 20 (meaning as a woman you already had your first children) made it rather easy to follow on to an age of about 50-60, especially for men.
@@BigHenFor So I‘m not sure if I got your point but I’m not judging this whole concept of calculating life expectancy in the past like the 1700s. Rather, I just wanted to share this thought to make it easier to deal with the 35 years of life expectancy.
Yes, this is a statistical effect - The *average* was lowered greatly by the sheer amount of young deaths, but for those who survived those early years you would expect to see lifespans into more like the 60s.
i read a old thesis paper years back about the mortality rate that was looking at the english mortality rate of the population that survived over the age of 10 years old between 1705 and 1905 based off parish death records.......it found that the median age of death of this section of the population was in their mid 60's.....and that for the same section of population it was not a lot different to when the thesis was written in the late 1930's
I love your military historical analysis but I am just blown away by how thorough an understanding you have of economic politics and how logically and well you explain it all. You put several of my professors to shame. I have a history degree and I focused heavily on economics, as I think and your videos show, politics and economics are inseparable.
@@bigmouthstrikesagain4056 At the end of the day, fully boiled down, the only real political spectrum is individual vs collective. Social pressure vs healthy boundaries. People who think they know how you should live your life better than you do, vs people who love others enough to trust them to make their own decisions.
Left right spectrum in the mainstream media has just become Good people bad people. there really should be a better spectrum because its incredibly vague. Right wing is traditional and left is progressive. That is basically the actual definition but lets be honest its totally abused and all the worst people in history get lumped into the right despite being progressives.
Very Interesting topic; it’s about time the establishment historians recognise the truth of ‘fascism’- and it’s basis in socialism. You’re doing a great job at exposing their ignorance. Thank you, TIK.
*Syndicalism it's a form of Socialism, but different in how it functions in seizire of the means of production and worker's participation in the economic sector.
@@SirBolsón Socialism is the socialisation of the means of production, syndicalism is the socialisation of the means of production within syndicates, so syndicalism is a form of socialism, but it is not different from socialism since it is socialism. It is just one variant of the same thing, so it is 100% socialism. Socialism is an idea, not a system by itself, syndicalism is a system of socialism just like Marxism is, and they are both equally socialisms
My Grandmothers sister was born in Gateshead, England in 1914. She was born with Rickets. Which is caused by the Mother not getting enough to eat during pregnancy. Another ancestor give birth to half her children in the Workhouse. She died in a Newcastle Workhouse in 1910. Most of the Working class lived in abject poverty in Britain! It was like this for most till the 1950s, and 1960s in many places. Mosley given a chance might made a difference? Couldn't been much worse then those who did run the show? We will never know.
Then there are stupid people from former colonies who hold every Brit accountable for colonialism and demand reparations. I am not a Brit myself but even a quick glance at history shows that the average Brit was suffering in hellish poverty even while Britain was a colonial empire.
@@noreply-7069 Because it is important info and sadly a lot of TIKs viewers will take what he says on 100% regardless of how correct it is. I should add, spamming it the way he is, probably that's going a little TOO far, but it needs to be put out there pretty strong.
Claiming the fascism is right wing because it’s often nationalistic is about as stupid as claiming the Khmer Rouge and IRA were right wing since they were nationalistic and well. Another great video tik!
@@greyfells2829 they are not an ally. the conservatives in america, canada and the UK do the same shit.. sabotage the nationalists as if they are their main competition. hell the CPC did that to maxime bernier here and then lost an election to trudeau (because ofcourse they lost to a guy who did blackface one time for every election hes been in)
The left and especially the communists are known for their anti-capitalism. Why do you think that the biggest capitalists during fascism in Italy or Nazism in Germany supported Mussolini and Hitler? When these men came to power, they did not ban these companies, they did not introduce strict regulations. On the contrary, this period became golden for these companies..
I just point out that all protests meet the legal criteria for "harassment" and that should be taken as the motive of protestor. That opinion got me kicked from Imgur due to literally dozens of people following just so they could abuse the report button. For weeks.
I chuckle, but then I dislike it in this setting. Comedy is a great value, but it is the partner force of analysis. They must be joined, but separate, so both can shine jointly. Comedy is by its nature light-hearted, self-depricating, and open-minded. Analysis is close-minded, heavy-hearted and must have a degree of confidence. In a society, comedians show that something is off. Analysts then figure out how it is wrong, and what needs to be done about it. Politicians then judge what can actually be achieved (unfortunately in practice, ensure it isn't). Analysis looks for answers. Comedy looks for questions.
Thank you for bringing this up, as most of my history studying is in the middle ages and classical era, people really like to diss on the Industrial Revolution yet completely ignore the benefits.
The same people that blame the British for the Bengal famine that wasn't even their fault but don't credit the British for ending the yearly famines that plagued India before their rule.
@@Arkantos117 the Bengal famine was the fault of the British. As you say, india is no stranger to famine. And yet, the Bengal famine was so brutal. Why? Mismanagement, either through callousness or cruelty, I think the former.
@@yuvi3738 The Bengal Famine happened because local autonomous governments and aristocrats did not want to share their abundance as food prices were massively inflating after the Japanese invasion of Burma. There wasn't a total lack of food, food was just too expensive for the poor to buy. The only way the British could have solved it would be to take food by force from Indians to give to other Indians.
This is an absolutely brilliant explanation of the ideological/economic failings of the Lib/Lab/Con trick political system responsible for the needless poverty of the 1920/30s; but which have continued to inflict similarly needless poverty upon the British Nation right through to the modern day.
Your Mosley series is going to be the key jewel in your complete coverage of the topic of Fascism imo. Mosley was intriguing for certain, both very familiar, but clearly the redheaded step child of particular groups all the same. Wait until people see you bring up his ideas for a "United Europe" and how familiar that concept is lol
Yeah moseley opted for a united Europe in 49' i believe. And to be honest its not that far from what the EU is becoming. They have been rattling on about Pan Europeanism for decades, and have some pretty weird youth programs.
Good grief... I've been subscribed for a long time to this channel but have somehow missed this video. It's as if this video was written just for me.... I've independently come to exactly the same conclusions that both you and LK Samuels have reached MANY years ago and have felt I'm going insane that no-one EVER publicly espouses this line of thought. This video has filled in some grey areas and cleared up some inconsistencies in my thinking, and for that I'm extremely grateful. Excuse me while I take back whats left of my sanity. Absolutely FANTASTIC rendering of an alternative perception to the chaos thats being wrought across the world today.
you really shouldnt say that youre not a racist fascists nazi or anything like that. dont make them force you to say things. dont give into them. dont say what youre not, when you do in a small way theyre winning. they see blood in the water and will know theyre influencing you and will come back for more and over time they will further and further influence you.
Whenever anyone calls me racist, Bigoted, nazi etc? I simply pull down my zip and reveal to them, 10 masculine and girthy inches. Quickly silences them without a word spoken.
When the poor were struggling and dying out of sight in the countryside all was well. When industrialization pulled the poor into the cities, the poverty was much less, but it was more visible in the cities.
Quite admired Mosely. My Father was a supporter of his in the early 1960s. Moselys biggest mistake When he founded his "British Union of Fascists" in 1932, was the name itself. Using a name with Foreign connotations was a big mistake. Ditto with calling his protection force "Black shirts". Not sure if his Pro Monarchy leanings helped him win the Working Class support he hoped to get? If he had simple called his Movement "The Nationalist Party" or Something like "The British Peoples Party" he would had a better chance of gaining more support. His Protection Squad should been simply called that.
One thing to remember is how few people in Britain had the vote in the 1800s. The Reform Act of 1832 increased the electorate from around 366,000 to 650,000, which was about 18 per cent of the total adult-male population in England and Wales. This added to the electorate small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers, and householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more. Not as conservative as the aristocrats and large land owners, but not the working class either. The next expansion was the Reform Act of 1867. It still was based on property qualifications, and the number of adult males eligible to vote was two million. It wasn't until the end of WWI that the least well off working-class males, about 40% of adult males, gained the vote.
A cynic might suggest that a franchise that requires no qualifications other than majority is merely guaranteed to represent the opinions of those who cannot be arsed to take an interest beyond the gimmies, and to use a Mosley expression, 'Are blown hither and thither by every gust of transient opinion'. :)
Tax policy is one of the strangest things in existence. In the US, both parties are pro high tax RATES. But neither is pro high tax PAYMENTS. The thing that all parties in all nations seem to have in common is the lip service to "the people" which the average working class hears and thinks of themselves, not realizing that the politicians mean themselves.
The "people" are the "public", and the "public" sector is the state. So yes, when the politicians say they're "doing it for the people", they mean themselves. I've tried to explain this in my public vs private video, but it's surprising how many people rejected this, even though it's clear that that's exactly what they're doing.
@@TheImperatorKnight It is frustrating; but we all do it. You can see thru Halder's distortions but similar distortions of the "Table Talk"? We are all great at bursting others bubbles; our own, not so much. The first person we fool is ourself. Plenty of work has been done by psychologists on how difficult it is not to go along with outright nonsense if everyone around you is hellbent on nonsense and you don't even know you aren't being allowed to see otherwise. After seven or so years of almost everyone going along with barking wibble since it dawned the Donald might actually win the primary and we actually might see off the EUrine, and the even more accelerated and accentuated daft of the last three years; it is actually surprising how many folk have accepted your argument or accepted that you have an argument. I'm surprised you find it surprising you get vehement pushback; especially when you point out how suspiciously often things go tits up and what progress we've been making suddenly goes into reverse. You are fighting human psychology and several ruddy great arses, nevermind a thumb, on the scales.
Statements like, "They're all the same," when it comes to political parties aren't very helpful. To say that Mosley may have seen them as all the same is useful in showing his disillusionment; however, in general it does little to explain why one party will defeat another.
True, but I think TIK's speaking in a narrow sense. Not that they are literally the same in every respect, but as it regards using the straight to restrain the market and trample individual rights, they all agreed on doing that. Of course, they used different rhetoric to defend similar policies.
@@burnvictim77 The reason it isn't a useful statement is because any party, if it aims to one day be the leaders of the state, has to "restrain the market" and "trample individual rights" because there is no such thing as a free market or rights without a state. It's a paradox originating from nature itself; the market is always restrained by natural forces (geography, time etc) and there's no such thing as a natural right. What the state aims to do (whether successfully or not) is alleviate these natural inevitabilities by organising society in a manner so the forces are distributed more or less equitably, depending on their goals.
@@Guerillatoker Clearly not all states are equal in this regard. As TIK stated, the Liberals of the 1850s-60s were substantially pro-liberty, though far from an-caps, in his own words. So it is possible to have a party with a substantial different from this paradigm, even if there is never going to be a complete freedom of the market.
@@burnvictim77 I agree, I was just expanding on why I think it is still worthwhile acknowledging the distinctions between parties, as “they all want to tax you and take your rights” is ultimately too reductive.
Quite possibly THE MOST IMPORTANT VIDEO you've ever made. They played us and will continue to do so. We shouldn't forget the other events that were happening at this time in other countries.
As an American, the first part of the video breaking down what "conservatism" means in a British sense was very, very helpful. Here in the US, we've had a Free Market, pro-individual rights, anti-big government society since the beginning, so our "conservatives" are trying to conserve that system, whereas in Britain, ya'll have a completely different set of values your conservatives are trying to "conserve". So despite sharing the same term, our conservatives and your conservatives are not actually natural allies. Over here, our biggest problem is our leaders have to play a statists game, so when they are in Washington DC for 30+ years, they become part of the statist system rather than a representative of their anti-statist constituents. I mean, how many of us Americans vote for someone only to be disappointed that our candidate just became a cog in the same broken machine we sent them to fix? IMO, we need to stop trying to fix the machine, we need to take a sledgehammer to it and dismantle it. One page bills- "X department of the Federal Government will dissolve on Dec 31st this year" ect. No repealing and replacing, just repealing and shredding. If it has a three letter acronym, it's gone. Dismember the Federal Government on a wide scale. Actually honor the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th Amendment. I'd argue that even the 3rd Amendment is being violated right now, the NSA is in my home watching what I do, why is that fundamentally different than a quartered solider sitting with my family at the dinner table? Think about, some asshole at FT. Meade is in your home, permanently watching you with a HELL of a lot more snooping power than a normal human has. Abolish it all, even if we're "less safe"; but guess what Freedom is risky inherently, personal responsibility is risky. If you actually believe in freedom, you're against the State.
The best part about you Americans is they way youre more than happy to let people die because they cant afford healthcare & you demand it stays that way. Americans are great people.
@@Carlin2810 lol im canadian and id give up "free healthcare" to be an american without needing even a second to stop and think about it.. MAID is the smoking gun that proves the americans have always been right on government healthcare being a bad idea..
I grew up on a family farm. To be frank, though we did not starve, we were always poor. The farm was...well...shitty. Literally. Cows, chicken, pigs, ducks, etc all shitting everywhere all the time. The water came from a well that was under the land the shit was all over. Dad stopped farming and went to work at a factory. We never had so much money. We stopped farming the land, stopped raising our own animals except for FFA and 4H projects, and leased the majority of the land to another farmer. We sold out to another family member in the late 70s, moved to town and never looked back. My dad was the first person in his family to live past 60. People can wax poetic about the "idyllic" life on the farm, but that is such patent BS, no actual farmer could tolerate it.
My grand father was a farmer. His mission in life according to him was to suffer back breaking work in order to allow his sons and daughter to get good education and find better jobs and better life than the farmer's life.
Country life is just dandy. Farm life is an unending grind. Even today, with all the mechanization available, a family I'm following routinely work 12 to 14 hour days when the weather permits. Often more.
@@lamwen03 Even just keeping the weeds under control, the firewood for winter cut, the tree's trimmed and bushfire fuel cleared away is almost a full time job on 40 acres, let alone controlling the rabbits, keeping the fencing maintained, the vege garden free of pests, weeds, and the fruit trees clear of birds....those folk who idealise the country self sufficient lifestyle have next to no real life experience IMHO.
From an objective standpoint, Sir Oswald Mosley was right. I've seen more and more Britons on the internet saying this, especially lately. Ww2 destroyed the British empire and turned the British isles itself and all western Europe into American vassals. Britain should have just quit the war in July 1940, accepting Hitler's last official peace offer. Then Britain could have just focused on defending the empire, and fulfilling that 19th century ideal which was popularized again by Oswald Mosley; that of turning the Empire into a Global Imperial Federation.
This grug libertarianism is completely insufferable. I know TIK plays 40K. The meta-game of 40K should be a perfect example of why free markets always fail, because the players themselves are INCENTIVIZED to exploit the system. This is why corporations constantly lobby the government to pass rules that hurt their competition and help themselves. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface on libertarian nonsense being predicated on the idea that the rational consumer is just having "his demands met" by muh free market. Imagine thinking that, imagine not realizing that every business on earth seeks to manufacture demands from the consumer where none existed previously.
The fact that corporations seek to get bigger through goverment IS the reason why you keep it small, that's the reason why Bezos says the minimum wage in the US should be 15 USD and and why Warren Buffet says billionares should be taxed more. The state expanding only helps them. For the second part, there's nothing wrong with that. It's way expands the economy, what helps technology and allows people to live through their niche passions like history youtubers do. People don't know what they want until you sell it to them and always remember, you get it wrong and it's most likely you'll end up broke.
It’s not a free market if corporations can manipulate the government to behave as you’ve stated. Government interference in the economy is what makes it not a free market. This shouldn’t be confusing.
@@RosDalton This is the typical Libertarian cope and it's exactly like crying "no true Communism". We're talking reality, not whatever abstract pure ideological idea you've made up in your head. This shouldn't be confusing.
52:15 “Everything within the state, nothing outsidw the state, nothing against the state.” -O. Mosley, The Greater Britain page 22; -B. Mussolini speech in Milan, 20 October, 1925.
A big reason why people moved into cities was also the enclosure movement in England. obviously this was not the case for all of the movement but it's a little bit dishonest to act like it was just a free market, opportunity cost decision when people literally had their lands taken from them.
Ok so say you're saying that: -Laissez-faire is good because capitalists and workers worked against the elite -Then liberalism died and therefore everyone is pro establishment and is thus bad -Every socialist is actually elitist -Mosley was right before he turned fascist -And you all can't disagree with me because I'm stating pseudo-historical facts while discrediting other historians for doing that exact same thing as me because they have an ulterior motive. Yeah a completely unbiased assessment and all that totally doesn't apply to you. Just say you're a classical liberal already. Laissez-faire is all about the free market and will always result in the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else. Haven't you noticed that such a system also creates a class of elites that is also inherently pro establishment? Your criticism are so asinine because base your entire assessment of every political movement on this one point. No wonder you said you don't want to use a political compass. Just stick to war stories, your assessment on political theory is terrible.
Oswald Mosley. The best Briton in modern history. The worst being the one that seized power without an election and destroyed the entire empire because of his drunken narcissistic personality and flaws failing at Gallipoli in the last war
1. Race is a real concept,it can be observed in skeletons and living humans 2. Life expectancy was dragged down in feudal times due to high child mortality 3. Farmers in feudal times,just like today didn't work from dawn till dusk every day,some days they worked 3 hours,some others 16,just like modern farmers. 4. Even though child deaths were 75% in 1700s london it is ridiculous to suugest that 3 quarters of children died everywhere. 5. Peope moved to the cities because industrialisation took many farm jobs away and offered new jobs in the cities not because they hated their old lifestyle.
Was expecting outrage in the comments. Reassuring to see the 3 dozen I scrolled found your assessment even handed and educational. Thanks for shedding more light on this history of which my knowledge is limited. More power to you Tik.
The main reason people left their farms was that their landlords evicted them to raise sheep. Infant mortality was higher in the cities and the decline in the early 19th century was due to increased immunity following a wave of epidemics caused by urban living.
Just before the industrial revolution kicked off there was an agricultural revolution briefly changes in farming techniques and enclosure of common land that smaller farmers and labourers need to survive and the Introduction of machinery that reduced the numbers of workers needed on the land. They pretty much had no choice other than to move to the cities.
Mosley was never a 'Lord' he was a hereditary Knight, a 'Baronet'. Being a member of the very wealthy landed gentry he really had very little to do. So politics was his hobby. The Mosleys had a great deal of property and also a small village in South Lancashire. That village grew quite a bit and its people wanted to improve their political status against the Lord of the Manor and held a demonstration which was put down by the County Magistrates in 1819. However, the local people even managed to get itself a couple of MPs as a new 'reformed' Parliamentary Borough under the 1832 Reform Act. Then in 1835 they got themselves Borough status under the Municipal Corporations Act. The problem was that the Land Lord of the Manor owned most of its territory, so the new council negotiated a buy-out from the Mosleys. The old main street of this village is 'Mosley Street' and the price agreed with the Mosleys for the land was .... £800,000 in 1838 - do the math for today's value. Oh, the village is called 'Manchester'.
@@themanchestercollective3616 Hmmmm. Proud ? For so many years Mosley was the turnip ghost of British politics, probably due to so many big political names of living memory having flirted with him whilst they were still on the way up ? I'm amazed that TIK has so many works covering the Mosley phenomena, its maybe a sign that he has passed firmly into the historical and therefore unthreatening realm, thus enabling a full examination.
I'm so glad someone like you has as many subscribers as you do. I'm worried people are running away with themselves and getting triggered by political narratives when history should be studied in an unbiased way.
Remarkable. I discussed this last night with my son. A good analysis. I also agree the deliberate Left versus Right fog is just that. More so today than in the past, however. It is also remarkable that the new fascism of today (Green-Red-Woke) camouflage is backed financially by many of the same oligarchic/ruling establishment families which backed the old fascism - and indeed also various other wars, Revolutions, fanatical and deranged movements/ideologies and a transfer of more wealth from the working people (lower and middle class) to the ‘Supremacist Clique / Cabal’. Hence, had Mosley existed today, he well have been in the Labour/Lib/Green/Tory party and pushed Oligarchic dystopia under the guise of wanting to do good for the masses (normal people > 99%). Over privilege breeds contempt, mysticism instead of logic / science / progression, sociopathic behaviour and also, unfortunately, psychopathic trends. History clearly shows us this clearly. Indeed recent history shows us this. Here in Germany, 70 % have learned nothing from recent history and de facto fascism in imperial, National Socialist and now US/WEF-UN/EU type. Mostly, it is the East Germans who can still spot a pig dressed up as a ballerina.
Modern fascism is just fascism. It's a guy on a state-sponsored concert pretending to nuke the US. It's a bunch of cops and used car salesmen trying to launch a coup on the US government. It's the belief in the Nation as a deliberately amoebic and nebulous thing that can be molded to manipulate people without consideration for who it destroys, openly.
so far i am at 36 mins and can only think. 100 years later and nothing has changed . the essence of the 1920s is the same today and here we are just hoping for a new party. as the old ones are failing the country
16:13 the liberals considered themselves the party of reason, they love a good sounding argument. The conservatives would have kicked the Hegelians out on their ears.
I absolutely love when I believe something to be true and then somebody steps in and turns my thought process upside down. Thank you very much. Subscribed and look forward to devouring your library and more videos you make. ❤
What a great piece which makes more sense than the old left/right argument. We seem to have gone full circle with 'stakeholder capitalism' and Conservatives taxing us to the hilt with artificially high energy and food prices as a result of net zero policies. Far better to measure political parties based on free markets (red tape / regulation), cost of living (inflation), individual rights and taxation (direct and indirect) etc. On that score all mainstream parties score badly.
Excellent video Tik, I was someone who got caught up in the whole left vs right ideological battle but now I just look at the world through the optics of moral vs immoral, good vs evil.
I have to take issue with one of your statements. The status quo of the conversations was to... "To PREVENT the poor from IMPROVING their standards of LIVING"? I would need some hard evidence that anyone goes out of their way to PREVENT someone from improving their standard off living. Not want to spend effort to HELP someone else, I could understand, but, to *actively* PREVENT? NEED MORE INPUT...
Just a comment on Thatcher. While yes the poll tax in itself was a terrible idea, wasn't it bought in to replace another evil tax which is council tax? The better solution is to get rid of council tax altogether and allow private companies to compete for bin collection services. Also she was the best conservative PM in history IMO (obviously the standards are not very high). Had she not bought in the reforms in the early 1980s the UK would have plunged into a Greek style economy. She also had a massive battle on her hands because whenever she tried doing anything remotely radical and free marketish, both her own party and the public would be in uproar. Thatcher was not voted in because of her free market beliefs, she was voted in because the country was sick of 1970s socialism... She was extremely unpopular early on and was only saved by the Falklands. She unfortunately became more statist in her later years in office which was a shame. This just tells me if the people cannot even tolerate minor Thatcher market reforms with some deregulation, then those who want a true free market in Britain are dreaming.
It just means that pro-free market people need to learn from the statists and get better at propaganda and convincinng people. Also, to grow a backbone and stand firm for their convictions and beliefs without compromise.
"The better solution is to get rid of council tax altogether and allow private companies to compete for bin collection services." Bravo! That's precisely what I've been saying. - "Had she not bought in the reforms in the early 1980s the UK would have plunged into a Greek style economy. She also had a massive battle on her hands because whenever she tried doing anything remotely radical and free marketish, both her own party and the public would be in uproar." I do agree with that assessment. From her point of view, she was in a tough position, and she inherited a country that was on its knees. However, my point is to say that she's not what people perceive her to be. And if people take their emotions out of the equation and look at the facts, yes she closed the mines, but the industries she supposedly "privatised" weren't really privatised. The railways are still owned by the government via their corporation: National Rail. It's only nominal privatisation, not actual. And she introduced the Poll Tax, which is obviously a tax increase.
@@TheImperatorKnight all true... There were so good reforms made to the financial sector and she did give some pretty good speeches. I think her and Reagan were great speakers but could not pull the trigger when it mattered most. I would still take both over the shower of shite we have today on both sides of the pond.
Poll tax replaced the domestic rates; council tax "replaced" the Poll Tax. More like put a pair of knickers on it imho! The Domestic Rates if I recall properly were a part of Liberal governance before they went off the deep end.
"Why didn't the anti-laissez-faire people see that the poor were becoming better off due to laissez-faire capitalism?" A partial answer to this is that the aristocrats who formed most of parliament went out of their way to avoid seeing regular people. It was seen as bad form to risk catching diseases by mingling with the poor, and even stooping to being familiar with a common person or servant was a faux pas. These people were transported from their homes in the country to their offices in carriages (both horse drawn and rail) with shuttered windows. Any understanding of the common people was learned from education rather than direct experience. This behavior helps explain a lot of the cruel and unusual decisions made by British parliament in history, including their attitude to the Irish potato famine, the colonies and even, going further back, the American colonies. You would never know the poor were improving their lot because you never saw it, and the newspapers you read probably thought you wouldn't be interested. I also think it's worth mentioning that there is a similar situation today, with elitists in politics, business and entertainment thinking that they know best without any real knowledge of regular people. Even the elitists who claim to be helping poor and disadvantaged people have no clue what they're talking about, which is why they are so easily misled and panicked by what they see in the media. You can easily convince everyone that poor people are a bunch of racists and/or revolutionaries and/or illegal aliens because none of the people with a platform ever get out of their ivory towers in LA or NY. They rely on other parties to supply the data, which is why they can easily believe crackpot theories in the press, or charlatan academics, or business 'research'. In the same way, the Government and Hollywood think they should educate the masses through messaging in schools and entertainment - that the poor need messaging more than actual education, not understanding that ordinary people are perfectly capable of seeing through their agenda, and that their heavy-handed messaging is nothing but patronizing.
4:38 You'd have a better grasp of Mosley's political evolution if you actually used the Left/Right spectrum. He first went to the Tories, then abandoned them because they were too "right-wing" (i.e. he wanted more radical change). Then he went to the Libs, same deal. And then the Labour Party, same deal. That's when he decided to create his own movement. You can definitely make the argument Mosley and fascism in general were left-wing. 8:36 It makes no sense to pretend the Conservatives aren't more (classically) liberal than the Labour Party. You claim Thatcher wasn't pro-freedom because she raised this or that tax, but you forget to mention the marginal income tax rate was cut in half under Thatcher, which is very significant. Also, we can't look at things in a vacuum. We live in the real world. While Thatcher was not 100% liberal (it's basically impossible), she was a lot more liberal than leader of the opposition Michael Foote (e.g.), who was her main opponent in the early 80s and was a full-blown marxist.
A lot of the movement from rural to urban was due improvments in agricultural technology. Less people were needed to work the fields but still produced more.
5:30, no, the real political spectrum does exist, rule of law vs rule of might. Most Socialist and National Socialist doctrines are based on the rule of might with some flavor of ethnic/racial divide, not equal rule of law. Rule of law requires as a base that all people in a society are equal before the law, with no free pass for dictators, corruption, race, and ethnicity.
Re: the start of this video on your commentary about the flow of labour from the countryside to the cities with the growth of industrialisation, there is one major omission in your analysis: the enclosures. Several million people sustained their livelihoods (admittedly in relative poverty) farming strips of land in "open-field systems" whilst having access to commons such a fields where livestock they owned could graze or woodland where pigs could be put out to pannage. Whilst industrialisation, urban population growth and economic growth increased trends in larger farming systems (farms) to generate higher food production, open-field/common-field land-use patterns remained more conducive to the production of market-garden produce for longer around the major English towns such as Leicester, Nottingham & Liverpool. Between 1760 & 1870 about 7 million acres (about 1/6th of England) were changed from common-land to enclosed land by some 4,000 acts of enclosure - mainly for sheep grazing. A suite of business innovations (double-entry accounting, the joint-stock company, etc.) combined with this systematic policy of kicking people off commonly managed lands so that a system of “rent seeking” could be built up for wealthy people to extract money from the working poor.
I hope to see a world where disclaimers like the one in the beginning are not needed, but sadly people have too many feelings and not enough common sense today.
One of the best videos, and great analysis going right back to the Age of Enlightenment and tracing these economic ideas through the industrial revolution to the 20th century. Great stuff, very original perspective. Don't agree with everything, but your point of view is so well argued and clear, especially on the artificiality of the spectrum. You should turn this into a book.
When you look at 3rd position politics where shares of stock are sold exclusively to the worker of said company, it makes a lot of sense. Similar in operation and stability to tbe modern day Credit Union. Its straight forward and has very few moving parts. Also, such an enclosed autarkic "syndicalist" economy would prevent external and international interests from meddling in domestic economic affairs. You can still have low taxes, small government and technological advancement while at the same time giving the workers a greater piece of the pie and a bigger voice in the board room. With their own personal wealth on the line, the stock holding workers will perform their jobs well so as to collect the maximum dividend from their labor efforts.
One problem is that Britain is not a true democracy with proportional representation. The common citizen is not represented or has any voice in Parliament. We vote in representatives that only persue their own selfish aims.
Took them 3 years and 2 PMs to execute the Brexit voted on in a direct democratic process, raging and fuming all the while, threatening and throwing around their vendettas along the way. They also decided that Brexit was the last straw, regretted they allowed the people taste too much democracy here, and vowed never to repeat the same mistake again. From now on only dictatorship and obedience. Referendum/direct democracy is now called populism which can then be interpreted in some twisted way as fascism, while top-down dictat is democracy.
It's Hegel's statist trap. The Hegelian Dialectic presupposes a statist worldview, and that way, regardless of left or right is "winning," - the state grows stronger and more dominant. Hegelianism is the overriding philosophy that produces all the statist ideologies of the left, right, and center.
Knocked it out of the park with this one! Been following your stuff for a while, quality is always high, but the expanded intro made this one even better! Much appreciation to all your efforts, TIK, never stop.
Thanks for the stats. I had not made that link, but I had always believed that when my great grandparents moved from fishing villages to coal mines they were not complete idiots.
If you count kids who did not make to their 5th birthday the stats are abysmally low. (if one person dies at age of one and another dies at 69, then life average life expectancy is 35). If you count life expectancy at age of 5, stats don't look bad.
So as an American hearing this, I wonder if many Brits who aren’t that informed ( but think they are) think conservatives are low tax because in America, they generally are low tax. Granted it depends on the conservative and some want to be more like their British counterparts.
@Jeremy Adrian he's a basic bitch liberal malding that everyone of his types victories for the last 70 years and not working out wasn't be those policies were shit but because it was actually those evil scheming aristocratic federalist fascists ruining his perfect globalization state
Firstly, why would Brits base their definition of conservatism according to policies in another country? Secondly, are conservatives in the US really that low tax? Or is it effectively the same game as being played in the UK? Who was the last Republican to substantially lower taxes?
@@PointNemo9 Bush and Trump both had rather substantial tax cuts without significantly raising taxes in any other area (though Trump did close a bunch of tax loopholes). In the US the equivalent "game" is that Republicans claim to be in favor of a government with a smaller and balanced budget. But in practice tax cuts are never balanced with corresponding spending cuts, and Republicans have usually spent just as much as Democrats, just differently.
If you don't take into account state governments, you're lying by ommission. Conservatives love taxes--sales taxes, which generally hurt the poor. In many rural US states the sales tax can be as high as 10%.
The farmers didnt switch to the factories just because they were better jobs... not at all. An important reason was that insustrialization and tecnical improvement maid many farmers unnecessary
"But so soon as anyone, be they an individual or an organized interest, steps outside those limits, so that his activity becomes sectional and antisocial, the mechanism of the corporate system descends upon him." -Oswald Mosely, founder of the British Fascist Party
Rather anti Tory to the extreme maybe you should look at how the Labour Party and government knew of the USSR’s gulags yet denied they existed due to their political beliefs that’s terribly awful.
I despise the Labour Party. If you watched further into the video, you would have seen that. I despise all the political parties, since they're all one and the same.
@@tagekoolander To my knowledge, Rockwell was a national socialist only in name, he admitted that he used the Nazi symbolism to get attention for his movement. From what I know of him by listening to his speeches, economics are of little concern minus his defense of the gold standard and warning of impending inflation (he was 60 years late but whatever). He was just super duper racist.
@@antagonizingusername in his books he writes that he wished for some sort of state wellfare socialism but not on the level of the Third Reich He also said that hes not a fascist because he does not want a corporate state
I know the majority of your audience is here for war history and tanks and whatnot, but I'm thoroughly enjoying your videos on history of economic thought.
I'm glad you're happy with the content! I feel guilty because I've not done a "tank" video in a couple weeks...
@@TheImperatorKnight I love the variety.
@@TheImperatorKnight I think this is where you shine, to be honest. I stumbled into you on an an-cap Reddit sub, and I’ve been hooked ever since. Maybe I’m alone, but I prefer you in these sorts of videos. Keep up the good work!
If you want to do some tank videos.. then do them and take a break from the ideology videos.. remember you shouldn't geelong guilty...you owe no one anything
@@TheImperatorKnight im here for the ideology break downs. They took away our tanks so the pain is too much
I laughed when he said we need to start our story a bit in the past and then starts explaining feudalism
Well ya gotta start somewhere
Or at least how a modern Brit thinks that stuff worked. Life back then isn't quite what he thinks.
@@samsonsoturian6013 Start your own channel, mate. Where are you anyhow, "feudalism" wasn't the same across Europe, nevermind England. What we had is described as "Bastard Feudalism" which isn't at all the same thing.
@@a.nelprober-rl5cf I'd expect to hear something similar in a primary school playground,I suppose that's the stereotypical intellect of today's boys.
Should we expect something else from a man who made a summary of Operation Barbarrossa and cataloged and discussed the moverment of every unit BY THE METER!?
The life expectancy of 35 years is obviously also linked to the high mortality rate of babies and children. He said that, but often people have the tendency to think that the majority of adults died at around 35.
I think that is actually included as child-death often was not recorded in dire times! However getting to the age of 20 (meaning as a woman you already had your first children) made it rather easy to follow on to an age of about 50-60, especially for men.
@@BigHenFor So I‘m not sure if I got your point but I’m not judging this whole concept of calculating life expectancy in the past like the 1700s. Rather, I just wanted to share this thought to make it easier to deal with the 35 years of life expectancy.
I did
Yes, this is a statistical effect - The *average* was lowered greatly by the sheer amount of young deaths, but for those who survived those early years you would expect to see lifespans into more like the 60s.
i read a old thesis paper years back about the mortality rate that was looking at the english mortality rate of the population that survived over the age of 10 years old between 1705 and 1905 based off parish death records.......it found that the median age of death of this section of the population was in their mid 60's.....and that for the same section of population it was not a lot different to when the thesis was written in the late 1930's
I love your military historical analysis but I am just blown away by how thorough an understanding you have of economic politics and how logically and well you explain it all. You put several of my professors to shame. I have a history degree and I focused heavily on economics, as I think and your videos show, politics and economics are inseparable.
He sucks and your education must be piss poor if you think this video is any good.
This is the best explanation of Mosley's progression from the parties to Fascism I've ever heard. You've done very well here.
It's VERY good to see you acknowledge the manipulative consequences of the left-right spectrum. I've been saying this for years
And You were right Velraven
It's never been left v right... us v them...its always been the individual against vs the state
🙋🏻♂
@@bigmouthstrikesagain4056 At the end of the day, fully boiled down, the only real political spectrum is individual vs collective. Social pressure vs healthy boundaries. People who think they know how you should live your life better than you do, vs people who love others enough to trust them to make their own decisions.
Left right spectrum in the mainstream media has just become Good people bad people.
there really should be a better spectrum because its incredibly vague.
Right wing is traditional and left is progressive.
That is basically the actual definition but lets be honest its totally abused and all the worst people in history get lumped into the right despite being progressives.
Very Interesting topic; it’s about time the establishment historians recognise the truth of ‘fascism’- and it’s basis in socialism. You’re doing a great job at exposing their ignorance. Thank you, TIK.
*Syndicalism it's a form of Socialism, but different in how it functions in seizire of the means of production and worker's participation in the economic sector.
@@SirBolsón My apologies!
@@senry. It's ok!
Fascism is anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist. Fascism is not socialism.
@@SirBolsón Socialism is the socialisation of the means of production, syndicalism is the socialisation of the means of production within syndicates, so syndicalism is a form of socialism, but it is not different from socialism since it is socialism. It is just one variant of the same thing, so it is 100% socialism. Socialism is an idea, not a system by itself, syndicalism is a system of socialism just like Marxism is, and they are both equally socialisms
My Grandmothers sister was born in Gateshead, England in 1914. She was born with Rickets. Which is caused by the Mother not getting enough to eat during pregnancy. Another ancestor give birth to half her children in the Workhouse. She died in a Newcastle Workhouse in 1910. Most of the Working class lived in abject poverty in Britain! It was like this for most till the 1950s, and 1960s in many places. Mosley given a chance might made a difference? Couldn't been much worse then those who did run the show? We will never know.
It's still a hellhole when it comes to working conditions tbh
@@flashgordon6670 Why do you keep spamming every comment with the same reply? Stop it.
Then there are stupid people from former colonies who hold every Brit accountable for colonialism and demand reparations. I am not a Brit myself but even a quick glance at history shows that the average Brit was suffering in hellish poverty even while Britain was a colonial empire.
The Great War devastated every major country that was involved in it, execpt the US. Then came WW2. Which was worse economically.
@@noreply-7069 Because it is important info and sadly a lot of TIKs viewers will take what he says on 100% regardless of how correct it is. I should add, spamming it the way he is, probably that's going a little TOO far, but it needs to be put out there pretty strong.
TLDR: All the political parties are on the same team and it's not yours.
If you don't pick a team, don't expect to get anything from anyone. This is the natural order.
Facts
@@greyfells2829 They expect something from you, whether you support them or not.
It's because the other teams supported the war, sending their people to die for that tribe.
It's a Big Club, and you ain't in it.
Claiming the fascism is right wing because it’s often nationalistic is about as stupid as claiming the Khmer Rouge and IRA were right wing since they were nationalistic and well. Another great video tik!
You missed his point about the wings being meaningless. That doesn't mean that conservatism isn't a natural ally of nationalists.
By definition fascism IS nationalistic. Similarities between extreme opposites can be confusing.
@@greyfells2829 they are not an ally. the conservatives in america, canada and the UK do the same shit.. sabotage the nationalists as if they are their main competition. hell the CPC did that to maxime bernier here and then lost an election to trudeau (because ofcourse they lost to a guy who did blackface one time for every election hes been in)
The left and especially the communists are known for their anti-capitalism. Why do you think that the biggest capitalists during fascism in Italy or Nazism in Germany supported Mussolini and Hitler? When these men came to power, they did not ban these companies, they did not introduce strict regulations. On the contrary, this period became golden for these companies..
Tho fashism doesnt have class hatred
"Mostly peaceful protests" TIKhistory is becoming more and more of a comedic channel. I absolutely love it.
I just point out that all protests meet the legal criteria for "harassment" and that should be taken as the motive of protestor.
That opinion got me kicked from Imgur due to literally dozens of people following just so they could abuse the report button. For weeks.
@@samsonsoturian6013 when was that?
@Samson Soturian huh
I chuckle, but then I dislike it in this setting. Comedy is a great value, but it is the partner force of analysis. They must be joined, but separate, so both can shine jointly.
Comedy is by its nature light-hearted, self-depricating, and open-minded. Analysis is close-minded, heavy-hearted and must have a degree of confidence. In a society, comedians show that something is off. Analysts then figure out how it is wrong, and what needs to be done about it. Politicians then judge what can actually be achieved (unfortunately in practice, ensure it isn't).
Analysis looks for answers. Comedy looks for questions.
The word is COMIC. "Comedic" is a pretentious invention.
Thank you for bringing this up, as most of my history studying is in the middle ages and classical era, people really like to diss on the Industrial Revolution yet completely ignore the benefits.
*hates on the Industrial Revolution via iPhone*
Industrial Revolution is such a fantastic time period; Really should have more hype
The same people that blame the British for the Bengal famine that wasn't even their fault but don't credit the British for ending the yearly famines that plagued India before their rule.
@@Arkantos117 the Bengal famine was the fault of the British. As you say, india is no stranger to famine. And yet, the Bengal famine was so brutal. Why? Mismanagement, either through callousness or cruelty, I think the former.
@@yuvi3738 The Bengal Famine happened because local autonomous governments and aristocrats did not want to share their abundance as food prices were massively inflating after the Japanese invasion of Burma. There wasn't a total lack of food, food was just too expensive for the poor to buy.
The only way the British could have solved it would be to take food by force from Indians to give to other Indians.
wow someone in England was able to afford more meat per year/per person in 1912 than I am in California in 2023, and I am a military veteran.
California suffers from the same thought pattern problems.
Such a shame that evil and/or stupid people rule the world.
then let us fight, strugle and debate for a better one
You can try and apply Hanlons razor, but it is too commonplace and too often to be sheer idiocy
maybe you're all evil and stupid and your only shield is weakness and the illusion you could do better if only you had real power
@@ikiyuz4344 We have nothing to lose but our chains!
It doesn’t, there’s just people in a whole lot of pain
This is an absolutely brilliant explanation of the ideological/economic failings of the Lib/Lab/Con trick political system responsible for the needless poverty of the 1920/30s; but which have continued to inflict similarly needless poverty upon the British Nation right through to the modern day.
Your Mosley series is going to be the key jewel in your complete coverage of the topic of Fascism imo.
Mosley was intriguing for certain, both very familiar, but clearly the redheaded step child of particular groups all the same.
Wait until people see you bring up his ideas for a "United Europe" and how familiar that concept is lol
Sounds a bit like nato and the European (cough...soviet) Union
Kalergi is another fascist adjacent individual that was instrumental in shaping the European Union.
Yeah moseley opted for a united Europe in 49' i believe.
And to be honest its not that far from what the EU is becoming. They have been rattling on about Pan Europeanism for decades, and have some pretty weird youth programs.
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 the difference of course being that Mosley wanted a united Europe for Europeans while the EU wants it for a everyone but.
@@themanchestercollective3616 thats one of few.
Good grief... I've been subscribed for a long time to this channel but have somehow missed this video. It's as if this video was written just for me.... I've independently come to exactly the same conclusions that both you and LK Samuels have reached MANY years ago and have felt I'm going insane that no-one EVER publicly espouses this line of thought. This video has filled in some grey areas and cleared up some inconsistencies in my thinking, and for that I'm extremely grateful.
Excuse me while I take back whats left of my sanity. Absolutely FANTASTIC rendering of an alternative perception to the chaos thats being wrought across the world today.
In Peaky Blinders Mosley was performed beautifully but written diabolically.
Peaky Blinders is a travesty of history.
Well it was the bbc that made it, I found the same way they portrayed communist and the tories
Your channel is blowing my mind. Your analysis makes so much sense. I like how unbiased you are about these topics. You present all the facts. 🙏
This is my new favorite channel. History and just history.
you really shouldnt say that youre not a racist fascists nazi or anything like that. dont make them force you to say things. dont give into them. dont say what youre not, when you do in a small way theyre winning. they see blood in the water and will know theyre influencing you and will come back for more and over time they will further and further influence you.
100% correct!
It's actually for the UA-cam censors, not the audience. I don't really care what my critics call me anymore. I've given up with them.
@@TheImperatorKnight And you’re not being forced.
Whenever anyone calls me racist, Bigoted, nazi etc? I simply pull down my zip and reveal to them, 10 masculine and girthy inches.
Quickly silences them without a word spoken.
A nazi loves all races, they should just remain in their own countries!
When the poor were struggling and dying out of sight in the countryside all was well. When industrialization pulled the poor into the cities, the poverty was much less, but it was more visible in the cities.
Oswald was the most gameriest gamer of all time...
He might have been a better leader for Britain, considering how it's going for us now.
@@SirBolsón seems like a reasonable conclusion
Based
@@SirBolsónnah fuck that. It's good that Germany got stuffed.
Quite admired Mosely. My Father was a supporter of his in the early 1960s. Moselys biggest mistake When he founded his "British Union of Fascists" in 1932, was the name itself. Using a name with Foreign connotations was a big mistake. Ditto with calling his protection force "Black shirts". Not sure if his Pro Monarchy leanings helped him win the Working Class support he hoped to get? If he had simple called his Movement "The Nationalist Party" or Something like "The British Peoples Party" he would had a better chance of gaining more support. His Protection Squad should been simply called that.
Whatever Mosley's economic thinking, he was right to steer the English against a war which destroyed their state.
Yes, your analysis of war is excellent and your analysis of political philosophy and economics is doubly excellent 👍
Tik, you can the only reason I look forward to Mondays, thank you so much for all you do.
@@flashgordon6670 I think you posted your comment on the wrong comment
@@posham219 He's a spammer. I'm only seeing his comment because it is misplaced, LOL!!!
@@flashgordon6670 You have an attention span that makes goldfish look good. I rest my case and hope this helps. /s
Mosley just sounds like a socialist who is not trying to lie to me.
He was a patriotic right wing socialist opposed to left wing globalist fascism.
Yeah
Lying is the biggest strength of socialists.
That's why fascists fail faster and more spectacularly.
He really sounds a person wanted peace for Europe. Especially the way he felt about irish people. And really cared the British empire reputation
So a fascist lol
One thing to remember is how few people in Britain had the vote in the 1800s. The Reform Act of 1832 increased the electorate from around 366,000 to 650,000, which was about 18 per cent of the total adult-male population in England and Wales. This added to the electorate small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers, and householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more. Not as conservative as the aristocrats and large land owners, but not the working class either. The next expansion was the Reform Act of 1867. It still was based on property qualifications, and the number of adult males eligible to vote was two million. It wasn't until the end of WWI that the least well off working-class males, about 40% of adult males, gained the vote.
A cynic might suggest that a franchise that requires no qualifications other than majority is merely guaranteed to represent the opinions of those who cannot be arsed to take an interest beyond the gimmies, and to use a Mosley expression, 'Are blown hither and thither by every gust of transient opinion'. :)
@@Fanakapan222 Most of us are too busy living, mate.
@Steve Watson yep
Benjamin Disraeli. Classic British name there.
Oy Vey! Stop noticing!
This is so very well done, thanks for this
Tax policy is one of the strangest things in existence. In the US, both parties are pro high tax RATES. But neither is pro high tax PAYMENTS. The thing that all parties in all nations seem to have in common is the lip service to "the people" which the average working class hears and thinks of themselves, not realizing that the politicians mean themselves.
The "people" are the "public", and the "public" sector is the state. So yes, when the politicians say they're "doing it for the people", they mean themselves. I've tried to explain this in my public vs private video, but it's surprising how many people rejected this, even though it's clear that that's exactly what they're doing.
@@TheImperatorKnight It is frustrating; but we all do it. You can see thru Halder's distortions but similar distortions of the "Table Talk"? We are all great at bursting others bubbles; our own, not so much. The first person we fool is ourself. Plenty of work has been done by psychologists on how difficult it is not to go along with outright nonsense if everyone around you is hellbent on nonsense and you don't even know you aren't being allowed to see otherwise. After seven or so years of almost everyone going along with barking wibble since it dawned the Donald might actually win the primary and we actually might see off the EUrine, and the even more accelerated and accentuated daft of the last three years; it is actually surprising how many folk have accepted your argument or accepted that you have an argument. I'm surprised you find it surprising you get vehement pushback; especially when you point out how suspiciously often things go tits up and what progress we've been making suddenly goes into reverse. You are fighting human psychology and several ruddy great arses, nevermind a thumb, on the scales.
Statements like, "They're all the same," when it comes to political parties aren't very helpful. To say that Mosley may have seen them as all the same is useful in showing his disillusionment; however, in general it does little to explain why one party will defeat another.
Well his whole shtick is 'actually the market can do no wrong"
True, but I think TIK's speaking in a narrow sense. Not that they are literally the same in every respect, but as it regards using the straight to restrain the market and trample individual rights, they all agreed on doing that. Of course, they used different rhetoric to defend similar policies.
@@burnvictim77 The reason it isn't a useful statement is because any party, if it aims to one day be the leaders of the state, has to "restrain the market" and "trample individual rights" because there is no such thing as a free market or rights without a state. It's a paradox originating from nature itself; the market is always restrained by natural forces (geography, time etc) and there's no such thing as a natural right. What the state aims to do (whether successfully or not) is alleviate these natural inevitabilities by organising society in a manner so the forces are distributed more or less equitably, depending on their goals.
@@Guerillatoker Clearly not all states are equal in this regard. As TIK stated, the Liberals of the 1850s-60s were substantially pro-liberty, though far from an-caps, in his own words. So it is possible to have a party with a substantial different from this paradigm, even if there is never going to be a complete freedom of the market.
@@burnvictim77 I agree, I was just expanding on why I think it is still worthwhile acknowledging the distinctions between parties, as “they all want to tax you and take your rights” is ultimately too reductive.
You should cover adrien arcands national unity party in Canada during the 1930s.
Why?
@@rickjones7977 An irrelevant entity, in an irrelevant country.
Canadian, here. I think it’s more worthwhile to study Fidel Castro Jr’s current movement here.
Trudolf.
@Rick Jones if that was the case he wouldn't be importing China and India and outlawing religion in favor of gay sex
Quite possibly THE MOST IMPORTANT VIDEO you've ever made. They played us and will continue to do so.
We shouldn't forget the other events that were happening at this time in other countries.
As an American, the first part of the video breaking down what "conservatism" means in a British sense was very, very helpful. Here in the US, we've had a Free Market, pro-individual rights, anti-big government society since the beginning, so our "conservatives" are trying to conserve that system, whereas in Britain, ya'll have a completely different set of values your conservatives are trying to "conserve". So despite sharing the same term, our conservatives and your conservatives are not actually natural allies. Over here, our biggest problem is our leaders have to play a statists game, so when they are in Washington DC for 30+ years, they become part of the statist system rather than a representative of their anti-statist constituents. I mean, how many of us Americans vote for someone only to be disappointed that our candidate just became a cog in the same broken machine we sent them to fix?
IMO, we need to stop trying to fix the machine, we need to take a sledgehammer to it and dismantle it. One page bills- "X department of the Federal Government will dissolve on Dec 31st this year" ect. No repealing and replacing, just repealing and shredding. If it has a three letter acronym, it's gone. Dismember the Federal Government on a wide scale. Actually honor the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th Amendment. I'd argue that even the 3rd Amendment is being violated right now, the NSA is in my home watching what I do, why is that fundamentally different than a quartered solider sitting with my family at the dinner table? Think about, some asshole at FT. Meade is in your home, permanently watching you with a HELL of a lot more snooping power than a normal human has. Abolish it all, even if we're "less safe"; but guess what Freedom is risky inherently, personal responsibility is risky. If you actually believe in freedom, you're against the State.
Yes I also want to see America divided and weak
The best part about you Americans is they way youre more than happy to let people die because they cant afford healthcare & you demand it stays that way.
Americans are great people.
American conservatives love social control, military spending, and repression of individual rights. You're insane.
@@Carlin2810 lol im canadian and id give up "free healthcare" to be an american without needing even a second to stop and think about it.. MAID is the smoking gun that proves the americans have always been right on government healthcare being a bad idea..
Hi, try this book ... 'A People's History of the United States' by Howard Zinn. gl from the UK
I grew up on a family farm. To be frank, though we did not starve, we were always poor. The farm was...well...shitty. Literally. Cows, chicken, pigs, ducks, etc all shitting everywhere all the time. The water came from a well that was under the land the shit was all over. Dad stopped farming and went to work at a factory. We never had so much money. We stopped farming the land, stopped raising our own animals except for FFA and 4H projects, and leased the majority of the land to another farmer. We sold out to another family member in the late 70s, moved to town and never looked back. My dad was the first person in his family to live past 60. People can wax poetic about the "idyllic" life on the farm, but that is such patent BS, no actual farmer could tolerate it.
My grand father was a farmer. His mission in life according to him was to suffer back breaking work in order to allow his sons and daughter to get good education and find better jobs and better life than the farmer's life.
If you seek freedom fram life is best life you can't exit the system without food production ability.
haha ..true that !
Country life is just dandy. Farm life is an unending grind. Even today, with all the mechanization available, a family I'm following routinely work 12 to 14 hour days when the weather permits. Often more.
@@lamwen03 Even just keeping the weeds under control, the firewood for winter cut, the tree's trimmed and bushfire fuel cleared away is almost a full time job on 40 acres, let alone controlling the rabbits, keeping the fencing maintained, the vege garden free of pests, weeds, and the fruit trees clear of birds....those folk who idealise the country self sufficient lifestyle have next to no real life experience IMHO.
That was an unexpected and surprisingly deep dive into the history of british politics and economy.
From an objective standpoint, Sir Oswald Mosley was right. I've seen more and more Britons on the internet saying this, especially lately.
Ww2 destroyed the British empire and turned the British isles itself and all western Europe into American vassals.
Britain should have just quit the war in July 1940, accepting Hitler's last official peace offer.
Then Britain could have just focused on defending the empire, and fulfilling that 19th century ideal which was popularized again by Oswald Mosley; that of turning the Empire into a Global Imperial Federation.
Had Britain stayed out of WWI as it should have, then they wouldn't have had to deal with Hitler.
Central Banks vassals.
HoI4 at the end there
This grug libertarianism is completely insufferable. I know TIK plays 40K. The meta-game of 40K should be a perfect example of why free markets always fail, because the players themselves are INCENTIVIZED to exploit the system. This is why corporations constantly lobby the government to pass rules that hurt their competition and help themselves.
We haven't even begun to scratch the surface on libertarian nonsense being predicated on the idea that the rational consumer is just having "his demands met" by muh free market. Imagine thinking that, imagine not realizing that every business on earth seeks to manufacture demands from the consumer where none existed previously.
Okay commie
The fact that corporations seek to get bigger through goverment IS the reason why you keep it small, that's the reason why Bezos says the minimum wage in the US should be 15 USD and and why Warren Buffet says billionares should be taxed more. The state expanding only helps them.
For the second part, there's nothing wrong with that. It's way expands the economy, what helps technology and allows people to live through their niche passions like history youtubers do. People don't know what they want until you sell it to them and always remember, you get it wrong and it's most likely you'll end up broke.
It’s not a free market if corporations can manipulate the government to behave as you’ve stated. Government interference in the economy is what makes it not a free market. This shouldn’t be confusing.
@@RosDalton This is the typical Libertarian cope and it's exactly like crying "no true Communism". We're talking reality, not whatever abstract pure ideological idea you've made up in your head. This shouldn't be confusing.
52:15 “Everything within the state, nothing outsidw the state, nothing against the state.”
-O. Mosley, The Greater Britain page 22;
-B. Mussolini speech in Milan, 20 October, 1925.
A big reason why people moved into cities was also the enclosure movement in England. obviously this was not the case for all of the movement but it's a little bit dishonest to act like it was just a free market, opportunity cost decision when people literally had their lands taken from them.
And given to wealthy British nobles to.. build factories on!
Ok so say you're saying that:
-Laissez-faire is good because capitalists and workers worked against the elite
-Then liberalism died and therefore everyone is pro establishment and is thus bad
-Every socialist is actually elitist
-Mosley was right before he turned fascist
-And you all can't disagree with me because I'm stating pseudo-historical facts while discrediting other historians for doing that exact same thing as me because they have an ulterior motive.
Yeah a completely unbiased assessment and all that totally doesn't apply to you. Just say you're a classical liberal already.
Laissez-faire is all about the free market and will always result in the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else. Haven't you noticed that such a system also creates a class of elites that is also inherently pro establishment? Your criticism are so asinine because base your entire assessment of every political movement on this one point. No wonder you said you don't want to use a political compass. Just stick to war stories, your assessment on political theory is terrible.
Yes Bill Gates is a capitalist
Don't worry, you'll grow out of your angry communist phase.
I live for these kinds of videos.
Oswald Mosley. The best Briton in modern history. The worst being the one that seized power without an election and destroyed the entire empire because of his drunken narcissistic personality and flaws failing at Gallipoli in the last war
1. Race is a real concept,it can be observed in skeletons and living humans
2. Life expectancy was dragged down in feudal times due to high child mortality
3. Farmers in feudal times,just like today didn't work from dawn till dusk every day,some days they worked 3 hours,some others 16,just like modern farmers.
4. Even though child deaths were 75% in 1700s london it is ridiculous to suugest that 3 quarters of children died everywhere.
5. Peope moved to the cities because industrialisation took many farm jobs away and offered new jobs in the cities not because they hated their old lifestyle.
Was expecting outrage in the comments. Reassuring to see the 3 dozen I scrolled found your assessment even handed and educational. Thanks for shedding more light on this history of which my knowledge is limited. More power to you Tik.
Mosley was unfathomably based not gonna lie.
⚡⚡⚡
@@vistakay lower your voice
@@TrippTh3Kidd Your voice was louder than mine!
@@vistakay then may we both be as loud as Mosley.
Fr it seem like he was chill than hitler
The main reason people left their farms was that their landlords evicted them to raise sheep. Infant mortality was higher in the cities and the decline in the early 19th century was due to increased immunity following a wave of epidemics caused by urban living.
Just before the industrial revolution kicked off there was an agricultural revolution briefly changes in farming techniques and enclosure of common land that smaller farmers and labourers need to survive and the Introduction of machinery that reduced the numbers of workers needed on the land. They pretty much had no choice other than to move to the cities.
I’m glad you’ve seen the light on the reality of things here. We will continue to be conned for the forseeable future.
People want simple answers to complicated situations.
Stupid is what stupid does.
Your videos are incredibly interesting and I love to hear you analyze these radical political movements with nuance. Keep it up!
Mosley was never a 'Lord' he was a hereditary Knight, a 'Baronet'. Being a member of the very wealthy landed gentry he really had very little to do. So politics was his hobby.
The Mosleys had a great deal of property and also a small village in South Lancashire. That village grew quite a bit and its people wanted to improve their political status against the Lord of the Manor and held a demonstration which was put down by the County Magistrates in 1819. However, the local people even managed to get itself a couple of MPs as a new 'reformed' Parliamentary Borough under the 1832 Reform Act. Then in 1835 they got themselves Borough status under the Municipal Corporations Act.
The problem was that the Land Lord of the Manor owned most of its territory, so the new council negotiated a buy-out from the Mosleys.
The old main street of this village is 'Mosley Street' and the price agreed with the Mosleys for the land was .... £800,000 in 1838 - do the math for today's value.
Oh, the village is called 'Manchester'.
And proud of him.
@@themanchestercollective3616 Hmmmm. Proud ? For so many years Mosley was the turnip ghost of British politics, probably due to so many big political names of living memory having flirted with him whilst they were still on the way up ? I'm amazed that TIK has so many works covering the Mosley phenomena, its maybe a sign that he has passed firmly into the historical and therefore unthreatening realm, thus enabling a full examination.
@Fanakapan222 if that was the case Fascists wouldn't be arrest more than ISIS veterans in the UK
I'm so glad someone like you has as many subscribers as you do. I'm worried people are running away with themselves and getting triggered by political narratives when history should be studied in an unbiased way.
Tik your history lessons make me a better person
42:57 Labor/Socialists: "It's not our fault we suck, it's the system that made us fail"
Socialists acting within the government's methods of the election process (Democracy) is the reason why they fail to garner power in the modern day.
Remarkable. I discussed this last night with my son. A good analysis. I also agree the deliberate Left versus Right fog is just that. More so today than in the past, however.
It is also remarkable that the new fascism of today (Green-Red-Woke) camouflage is backed financially by many of the same oligarchic/ruling establishment families which backed the old fascism - and indeed also various other wars, Revolutions, fanatical and deranged movements/ideologies and a transfer of more wealth from the working people (lower and middle class) to the ‘Supremacist Clique / Cabal’. Hence, had Mosley existed today, he well have been in the Labour/Lib/Green/Tory party and pushed Oligarchic dystopia under the guise of wanting to do good for the masses (normal people > 99%). Over privilege breeds contempt, mysticism instead of logic / science / progression, sociopathic behaviour and also, unfortunately, psychopathic trends. History clearly shows us this clearly. Indeed recent history shows us this. Here in Germany, 70 % have learned nothing from recent history and de facto fascism in imperial, National Socialist and now US/WEF-UN/EU type. Mostly, it is the East Germans who can still spot a pig dressed up as a ballerina.
ur insane
Modern fascism is just fascism. It's a guy on a state-sponsored concert pretending to nuke the US. It's a bunch of cops and used car salesmen trying to launch a coup on the US government. It's the belief in the Nation as a deliberately amoebic and nebulous thing that can be molded to manipulate people without consideration for who it destroys, openly.
so far i am at 36 mins
and can only think. 100 years later and nothing has changed .
the essence of the 1920s is the same today
and here we are just hoping for a new party. as the old ones are failing the country
Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I think any new party will either be suppressed or become corrupted, and be the same as the current ones
Party pooper!
I feel like you missed the British Agricultural revolution that happenned before the industrial revolution, and made the farms need less labour.
i did not expect this video to perfectly explain modern day politics
as a someone from Turkey i have to say you are the best history channel i ever seen
🦃🦃🦃🦃
16:13 the liberals considered themselves the party of reason, they love a good sounding argument. The conservatives would have kicked the Hegelians out on their ears.
I absolutely love when I believe something to be true and then somebody steps in and turns my thought process upside down. Thank you very much. Subscribed and look forward to devouring your library and more videos you make. ❤
What a great piece which makes more sense than the old left/right argument. We seem to have gone full circle with 'stakeholder capitalism' and Conservatives taxing us to the hilt with artificially high energy and food prices as a result of net zero policies. Far better to measure political parties based on free markets (red tape / regulation), cost of living (inflation), individual rights and taxation (direct and indirect) etc. On that score all mainstream parties score badly.
Excellent video Tik, I was someone who got caught up in the whole left vs right ideological battle but now I just look at the world through the optics of moral vs immoral, good vs evil.
I have to take issue with one of your statements. The status quo of the conversations was to...
"To PREVENT the poor from IMPROVING their standards of LIVING"?
I would need some hard evidence that anyone goes out of their way to PREVENT someone from improving their standard off living.
Not want to spend effort to HELP someone else, I could understand, but, to *actively* PREVENT?
NEED MORE INPUT...
The amount of input doesn't matter if you lack the horsepower to process it.
@@stevewatson6839 Where we're going, we don't need horses. Nurses would be nice. Candy stripers, too.
Huh
Just a comment on Thatcher. While yes the poll tax in itself was a terrible idea, wasn't it bought in to replace another evil tax which is council tax? The better solution is to get rid of council tax altogether and allow private companies to compete for bin collection services.
Also she was the best conservative PM in history IMO (obviously the standards are not very high). Had she not bought in the reforms in the early 1980s the UK would have plunged into a Greek style economy. She also had a massive battle on her hands because whenever she tried doing anything remotely radical and free marketish, both her own party and the public would be in uproar. Thatcher was not voted in because of her free market beliefs, she was voted in because the country was sick of 1970s socialism... She was extremely unpopular early on and was only saved by the Falklands. She unfortunately became more statist in her later years in office which was a shame.
This just tells me if the people cannot even tolerate minor Thatcher market reforms with some deregulation, then those who want a true free market in Britain are dreaming.
It just means that pro-free market people need to learn from the statists and get better at propaganda and convincinng people. Also, to grow a backbone and stand firm for their convictions and beliefs without compromise.
"The better solution is to get rid of council tax altogether and allow private companies to compete for bin collection services."
Bravo! That's precisely what I've been saying.
-
"Had she not bought in the reforms in the early 1980s the UK would have plunged into a Greek style economy. She also had a massive battle on her hands because whenever she tried doing anything remotely radical and free marketish, both her own party and the public would be in uproar."
I do agree with that assessment. From her point of view, she was in a tough position, and she inherited a country that was on its knees. However, my point is to say that she's not what people perceive her to be. And if people take their emotions out of the equation and look at the facts, yes she closed the mines, but the industries she supposedly "privatised" weren't really privatised. The railways are still owned by the government via their corporation: National Rail. It's only nominal privatisation, not actual. And she introduced the Poll Tax, which is obviously a tax increase.
@@TheImperatorKnight all true... There were so good reforms made to the financial sector and she did give some pretty good speeches. I think her and Reagan were great speakers but could not pull the trigger when it mattered most. I would still take both over the shower of shite we have today on both sides of the pond.
Poll tax replaced the domestic rates; council tax "replaced" the Poll Tax. More like put a pair of knickers on it imho! The Domestic Rates if I recall properly were a part of Liberal governance before they went off the deep end.
@@TheImperatorKnight Her better ideas were just watered down Powell. I'd be interested in hearing your take on John Enoch someday.
Virtually every country in Europe had his Oswald Mosley in the 1930's and 40's the only difference was how successful they were in gaining power.
Eoin O'Duffy was like what an Irish version of Mosely played by Mel Gibson in a movie's alternate reality would be.
"Why didn't the anti-laissez-faire people see that the poor were becoming better off due to laissez-faire capitalism?"
A partial answer to this is that the aristocrats who formed most of parliament went out of their way to avoid seeing regular people. It was seen as bad form to risk catching diseases by mingling with the poor, and even stooping to being familiar with a common person or servant was a faux pas. These people were transported from their homes in the country to their offices in carriages (both horse drawn and rail) with shuttered windows. Any understanding of the common people was learned from education rather than direct experience. This behavior helps explain a lot of the cruel and unusual decisions made by British parliament in history, including their attitude to the Irish potato famine, the colonies and even, going further back, the American colonies. You would never know the poor were improving their lot because you never saw it, and the newspapers you read probably thought you wouldn't be interested.
I also think it's worth mentioning that there is a similar situation today, with elitists in politics, business and entertainment thinking that they know best without any real knowledge of regular people. Even the elitists who claim to be helping poor and disadvantaged people have no clue what they're talking about, which is why they are so easily misled and panicked by what they see in the media. You can easily convince everyone that poor people are a bunch of racists and/or revolutionaries and/or illegal aliens because none of the people with a platform ever get out of their ivory towers in LA or NY. They rely on other parties to supply the data, which is why they can easily believe crackpot theories in the press, or charlatan academics, or business 'research'. In the same way, the Government and Hollywood think they should educate the masses through messaging in schools and entertainment - that the poor need messaging more than actual education, not understanding that ordinary people are perfectly capable of seeing through their agenda, and that their heavy-handed messaging is nothing but patronizing.
Well that is not true saying aristocrats lived in a bubble away from the poor. Plus most anti-capitalist people were of the working classes.
Excellent. I've always wondered why I hated politics. American definitions may be slightly different, but you make amazing points. Thanks
4:38 You'd have a better grasp of Mosley's political evolution if you actually used the Left/Right spectrum. He first went to the Tories, then abandoned them because they were too "right-wing" (i.e. he wanted more radical change). Then he went to the Libs, same deal. And then the Labour Party, same deal. That's when he decided to create his own movement. You can definitely make the argument Mosley and fascism in general were left-wing.
8:36 It makes no sense to pretend the Conservatives aren't more (classically) liberal than the Labour Party. You claim Thatcher wasn't pro-freedom because she raised this or that tax, but you forget to mention the marginal income tax rate was cut in half under Thatcher, which is very significant. Also, we can't look at things in a vacuum. We live in the real world. While Thatcher was not 100% liberal (it's basically impossible), she was a lot more liberal than leader of the opposition Michael Foote (e.g.), who was her main opponent in the early 80s and was a full-blown marxist.
where are you based in the UK and do you do school visits for history? (*I'm thinking Year 6)
A lot of the movement from rural to urban was due improvments in agricultural technology. Less people were needed to work the fields but still produced more.
So, win win?
@@jackthorton10 Chicken - Egg
Tractor or Harvester can do job of countless workers, but it needs to be build by industry.
@@jackthorton10 Not exactly. When TIK goes on about urban jobs being better he really doesn't have a clue.
@@cyphi474 No tractors or harvesters then. More like seed drills and threshers.
@@jackthorton10 More like farmers losing their plot and being forcibly evicted in the name of progress.
5:30, no, the real political spectrum does exist, rule of law vs rule of might. Most Socialist and National Socialist doctrines are based on the rule of might with some flavor of ethnic/racial divide, not equal rule of law. Rule of law requires as a base that all people in a society are equal before the law, with no free pass for dictators, corruption, race, and ethnicity.
Re: the start of this video on your commentary about the flow of labour from the countryside to the cities with the growth of industrialisation, there is one major omission in your analysis: the enclosures. Several million people sustained their livelihoods (admittedly in relative poverty) farming strips of land in "open-field systems" whilst having access to commons such a fields where livestock they owned could graze or woodland where pigs could be put out to pannage. Whilst industrialisation, urban population growth and economic growth increased trends in larger farming systems (farms) to generate higher food production, open-field/common-field land-use patterns remained more conducive to the production of market-garden produce for longer around the major English towns such as Leicester, Nottingham & Liverpool. Between 1760 & 1870 about 7 million acres (about 1/6th of England) were changed from common-land to enclosed land by some 4,000 acts of enclosure - mainly for sheep grazing. A suite of business innovations (double-entry accounting, the joint-stock company, etc.) combined with this systematic policy of kicking people off commonly managed lands so that a system of “rent seeking” could be built up for wealthy people to extract money from the working poor.
Shhhh, he doesn't like to acknowledge that the free market jsut extracts wealth from the working poor.
I hope to see a world where disclaimers like the one in the beginning are not needed, but sadly people have too many feelings and not enough common sense today.
22:30 I have never seen such a perfect summarization on this website before
38:40 couldn't be any more true at the time I'm writing this comment, 2 tier Kier in full force
One of the best videos, and great analysis going right back to the Age of Enlightenment and tracing these economic ideas through the industrial revolution to the 20th century. Great stuff, very original perspective. Don't agree with everything, but your point of view is so well argued and clear, especially on the artificiality of the spectrum. You should turn this into a book.
*Sir Oswald Mosley
Why are you honoring a fascist
When you look at 3rd position politics where shares of stock are sold exclusively to the worker of said company, it makes a lot of sense. Similar in operation and stability to tbe modern day Credit Union. Its straight forward and has very few moving parts. Also, such an enclosed autarkic "syndicalist" economy would prevent external and international interests from meddling in domestic economic affairs. You can still have low taxes, small government and technological advancement while at the same time giving the workers a greater piece of the pie and a bigger voice in the board room.
With their own personal wealth on the line, the stock holding workers will perform their jobs well so as to collect the maximum dividend from their labor efforts.
You realise thats pretty much the core tennants of Marxism right,the workers owning the means of production & worker co-ops.
Your videos are informative and well-referenced. So sad that you have to disclaim to avoid being attacked. Sign of the times - a poor one. Cheers.
Its good he’s not a fascist. all fascist are scum
One problem is that Britain is not a true democracy with proportional representation. The common citizen is not represented or has any voice in Parliament. We vote in representatives that only persue their own selfish aims.
Took them 3 years and 2 PMs to execute the Brexit voted on in a direct democratic process, raging and fuming all the while, threatening and throwing around their vendettas along the way. They also decided that Brexit was the last straw, regretted they allowed the people taste too much democracy here, and vowed never to repeat the same mistake again. From now on only dictatorship and obedience. Referendum/direct democracy is now called populism which can then be interpreted in some twisted way as fascism, while top-down dictat is democracy.
Well the UK tried a democratic vote with brexit and see how that turned out.
Oswald was correct in his observations. The world would be a better place today if he'd been listened to
It's Hegel's statist trap. The Hegelian Dialectic presupposes a statist worldview, and that way, regardless of left or right is "winning," - the state grows stronger and more dominant. Hegelianism is the overriding philosophy that produces all the statist ideologies of the left, right, and center.
I've been religiously listening to your channel purely to learn about political ideology and its history
Knocked it out of the park with this one! Been following your stuff for a while, quality is always high, but the expanded intro made this one even better! Much appreciation to all your efforts, TIK, never stop.
Thanks for the stats. I had not made that link, but I had always believed that when my great grandparents moved from fishing villages to coal mines they were not complete idiots.
I'm dubious that laissez-faire was the sole cause of the rise in living standards in the late 19th century. Doesn't this ever get challenged?
We get it, you’re a libertarian. Can you please stop trying to pretend you’re being non-ideological?
Thank you.
What does it matter either way? Is there any argument he puts forward that is somehow 'coloured' by his possible political leanings?
I do need to point out that this average life expectancy of 35 is actually Bogus, TIK.
If you count kids who did not make to their 5th birthday the stats are abysmally low. (if one person dies at age of one and another dies at 69, then life average life expectancy is 35). If you count life expectancy at age of 5, stats don't look bad.
@MITCH yeah but that's the whole video
Excellent content. I, perhaps unsurprisingly, had no idea about this. Much food for thought.
1926 Mosley was a labour member for parliament for smethwick
Oswald was based and would’ve led to a better UK and less liberalized trash 🗑 that we have in Europe today
So as an American hearing this, I wonder if many Brits who aren’t that informed ( but think they are) think conservatives are low tax because in America, they generally are low tax. Granted it depends on the conservative and some want to be more like their British counterparts.
@Jeremy Adrian he's a basic bitch liberal malding that everyone of his types victories for the last 70 years and not working out wasn't be those policies were shit but because it was actually those evil scheming aristocratic federalist fascists ruining his perfect globalization state
Firstly, why would Brits base their definition of conservatism according to policies in another country?
Secondly, are conservatives in the US really that low tax? Or is it effectively the same game as being played in the UK? Who was the last Republican to substantially lower taxes?
@@PointNemo9 Bush and Trump both had rather substantial tax cuts without significantly raising taxes in any other area (though Trump did close a bunch of tax loopholes).
In the US the equivalent "game" is that Republicans claim to be in favor of a government with a smaller and balanced budget. But in practice tax cuts are never balanced with corresponding spending cuts, and Republicans have usually spent just as much as Democrats, just differently.
If you don't take into account state governments, you're lying by ommission. Conservatives love taxes--sales taxes, which generally hurt the poor. In many rural US states the sales tax can be as high as 10%.
The farmers didnt switch to the factories just because they were better jobs... not at all. An important reason was that insustrialization and tecnical improvement maid many farmers unnecessary
"But so soon as anyone, be they an individual or an organized interest, steps outside those limits, so that his activity becomes sectional and antisocial, the mechanism of the corporate system descends upon him."
-Oswald Mosely, founder of the British Fascist Party
This is the best video on our political state ever
Rather anti Tory to the extreme maybe you should look at how the Labour Party and government knew of the USSR’s gulags yet denied they existed due to their political beliefs that’s terribly awful.
I despise the Labour Party. If you watched further into the video, you would have seen that. I despise all the political parties, since they're all one and the same.
Do a video on George Lincoln Rockwell
Tik doesn't cover that era, mate.
@@Mitch93 would be interesting considering Rockwell has yet another version of National socialism and its economics, a american version
@@tagekoolander To my knowledge, Rockwell was a national socialist only in name, he admitted that he used the Nazi symbolism to get attention for his movement. From what I know of him by listening to his speeches, economics are of little concern minus his defense of the gold standard and warning of impending inflation (he was 60 years late but whatever). He was just super duper racist.
@@antagonizingusername in his books he writes that he wished for some sort of state wellfare socialism but not on the level of the Third Reich
He also said that hes not a fascist because he does not want a corporate state
@@tagekoolander Okay I wasn't completely sure thanks for clearing that up, I should look more into Rockwell.