Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. But TIK literally did make it up. He has the 2 different definitions for socialism on the screen, and misrepresents them both. Marx talked about "common control" and Wikipedia talked about "social control", neither of which make it into TIKs defintion. His claim that state control = socialism is groundless for 2 different reasons. 1. That would make socialism no different from feudalism. If that is the case then why even invent the term socialism? 2. It ignores market socialism, which seeks to give the people control of private property (different from personal property) through cooperatives, leaving government out of it. Even in communism the final goal is to create a stateless society.
    12
  2. What's funny is chunks of the Communist Manifesto have I'm fact been implemented in Western nations. Free education and graduated income taxes were both very important for Marx, as was inheritance tax.
    10
  3.  @carterghill  "Hitler made the claim he was privatizing businesses" He did exactly this. Many government businesses went into private hands. It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector. "when in reality he brought most corporations into the Nazi collective." Specifically, Nazi party members, which constituted over 8 million people. They were not government officials, they were still private. "This was a distinctly collectivist thing to do, and not a Capitalist thing to do" It's a kleptocracy thing to do. Nothing about a non-democratic government moving around people's private property is collectivist. "yet he called it privatization, because he knew that would help distinguish him from Marxism" Actually the Economist called it privatization, because they privatizes a bunch of businesses. "So his actions showed him doing a socialist thing, and his propaganda shows him hiding the fact that it was socialist." No and no. Not only was what he was doing not a socialist thing, but Hitler loved the socialist label and used it constantly. It was literally in his party name. "By the way, this and more is all very clearly laid out in the video we're commenting on." And it's wrong.
    8
  4. ​ @TheImperatorKnight  You start with this bias, which is why you end with dumb conclusions. Crap in crap out TIK.
    6
  5.  @colebehnke7767  "That guy just tried to make it seam like Nazi party members were not members of the state." They weren't. I'm registered to vote in the US, I'm not a part of the state when my party is voted in.
    5
  6.  @colebehnke7767  So nationalisation is when the government sells government assets to private individuals on the condition that those private individuals are one of over 8 million members of a political party? Maybe you need to review what nationalisation is.
    5
  7.  @bobcoburn5238  They aren't even in the government, they are Nazi party members.
    5
  8.  @colebehnke7767  But they weren't empowering the people, they were empowering the state.
    5
  9. ​ @oscartang4587u3  Race socialism isn't a thing. Socialism at its core is about workers owning the products of their own labour. That has nothing to do with race.
    5
  10. Yes, but TIK has defined socialism as state control. By his definition monarchies are socialism. Feudalism is just a different word for socialism. Voting is not necessary, only state control. Obviously this is nonsense, but he says it all the same.
    5
  11.  @colebehnke7767  To steal it from non-Nazis and give it to Nazis. He was reorganising the nation according to race. Being a fascist doesn't mean he was a socialist. Any private property controlled by Nazis was left in their hands.
    5
  12. No, it's based on the definition. Socialism is about common ownership of businesses, something that Nazi Germany did not have. Instead they had a non-democratic top-down system, similar to any monarchy, theocracy or state-capitalist system.
    5
  13. Yes, I'm sure the group of people trying to stop racist police shootings and mistreatment are Nazis....
    5
  14. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but socialism is not when the government does stuff. TIK's own sources specifically talk about "social control" and "common control" over production. That means that workers or voters are the ones who decide what happens to everything, not just those at the top. State control without democracy is not socialism. If you define socialism as state control then market socialism, where all business are cooperatives owned by their employees and leadership of those businesses is voted in by said employees, wouldn't even be considered socialism.
    5
  15.  @oscartang4587u3  So was his. But here you claim ignorance to get around the burden of proof.
    4
  16.  @oscartang4587u3  Where is Don's?
    4
  17. No. In fact the effective tax rate was lower than comparable western nations of the time, such as the UK.
    4
  18. They were. They oppressed workers and supported businesses all while spouting racist rhetoric. That's the right-wing all over.
    4
  19. Which is exactly why TIKs interpretation of the defintion is wrong. Social control is not control by the government, it is control by the people.
    4
  20. Yes, what is the full name of North Korea?
    4
  21.  @oscartang4587u3  Says the literal Nazi. 🙄
    4
  22. The Democratic Republic of North Korea. Obviously they are both a democracy and a republic, right?
    4
  23. The drag panic in Florida is proof enough of that.
    4
  24.  @oscartang4587u3  Wow, you do not understand what he wrote there at all do you. He's literally talking about a post-money post-state world where society works together to provide for eachother. Marx also drew a strong distinction between private property (businesses) and personal property (not businesses). So things like houses, clothes, cars et cetera would still belong to individuals.
    4
  25. ​ @CheiroDePetricor  Economically kleptocratic.
    4
  26. And North Korea is a democracy.
    4
  27.  @oscartang4587u3  1 and 4. I, like many other socialists, do not believe that the authoritarian vanguardism that controlled people with fake democracy constitutes socialism. There was no common control, the workers did not own the means of production. 2. Again, controlling the markets is not the same as owning the business. Businesses were still owned privately. 3. They changed the law so that shareholders voted in board members, who then voted on policy. Many corporations still work this way. 5. So the socialists and the communists called socialism a Jewish invension to destroy Germany? What are you talking about.
    4
  28. They weren't free-market capitalists, or socialists. They were corporatists.
    4
  29. ​ @TheImperatorKnight  You dismissed it in the first minute. You literally said that the reporter was wrong and they must be talking about something else. That's not an argument.
    4
  30.  @AverageAlien  "Circular definition again" Nothing circular about it. In this context government = state. "State = government = insert group here" Nope, just government. "It's a circular definition as in you're using state = government to avoid what a state and government actually is." Depends on the type of government doesn't it. "Saying state = government is as much of a definition as saying "opposite of male is the same as female"" Nope. A government is the governing body of a nation, state, or community. "The government = state = group with aligned ideology and political goals." Unless the state does not meet the aligned ideology and political goals of the people. In which case they are an insular group that does not meet the needs of the people, and therefore do not represent said people. Therefore, in a non-democractic nation, government = state =/= group with aligned ideology and political goals. Unless of course you are talking about just the group within the government, in which case you are ignoring the majority of the nation. This would also mean that you define all governments of all types socialism. "That's great. You only forgot the fact that the workers are the state" The workers are the people, the state is the government. "For your state of workers to be prevented from owning the means of production by another state, that would mean that there are two states" The workers are not the state. The state in a socialist society represents the will of the workers, but without union leverage or democracy the state cannot represent the workers, therefore democracy is necessary for the state to represent the workers. There is no "state of workers", unless you mean a union. "PUBLIC SECTOR: The state, or collective." To clarify, the public sector is only a collective in a democracy. All things state controlled are in the public sector, but not all things in state control are in a collective. Things in a collective are also not necessarily in the public sector. So while a collective CAN be the public sector, it is not always. While the public sector CAN be a collective, it is not always. "COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP: This means that a large group, like say, the state, has seized control of something and own it as a collective. " Only if the state is doing so on behalf of a large group. If they are not doing so via some sort of democratic process then it's not collective ownership, but it is state control. You also don't require any seizing of control, as this can be done democratically. Voters electing a government that in turn nationalises healthcare is an example of collective ownership via democracy. "SOCIALISM: When the collective/state/group/gang/mafia seize control of something via force. For example, taxation. " Socialism can only be done via democracy of one form or another. Taxation is not socialism unless done by a democratically elected government.
    4
  31.  @AverageAlien  "Not my problem if you can't accept reality." Oh the irony. "A state of workers is still a state." Nope. State in this context means government. State control is not worker control without democracy. "Doesn't matter what group of people that state is made up of. It's a group, not a private individual, and on top of that it's not even a consentual group, it's a gang taking over a country by force and violence. " If you don't understand that there is a difference between government and workers then why even use definitions for anything? "Circular definition." No, it isn't. State means government. "Who exactly do you think the state is?" The government. "Your scenario means that there are two states at war with eachother in the same country." Nope. Again, when people talk about state control, they mean the government. "One state fights with another over control of the means of production, both states are socialist states, nothing changes." Yeah, no idea on this one, you've lost the plot. "You are confused." Oh the irony. If you really want to define "state" as all the people within a nation, then you also have to give control of the means of production to all the people within said nation for it to be socialism. A small segment of society doesn't cut it.
    4
  32.  @AverageAlien  "The workers ARE the state then." Completely idiotic. Workers are not the state. With this definition you may as well define feudalism as socialist. If that's the case then why was socialism ever even theorised? You may as well just call it a return to monarchies. "What exactly do you think a state IS, in your head?" In this context it means government. "If this group of "workers" forcefully seize the means of production via use of force then they are a socialist state." Not if the new government removes control of the state by the workers. Workers cannot have ownership or control over the means of production if the state has removed their ability to control the means of production.
    4
  33.  @oscartang4587u3  "Lol society in socialism come in many form, states and company can be both act as the society of socialism." Nonsense. "Are you trying to use your new definition of Non-state Socialism to exclude Marxism?" This video literally quotes Marx stating "common control" as necessary. It ignores that socialism is an economic system, one where production is controlled by the people, in whatever form that should take. That is never in an undemocratic state.
    4
  34.  @AverageAlien  "Social control IS state control." Simply incorrect. Under market socialism there is no state control. The production is owned entirely by the workers directly. "Democracy is evil, as is socialism.' Idiocy. "Using your twisted logic, nothing has ever been socialist." Not true at all. Just nothing recent.
    4
  35.  @oscartang4587u3  It was. Thanks for playing Oscar.
    4
  36. ​ @colebehnke7767  Because it's wrong Cole, you know that, we've been over this.
    4
  37.  @fakeorchestra4260  He glosses over them because it didn't fit his narrative. Calling it a union is a joke because it can't do anything a union can do, making it by defintion not a union. Hitler destroyed the unions.
    3
  38.  @colebehnke7767  You mean aside from the fact that Nazi Germany retained private ownership of businesses? What more do I need?
    3
  39.  @oscartang4587u3  Like all state capitalism, yes. They centrally controlled the market while businesses were owned privately. Competition still existed, but prices were fixed. Capitalism does not mean free market.
    3
  40. And since he created a non-democratic state, he was not working on behalf of anyone but himself. He was basically just a monarch.
    3
  41.  @oscartang4587u3  Try using some common fucking sense.
    3
  42.  @colebehnke7767  Except it wasn't. The property was put right back into private hands.
    3
  43. ​ @colebehnke7767  Everything.
    3
  44. ​ @BJ-lq6js  The important part however is worker's having said control, which they did not in Nazi Germany. The movement of private property in Nazi Germany did not go to party officials, just party members. These are ordinary voters loyal to the Nazis, not government employees. Abolishing private land is also not socialism or communism. You have to give the general populous control of did land for it to be communism. Even then, communists believed in personal property as separate from private property, so a house is personal, the hundreds of acres of farm land around it is private. Still not sure why you're pointing to Russia. They faked elections and subverted the will of the people. They were not socialist.
    3
  45. ​ @colebehnke7767  Nazism is a form of fascism, even TIKs sources agree with this.
    3
  46. ​ @oscartang4587u3  Weird you say that socialism is about social ownership, then point to Nazi Germany, a state where people had zero ability to decide who was in charge, and therefore had no social ownership.
    3
  47. They weren't implementing at all, just like North Korea isn't a democracy.
    3
  48.  @TheImperatorKnight  Still total bollocks. North Korea is absolutely not a democracy. Democracy does not mean "we hold a sham election every few years", it means your vote actually means something. In fact there is a Democracy Index that covers how democratic a nation is by looking at the following categories: Electoral process and pluralism Civil liberties Functioning of government Political participation Political culture Guess who shows up at the bottom of that list? Oh right, North Korea, just above Myanmar and Afghanistan.
    3
  49. North Korea's full name is the Democratic Republic of North Korea, but it ain't a democracy nor arguably a republic. Oh, and don't eat that urinal cake.
    3
  50.  @colebehnke7767  Except we aren't even using some Soviet usage of the word. We are using the modern description of US politics, which again, has literal Nazis voting Republican.
    3