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

  1.  @oscartang4587u3  That's just circular logic. The society on Marxism equals the state because in Marxism you have democratic processes through unions and democracy to decide the direction of the state. Your argument is literally ignoring WHY society equals state.
    3
  2.  @colebehnke7767  Show how it does. Socialism is about the common ownership of the means of production. Make socialists hav proposed a variety of measures to push society towards this goal. Syndicalism for example is the idea that government provides all the basic needs, and unions control government policy in sort of a 2 layered democracy. They openly advocated for people to recieve their human rights, not for them to be removed.
    3
  3.  @TheImperatorKnight  "That's why North Korea is a democracy, because the state is in power." It's statements like that which very clearly show how your leap in logic fails to pass muster. The people are not the state. Excluding a large section of the population is not democracy. You are using the most basic defintion to describe something with an entire index surrounding it, and even taking Hitler at his own word. How many elections took place after Hitler became President. The answer is 2, and all the candidates were hand picked by Hitler, and the ballots were rigged. Hitler was not up for election in either. So no, democracy is not totalitarianism. There was nothing democratic in Nazi Germany.
    3
  4.  @jaypoole8056  That's not corporatism. Corporatism is a collectivist political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests. Operating under the same political party is literally an example of business collectivism, IE corporatism.
    3
  5.  @bustercrabbe8447  "All monarchies are inherently socialistic." So you admit it's not socialism, and just choose to make up a word to describe government control, even though we already have words that describe that. Makes perfect sense. "A centrally planned economy in which the government controls the means of production." Which is not socialism or socialistic, it's called a planned economy. We have a word for it already. "There is no monarchy in history that did not or does not have some direct control in the means of production" Which is a planned economy. And again, this weasel words approach to ignoring that TIK specifically said that government control = socialism isn't going to work just by slightly changing a word.
    3
  6.  @bustercrabbe8447  That's not socialism.
    3
  7. ​ @oscartang4587u3  That doesn't even make sense. Socialism is a different economic system to capitalism, and therefore is always opposed to it. All socialism must on some level be about economics. Arguing that it was a "racial socialism" based on some vague repurposing of the defintion of social ownership is not an argument, when you have openly argued that what you consider socialism does not in fact contradict capitalism.
    3
  8.  @oscartang4587u3  No, that's not the same as the people deciding that property owners, specifically private property owners, ie business owners, should give up their property.
    3
  9.  @colebehnke7767  Not to political officials, to party members.
    3
  10.  @colebehnke7767  You still get to keep the profits, so you still own it privately. Heavy regulation is fascism, not socialism.
    3
  11.  @colebehnke7767  You're just describing a kleptocracy. That's not socialism.
    3
  12.  @colebehnke7767  Not at all. As soon as the Soviet Union stopped having any real democracy it was no longer socialist, as it stripped social control from the people. The USSR failed to implement socialism for a multitude of reasons.
    3
  13.  @colebehnke7767  If you're that allergic to literal defintions of socialism then there is no convincing you.
    3
  14.  @colebehnke7767  Collectives are people acting as a group, not fascism. Collective control is literal done through democracy.
    3
  15.  @colebehnke7767  Democracy is literally a requirement. Declaring otherwise while ignoring your own defintion is empty. And yes, if socialism is actually socialism then people can vote to not be socialist.
    3
  16.  @colebehnke7767  Republics don't have to necessarily be democratic representations of their people either. A republic could literally select people via lottery and would still be a republic. Republic literally just mean not having a monarchy.
    3
  17.  @colebehnke7767  Well exactly. These are all separate ideologies that could exist at the same time, but do not put necessarily. I could just as easily be pro-capitalist and an anti-semite. I could be pro-capitalist but also pro-authoritarian, believing the government should criminalise homosexuality or give the death penalty for insulting the monarchy or whatever. These ideals are not inherently intertwined.
    3
  18. This is nonsense. Their minimum wage is higher, their average wage is higher. Their disability rights are better. They are ranked 2nd in press freedom. Under no metric is anything you said correct.
    3
  19.  @colebehnke7767  Actual Marxism isn't kleptocratic at all. The USSR was indeed a kleptocracy.
    3
  20.  @colebehnke7767  It can actually. Depends on your brand of socialism.
    3
  21.  @colebehnke7767  So you agree they were capitalists.
    3
  22. ​ @oscartang4587u3  The Nazis never ran the economy with cooperative collective agency. They were not left wing.
    3
  23.  @TheImperatorKnight  Communism is stateless. Marxism is indeed for all people. They were against people exploiting other's labour. That's it. Stop doing that and you are not an issue. It was never about race or ethnicity, but about financial exploitation.
    3
  24. If North Korea identify as a democracy then modern supporters of democracy have to accept it as fact.
    3
  25. ​ @drened8502  Stalin was plenty socialist, but the country he ran wasn't.
    3
  26.  @colebehnke7767  Depends. Some European countries have state religions and even give tax money to the church. The UK has members of the church in their House of Lords as well. But let's be honest, Europe has become decidedly less and less religious over time, to the point where the fanaticism of the past is a distant memory. We don't go around burning witches or launching holy crusades any more. So you would arguably be very right when you say that Europe isn't Christian, at least nothing like it used to be. As a comparison this would be like Stalin introducing social programs and democracy, but not actually doing anything to stop capitaliats. Socialism light if you will.
    3
  27. So not the people literally flying swastikas, but people promoting LGBT rights, literally the opposite of Nazis. Cool.
    3
  28.  @oscartang4587u3  No, it isn't.
    3
  29. Except the DAF had exactly zero function that a union has.
    3
  30. Ah yes, the anti-vax guy. Good choice.
    3
  31.  @releasethequackin266  He was right about the heavily discredited paper put out by the disgraced doctor about the MMR vaccine? A paper that has led to measles outbreaks around the world from people believing that stupid crap? Well, colour me surprised.
    3
  32. Or any socialism.
    3
  33. ​ @threemeters1425  Stop talking to yourself, it's pathetic.
    3
  34.  @colebehnke7767  Hitler very clearly did not nationalise more than he privatised. The source on the Nazi German privatisation is clear on that.
    3
  35.  @colebehnke7767  Um no, it says that the amount of property owned by government reduced under the Nazis, and they sold off banks, utilities and more. Funnily enough wh Nazis SAID is far less important that what they DID, which was sell off government assets.
    3
  36.  @colebehnke7767  Lol no. They were owned by private individuals who profited both during, and after the war. They owned it, end of story.
    3
  37.  @misterauctor7353  TIK literally messaged me and tried to argue that North Korea is a democracy. This very video has hundreds of comments where people equate anti-racist movements to Nazis. TIK absolutely does not know what socialism is, his description of it proves that. Lying about Marx while posting his quote on the screen doesn't change what he actually said.
    3
  38.  @misterauctor7353  His description is wrong. TIK was obviously never a socialist as he can't even get the defintion right. He even quotes Marx, but ignores half the quote for his own agenda. Go back to when he has Marx up on the screen with his quote on the definition of socialism, and see that it specifically mentions "common control", ie democratic control. To support his idiocy TIK sent me to his video from 2 years ago called "Hitler's Democracy. WHAT?!". No, those comments are very clearly from people who watched the video, since they reference arguments made in said video.
    3
  39. Well they're both state capitalism, so yes.
    3
  40. It was neither. Socialism is about the people having control. Capitalism is about economic freedom. Nazi Germany had neither of these things. It was a corporatism, a collectivist ideology that advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests. For example, putting all of these things in the hands of members of the Nazi party, then requiring them to follow incredibly strict rules and regulations. They banned collective bargaining, and regulated labour contracts via government appointed officials. Nothing about this is capitalist or socialist.
    3
  41. I guess that explains all the Nazi flags at Dem rallies...oh wait no, that's not right at all.
    3
  42.  @super_sigma_  Of course they look the same to you, you're an idiot. A useful idiot at that. Meanwhile: https://youtu.be/qbdRf0UTH8Q
    3
  43.  @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
  44. ​ @colebehnke7767  All of it.
    3
  45.  @oscartang4587u3  I'm going to deny that the Soviets were communists, or even socialists after 1917. They had a chance and they blew it. The Soviets had no reason to kill the bourgeoisie as they already had political power, but they did it anyway. That was never part of Marx or Engels' writings.
    3
  46.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, the exact document you are referring to was Marx pointing out that the bourgeoisie were raping and pilaging, and the only way to stop them is to give the proletariat control, allowing them to END the deaths and agonies that were being caused by the bourgeoisie. You are taking the document entirely out of context.
    3
  47. Neither.
    3
  48.  @colebehnke7767  He very clearly did.
    3
  49.  @colebehnke7767  Have you watched the video?
    3
  50. They aren't. They were corporatists.
    3