Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Hitler's Socialism: The Evidence is Overwhelming" video.
-
13
-
10
-
@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
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@-Benito_Swagolini- The German people did not have common ownership of the means of production. For starters business ownership shifted to privatisation during the Nazi regime. The Nazi government sold off a vast array of previously publicly owned entities, including banks, public utilities and more. Not sure how privatisation leads to socialism. On top of that, even of your argument is that the government owned more things, which they did not, that has nothing to do with the German people. The Nazis were authoritarians. They banned political opposition and ran unopposed for their elections. So if your argument is that the government owning something means that the people own it, you would be wrong. The people had zero say in how the government operated. That means your claim that anything owned by the nation is owned by the German people is total nonsense.
So congrats, you are very confused, and really capped it off with that brain dead propaganda at the end. "Racist socialism", Jesus, you swallow anything TIK says don't you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
25:50
"Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. As a term, it describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems. Social ownership can be public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee. While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element, and is considered left-wing."
"Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions"
Social ownership. Common control. Not state, not individual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you read the sources, not just the part TIK highlights, you'll see that both Marx and Wikipedia talk about "common ownership" or "common control". You can go even deeper and read sources from many other original socialism scholars from the 1800s. Socialism is, and always had been, about common ownership, not state ownership. You cannot have common ownership in an authoritarian state, as the people who actually own the mean of production is everyone collectively, meaning the only way to make decisions is to either ask them all, or to have them democratically elect someone to make decisions on their behalf. While that ownership can be done via a state, it does not have to be done that way. Market socialism is a perfect example of an anarcho-socialist system. You can't possibly call yourself an anarcho-communist, then in the same breathe call socialism state control.
When people call fascism right-wing they are obviously not talking about libertarianism or anarchy of any kind. They are talking about authoritarianism. Both fascism and libertarianism are right wing, but have wildly different levels of authoritarianism.
Fascism it usually used to describe the obvious two-faced nature of Republicans, who claim to want less government, then roll out legislation to suppress reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, indefinitely detain individuals, demonise immigrants and people of colour, and have a general hardon for nationalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Is all monarch planned what and how every farm land should plants, or controlled how many horseshoe every ironsmith should made in its own territory?"
In feudalism, yes.
"So not all monarch can be a socialist state, maybe some can but I donβt know."
Literally none of them can.
"In the case of Market Socialism, why it didnβt include in the definition of Socialism?"
Market socialism doesn't give state control, but instead requires company ownership to be done via worker cooperatives. Market socialism doesn't go through the state at all, and in fact still has a free market.
"Pseudo democracy is permitted doesnβt mean society with real democracy or other better systems to represent its people are not within its definition."
It's not permitted at all. Socialist systems must give ownership or control to society. Pseudo-democracies deny that.
"A Society doesnβt need the consent to represent anyone within the society."
You're using the word society wrong. The society is the people. What you mean is that the state does not require the consent of the people to represent said people. This is of course total nonsense. You cannot claim to speak for the people if the people have no say in what you say.
"Just like your family, your school, your company, your country, none of those need your consent to represent you as a part of it."
And none of these are socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@in39484
"the general population benefited from his policies"
So long as you were a Nazi. A lot of the population did not benefit, and many of them were literally murdered after their businesses were taken away. But call it corporatists if you want then.
Nobody actually cares about the reorganisation of political movements in a fascist state. They were fascists and people trying to get power or not be killed by fascists. That's it.
" but with respect to all 3 banks No, just as we can't trust the words "National Socialism" or "reprivatization", Tik has a video called "Desperate Historians Try to Defend the Nazi "Privatization" Myth, which talks about those 3 alleged "banks" "reprivatized" , using sources such as Adam Tooze and Gunter Reimann."
The government sold their shares. What exactly are you even trying to say here?
"public services were transferred to the Nationalsozialistiche Volkswohlfahrt and the Deutsche Arbeitsfront"
First, that claim needs a reference. Second, even if true the service management was split up into many organisation, as listed. Third, yes these groups are non-governmental, and therefore private.
1
-
Because North Korea is called "democratic".
In the end, Hitler killed all the socialists and created a totalitarian kleptocracy, not a socialist state.
When the Economist used the term "privatization" they were indeed talking about it the same way we do today. TIK claiming that "clearly" it's different is not an argument. In reality Hitler privaltizes huge segments of the economy:
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned 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"
Hitler's government transferred business to private citizens that were members of the Nazi party, not to members of the government.
You can't have socialism without social or common control, which is control by the general public, not the state. TIK conveniently ignores this part of the quote at 26:00. He does this again at 25:50 when he ignored that the wikipedia entry talks about social ownership and democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JorgeCastillo-gb7vy
The document is sourced.
Selling shares is privatisation when the shares were previously owned by the government.
Selling them to one of the 8.5 million party members does not make it suddenly not privatisation. They selected who they sold to.
They were not transferred to the party, but to party members. Political parties do not own everything that their members own.
Yes they did have control over the economy, but those businesses were still privately owned. The profits went back to the private business owners.
"These firms belong to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public services, shipyards, shipping companies, railways, etc. Furthermore, the delivery of some public services that were produced by the government before the 1930s, especially social and work-related services, transferred to the PRIVATE SECTOR, mainly to organizations within the PARTY"
That's not a contradiction, as explained already. They picked and chose who they sold to, only selling to members of the Nazi party, but members of the Nazi party numbered millions and still owned private property. You are confusing party membership with government. Being a member of a political party does not make you part of the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"So if Marxist failed to do a democratic proletarian revolution democratically, even they can't get collective consensus, they forcing people to do things."
Except the very first thing a socialist government is supposed to do is establish democracy. So in your mind the minority of the people, since they didn't get a popular vote, are going to rise up, take over a nation, install democracy, then hold a new vote...which they will also lose since they lost the first one. It's utterly nonsensical.
"Does this action or approach contradicted to your Definition of Socialism?"
Does the action of a minority of the people trying to overthrow a majority fit the defintion of socialism? No, it doesn't. Socialism is about social control. If the majoirty don't want it, then it doesn't happen, and trying to make it happen is just ignoring the whole point of social control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
'How do you get consent with the whole without the consent of individuals, you may need to elaborate your definition of βwholeβ and βindividualβ here, are you also said that people give consent to North Korea ruling is out of the submission of fear. Fear is an emotion that only able to be experienced as a human not a group, how come the consent is given as a whole instead of individual."
Simple. If given an actual choice people would choose another system, but as the system already exists they fear it, and therefore do not act against it. The existence of the system is the reason for the continuation of that system. If everyone decided to act against the system at the same time, then it would break, but they do not out of fear. The lack of democracy therefore is evident, meaning there is no individual consent, while the consent of society continues. The system exists because collectively people allow it, even if they individually do not consent to it.
"If a regime existed, it must de facto have the consent of the people."
But it doesn't exist. There is no British monarch regime.
"the democracy that the state is being legitimised by the constant"
Again, not democracy. You need to learn what democracy is kid.
"No legislation in UK can be validated without Royal Assert. The King is still the C-in-C of all UK Military. As long as UK citizen having their daily lives while the Monarchy still having and practising their legal(constitutional) power, they are still the source of legitimacy and the entity being consented to with the βright to ruleβ from the UK citizen, under your social contract theory."
Nope. You really are clueless about the UK aren't you. It's sad watching you confuse your fantasies with reality.
The UK monarchy are not monarchs, as they do not have actual monarchistic power. The King has no control over the military. The King cannot stop laws from being enacted. There is not constitution in the UK. They are meaningless figureheads, that's it. If you cannot grasp this basic fact then it is no wonder you think North Korea is a democracy.
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"you are the one who tried use a state legitimacy theory created a Monarchist to disprove the ruling legitimacy of the UK Monarchy. "
No, I didn't. Again, they don't actually rule anything. It's nothing to do with perception, it's just how it actually works. You are confusing tradition with reality.
"The certain system already existed, there must be social contract backing up its βright of ruleβ from the people to the ruler."
Again, you are confusing social contracts with democracy. How people act and how people vote can be 2 very different things. People act out of fear, while they may vote out of belief. The existence of a social contract cannot be used to claim democracy.
"Contract is always about consent, if individual surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order."
But it is not done singularly, but collectively. Or are you saying that people consent individually to totalitarianism?
"The representation of individuals power by the state can also be interpreted as a consent, thus making the state democratic (people power)."
But it isn't a representation of individuals power, it is a representation of individuals lack of actions against a state. That also isn't how democracy works.
"If North Korea have the right of rule because of its existence"
Which is funny because North Korea acts as a monarchy.
"should would the UK monarch have the right of rule to the UK because of the legal position there already have in UK law (βconstitutionβ)."
Again, the UK does not have a constitution. Laws are not the same as a constitution. And no, they don't have the right of rule, because they don't actually rule anything.
"You cannot objectively prove my claim wrong, because it is just interpretation of interpretation."
I just did. You are completely confused about several terms. You seem to think democracy just means the leader in charge isn't religious, which is utterly stupid to no end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Again, it measures democracy, your own sources say that. Adding your own definition doesn't change theirs. Trying to manipulate the meaning of the quotes by adding your own commentary is idiotic.
No, I am referring to the fact that universal suffrage allows you to choose the leadership of a nation. If you have no choice, it's not universal suffrage. Check the definition.
Again, nobody is abolishing personal property. People would still have personal property in a Marxian world. Socialising the economy has already been done in areas. Expanding that to all businesses would not effect personal possessions. By confusing businesses with people's homes you confused the point, purposely it would seem.
Confusing the point AGAIN doesn't change your claim that democracy equals voting, even if you can't actually vote for anything meaningful, or your vote does nothing to change authoritarian control, is not used by barely anyone at all. It's an obscure definition that flies in the face of your claim to the democracy index, which measures democracy in a way that the vast majority of people use the term, as explained.
Honestly, the pathetic approach you're taking, stooping to sad semantics and word games is just ridiculous.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3 It's not my fault you choose lie about the democracy index. It measures democracy, plain and simple. Here:
"The Democracy Index is an index measuring democracy"
See.
Nope. They do not have universal suffrage because universal suffrage isn't just voting, it is voting to decide the governance of the nation. When you don't have a choice it's not a decision, therefore not universal suffrage, by definition.
I never said anything about my personal views. Marx on the other hand drew a strong distinction between private property (capitalist owned businesses) and personal property. And no, changing how businesses work would not negatively effect civil liberties, in the same way that banning businesses from wage theft and pollution are not negative factors on civil liberties.
Yes, under your imaginary definition, not under any definition used by literally anyone else. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population, end of story.
Hang on, while we give you another 20 yards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Marx wrote:
"But universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result, here is the political supremacy of the working class."
Engels:
"Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat."
There is a bunch more throughout, but the long and short of it is that both Marx and Engels openly approved of democracy and pushed to make it standard.
For example, Engels wrote the following:
"Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement β in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"That is a new low even for you. Did you deny that you are the one who used the term "graduate process" and "on-off switch" to describe/distort my statement?"
I didn't distort anything. That is an accurate explanation of your claims.
"That is not my word; that was the description of Bourgeoisie Socialism in the Communist Manifesto."
No, it was your interpretation, and it's wrong.
"Besides, the "Socialism" wiki page also suggested that Socialism can exist in Capitalist States, like the "Western countries, such as France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have been governed by socialist parties or have mixed economies sometimes referred to as "democratic socialist.""
Yes, and?
"Engels used socialisation in Anti-DΓΌhring. It also didn't contain any meaning of the common control for everyone involved."
Again, you are confused as both Marx and Engels talk about common control, universal suffrage and control by the people. The term socialism was literally created to explain a system where society as a whole controls things. In your specific quote Engels was talking about democracies that socialise elements of their economies during economic downturns.
"Without income checks, it will just become resource misallocation, at the end it is just a tool to make the rich richer."
Except that's a load of bollocks. Plenty of lower income politicans use this exact program to allow them to go to debates and make votes. It's a vita; part of democracy, removing the barrier for entry. When it is misused the law cracks down and people even resign. It is working as intended.
"In Marxism, the Communism Society is the only correct ascension of the Socialist State."
And?
"Real Socialist State is determined to evolve into the Communism Society"
Can you define "real socialist state" for me.
"In other socialist theories, like "democratic socialist," ownership of private property is always permitted. "
Nobody said private property was not permitted.
"Your definition of the Socialist State, in which the populace has common control on rationally regulating the means of production interchange with Nature either directly or indirectly, is not the only definition of Socialist State among all Socialist ideologies."
Yes it is. All forms of socialism require common control on some level.
"Maybe for you and Engels, but not even for the Socialisms (i.e., Bourgeoisie Socialism )Karl Marx recognized in the Manifesto."
Yes it is. I know English is hard, but your entire argument makes sense once you realise that they are one in the same. Again, socialism is a sliding scale. Common ownership is more socialism. That's it, that's how it works.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Again, I'm not the one calling this an on-oof switch, you are.
Again, you are treating this like an on-off switch. You have also eroded the meaning of socialism so much you think that capitalism is a socialist state.
Yes, it does mean common control. Literally everything in Marxism is about common control. Socialisation as a concept is about making things socialist. Your comment however did not say socialisation, because that term didn't even exist in Marx's day, instead it says socialised, which is not the same thing.
Those are second homes that allow politicians to attend parliament as needed. They are in fact removing financial barriers to being a politician, giving anyone elected the means to serve, moving further away from a ruling class, not closer.
Sounds like you've made your mind up on the charges Oscar.
Yes, communism, but not socialism. Communism is an absolute, socialism is a sliding scale. And again, the society has elements of socialism, is moving more towards socialism, but is not some absolute socialist state. That is not how those terms work.
Nope. Universal suffrage is literally the dirst step in socialism. Engels said so himself.
They are the same thing.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Next time please uses "immediate process""
Why would I say that, it's NOT an immediate process? Are you okay Oscar?
"A gradual process includes everything from the starting stage to the ending stage of Socialism. In the starting stage, Socialist State is still run by capitalistic mode of production, where the proletariat has not yet seized political power. "
So according to you a socialist state is when capitalism....
"What do you mean there is no starting stage in a gradual process? Every process start from somewhere and end in somewhere."
Again, you seem to think that this is an on-off switch, even though you admit it's a gradual process. This makes no sense. You are contradicting yourself again.
"A ruling classes still formed within the Norwegian rulers, they would still use or misused the system to further their own interest, the Norwegian Housing Scandal was a good example, Members of Parliament exploited generous state benefits to live free at taxpayer expense and evade taxes."
Except the fact that it was a scandal is proof that it is actually a poor example. Scandals are evidence of something being found out and stopped. Moreover, the politicians caught up in the scandal resigned.
"Both of them should be in jail years ago, when their incidents were first uncovered."
Oh, so lets just throw away due process shall we. Honestly Oscar.
Again, gradual process. You really need to look up what that means.
"For a person using English as the first language, can't you see the contradiction between two statement?"
There is no contradiction. Again, as it becomes MORE socialist class differences and separate classes altogether become LESS. It's a scale, not an absolute.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"A graduate process includes both the starting stage of Socialism, where the Socialism State is still run by capitalistic mode of production, where the proletariat has not yet seized political power."
But again, there is no "starting stage" as it isn't an on off switch. You are contradicting yourself in your first 9 words.
"Even the USA's Democracy is flawed? Which country's Democracy isn't flawed, then?"
Yes, for a large number of reasons. The electoral college, the disproportionate power in the Senate, the two=party system and a number of other factors. US democracy, as per the democracy index, is flawed.
Norway is the most democratic nation on the planet. Conincidentally it is also the least corrupt.
"Those are privileges that money cannot buy. Their special treatments were due to the presidency of Trump and Biden."
You're joking right? Rich people get away with shit all the time. Trump paid for lawyers to stall on everything for years at a time. The added corruption of politicians who are bought and paid for is a separate issue. It's nothing to do with being a "ruling class" though. Again though, Hunter Biden entered a plea deal. He went and sorted it out. Not sure what you are whining about.
"According to Marxism, total class difference abolishment can only be archived in Communist Society, not Socialist State. Thus there must be different classes (i.e., bourgeoisie) within Socialist State under Marxism."
You are continuing to ignore that this is a graduated process, even though you already admitted as much. Does the concept of something not being an absolute offend you somehow? Do you truely believe that socialism is some sort of on-off switch?
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"The formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution, the pre-dictatorship of the proletarian stage where proletarian have no control of mean of production."
That's not what he was saying at all. He was saying that society naturally becomes more socialist over time, and he was right.
"If Democratic processes are able to stop people from becoming the ruling class, how can you explain the cases of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump?"
Hunter Biden is a citizen who admitted to crimes and took a plea deal recently. Trump is under about 5 different investigations. The US is also lacking a lot of democracy for several reasons. What you're really complaining about is money in politics, which is just crony capitalism, and is a massive issue with US "democracy".
"I have provided you the source that Marxists would not confiscate any property from the cooperative bourgeoisie from the revolutionary measures of the Manifesto. There is no private ownership of businesses only under the Marxist Communist Society."
Actually you didn't. You just don't understand what you quoted.
Not really sure what you were hoping to prove by posting things that agree with me. On the one hand you sit there and claim that socialism totally doesn't take property out of the hands of private ownership, then on the other you post a manifesto saying they would centralise communication, centralise transportation, socialise education, confiscate property from migrants and rebels, abolish inheretance, have massive progressive tax rates, abolish all private ownership of rented property, et cetera et cetera, all of which are examples of wealth redistribution and would move dramatically away from private ownership. These are gradual steps to achieve a goal, and move more and more towards socialism. Again, you are confused because you think the world is black and white.
"Thus, under the "dictatorship of the proletariat," not everyone would have control of the mean of production. "
Yes they will, through democracy. Have you learned nothing.
"So regardless of your opinions on Marxism, you still didn't change the fact that business owners can co-exist with the proletariat and the ruling class in a socialist state."
Again, you are using black and white terms like "socailist state" when in reality it's a sliding scale. Private business owners that do not give ownership to their employees are an example of a move away from socialism. An aristocracy as you called it before would be a move away from socialism. Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. If the populous has no control of the means of production either directly or indirectly through elected representation then it's not socialism.
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"The formation of a socialist state happened prior to the proletariat revolution."
Almost as if its a sliding scale, and not an absolute.
"Regardless, what Marxism believes, private owned businesses would not be eliminated before the establishment of the Communist Stateless Society"
Yes it would. Nothing in what you quoted says what you claim.
"Therefore, owner of businesses can co-exist with proletariat, and ruling class in a socialist state"
Ahain, nothing in what you quoted says that at all. Look, we can all just make shit up, but nothing you said makes any sense. You have invented this imaginary "ruling class" while ignoring how democracy works, then claimed that Marxism allows people to own buisinesses, even though common ownership of the means of production is LITERALLY THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. Jesus, is this really the level of critique that comes out of the braindead libertarians? Can you just not read so you have to invent meaning where there is none?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
If you're calling that an opinion then your interpretation that it doesn't mean that is also an opinion. Of course, mine matches far more closely with Marx and Engel's other writings where they advocated for universal suffrage.
Again, you continue to change the meaning, then hide behind TIK without a leg to stand on. Common control does not mean state control, and it never has. Claiming that it does just makes you look stupid.
Because socialism is about everything being owned or controlled in common. A bunch of businesses being owned or controlled by an authoritarian state is not giving control over to the people (ie in common), therefore it does not fit the definition of socialism. I think the issue is that you are confusing this dictatorial collectivism with socialism, but socialism is not the concentration of assets, but the sharing of assets among everyone, giving everyone some element of ownership or control that cannot be removed. Yes, it can be done via a state, but ONLY if that state is beholden to the people.
Glad you dropped the point about privat property though, watching you fall on your sword with that one is funny, but also sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
Yes, TIK ignores half the quote, specifically the point on common control. He doesn't say state control, he says common control. Common control is control by everyone, not just the state. It seems you missed the point about social ownership in the wiki article too. This point in both definitions completely subverts your argument about party, state or technocratic directed socialism, as in all of those you still require social/common control of the means of production, ie democracy.
You are confusing private property rights with private property. Private property both existed and grew, regardless of rights. So your entire argument falls flat on its face there. Again, having the power to dissolve stocks is not the same as doing it.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of reality, and it's just sad. The US government has the right to indefinitely imprison people. That doesn't mean everyone is in prison, it's such a stupid argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Btw, if nazism is not capitalism, why do you need to explain that "the reason socialism is opposed to capitalism is because both are economic systems."?"
Because you claimed that:
"The socialised enemy of class socialism is the capitalist, while the socialised enemy of race socialism is Jews."
This is utterly nonsensical as it ignores what socialism actually is. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. There is no economic system that hates Jews. Hating Jews is entirely independent to an economic system.
"How could socialist erase all preexisting classes other than proletariat democratically."
By voting to ban private ownership of business, requiring either cooperative ownership, or public ownership. By definition, all people would then be part of the proletariat. All people would be workers.
"Or under your socialism, other pre-existing classes were not considered part of the "Society" and can be treated as resources for expropriate like Nazi did to Jews?"
So the Nazis democratically voted to make the Jewish people Nazis? What are you even trying to say here?
This is why your comparison falls flat. Proletariat and bourgeoisie are just economic positions. You are either a worker, or you are an owner. There is nothing stopping someone from being one then the other, and back to the one as well. Being Jewish however is not a movable goal.
The comparison would be like restricting someone's personal freedom for comitting a crime, or restricting someone's personal freedom for being black. One of these things is a changable characteristic that involves people making an active choice, the other is racism. This is also how the US mimics Nazi German racial rhetoric for generations, but I digress.
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
"Then why did you claim NAZI Germany was capitalist"
I didn't. I was explaining that the reason socialism is opposed to capitalism is because both are economic systems. Class socialism is the only way socialism can actually exist. Race socialism is not a thing.
"Even under Marxism, no the public cannot decide how the money is spent, only the proletariat can."
Which is the public.
"There will be no politics anymore, chance no need for democracy anymore, everyone would be from each according to his ability to each according to his need and live forever happy ever after."
This is the end stage of communism, where there is literally no government, stateless.
"Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."
Again, this means that if democracy is not used to create a system of common ownership then all you are doing is moving around deck chairs on the Titanic. This does not negate democracy, it informs people that voting against socialism is voting against their own interests.
"In capitalist society, under the conditions most favorable to its development, we have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always bound by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich."
It should be noted that voting rights at the time were very strict in many nations, only allowing men who owned land to vote.
"So in either Marxist's Socialist State or Communist State, there should be no Democracy."
Wrong. Check "A Communist Confession of Faith" for your answer:
"Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution."
Democracy is always the goal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@colebehnke7767
Of course socialism can allow strikes.
Some people do indeed have their surplus labour stolen. I'm not arguing that it is the norm, but it certainly does happen, and union movements are proof of that. Unions are specifically designed to give individuals the same bargaining power as companies. You cannot call the value of employment a fair exchange when one side is holding all the cards in a surplus labour economy. There will always be another worker, but workers cannot just go to any company, especially when said companies are all agreeing on a low wage together. Labour should not be deemed as worth more or less simply because there are more or less workers. The labour they produce is the same regardless.
So the answer is neither. Some workers have exploited wages due to low ability to bargain, an issue that unions heavily address. Protesting, usually through union action, is the foundation of many socialist movements. As soon as you take away collective bargaining you lose socialism.
What's very interesting is that you seem to be attacking socialism of 100 years ago, and not the socialism of today. The main argument these days being that democracy is the foundation of our society, and that we should strive to include collective reasoning into all facets of our lives, just as we have at the government level. Western nations all use some form of democracy to decide who is in charge, yet businesses do not. Is that ethically acceptable in this day and age? What if instead of owners and unions we simply had a company where ownership IS the union?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscartang4587u3
βWhen, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character."
This is in reference to towards the end of the transition of the economy from public to state control. It is arguing that you don't need politics any more, only democracy, or "public power". Decisions can be made without political parties fighting a class war.
"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. "
As I said, a class war based on politics, such as with current political parties.
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. β
Long story short, if the communists decide to revolt to get into power, then become the ruling class via force, once they enact these guidelines they will no longer be a ruling class, as nobody will be any more. Long story shorter, the goal of the communist movement is to get into a position of power, then make that position of power disappear almost entirely so that nobody else can use said position ever again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1