Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Tim Pool's Problem with Socialism" video.

  1.  @Doc92IDH  "what was the Communist Party if not a totalitarian state?" - Irrelevant. You need totalitarianism to enforce anticapitalism. If I start my own business and hire people, what are the communists gonna do? Protest outside? Also, the party in power was Communist but the state was officially "socialist". That's how its meant to work, communists take over the state to guide it with socialism until transition is possible. "That's why I separated "ideal" communism from what actually happens in reality." - But that's beyond the argument at hand. Most people here seem to think "socialism is when the government does things". No it's not. It's the abolition of private property and profit. Then you say "that's communism" because you think communism is extremist socialism. No. That's not how it works. Socialism and communism are virtually identical in their anticapitalist goals, but they're applied differently. It has nothing to do with ideal anything. But the fact that people misinterpret socialism as a centrist position where capitalism finances social programs.
    3
  2.  @Doc92IDH  If it "depends on the definition" then everyone can have their own definition and when words mean anything they end up meaning nothing. "You can have a state-directed economy without abolishing private property" - Which is retarded, that's exactly what we have. The state directs the economy, but we have billion dollar companies that buy favors from the government, so businesses can use the state's power to skirt around capitalism while you don't get the benefits of the state intervention. It's the worst of both worlds.
    3
  3. The American economy is based on the worker's ownership of the means of production?
    3
  4.  @starfusion76  He's right in the definition of socialism.
    2
  5.  @y3ee3e  You can't call him dumb when he's the only one who correctly defined socialism on this comment section.
    2
  6.  @Doc92IDH  Nope. Communism is stateless.
    2
  7.  @Doc92IDH  Brother please look at the definitions. Socialism is essentially communism but the state still exists. It's not "government doing things for the people", it's literally the abolition of private property and profit.
    2
  8.  @grubbybum3614  New Zealand and Denmark aren't socialist...
    2
  9.  @Dan-ud8hz  The New Deal prolonged the Depression. It was also very cronyist as FDR put business leaders in charge of government agencies tasked with the recovery. Trickle down doesn't exist.
    1
  10.  @Dan-ud8hz  It's accurate. The graph leaves out a lot of information. You're using a facebook-tier meme to exploit correlation vs causation. Yes, I know of Smedley Butler. You're shotgunning arguments.
    1
  11.  @Dan-ud8hz  I didn't branch off into anything. FDR was a massive retard who thought that destroying food would pull America out of a crisis. You then mentioned Reagan (unrelated) and the Business Plot (also unrelated to how good FDR's "SoCiAlIsM" was). "I'm sorry the graph isn't clear to you" - It is clear. That's the point. It's missing critical information. Also, namecalling. "You made claims you've yet to offer any proof for" - Ditto. "there's a lot of information overlaid on those graphs to be able to highlight someone who's sufficiently mathematically skilled to distinguish causation from correlation" - How does skill in mathematics extract historical context from a graph? "The graph has a lot more information compiled together than conservatives are typically presented with. " - Not a conservative. Also, namecalling.
    1
  12. You can't. Socialism involves the prohibition of capitalism.
    1
  13. "Socialism is helping people out when needed" - that's charity.
    1
  14. "The “SJW” liberals whose worlds revolve around political identity are actually the more moderate liberals (like those in the media) who have the luxury of focusing on superficial shit" - then explain that bullshit at the DSA meeting where people were constantly having points of contention about privilege
    1
  15. Corporate lobbying exists because the state whores itself out for money. If the state wasn't inherently corrupt lobbying wouldn't be effective.
    1
  16. @Viking Raider The government doesn't provide security. If you get mugged, can you sue the state for not protecting you? No. That right there should tell you that you're the one responsible for your own security. "One can say that the corporations use the government as a weapon." - Seems to me the government is the problem even under your reasoning. "giving the corporation's a bigger weapon to use against regular people and small businesses is not the best idea." - How did you read my anti-government comment and think I'm a big-government Bernie apologist? Goddamn.
    1
  17. Which ones?
    1
  18.  @Xanlet  "Are you saying redistribution of wealth through taxes isn't socialism" - Literally no definition of socialism mentions taxes. "as long as the actual ownership remains private? " - Private ownership needs to be banned under socialism.
    1
  19.  @Xanlet  "You seem incapable of comprehending the socialization of certain aspects of a society within the framework of a capitalist market system" - and you seem incapable of comprehending that this isn't socialism and doesn't even respect the core ideals of socialism. "If someone is in favor of socializing healthcare, are they not a socialist?" - No, they're a bleeding heart "liberal" (American definition). I used to be one in the 2000s too. "Your definition of socialism as being absolute ownership by the government or it's not socialism is myopic" - It's not myopic, it's literally what the definition entails. Even the right wing parties in Europe are not in favor of completely privatizing the public healthcare system. Are they socialists? Socialism is a right-wing movement now? "If the means of production are taxed at 100%, is it not effectively government ownership?" - You call people myopic and then come up with that absurd hypothetical. What is taxed at 100%? Income? Profit? If the end goal of the 100% tax rate is to create a debt to justify the appropriation of private ownership to the state sure you can call that socialism because the end goal is expropriation, if the taxes are just meant to skim off the top after every capitalist has got their cut then it depends entirely on who's taxing. Is it a civic nationalist government doing it? Is it a white nationalist government doing it? Or is it a socialist government?
    1
  20. There's tons of charities, the government steals money off our paychecks. Why isn't that problem solved, then? So much private and public money thrown at the issue, how would a different system improve on that?
    1
  21. No, it didn't.
    1
  22. There can't be a happy medium because socialism requires the abolition of capitalism. Social welfare isn't socialism.
    1
  23. "What was great about that time was that people had the ability to make a living on a single income" - You mean before civil rights and when women wee expected to stay at home? If you like the old days so much you might want to check why it was possible for the white man to buy a house on a single income.
    1
  24. But that's not socialism. Socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production.
    1
  25. "I'm good with workers control over production, but I like democracy." - democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner.
    1
  26.  @matejzizanovic7959  But you have to pick. Capitalism cannot exist within socialism, and socialism within capitalism is just voluntary cooperation. In socialism, you cannot be a boss or own a factory. If the system allows that, then it's not socialism.
    1
  27.  @matejzizanovic7959  But it is black and white. You know when leftists say "not real communism/socialism"? That's precisely why. If you allow people to own things privately, and accumulate capital from it, that's not socialism. If you can be a business owner and be a boss, according to socialism you're exploiting your worker's labor. It's not a matter of reality being binary, but definitions being binary. If socialism demands the abolition of private property, it needs to be abolished. Not say "we'll be socialists but we'll allow people to live within capitalists" because then why bother. If we define -1 to be a negative number, we can't say "maybe it's positive today, we'll allow it".
    1
  28.  @matejzizanovic7959  Your English is fine.
    1
  29. They're not socialist.
    1
  30. "Socialism is obviously better" - lol
    1
  31. You need to learn the definition of socialism.
    1
  32.  @pkz420  "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production" - this means lining up bosses and rich people to the wall and riddling them with bullets. If you're not going to remove the means of production from private hands, it's not socialism.
    1
  33.  @pkz420  Does the system you think of allow capitalism? Then it's not socialism. Socialism stands for the abolition of capitalism. You want to work with "nuance"? Then you're just a bleeding heart liberal. Congratulations, I used to be one in the 2000s. It's a basic bitch political stance, not revolutionary in the slightest.
    1
  34.  @sheffield99  then if you're fortunate enough to have private healthcare, the government just stole your money to fund the public one you don't use. Capitalism works when companies can fail (why the bailouts are wrong). The public healthcare can never fail. So there's no incentive to improve.
    1
  35.  @sheffield99  "they haven't stolen our money." - What happens if you don't pay? "They are using it how the voting public want." - Who decided that the voting public had any right to make the decision? Who says the voting public is right? "its cost me zero." - You paid up front, but that's beside the point. This is all irrelevant. My point is that people are having this argument from the standpoint that people fear losing their private system and you guys are trying to reassure them that they won't lose it because your country allows both private and public systems. But that's not the issue. The issue is that you're paying for the public system no matter what. So except for the upper-middle-class and above or people who have jobs with benefits it makes no financial sense to pay for a private system when you're already paying for the public.
    1
  36.  @sheffield99  "People use the private system if they have insurance and dont want to wait in the public system for elective surgeries" - You keep rambling but not addressing the core issue. You offered a reply to someone. I replied to it. What you're talking about right now has nothing to do with that. You can't say "my country has both systems" thinking that you're talking to people worrying about their elective surgeries. "when your politicians have peoples best interest at heart" - AH! Good joke. "We are a capitalist and socialist country. You can have both and it works well." - No, you're not. Socialism is the abolition of private property. It's the abolition of capitalism. Socialism isn't when the government does things. That's the American Republican definition of socialism.
    1
  37. "The catch with democratic socialism is certain human needs are met- free healthcare or free education" - That's social democracy. "In my case- I had 3 full scholarships to go to college and wanted to pursue a music degree. My parents wanted me to be a doctor. We were so poor I had never been to a doctor so I had no idea the value of becoming a medical professional. If I had been to regular wellness checkups or been to the doctor when I was sick- I may have chosen to pursue the medical route." - I see this as a reach. The average musician wouldn't make it through med school.
    1