Comments by "ricardo kowalski" (@ricardokowalski1579) on "Desperate historians try to defend the Nazi "privatization" myth" video.

Always remember that socialism is not the "goverment ownership " of the means of production... it is the "government control " of the means of production It matters not who "owns" something, if someone else "controls" it It is always about power. It is only about control.
208
@TheImperatorKnight I agree with you 100%. As always you are hitting the nail on the head. ===== Private ownership INCLUDES control. This is why in most legal texts it reads (In spanish "Es el derecho que tiene toda persona de usar, gozar, disfrutar y disponer sus bienes de acuerdo a la ley." ) "It is the right that every person has to use, enjoy, enjoy and dispose of their assets according to the law." It is the "dispose" part where they excert control while (pretending) to respect private property. And this is not disposal as in end of life what we do with the trash. "dispose" means what you do with somehing, where would you locate it, and the authority to have or delegate CONTROL over it From Merriam Webster dispose 2obsolete : to come to terms dispose of 1a(1): to get rid of how to dispose of toxic waste (2): to deal with conclusively disposed of the matter efficiently b: to transfer to the >>>control<<< of another ///// disposing of personal property to a total stranger 2: to place, distribute, or arrange especially in an orderly way disposing of the weapons in the new fort Cheers!!
19
In order to clarify the difference between "ownership" and "control" consider: You "own" a car or a gun. Someone runs over or shoots another person with your car/gun. Police will come knocking at the door of the owner, even if you "lost control" of the asset. When they catch the one that did the shooting or driving... you would want the car/gun returned to you... because you "own it" and need to be better at "controlling it". Control is the only thing that matters. You can be killed with your OWN SWORD, if someone elses controls it.
12
@untruelie2640 There is only ONE definition of socialism. Socialism is the government control of the means of production. Socialism has no other definition.
8
@untruelie2640 The definitions are not up for discussion. Dogmatism is saying something without evidence, based upon belief. The definition of socialism is not a "hypothesis" that has to be tested, it was created by Marx and it is "a priori", not a result of the discussion. 1-If you do not like Marx's definition of socialism, take it up to him. 2-If you are a revisionist that wants to claim you know what "real socialism", you are rejecting history. 3- I care not for the "nothing is absolute" because if nothing matters and everything is relative then no values or morals are possible.
7
@untruelie2640 "you could just claim as well that Britain and the USA were "socialist" states during WW2." Why yes I do claim that. And the interesting thing is the return to private property, and the things that remained under government control.
4
@untruelie2640 There is only ONE definition of socialism. Socialism is the government control of the means of production. Socialism has no other definition.
4
@georgea5991 here is the thing. If you buy a house with a mortage, you are doing TWO things. 1- you are buying a house, it is now yours. 2- since it is YOURS you can pledge it as collateral for a loan. Item #2 is what "disposal" of an asset is. Under socialism, where housing is not asset, you can't ask for a loan on a house. Even if you say the house is "yours"
4
@georgea5991 Word matter, that is why they are so interested in changing the meaning and use of words. What would be equal to "socialism"? What do you mean by "same thing"?
4
@brucetucker4847 How do these "workers" exercise control over the means of production?
4
@untruelie2640 "You literally gave an example of dogmatism with your first sentence. If something is not up for discussion, at least in principle, it is dogmatic, because it can't be corrected, challenged or critizised." The definition of socialism is not up for discussion because it was established "a priori" to this conversation, not because of "dogmatism". You don't like the definition of "socialism"? Then go and hash it out with your "socialist" buddies. NOT ME Do not attempt to undermine the discussion of what socialism WAS and DID with you future unknown and irrelevant definitions of "socialism"
3
@brucetucker4847 yes they are coercive and violent. If I have a factory, and it is MINE.If I refuse to give the control of MY factory to the "workers"... what happens? Don't they take it by force? "By your definition every government or form of social organization from a tribe of 8 Neanderthals to today has been coercive and socialist." Yes, every form of government has been coercive No, social organizations that are voluntary and follow the non-agression principle are different
3
@CantusTropus any regulation made by the government makes it "state controlled". If the regulation comes from the market participants, and they choose not to buy children, then it is a "free market". I am not advocating for child anything, just saying that citizens must not pass along the responsability of choice to the government.
2
@brucetucker4847 "government is only one of the options" here is where you fail to understand the video https://youtu.be/jKIYuOxxZWs?t=644 and reality Whatever you call it (councils, unions, themselves), from the moment they can coerce another one with threat of violence, then that (council, union, themselves) BECOMES THE GOVERNMENT. All you listed is the one and the same violent coercive organization, just wearing different makeup and clothes. The only other "option" is free market voluntary exchanges (no threat, no violence, no force) . The complete opposite of "socialism" . The "option" is private individuals doing as they will with what they own. And the "collectives" can go jump in the lake ============= "Get three socialists in the same room and you'll get at least four answers to it. " So the socialists do not know what socialism IS... but they all agree that it must be impossed BY FORCE
1
@adolfstalin1497 No it is not. Who is responsible for crashing a rental car? The driver or Hertz? When you rent a car... do you sell the ownership?...or the control? 🤔
1
@voltage80x that is COMMUNISM In socialism, the workplace is property of the state. That is why in socialism all business is a government owned enterprise. I stand by my definition.
1
@Biren-jf4ol it depends on the coercive nature of the co-operative. If it is strictly voluntary, and people are allowed to engage in the same business outside the co-operative, then it is not socialist at all. If you MUST join the co-operative because they have a government enforced privilege, then it is socialist in nature. For example. Say there is a co-operative of fishermen in a port. If you are forbidden to go out fishing WITHOUT co-operative membership, then it is socialism. If a co-operative of truckers demands that you join them to service certain areas, that is socialism. If your guild ( lawyers, doctors) requires you to join them or you can't practice, that is socialist.
1