Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" channel.

  1. ​ @willnitschke  No, all the workers. Nobody said everyone in the nation.
    1
  2.  @ExPwner  "Worker coops are private ownership. They are not owned by all." They are owned by all the workers, collectively, not privately.
    1
  3.  @ExPwner  "They have more and more contract workers who aren’t owners." Contract workers have their own businesses with their own labour. There is no exploitation. "But all of that irrelevant since it is still private property." It's cooperative property, which is owned in common.
    1
  4.  @ExPwner  "wage workers have their own contracts with their own business" No, they don't, that's not how that works. "They agree to sell their labor for its full value." But do not recieve the full value of what they produce. They are exploited, per GA Cohen.
    1
  5.  @ExPwner  Nope. You really need to learn the difference between employees and contractors.
    1
  6.  @willnitschke  Total nonsense. You are just making up shit to cover for worker exploitation, then describing capitalism and calling it collectivism. It's pathetic.
    1
  7.  @willnitschke  You could start by presenting some facts. I'll wait.
    1
  8.  @willnitschke  I'll let you know how I feel about facts when you post some.
    1
  9.  @willnitschke  None, as you have presented none.
    1
  10. ​ @willnitschke  See what I mean. You can't even maintain a conversation between comments, how could you possibly have the mental capacity to show a single fact.
    1
  11. ​ @willnitschke  They weren't facts. See, simple.
    1
  12. ​ @willnitschke  But I did explain it. Not understanding an explanation doesn't make it not true, it just makes you ignorant, correct?
    1
  13. ​ @ExPwner  What an argument. Do you always resort to insults rather than logic? Is it because you get very emotional about these topics.
    1
  14.  @ExPwner  Given your "argument" was to call me "mentally rtarded" it's pretty obvious you don't have a clue how strongly you are describing yourself.
    1
  15. ​ @willnitschke  If you didn't read it the first time, and aren't capable of going back and reading through the comments, why would anyone assume that posting it again would help you? Fool me once champ.
    1
  16. ​ @willnitschke  Oh look, the butthurt zealot is projecting. Get a grip Will.
    1
  17. ​ @willnitschke  Would help if I had one. Keep preaching though zealot.
    1
  18. ​ @ExPwner  Oh dear, zealot 2 has arrived.
    1
  19.  @shgalagalaa  Considering they offered nothing of substance in this thread, what is there to respond to?
    1
  20. ​ @willnitschke  You're describing capitalism again.
    1
  21. ​ @willnitschke  Nope, capitalism.
    1
  22. ​ @willnitschke  Giving all your assets to a singular boss is capitalism 101. Slapping the word collectivism on it doesn't make it collectivist.
    1
  23. ​ @willnitschke  So you're just proving you don't understand the market socialism presented by Wolff.
    1
  24.  @willnitschke  Your inability to understand something doesn't make it imaginary.
    1
  25. ​ @willnitschke  But they do exist, you know that. Maybe you just don't understand the concept as well as you think.
    1
  26. ​ @ExPwner  Literally all of capitalism is people giving up their work for less than it's worth.
    1
  27. ​ @willnitschke  Literally every business owner.
    1
  28. ​ @willnitschke  Now you're lost again. Market socialism, ie worker cooperatives are about distributing ownership to the workers. Capitalism is about keeping ownership in the hands of a singular boss, which is exactly what you claimed socialism did. According to you socialism = capitalism.
    1
  29. ​ @willnitschke  See, it's idiotic statements like that making me doubt your sanity. You're confusing worker ownership with capitalist corporations. An easy mistake for a simpleton like yourself.
    1
  30. ​ @willnitschke  I love this new line. Watching the light fade from your eyes when comparisons like this blow up is actually hilarious. In a worker cooperative ownership is split evenly between the workers, giving my them all control over their own labour, allowing them to vote in their own leadership et cetera. In a Corporation the control is not based on employment, but based on capital. There is also a portion of the company not owned in stocks. So even if all the employees owned equal shares, and not outside investor owned any, they would still be competing with an owner. They do not own the product of their own labour as ownership is based on current capital wealth spent on the company, not based on their own personal work.
    1
  31. ​ @willnitschke  You mean sick pay? Sure, why wouldn't they get sick pay? They own shares, that's why they get voting rights and dividends, like all shareholder. The shares are not publicly traded. I know to a business owner like yourself workers having control of their own labour sounds like a scam, but that's because you would rather they are subservient to you.
    1
  32.  @willnitschke  No, you own a share of the business.
    1
  33.  @willnitschke  "These "share-like things" you keep describing." They're called shares. "They are basically monopoly money, right?" No, they give voting rights and dividends in the company. "Because you can buy and sell real shares." They aren't tradeable shares, no. "These are just meaningless bits of paper meant to make you feel good, correct?" Voting rights and dividends are anything but meaningless, but you hate workers so no shock there.
    1
  34.  @willnitschke  Everything has value because you pretend it has value. That's how value works. You're right, they don't own it because they vote, they vote because they own it. Cart before the horse there champ. No, not performance bonuses or salaries, those are independent. Dividends from profits which are distributed evenly to all workers.
    1
  35.  @willnitschke  You always owned it, so yes. No, it's social ownership. You vote and that vote decides how money is spent. Don't like it? Run for election yourself. Distributed by corporations to who?
    1
  36.  @willnitschke  As in owned by everyone at the same time. There are no individual owners. So yes, you are wrong. Oh good, so you agree that dividends are distributed to real owners. Glad we agree.
    1
  37. ​ @willnitschke  If dividends are distributed to owners, and cooperative employees get dividends, then aren't they owners?
    1
  38. ​​ @willnitschke  Not the same thing as a dividend. Bonuses are an expense. How do you not understand the difference? Again, you said corporations pay dividends to owners. Cooperatives also do that, therefore their workers are owners.
    1
  39. ​ @willnitschke  Wrong and wrong. Dividends and bonuses are different, as explained. Bonuses are usually set agreed payments made for meeting goals, while dividends are subject to company profits. Conflating the two is an obvious attempt to try and obfuscate the point. Again, you agreed that dividends are paid to owners. Cooperatives pay dividends to their workers, because the workers are the owners.
    1
  40. ​ @willnitschke  Bonuses are rewards for meeting goals, not even necessarily profit related. Executives taking massive bonuses during the financial crash is proof of that. DIvidends are awards of excess profits. These 2 things are not the same. Dividends are only paid to owners. Likening the two is a pathetic attempt to ignore the actual legal meaning of these terms to weasel out of your own admission.
    1
  41. ​ @willnitschke  Wonderful, so we agree that bonuses and dividends are not the same thing. Thanks. They aren't even taxed the same ffs. I'm not the one that said corporations pay dividends to owners, you were. Cooperatives do the same. Thanks for proving me right twice.
    1
  42. ​ @willnitschke  Wrong, they are different. Calling them the same is actually pathetic. Criteria for payment is different. Taxation is different. Who it gets paid to is different. Nothing about the two is the same other than they both use money. But thanks for proving me right then trying to cover it up. Dividends are paid to owners, as you said, which cooperative employees are.
    1
  43. ​ @willnitschke  Gaslighting, sealioning and strawmanning in one. Is this because you can't support your ideas and have to run from the fact that dividends are paid to owners, and cooperatives pay dividends to emoyees, therefore making employees owners?
    1
  44.  @willnitschke  Incorrect. Dividends are paid to owners.
    1
  45. ​ @willnitschke  Again, dodging the point on dividends. DIvidends are paid to owners. Cooperatives pay dividends to employees, therefore employees are owners.
    1
  46. ​ @willnitschke  Are they paying out dividends?
    1
  47. ​ @willnitschke  Was it a dividend?
    1
  48.  @willnitschke  Again, was it a dividend?
    1
  49. ​ @willnitschke  The payment. Was it a dividend?
    1
  50.  @willnitschke  It's a simple question Will. Did you forget your original point? Or are you just blatantly trying to avoid the fact that cooperatives pay their employees dividends? 🤔
    1