Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Second Thought" channel.

  1. 11
  2. 9
  3. 7
  4. 7
  5. 7
  6. 7
  7. 6
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. "By your own definition, the means of production were indeed collectively owned and not guided by profit. The ownership was through authoritarian government representation and the guidance was the national wellbeing" That's not collective ownership, that is state ownership. In collectivisim the people would have some sort of a say in the usage of funds or the ownership of the businesses. Instead they are forced to comply. "Sure it wasn't democratic socialism, but it was definitely socialist since it's not about letting people do whatever they want like in Capitalism." So feudalism is also socialism? You are using such a broad defintion that it is meaningless. You seem to think socialism is "not capitalism". "It's not like a random German or even worse, a foreigner, could just start or run a major company in Germany without being a member of the Nazi party to sell whatever he wants to sell." It should be noted that members of the Nazi party were just ordinary people that joined a political party. They numbered in the millions. "The government had a strong watch over you to make sure the activities of the company align with the purported benefit of the public. Whether you agree the authoritarian government was indeed looking out for the wellbeing of the public is more of a game theory agency issue than a socialist vs capitalist issue." No, this is a contention between a planned economy and a free market. Planned economies are not inherently socialist, and free markets are not inherently capitalist. "And no that doesn't equate them with capitalist societies today because capitalist societies today interfere in far fewer industries than Nazi Germany did. " The phrase you are looking for is "state capitalism". "China is the closest system to Nazi Germany." Like I said, state capitalism. "Capitalist societies like the US are not asking Home Depot to join the Republican party and have half of the members of its board of directors be government officials to make sure home depot is not undermining the interests of American workers like Communist China does." Right, like state capitalism. "Therefore, they preferred a nationalist dictatorship to guard the common good." Which isn't socialism as it does not fit the defintion, which is when the means of production are owned in common. Ownership by the people, not by the state. It can be through a state, but that state must be democratic to give the public true ownership. So I think your main issue is just not understanding what socialism is.
    3
  59.  @danz309  "Well how else would you implement a socialist system? anarchism? Has there ever been an anarchist society? That's like the antithesis of civil society." Doesn't mean that it hasn't been theoriesed. You should probably look up social anarchism. "socialism does seem to resemble a modern version of feudalism due to the weak property rights of the public. The lord of your land can just come and take your stuff." Wrong on 2 counts. Not all forms of socialism have weekend property rights, and socialism would never have a lord. "Have friends that lived in eastern Europe behind the iron curtain. Some were considered wealthy by their peers due to their parents influence within the political parties of their country." Ah yes, the land of vanguardism. Totally socialism. "Capital exists regardless of whether your society is capitalist or socialist. Therefore creating a definition such as "state capitalism" just seems like an attempt to whitewash the problems with previous attempts at socialist societies." Wouldn't your reasoning also make the word capitalism useless? State capitalism is specifically referring to businesses (or capital) being heavily directed by the state through heavy regulations. "What's normally understood as capitalism is the free market version which requires strong private property rights." Socialism can have that too though. The free market does not belong to capitalism. "What you call "state capitalism" I would call "authoritarian socialism," (it even has a wikipedia definition)." You should probably check the article on state capitalism then. "They always do it for the alleged "common good" and therefore their ownership is "allegedly" common ownership with the public." They can claim whatever they want. Without the people actually having some element of control over the thing or over the people who control it, they don't own it. "They're just managers of it, like a hedge fund manager managing funds for its clients. Doesn't mean the clients don't have "true" ownership of their funds." But with a hedgefund manager if you don't like what they are doing you can find a new one. This is not possible in an authoritarian regime. Imagine a hedgefund manager taking your money and giving you zero control over it for decades at a time, while also telling you they are investing it for your own good. Would you trust that person. Would you consider that money that you have no control over your money still? What if you die before they let you take any of the funds out? Socialism without the ability to change who is in charge of the money is just not socialism. "But the innovations in blockchain technology I think are creating a new economic system that is like a mixture of the benefits of socialism (everyone has a stake in the network if they participate/work) and capitalism (unchangeable strong private property rights & innovators/early participants get outsized rewards)." JFC.
    3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88.  @kalrainey  Sorry for the delay, busy busy. So first we can start with TIK's definition of socialism. He claims that both Marx and Wikipedia use definition that socialism is government control. What he leaves unhighlighted on these definitions is the fundamental concept of socialism, that is the idea of social or common ownership of the means of production. Social requires the people effected by something to have control over that thing. So with social welfare that means that the people must have a democratic ability to decide how something is managed, or who it is managed by. In fact, the Wikipedia entry goes on to explain that worker cooperatives are a form of socialism, making his claim that socialism = government totally nonsensical and backed by nothing. Simply leaving the German people with no ability to control something is not common ownership, it's state ownership through and through. This however gets even further away from socialism on the next point. Privatization: TIK shows a quote explaining that the Nazi economy was described as a form of privatization. It is in fact the earliest usage of the word, and was literally invented to describe the Nazis. He then offhandedly ignores it. The simple truth is that the German government sold off vast assets to private individuals, but TIK refuses to call this privatization as industry was being given strict orders from the government. That does not change however the fact that those industries were still privately owned, and those owners still recieved private profits. Arguing this would be the same as arguing that the British directing industry in WW2 is the same as socialism. Obviously that's nonsense. Government directing of industry is not the definition of socialism. Democracy: TIK tried to claim that even if socialism requires democracy, that doesn't matter as the Nazis were plenty democractic. He then equates voting with democracy, essentially claiming that a rigged election is still an election, so of course the Nazis were democratic. He then tries to back this up by claiming that North Korea is a democracy. Unions: TIK tries to claim that the unions were made stronger under the Nazis, but ignores that unions had no ability to elect their own leaders, collectively bargain or strike. They were just lists of workers that the Nazis co-oped to control the population. They were stripped of any resemblance to a union. Calling them a unions would be like calling a chocolate teapot useful. TIK frequently corrects his own sources, as he views their quotes as incorrect. When quoting the Vampire Economy he changes the word "Fascism" to "National Socialism" despite Nazi germany absolutely being a form of fascism. This is all to fit his narrative. The final straw is his nonsense claim that socialism of the Nazis was racial, not class based. Socialism is about class because that's where the money lies. Race based socialism is nonsensical. So rich people are fine, so long as they aren't a certain race? How is that socialism?
    2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1