Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Second Thought"
channel.
-
11
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
"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
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@dropyourself Their democracy was however a non-choice, not a true democracy at all. They outright failed to implement socialism and specifically Marxism. It was a failed attempt mostly due to vanguardism, a system which quickly created separated people onto classes, the exact opposite of the Marxist dream Marx and Engels wrote about.
Now I understand that they absolutely had their reasons for what they did. Being pushed into a war against both sides of WWI just to even start your nation was a big point of that, but Lenin didn't even win the first election, meaning his war against the SR was never about socialism, it was about control. Also, if you look at Lenin's pre-election writings he was always an extreme figure, and modified his rhetoric just to get votes in 1917. Claiming Lenin implemented democracy after the Tzars is like claiming a portaloo smells better than an outhouse.
So yes, it was indeed a step up, but it could have been so much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YanPagh
Nah, he's defending his libertarian nonsense. It's a failure from the getgo.
No, that's not the core belief of socialism. It's about control by the people collectively, not the state. Socialism doesn't require any state ownership to exist.
Again, private ownership of businesses increased, that's a fact. Profits went to business owners, that's a fact. Businesses were still owned by those private individuals after the war, also a fact. TIK tries to claim that control over markets is the same as owning businesses, which obviously is just false.
The actual historians TIK quoted directly disagree with him, and when he presents his definition of socialism on the screen he openly misinterprets it. He also actively changes source materials to suit his own agenda, changing their words to match his views, removing words like "fascism" from documents about Nazi Germany.
Stick to TIK's comment sections so you don't have to have your echo chamber burst. Everyone here blatantly disagrees with you.
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
-
@throwfascistsintopits3062
"The person who most of all corresponded to the ideal type of a deputy, within the framework of the field of Soviet politics, received approval from both government institutions and the population."
Incorrect. As has been explained, public approval was not needed, and elections were massively geared towards approval. There is also nothing stopping government from just appointing another unpopular candidate if one gets voted out, with the voters becoming more and more apathetic as their votes are ignored.
"A necessary requirement for candidates for deputies was the approval of the collectives, that is, they, in fact, elected BEFORE the elections, and on voting day they simply officially confirmed their choice."
Total nonsense. You can't have a free and fair election before election day.
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