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

  1. @soulcapitalist6204  You've already proven you don't understand what Marx wrote. Dictionaries are not based on 170 years of academic sources, they are based on the common usage of words.
    2
  2. @soulcapitalist6204  The fact that dictionaries have multiple definitions is proof enough. The fact that dictionaries work by using definitions that are commonly used is proof enough. But when the definition written directly contradicts socialist writers like Marx and Engels, it's not hard to spot the error of using dictionaries rather than academic sources and encyclopedias.
    2
  3. @soulcapitalist6204  "State capitalism is socialist" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Thanks for the laugh. Both were fascist btw.
    2
  4. ​ @cooter443 No, they gave control to Nazi Party members. Members of a political party are not part of the state. Central planning is control over the markets, not ownership of businesses. Government ownership of businesses dropped under the Nazis, they sold off almost everything to loyal private individuals.
    2
  5.  @colebehnke7767  The markets were controlled, the businesses were not. Profits still went to owners.
    2
  6.  @rafalpalma  "Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is." That's you, that's how you sound. Try presenting an argument.
    2
  7.  @Camo_Live  I strongly suggest you look up the word "propaganda".
    2
  8.  @Camo_Live  Still no argument from you, and an abelist slur. Typical fascist behaviour.
    2
  9.  @NothingButTrueHere  Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, not free markets. In Nazi Germany the government controlled the markets, not the businesses themselves. Ownership of businesses was still private, and profits went to business owners. This planned economy with private ownership is called state capitalism. Socialism also does not require state control, but instead common ownership of the means of production. This can be done via a state, but can also be done with worker cooperatives, where workers own the businesses they work within equally among them. So maybe check your definitions there kid.
    2
  10. That's not what voting means. Yes you can get another job, but there is no way to guarantee you are paid fairly at a different job. The problem of uneven pay already exists, worker ownership doesn't change that. There is also no reason that workers couldn't be paid differently from one another in this system. Capitalism allows for nothing of the sort.
    2
  11. Because of course the people had control of the means of production...oh wait no, they didn't.
    1
  12. "The national socialists took means of production by buying up small business." Wrong. They sold off government assets overall. It was a net loss for government ownership.
    1
  13.  @archiebf4524  Oh, I see them. Just seems like you don't know what socialism is.
    1
  14.  @archiebf4524  A pretty bad one it seems. Tell me, how can you have collective ownership in an authoritarian regime?
    1
  15.  @archiebf4524  YouTube is a capitalist company.
    1
  16. @archiebf4524  You mean the comment where you admitted that there is no common ownership, making it by definition not socialism?
    1
  17.  @archiebf4524  "Socialism is literally "when the state controls the means of production"" Now look up Market Socialism.
    1
  18. The Nazis taking control of the means of production is not socialism. Socialism is when the PEOPLE control the means of production in common.
    1
  19.  @ЕвгенийОнегин-г1у  Leninism ain't socialism bruh. They stopped being socialist when they banned political opposition and rigged elections. You are at least right that the USSR and Nazi Germany were very similar. They were not however socialism.
    1
  20. ​ @ComradePilas  How so?
    1
  21.  @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
  22.  @colebehnke7767  1. I didn't say property, I said means of production. 2. That's the literaly definition of capitalism.
    1
  23. Even if you were right, which you aren't, it still wouldn't make them socialists. Socialism requires common ownership.
    1
  24. No, he didn't. The government had already purchased chunks of banks and setup welfare programs. Hitler sold all that off.
    1
  25. None of them were communist, so...
    1
  26. ​ @TheNecessaryEvil  So we agree, they were not communists. Thanks.
    1
  27. Holding things in common is not the same as nationalisation when you have no way for the general public to have any say in how those businesses are used.
    1
  28. Nothing you just described is socialism.
    1
  29. Funny, everything you said was wrong. Hitler never had a majority. Hitler then suspended democracy meaning it was impossible to remove him. Hitler sold off government assets, with the term "privatization" literally being written for the first time when describing the Nazi German economy. Socialism requires the means of production to be owned in common, which they were not in Nazi Germany. TIK is an idiot who thinks North Korea is a democracy. Congrats, you're up to speed.
    1
  30. Always fun to see someone try to twist something to fit their ideology. Unions had no power to elect leaders, negotiate pay or strike. That's like 90% of what unions do. Calling the Nazi government controlled worker groups "unions" would be like calling a chocolate teapot useful.
    1
  31.  @szymonpinkowski256  You are confusing the term "public ownership" meaning state ownership with the term "general public" which means the people of a nation. This is just an equivocation fallacy. Socialism is when the means of production are owned in common, not by a non-democratic state. Socialism doesn't even need to have state control of the means of production to function as socialism.
    1
  32. You're right, they weren't opposites, but they also weren't socialists. No, he killed them because they were socialists. This wierd conspiracy you have holds no water. German socialists were not mostly Jewish. Government ownership of businesses reduced under the Nazis. They sold off government assets en masse. BMW and Mercedes were also not shut down. In fact both companies profited massively off producing vehicles for war, including aircraft engines and military vehicles. In Marxism everyone is a government worker, so who would they be against? Nazism and Capitalism both had private ownership of the means of production.
    1
  33. There is no such thing as racial socialism.
    1
  34. ​ @jktech2117  That makes zero sense. Socialism is about workers owning the fruits of their own labour. What about race could possibly prevent that?
    1
  35. ​ @jktech2117  No, they didn't. You're spouting nonsense dude.
    1
  36. Keep in mind, Nazi Germany had no democracy at all. Hitler was never even elected president.
    1
  37. Define it then.
    1
  38. Who said anything about not having free markets?
    1
  39. He openly described his own form of socialism as a return to Germanism. He said that the people should be subservient to the state, and should allow the government to make all their decisions. Everything he said screamed monarchism and has absolutely nothing to do with a single socialist theory.
    1
  40.  @YanPagh  Being consistent doesn't make you correct. Baseless insult. I have watched the video. The sources support the idea of privatisation. TIK misrepresenting them is his own error. Government owned enterprise reduced under the Nazis. Social democracies have elements of socialism throughout. Democratically elected governments that use taxes to provide food, housing, shelter and other human rights to the people is socialism.
    1
  41.  @YanPagh  I did watch the video. TIK's poor definitions don't change the fact that businesses were I'm fact owned privately, and government assets were sold off. The 25 point plan was pre-election propaganda, it was largely abandoned. Faithful party members are private citizens. Businesses were owned privately. Profits went to private individuals. After the war many of those businesses were still owned by the same people, not the state. Maybe try thinking next time.
    1
  42.  @YanPagh  He misinterprets the definitions. Social ownership has always been about ownership by the people, not the state. In the same way TIK thinks that a fascist government controlling everything is somehow ownership by the people, he also argues that Nazi Germany was a democracy, even though political opposition was banned. To argue that TIK is faithfully using the definitions given is actually a joke, and shows either a blatant attempt to warp the truth, or a distinct lack on comprehension on his part. Arguing that TIK proved anything with these blatant errors is just sad. Why are you defending this?
    1
  43.  @YanPagh  He is a biased historian. He wasn't really a socialist if he thinks socialism is the same as government control. You are not actually dealing with the facts, and continue to quote TIK as gospel, despite obvious issues and contradictions which I have already laid out. Your continued push of "just watch the video" as I directly rebuff said video is not a real argument.
    1
  44.  @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
  45. ​ @kcaustin904  While social democracy isn't a socialist state, the parts of the economy that are socialised are indeed socialist. Socialised healthcare, food programs, disability insurance and more are all socialist programs. You can argue about if they go far enough, but at the end of the day, you have removed something from the private market and made it publicly owned.
    1
  46.  @kcaustin904  In a democracy the workers do have control.
    1
  47.  @kcaustin904  It does however have to do with socialism.
    1
  48.  @kcaustin904  Second thought says that social democracy does not go far enough, he doesn't claim it isn't socialism. Healthcare is a product, making the healthcare industry a means of production. By putting it in state hands, then giving the people control via democracy, you have placed a means of production into the control of the workers.
    1
  49.  @kcaustin904  China is state capitalism because it doesn't have democracy. Democracy allows the workers to control state owned entities. The means of production are owned in common.
    1
  50. Yes they are.
    1