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

  1. Controlled, not collectivised.
    1
  2.  @genxploits  Yes he does. https://youtu.be/_-lznzuPK8I?si=Mb2Dv9a5agG-Ynp0&t=337
    1
  3. @genxploits  Got it, so TIK does think North Korea is a democracy. Thanks.
    1
  4.  @genxploits  I watched it, he's just wrong, North Korea is not a democracy. His entire argument is that the "people" can also be referred to as the "general public", and the "public sector" is another name for the "state". Since both use the word "public" these must mean the same thing. Therefore, the people = the state. This is clearly nonsense and is just an equivocation logical fallacy.
    1
  5.  @genxploits  Oh, you need me to define these things because you don't actually know the difference. Sure. The general public is a term that refers to ordinary people who are not part of a specific group or organization. It can also refer to all or most people in a country or area. Public sector however is the part of an economy that is controlled by the government. It does not refer to people at all, but instead the services and products that government controls and manages. Arguing that a collection of people is the same as a segment of the economy is just silly. I like how quickly you did a 180 on North Korea though.
    1
  6.  @genxploits  No, we socialists talk about how workers are entitled to the products of their own labour. But for that to be the case the workers and the products must be separate things. So again, more semantics from you. You can't stomach the idea that the people and the state are not the same thing. All democracies are democratic. Again, you are just engaging in equivocation.
    1
  7. His video is a joke and so are you. He misrepresents and blatantly ignores his own sources multiple times.
    1
  8.  @Kepora1  The US wasn't a democracy, but it is a lot closer to one now that it was before. North Korea is not a democracy. Republics do not have to have elections.
    1
  9.  @Kepora1  First of all, democracy means "people-power" not "of the people". Second of all, how can you be "of the people" if the people have absolutely no say? They are not a democracy. By no definition, other than one that literally means the opposite of democracy, are they a democracy.
    1
  10.  @darkgoth69  "And they replaced it with The German Labour Front. Basically a state run (socialist) union to represent workers rights." Ah yes, the government unions, where menbers are not allowed to vote, collectively bargain or strike...you know, literally the only things unions do.
    1
  11. Name a Marxist government.
    1
  12. He was Jewish.
    1
  13.  @skeetzilla  Yes. They went from royals and nobles owning everything to an unelected government owning everything. They were exactly the same as they always had been. Just feudalism with propaganda. The idea that anything about the USSR was even close to an actual socialist society is laughable.
    1
  14. @skeetzilla  You mean aside from the US benefiting from trade with Europe? At least you agree it wasn't socialism.
    1
  15. @skeetzilla  It's a pretty huge factor that certainly determines wealth. There are others, such as Russia not having an industrial revolution until WWI put them decades behind the pack. In contrast, since the USSR was not part of global financial markets they also did not have a great depression in the 30s. The truth is that the US got rich selling cotton to Europe. The USSR transfered ownership of the means on production into the hands of individuals underneath the government. They installed oligarchs, similar to an aristocracy, and ruled through a form of state capitalism, where industry was owned privately by oligarchs and the government had strict regulations on the markets those businesses existed within. The individual owners became wealthy by profiting directly off the businesses they owned.
    1
  16.  @martinjugolin2087  Nah, the socialists here know North Korea isn't socialist.
    1
  17.  @noah13313  No fair elections, but trust me it's democratic....
    1
  18.  @kalrainey  Because you think it constitutes an argument, yes.
    1
  19.  @kalrainey  "You ignore the several videos that refute this entire video" I don't ignore them at all, I have addressed them directly. They are mostly bollocks. Please feel free to present one if you want. "along with books, people who have studied the ideology for decades, etc." You'll find that those sources agree with me. "Also, if quotes don’t actually mean anything, truly, then was Marx not an anti-semite?" Marx was Jewish. This is another reason background on quotes is important. "So quotes don’t matter, at all?" Of course quotes matter, but you have to remember that you are quoting a politician in their attempts to politically sway the populous so they can gain power. Context is key.
    1
  20.  @kalrainey  Have thoroughly debunked TIKs video, I can confirm that his sources agree with me. Again, Marx was Jewish.
    1
  21.  @kalrainey  Sure, gimme a bit and I'll put it all together for you.
    1
  22. ​ @Milton_Friedmanite  Cool. Now do the part where any of that was through common ownership.
    1
  23.  @marcuslewitzki4610  He sold off government assets, banned political opposition and imprisoned socialists. So yeah, right-wing fascism.
    1
  24. TIK can't even define socialism. He constantly claims that government = socialism, ignoring that socialism requires common ownership.
    1
  25. You're confusing socialism with statism. Many socialists these days, this channel included, subscribe to a market socialist model, meaning companies are owned by the workers within that company, and the free market still functions the same.
    1
  26. Considering they didn't take power until 1933, it seems pretty early on actually.
    1
  27.  @Luggynug  Never said it was capitalism.
    1
  28.  @justamoogle5268  When TIK throws up the defintions of socialism from Marx and Wikipedia he highlights the ideas of government ownership, but ignores the concepts of "common control"/"social control", which are fundamental in socialism. Without those you just have a monarchy or fascism. Socialism is, and always had been, about giving control over to the people, not the state.
    1
  29. ​ @justamoogle5268  Common ownership between only people you agree with is not common ownership. When you exclude millions from having a say, you are not commonly owning anything. This is of course assuming that you even have some fragments of democracy. However, with the erosion of democracy and not having a real election since 1933, it seems ridiculous to say that Nazi Germany gave common ownership to anyone. Businesses were privately owned. Markets were government directed. The people of Germany had zero control.
    1
  30.  @justamoogle5268  But many countries have common ownership of everything from businesses to free money for the disabled. So we know it DOES work, because it's working right now.
    1
  31.  @justamoogle5268  "But without having a control on the hierarchy of power, Socialism will always regress the worst forms of political hierarchical structure which is Authoritarianism or Dictatorship." So lets do that.
    1
  32.  @justamoogle5268  I mean sure, either is fine, I got the jist. My point was, why not introduce layers of government to guarantee that no part can overcome the others, and all have their views represented? Maybe some sort of document that sets out the powers of government and needs an overwhelming majority of voters to overcome it, maybe one voted in through direct democracy for example?
    1
  33. Sounds like we should tax businesses more and charge them for stock buybacks.
    1
  34.  @sand8777  Totalitarianism is government control of the people. Democracy is people control of the government. They are diametrically opposed.
    1
  35. I mean, neither are really communism, the are Leninism, which promotes vanguardism and class separation and is completely counter to actual communism.
    1
  36. You can disagree all you like, nothing about Nazi Germany was socialist.
    1
  37. Social-democracy, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism and North Korea are indeed not socialist.
    1
  38.  @joedino5774  Yet he put companies in private ownership and removed worker democracy.
    1
  39.  @Milton_Friedmanite  Please do, but first, how were these centrally planned policies done through common ownership?
    1
  40.  @TrueREAL  While they abolished the right to private property, private property still very much existed.
    1
  41. This was of course AFTER they outlawed the communist party.
    1
  42. No.
    1
  43.  @512TexasRed  Still no. Or do you not actually know what socialism is.
    1
  44.  @szymonpinkowski256  Well they weren't communist, so there's that.
    1
  45.  @colebehnke7767  So not at all.
    1
  46.  @colebehnke7767  Who owned the means of production?
    1
  47.  @colebehnke7767  How is the definition of socialism relevant to a discussion on socialism? Again, who owned the means of production.
    1
  48. I also watched TIKs video. He is wrong.
    1
  49.  @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
  50.  @soulcapitalist6204  Not sure what's funnier, that your definition of capitalism fits Nazi Germany or that your definition of socialism fits welfare programs.
    1