General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About
Hobbs
Second Thought
comments
Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Second Thought" channel.
Previous
5
Next
...
All
@soulcapitalist6204 "Capitalism is a private, market based allocation of the means of production in an economy." So when Germany sold off government assets to get the nation out of the Great Depression they were, according to you, being more capitalist.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Socialism is the collective (government)" Wrong. Collectivism and government are not interchangable. Collectivism does not need to be governmental, and governments do not need to be collectivist.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Socialism is the collective (government) allocation of the same means of production." So state welfare, according to you, is literally always socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "The definitions which can be found in dictionaries and text books are correct and we both know them." Dictionaries are a study of language. The definitions are based on how people use them, not what is academically correct.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Marx, Hitler and textbooks use the same definition of socialism." False.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "no later than July 15, 1933, the compulsory cartel acts." Which was fascism (or state capitalism) not socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Distribution from what? Taxation. Taxation which removes capital from the private sector and into the public one. It is literally financed by removing capital from private ownership and putting it into government. That, according to your own definition, is socialism. But keep contradicting yourself, this is fun.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 This is false. If the government owns a business then that business is a means of production controlled by the government. If they are removing capital from the private to finance something then they are actively removing a resource used to produce goods and services, which is the definition of the means of production.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Oh dear, more nonsense. Do me a favour and stop trying to define someone else's position that you clearly don't understand. You already can't tell the difference between collectivism and government, and now you want to tell me that government owned things aren't socialism, despite your exact definition contradicting that position.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Then why do you keep getting it wrong? Again, you can't tell the difference between a collective and a government. You claimed they were one in the same earlier. Yet Marx expressly stated that socialism relies on neither private nor state ownership, but common ownership. A third type of ownership that is by the community as a whole. So go back and read it because you clearly missed that part.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You are literally claiming that capitalism is a form of socialism. You contradict yourself.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 This is incorrect. Marx did not call for a non-democratic institutional design. In fact common ownership requires democracy to be common ownership. He openly stated that common ownership is NOT the same as state or private ownership, but is a short type of ownership.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Thanks for admitting that common ownership requires democracy, rendering your claim about a non-democratic form of common ownership moot. A worker cooperative is a form of common ownership of the means of production without a government.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, you are saying common ownership, but keep mentioning countries without common ownership. Learn the difference between common and state ownership. Or do you think monarchies are socialist too 🤣🤣🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I'm not moving anything. Neither the USSR nor the Third Reich achieved common ownership. It's that simple.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Authoritarian states taking over businesses is not common ownership, it's state ownership.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Imagine saying socialism and capitalism are dialectically opposite then claiming that state capitalism is a form of socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, socialism does not require state ownership.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Already did. Worker cooperatives give workers control of the means of production.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 A worker cooperative owns and controls a segment of the means of production. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Free markets do not change the fact that those trading in that free market can still be socialist. If the entire economy was made up of worker cooperatives it would be socialist. Government policy preventing slavery was not socialism, but it was certainly anti-capitalist. Worker cooperatives are by definition collective control. I never mentioned syndicalism. Syndicalism is about unions putting pressure on the economy to cause change in government policy. It is the exact opposite of fascism, even if fascists used it as a justification for fascism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Just because something CAN be done one way, does not mean it cannot be done another. The ability of the system to function with worker owned non-government worker cooperatives means that socialism does not require government ownership. Notice how I said ownership and not enforcement because you like to move the goal posts? Businesses own land and capital, and use labour. They do in fact own means of production. If this wasn't the case then capitalism would be impossible. Russia was never communist. Do you even know what communism is? It's a moneyless, stateless, classless society. Russia was none of these. Statism would only be socialist in a democracy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Yes, an economy of would be socialist, as the workers would own the means of production. No, there is no human rights violation when banning the exploitation of labour. You may as well be arguing for slavery.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, worker cooperatives would be market socialism. Socialism does not require centrality.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Wait, you think after writing an entire manifesto about communism Marx only mentions communism a single time? Are you serious right now? The government of Russia was called the communist party, however they never actually achieved communism, or even socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Wrong. Democracy MUST be in control of the state. Marx used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" long before the term dictatorship had the same modern connotations. Back then dictatorship meanly meant who held the power of the political control. Since the proletariat are literally all workers in the country, and socialist is about single class rule, a dictatorship of the proletariat can be literally translated to a full democracy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Worker cooperatives are not privately owned. You cannot buy and sell shares. Ownership is not individual or owned by some singular entity, but is instead common to all the workers of that business. Ownership is dependant on employment. How does a "market" own anything other than through a business? Even if your claim that "markets allocate the means of production" was correct, they would simply be allocating those resources TO BUSINESSES. The market itself, as you just admitted, does not own anything, because of course it doesn't it's just a market. Socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. Worker cooperatives are a form of common ownership of businesses, which own land, capital and use labour. Therefore worker cooperatives are socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Worker cooperatives are collectively owned by the workers of that cooperative.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production." Worker cooperatives are collective ownership over the means of production. The workers collectively own the land, labour and capital of the business. It is not privately owned. Not hard to figure out mate. As for the US, the worker cooperatives within the economy are socialism. Since the vast majority of the economy is not worker cooperatives, the vast majority of the country is not socialist. But socialism and capitalism are not some on/off switch. You can have degrees of socialism and capitalism. As for human rights, not sure how you can justify worker exploitation as a human right. Again, you just sound like you are advocating for slavery and calling it freedom. I agree socialism is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on authoritarianism, while socialism requires democracy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Nah, you're just wrong and not making any sense. Worker cooperatives are socialism because they fit the definition of socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Cooperatives are a type of socialism. Simply arguing that a naming convension means it can't possibly be socialism, despite perfectly fitting the definition, is laughable. Let me know when you figure out what the means of production are. You keep assuming that they can't possibly exist at a microeconomic level, which is idiotic.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Maybe this will help you out. What percentage of the US economy is capitalist?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, it's not an on/off switch. But let's play your game to see if we can educate you. What laws does the US have that outlaw socialism?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So we're just straight up lying now. Cool. I had hoped this was just your ignorance and a bit of education would go a long way, but you are being clearly disingenuous. Shame really, I had hopes, but I suppose most capitalists just love lying and supporting authoritarianism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Unfortunately no amount of education will overcome your sheer willful ignorance, but if you feel like getting a real education this channel has more videos that will help you understand where you went wrong.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Projection of your own inferiority is just sad. Earlier you claimed that Marx only mentions communism a single time. Seriously, you claimed the writer of the communist manifesto only mentions communism once. How can I take anything you say about education and supporting your ideas with written theory if you clearly haven't read anything you're attempting to explain? Earlier you called this topic complex, and I think that's a sad reflection of your own inadequacy. How you even tie your own shoes is a mystery to me.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, parts of an economy can be socialist. Look up "mixed economy" so we can all get a break from your mindless chatter.
1
@colebehnke7767 You have it backwards. Businesses were privately owned.
1
@colebehnke7767 Never said that. I said businesses were privately owned. Private ownership and market controls are two separate things.
1
@colebehnke7767 "but one is dependent on the other, you can’t control the market without controlling business as well." Yes you can. In fact the government does this all the time with laws restricting certain practices or activities. The government isn't taking control of a business when it tells them it can't put lead in its paint, but they are pressuring a market. What the Nazis did is just a more extreme version of that. Businesses were still owned by private individuals.
1
Except they didn't have the actual thing necessary to be socialist, common ownership of the means of production.
1
@rafalpalma Wrong one 2 fronts. 1. Socialism is not when the means of production are owned by the state, it is when the means of peoduction are owned in common. While this can be done through a state, the people would have to have some element of control over the state to therefore have control over the means of production. This is usually done via democracy. 2. The Nazis did not place the ownership of all businesses under the state. They placed it in the hands of members of the political party. Members of political parties number in the millions, and are almost entirely not part of the state aparatus. So in reality they removed businesses from Jews and those sympathetic to the Jewish plight, and instead moved those businesses into the ownership of people who voted for the Nazis, NOT the state itself.
1
Under your definition of socialism there is no market socialism. I strongly suggest you look it up.
1
Socialism is when capitalism 🤣
1
The opposite of socialism is not free markets.
1
Previous
5
Next
...
All