Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @oscartang4587u3  You are literally trying to argue something that exists in nations right now. Black market trade and under the table work has always been a thing.
    1
  2.  @oscartang4587u3  Who said anything about owning too much? You keep inventing scenarios to be annoyed at.
    1
  3.  @oscartang4587u3  Right, which is different to "owning too much". The issue is illegal trade. What's funny is the whole point of communism is that everyone's needs are met. So why pay someone to fix something when it can be done for free. There is also the idea that in a full communist society everyone act altruistically so why not just help your fellow man? Why charge them at all?
    1
  4. ​ @Periodedetelevision-jo6oz  Socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. It requires a democratic collective ownership over things like land, tools and resources. Fascism does not have collective ownership, it has non-democratic state ownership.
    1
  5.  @colebehnke7767  You're confusing private property with personal property. No private property would be no private ownership of businesses. Personal ownership of anything that isn't a business is different. Under the Nazis private ownership increased.
    1
  6.  @colebehnke7767  No, it isn't.
    1
  7.  @colebehnke7767  Businesses have different tax codes. Even right now in the US you earned too much from private business like actions you would be taxed like a business. It's the exact same principal.
    1
  8. China is right-wing because it lacks democracy. It's just monarchism like all anti-democracy totalitarian regimes.
    1
  9. ​ @ExPwner  They were abolished. Worker unions are created by workers and controlled by workers. The government creating a list of workers and giving said workers absolutely no say in anything is not a union.
    1
  10.  @colebehnke7767  Yep.
    1
  11.  @colebehnke7767  Now that we've established that neither were socialist, why are you convinced that the Nazis, a group that was the pinnacle of right-wing politics, practically dripping with totalitarian monarchiatic ideas, is anything but the right-wing party they in fact were?
    1
  12.  @oscartang4587u3  Nazis used racist rhetoric for years and were elected on a platform of hate. People might not have known the full extent of it, but what happened was an inevitability. The Communist Manifesto however says pretty much the opposite of what claimed communist states ended up doing. Marx and Engels wrote extensively about equality, egalitarianism, human rights and the necessity of democracy. It would be impossible to create a real Communist state that matches anything close to the USSR. Yes, left wing people can be racist, but communism is not.
    1
  13.  @oscartang4587u3  Cool, but he didn't destroy classes. More blank claims that never came to fruition just to garner support from actual socialists.
    1
  14.  @oscartang4587u3  Except they actively worked against socialism, meaning they were not socialists. If we use your logic North Korean leaders are democratic republicans.
    1
  15.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, they didn't just fail, they actively worked against it. By your logic the Nazis were egalitarians despite the holocaust. The only one denying the holocaust here is you.
    1
  16.  @oscartang4587u3  All of them. They abandoned democracy, completely against the core idea of Marxism. They didn't follow the instructions.
    1
  17.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes it is. Engels said it was the very first thing needed to be implemented. That quote doesn't say what you are claiming it says. In fact it agrees with me.
    1
  18.  @oscartang4587u3  Uh huh...and?
    1
  19.  @oscartang4587u3  You literally posted a statement about democracy being important that was in the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in The Communist Manifesto and later works that "the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy" and universal suffrage, being "one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat".
    1
  20.  @oscartang4587u3  Have you read it? You seem confused. Let me break it down for you: 1. A dictatorship of the proletariat is actually described as a democratic system of government, one where the proletariat vote in leaders. And since Marxism is the belief that everyone should be one class, the proletariat, they are advocating for universal suffrage. 2. Yes, in countries where democracy is restricted or outright banned a revolution may be necessary to stop authoritarianism. Just look at France as they threw off the chains of their authoritarian royal oppressors. Or did you think the French revolution was a bit too violent and they should have just let the monarchy there continue to rule over the people without any democracy at all? This is also in reference to the pre-socialist state. Once socialism has been given the opportunity to be considered for election there is no need for a revolution.
    1
  21.  @oscartang4587u3  1. You are confusing a pre-socialist state for a post-socialist state. In a socialist state the bourgeoisie have become part of the proletariat. 2. Again, you confuse a pre-socialist state with a socialist one. Revolution is to overthrow authoritarianism and allow for democratic processes. And no, North Korea is not democratic. Stop using your failed excuse for a definition to try to argue. Your quote AGAIN agrees with me. Thank you. And yes, Leninism directly contradicts Marxism as it removes universal suffrage, which Engels expressly stated is necessary.
    1
  22.  @oscartang4587u3  1. The elimination of the private ownership of businesses would remove all but 1 class. The quote you pulled is referring to there not even being a proletariat. That's not the same as having a single class, it's not have any classes at all. 2. Except they can't actually vote because their votes are meaningless. If the election is rigged then when you cast a vote it doesn't actually have any chance to change anything. That is not democracy. That is not universal suffrage. Your failed definition of democracy does not stand up to reality. Democracy requires the government to be decided by the people of the state. If your vote is meaningless then that is not the case.
    1
  23.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Again, they would remove the private ownership of businesses. That is how Marxists define private property. 2. Democratic elections cannot be rigged by definition. You don't have to point out something that is inherently true because that's what the word means.
    1
  24.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Because they ban the private ownership of businesses. 2. Ah, the classic deflection. Here is a simple litmus test to get you started. Is the government subject to the voters?
    1
  25.  @oscartang4587u3  1. As much as I enjoy you continuing to misrepresent everything too read, it does get a bit tiring listening to more ignorance. As has been explained, any socialist state would move businesses away from private ownership. 2. Yet again, a deflection. Is this what you do when backed into a corner, ask endless irrelevant questions and post definitions that directly disagree with you over and over?
    1
  26.  @oscartang4587u3  1. What you just made up contradicts literally the entire goal of Marxism. 2. If you continue to be facetious then I'm not even sure why you are here other than to be an annoyance.
    1
  27.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Building doesn't mean built. Want to try again? Maybe with a source that agrees with you? 2. So we're just going in circles again where you are too much of a child to understand something as simple as democracy, and instead whine about needing a definition, which you then ignore and make up some nonsense for. Again, continuing your cycle of ignorance.
    1
  28.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Again, that quote is Marx talking about an end to the state, all classes of people and the bringing about of a universal communist state that gives all people access to whatever they need, and workers the ability to work towards society as a whole. No need for governments, national borders or anything else. Communism's end goal is basically a giant commune. That's not the same as socialism and their movement of business ownership over to common ownership. If businesses were owned privately it wouldn't be socialism, it would be capitalism. So you see literally arguing that socialism is really just capitalism, which is idiotic. 2. You have yet to show me North Koreas government IS subject to their voters, yet you claim it just the same. Meanwhile their ballots literally only have one option. So obviously it fails the litmus test I presented earlier.
    1
  29.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Yeah, we've been over this, that's just not the case. Again, if a bourgeoisie still existed they would be capitalists, therefore not socialism. 2. You can't be this stupid, it's actually criminal. How do you tie your shoes?
    1
  30.  @oscartang4587u3  1. I mean, they weren't practicing socialism for entirely different reasons. But again, the mere existence of private business ownership is, by definition, a move away from socialism. 2. Then the government lies about the results and uses their military to murder a few hundred thousand people calling them all lying treasonous traitors. Nothing changes because democracy does not exist in North Korea. Again, democracy is more than just voting, it's when the people have the power. When living in an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship with a monarchy it really isn't shocking that people don't even try voting how they actually feel. Especially when those votes can only be cast by taking your ballot to a special area where election officials can watch you cross out the dear leader from your vote. The idea that any of that is even close to the people of a nation having the power to decode who is in charge is utterly stupid. What's worse, by your definition of democracy literally every nation on the planet in all of human history qualifies. After all, can't the people just hold their own election and overthrow whatever dictator they want? They have the power right? They can just decide to do that.
    1
  31.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Again, socialism is a scale. Private ownership of businesses push the nation towards capitalism. Any non-common ownership is by definition not socialist. Those specific elements of the nation would therefore not be socialist. 2. Not only is this point irrelevant as it does not account for how a nation can change over the decades, and how having a democratically elected leader who turns dictatorial does not continue to give them a legitimate democratic mandate. But there is also the issue of the origins of North Korea's government. Arguing they were democratically elected when they were originally installed by the USSR, a nation known for their shady elections, is certainly a stretch.
    1
  32.  @oscartang4587u3  1. That quote is consistent with what I've been saying. 2. Try again, your opinion is invalid. You've already posted quotes explaining the importance of democracy, but sure, here is another: "The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the winning of universal suffrage, of democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat" And not your imaginary democracy, but actual rule of the people.
    1
  33.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Nope, that's still consistent. Do you not know what common ownership is? 2. Again, that quote agrees with me. You are literally posting a quote where Marx is telling people how to use their democratic votes once democracy is established to achieve socialism. That statement would only make sense if Marx was advocating for democracy. He isn't telling people to ignore democracy, he is specifically telling them that once democracy is established we must come together and vote for socialism, else we would just be back where we started with workers being exploited. Honestly, watching you continually post comments agreeing with me is pretty satisfying.
    1
  34.  @oscartang4587u3  1. No it doesn't. 2. It's the only interpretation. Marx and Engels made that very clear, even if you failed to understand it, and Lenin actively propagandised it.
    1
  35.  @oscartang4587u3  1. English is definitely not your first language. Go back and try again. 2. Already did. Your failure to understand English is failing you yet again.
    1
  36.  @oscartang4587u3  1. You mean you want me to explain how more or less things can be owned in common? It's not that hard Oscar. 2. Because Democratic Centralism isn't actually democratic. People are appointed without election, then people can decide if they want to get rid of those people (under threat of punishment) and if they did vote them out then the central government can just send another person who could be exactly the same as the old one. It's about as democratic as any other authoritarian dictatorship, which is to say not at all.
    1
  37.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Because the more that is in common ownership the more socialism you have. 2. Except both Marx and Engels advocated for democracy, rule by the people, and democratic centralism is not rule by the people. You seem upset that Marx and Engels didn't speak out directly against something that was only invented after they died. Go back and learn what democracy is so you can stop embarrassing yourself.
    1
  38.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Because the parts that are not commonly owned are not socialism. Socialism is common ownership of the means of production. Most nations will have socialist elements and non-socialist elements. There is no socialism in capitalist owned businesses, but there is in worker cooperatives and government businesses in democratic nations. 2. It has always been understood as people-power. The only people making democracy out to be anything else are you and right-wing libertarians who think democracy is the same as voting, and not actual power to the people. In other words, the issue is that you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding of democracy....as per usual.
    1
  39.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Those are the same. 2. Just did that.
    1
  40.  @oscartang4587u3  1. That's not what it says at all. It's saying in both definitions that socialism is common ownership of the means of production. The forst defintion just explains that anything that is not common ownership is not socialism. 2. It works by giving people collective power. Duh.
    1
  41.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Because the more you convert to common ownership the more socialist it becomes. 2. No, that's how it works.
    1
  42.  @oscartang4587u3  1. "All" is not used to describe the amount of common ownership, it is used to explain that all forms of socialism are common ownership. And yes, these two definitions match, as I have explained. 2. Well, YOU might be able to, but you never were one for understanding plain English.
    1
  43.  @oscartang4587u3  1. The quote you posted only has one "all". Are we just making up quotes now? 2. No it hasn't. But keep swallowing propaganda, you've gotten very good at it.
    1
  44.  @oscartang4587u3  1. So it's not from my quote. So what is your point? Use my words, not your own. 2. Nope. They can claim that was the case, but they actively worked against democracy, and never even won an election. They lost to socialists in a democratic election, then ignored the results.
    1
  45.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Because you are analysing what I said. You can't just inject your own words in and claim I said it. 2. No. The English issue is your own. The politics is not that hard to explain to people who understand basic English. I can, and have explained it, but someone who thinks authoritarian totalitarian dictatorahips are democratic will never understand. For YOU it can literally never be understood because you are incapable of understanding it. It's like explaining colours to a blind man or common sense to an ancap. Just not possible.
    1
  46.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Yes it's the same. By definition more common ownership is less private and state ownership. They mean the same thing. You are grasping at straws here. 2. Except the democracy index defintion of private property is not the same as the Marxian definition. One is referring to personal property, the other to the private ownership of businesses. This has been explained. It's a you problem.
    1
  47.  @oscartang4587u3  1. "yet this statement is not equals to your previous two definitions of Socialism" - Yes it is. "which the first one is about the elimination of private and state ownership, where the second one is just about common ownership of means of production" Those are the same thing. If you have less private and state ownership, then by default you have more common ownership, which is exactly what I just said in my other comment. You really need a brain when reading comments. 2. Depends on the type of socialism really, but again this is irrelevant as personal property is entirely uneffected and people will still have the right to own property. The examples they use in reference to this specific provision are about racial discrimination more than anything, not a common ownership situation. And since everything is commonly owned technically any business started would be common, meaning they can start busiensses and would have ownership of them. But even then, all of this is just you ignoring the core concept of democracy, which is that people have the power. Your own definition is far further from reality than anything I have proposed.
    1
  48.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Yes it is. 2. Unless it's a single-owner business in a market socialist system. Then they are the same. A single owner operated business would be both private and commonly owned. I'm not the idiot that thinks North Korea is a democracy, that's you.
    1
  49.  @oscartang4587u3  1. In the context they are used they have the same meaning. 2. So businesses not being able to have slaves is undemocratic as it interferes with how people operate their business? Sounds pretty stupid. Also, even if you were right, which you aren't, that's just one of many criteria, and can still put a nation firmly in full democracy territory.
    1
  50.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Nope. Eliminating is an active process, in eliminating private and state ownership you progressively make things more socialist. Eliminating is not the same as elimination. 2. Irrelevant to the point. Slaves are not considered persons in their own right, so we aren't taking about employment, but what a business can and cannot legally do. Restrictions on unreasonable activities is not a threat to democracy, as I just pointed out. Both are however forms of labour exploitation.
    1