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

  1.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Your weird fixation on your own ignorance is pretty sad. If you are in the process of eliminating something then it still isn't gone, it's in the process of being removed. That's the scale. 2. That has nothing to do with the point being made. Again, we're talking about businesses being restricted. If you want we can also talk about minimum wages, environmental protections and even restrictions on theft, like wage exploitation. Take your pick.
    1
  2.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Sure, in the same way that the end goal of capitalism is everything is owned privately, even things guaranteed by human rights. 2. Worker exploitation is a human rights issue, so now you're just agreeing with me. Paying people less than the value of their labour is absolutely a violation of people's rights. It's just a step between slavery and actual equality. What's sad is your current line of argument is just to make a long list of exceptions. The No True Scotsman of capitalist industry.
    1
  3.  @oscartang4587u3  "No that is not your definition of Capitalism, under your definition State ownership is still count as Capitalistic." State ownership in an authoritarian regime is neither socialism nor capitalism. It's state ownership. "Otherwise you will make Nazi Getmany and the USSR socialists instead of state capitalists." Except it wouldn't, partially because socialism and capitalism are not the only 2 economic systems, and partially becuase both of those regimes used a system of handing over the means of production to some separate select class absent any democratic authority. In the case of Nazi Germany those people were selected business owners. In the USSR it was state officials. In both cases the government then heavily influenced the markets to steer the market forces a specific direction. Both the Nazi voters and the USSR government officials became oligarchs, enriching themselves on the war machine. "Employment is not equal to worker exploitation." Yes it is. "private businesses and employment is what socialism going to abolish directly which is undemocratic according to the democracy index" Abolishing theft is perfectly acceptable. You even agree as it is a protected human right.
    1
  4.  @oscartang4587u3  1. State capitalism is indeed capitalism, but as explained both the Nazi and Soviet regimes used a system of oligarchs to enrich themselves through the war machine. Both used a form of state control of the market while allowing individuals the freedom to remove profits. Actual state ownership does not have profits, just a surplus that is rolled back into the businesses. So the issue is not that state capitalism is capitalism, it's that your idea of the Nazi government owning everything is false. 2. No, I'm pointing out that your argument is hypocritical because you keep have no real criteria for what is and is not an exception. I believe that worker exploitation is wrong, you seem to disagree. Never said banning all businesses. Now you're just making things up. Nope. As the specific criteria of the democracy index stated, undue government interference. Stopping worker exploitation is not undue. Also weird you copied your point from the wrong index, but c'est la vie.
    1
  5.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Also not true. Everything is owned in common, by the state or privately. Both the soviets and the Nazis had a mixture of state and private ownership, and while the soviets had more state ownership, they also has oligarchs shaving huge sums off the top, profits if you will. Neither had any sort of socialist common ownership however. 2. Yes, worker exploitation, that's what I said. "Banning private employment will still make your definition of socialism inherently violating human rights" Actually, no. As was pointed out, by you, undue government interference. Stopping worker exploitation is not undue.
    1
  6.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Nothing is owned in common in either nation. 2. Right, worker exploitation, that's what I said.
    1
  7.  @oscartang4587u3  1. State ownership is not capitalism either, as explained. 2. That's what I said, ban worker exploitation. Are you deaf?
    1
  8.  @oscartang4587u3  1. You can't call a nation with a government military "full capitalist". There are degrees of capitalism and state ownership. 2. Of course. Without giving workers ownership over the fruits of their own labour they are being exploited.
    1
  9.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Actually I specifically said that state ownership is not state capitalism. State capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned, but markets are heavily state directed. 2. I don't need to explain it, it is worker exploitation. And no, those exceptions were yours. Stop violating people's rights by exploiting their labour.
    1
  10.  @oscartang4587u3  Oligarchy is where a small group of people control the country. State capitalism is where the government heavily controls the economy. Both are possible at the same time. Oligarchs are private owners. They also took the profits. But again, none of this is the military, which is why I never used an absolute like "full capitalism. 2. The CFO of Amazon has tens of thousands of Amazon shares as a part of his employment. He literally exploits those below him to justify this. Oh, and you literally advocate for stripping rights.
    1
  11.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Okay, now you are very clearly confused. They were state controlled, you just said that. How does state ownership equal private to you? 2. Again, the CFO is an owner who shares in the profits of Amazon. They see the fruits of not just their own labour, but also the labour of others.
    1
  12.  @oscartang4587u3  Not if you have ownership. Employee owners can vote to decide what happens with their labour and can share in the profits of their labour. Workplace democracy 😉
    1
  13.  @oscartang4587u3  Having shares gives the CFO of Amazon both voting rights and profits. So no, you are wrong.
    1
  14.  @oscartang4587u3  You're sounding more socialist by the day. Thanks.
    1
  15.  @oscartang4587u3  Because it is. I just explained that.
    1
  16.  @oscartang4587u3  I already explained why it doesn't.
    1
  17.  @oscartang4587u3  Worker owned business are literally the opposite of undemocratic. Stop violating people's rights. Oh, and maybe try reading Marx.
    1
  18.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, market socialist, it's more complicated than that. You should look it up.
    1
  19.  @oscartang4587u3  No it doesn't. You can start businesses and employ people in market socialism, and without exploiting people.
    1
  20.  @oscartang4587u3  No it isn't. It just means you can't exploit other people. This is the slavery argument all over again. Capitalists loved owning literal generations of slaves, but then the evil government banned the exploitation of their labour. This is just a furtherance of that.
    1
  21.  @oscartang4587u3  Employment is inherently exploitative. It's not a choice if you need employment to not starve to death. Repeating your same failed talking point won't make you suddenly correct. As your own quote from the democracy index says, the government interference must be undue. Ending worker exploitation seems perfectly reasonable to any human rights advocate.
    1
  22.  @oscartang4587u3  Nope, it's employment. If you grow your own food or start your own business then you get to keep the fruits of your own labour. If you work for someone then you do not, by definition.
    1
  23.  @oscartang4587u3  Except all of those have inherent risk. What happens when your crops die, when you can't grow enough food for the land you own, when you own no land at all, when the business you start fails? It seems your best plan for how to make this work is to employ other people so you can exploit their labour for your own gain. The fact you don't see the obvious irony of this statement is just sad.
    1
  24.  @oscartang4587u3  Welfare systems in a democracy are socialism. Socialism doesn't need to eliminate risk, but human rights should be guaranteed regardless of employment status.
    1
  25.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes it is. Complaints are just the reality of the situation. I believe the NHS should be funded more, other people disagree. It ends up somewhere in the middle. That's democracy. Not being exploited and owning the products of your labour IS human rights.
    1
  26.  @oscartang4587u3  Google representative democracy.
    1
  27.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes it is. Stop making up stupid arguments just because you can't speak English.
    1
  28.  @oscartang4587u3  Because doctors aren't the common owners, the entire British public are.
    1
  29.  @oscartang4587u3  It is common ownership.
    1
  30.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes it is. Representative democracy allows democratic oversight of the NHS. All those bureaucratic systems are subject to politicians, who are subject to voters. That's how that works.
    1
  31.  @oscartang4587u3  You are just being dishonest, such as your definition of common ownership. You're quoting a communist. Communists believe in a moneyless stateless society where all assets are shared. This is not market socialism. This is why you check your sources. Common ownership is indivisible, and members of the organisation get voting power to decide how that thing is used. But please, quote another communist to prove your point.
    1
  32. While Stalin was personally a socialist, he failed to enact said socialism in the USSR.
    1
  33. ​​ @KameradVonTurnip  You're confusing that state for the people. But thanks for showing that you don't know what socialism is.
    1
  34.  @KameradVonTurnip  "Because the State is the very core of Socialism as without it, you have anarchism and with anarchism Socislism is impossible" Wrong. Not only is market socialism a form of anarchistic socialism, but at its core communism is an anarchistic ideology. TIK even accepts this in this very video. "As individuals will have more rights than the community as a whole." Socialism has always been about individual rights. "It's why Anarcho Syndicalist are oxymoronic and Libertarian Socialist are a joke." So you admit that these ideologies exist, but you reject them on the basis that you don't understand them. "They claim to be anti state but at the same time place the group above individuals which means you HAVE TO GIVE POWER to a higher body in society to enforce." Right, but not the state. A workers union is not a state.
    1
  35.  @colebehnke7767  Ownership and rights over personal possessions and the fruits of your own labour are fundamental to socialism.
    1
  36.  @KameradVonTurnip  As I have already explained to you, China is not market socialism, market socialism is where the free market economy is entirely made up of worker owned cooperatives. Nope, socialism just has more rights. Capitalists will always deny people the right to the fruits of their own labour. You have it so blatantly backwards it's just sad. The only one spreading propaganda here is you. The fact that you think socialism removes rights is proof of that. Except syndicalism doesn't work by putting a union in power. It works by allowing unions to create economic pressure, thereby influencing government decisions. It is not itself the government. They are not the state. Even the examples you gave do not have statehood. Anarcho-syndicalism is the idea that there would be a federated decentralised system in place acting with delegates from all unions. You can call it a state if you want, but the decentralised nature of the whole arrangement would be outside of any state. By your logic anarchy doesn't exist.
    1
  37.  @colebehnke7767  I mean sure, if you want to own and copyright or something then by all means.
    1
  38.  @colebehnke7767  I think there is something to be said for copyright improving innovation as it encourages people to invent without fear of their had work being for nought. There is also grounds for reasonable limits on copyright, short terms and such. The current 95 year limit designed to extent Disney's monopoly over and over is a mess. But sure, I don't think anyone is against removing personal property. Even Marx and Engels wrote about the importance of personal property.
    1
  39.  @colebehnke7767  I show my idea to someone trying to sell it to them. They turn me down and make it themselves.
    1
  40.  @colebehnke7767  Yeah, good luck with that.
    1
  41. Nah, it's just the right. Socialism is built on the idea of democracy. Removing that will always push you to the right.
    1
  42.  @colebehnke7767  Couse it can, you know that.
    1
  43. @colebehnke7767  Businesses can be democratic.
    1
  44.  @ExPwner  Tis
    1
  45.  @oscartang4587u3  Or you could just point out that the historians TIK uses actively disagree with his conclusions.
    1
  46.  @oscartang4587u3  Their conclusions vastly differ to TIKs. Historians explained the selling off of government assets to private individuals. TIK called that nationalisation. Historians explained thay unions were crushed and had all their powers removed. members had no say in how the unions were run. TIK called that union nationalisation and said it made them stronger. TIK is living in a fantasy land.
    1
  47.  @oscartang4587u3  Quoting TIK doesn't make it true, you get that right? You are talking about his interpretation, not the historical account. Name a historian that said that said that the USSR put the hands in the power of the people, the literal guiding philosophy of socialism.
    1
  48. ​ @oscartang4587u3  I don't need to, because right or wrong it's still not socialism. But sure, let's talk about the personal profits made off these businesses, and the freedoms they had to meet set quotas. Requiring companies to hit targets is nothing new in times of war. They were however allowed to reach that goal how they saw fit. Social ownership of the means of production is my defintion too. The problem is that you don't understand what social ownership is.
    1
  49.  @oscartang4587u3  It's not western democracy, it's just democracy, and social ownership literally always requires democracy. Again, you don't know what social ownership is.
    1
  50. ​ @oscartang4587u3  But you are the one doing it here. And again, it's just democracy.
    1