Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.

  1. ​ @oscartang4587u3  They can't, since they never achieved social ownership of anything.
    2
  2. @ExPwner  Silly Ben. Deficit spending is poor government policy.
    2
  3.  @ExPwner  Nice no argument.
    2
  4.  @ExPwner  Was. Cry more.
    2
  5.  @oscartang4587u3  Um no. You went over Italian Fascism and how it grew originally from revolutionary syndicalism before being pushed towards a non-democratic right-wing nationalism. Italy was not the only country with a revolutionary syndicalism movement, even your own description fails to explain the full depths of the revolutionary syndicalist ideology. So do you want to try again?
    2
  6.  @houndoftindalos9580  Haven't you heard? Selling off government assets is socialism according to these clowns.
    2
  7. ​ @ExPwner  Step 1, get the definition of socialism wrong. Step 2, push everything into your wrong definition.
    2
  8. @ExPwner  Oh look, the libertarian supports the idea from the other libertarian that all forms of government are socialism. Shocking.
    2
  9. ​ @ExPwner  Good point, TIK is a total clown. All libertarians are.
    2
  10. ​​ @praxlandy  Actually I liked his comment. You are confusing private property rights with private property. Conflating the two is dishonest and you know it. Nazis expanded the total amount of private property by selling off government assets and even gave capitalists slave labour for their factories.
    2
  11. ​ @colebehnke7767  Since when did we take Nazis at their word?
    2
  12.  @colebehnke7767  Correction, people claiming to be socialist but not wanting any actual socialist policies and actively working against socialism. So not socialists at all.
    2
  13.  @night6724  Except if workers cannot vote then appealing to the government is just as useless as appealing to a business.
    2
  14. ​ @billmitchell2080  Damn, you actually destroyed him.
    2
  15.  @colebehnke7767  "Marx was not the founder of socialism, in fact Hitler states that Marxism is a Jewish prevention of “real socialism”" Good job you put "real socialism" in quotations so we know for a fact that is was not in fact socialism. In fact he tells us so. He described his version of socialism as a return to old Germanism, where all the members of society look towards a government to make descisions on their behalf, including the allocation of resources and who is in fact in charge. Of course, his version of what he considered socialism is entirely indistinguishable from feudalism, which definitely is not socialism, but don't let that obvious detail confuse you.
    2
  16. @colebehnke7767  Except what he actually produced looked nothing like an old germanic tribe. It was just feudalism with extra steps.
    2
  17.  @colebehnke7767  So people privately owning property is not private property?
    2
  18. @colebehnke7767  You get that people still owned things right?
    2
  19.  @oscartang4587u3  But workers having control of the means of production is the definition of Marxism, and is built on the socialist foundation of the means of production being owned in common. Your argument is basically "even though it doesn't meet the defintion of socialism, it's still socialism", which is nonsensical.
    2
  20. It would only be socialism if said government has to bow to the whims of the people. It did not. That's not socialism, that's just state capitalism.
    1
  21. China is right-wing because it lacks democracy. It's just monarchism like all anti-democracy totalitarian regimes.
    1
  22. ​ @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
  23.  @colebehnke7767  Yep.
    1
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26.  @oscartang4587u3  Cool, but he didn't destroy classes. More blank claims that never came to fruition just to garner support from actual socialists.
    1
  27.  @oscartang4587u3  Except they actively worked against socialism, meaning they were not socialists. If we use your logic North Korean leaders are democratic republicans.
    1
  28.  @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
  29.  @oscartang4587u3  All of them. They abandoned democracy, completely against the core idea of Marxism. They didn't follow the instructions.
    1
  30.  @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
  31.  @oscartang4587u3  Uh huh...and?
    1
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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
  51.  @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
  52.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Those are the same. 2. Just did that.
    1
  53.  @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
  54.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Because the more you convert to common ownership the more socialist it becomes. 2. No, that's how it works.
    1
  55.  @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
  56.  @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
  57.  @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
  58.  @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
  59.  @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
  60.  @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
  61.  @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
  62.  @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
  63.  @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
  64.  @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
  65.  @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
  66.  @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
  67.  @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
  68.  @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
  69.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Nothing is owned in common in either nation. 2. Right, worker exploitation, that's what I said.
    1
  70.  @oscartang4587u3  1. State ownership is not capitalism either, as explained. 2. That's what I said, ban worker exploitation. Are you deaf?
    1
  71.  @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
  72.  @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
  73.  @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
  74.  @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
  75.  @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
  76.  @oscartang4587u3  Having shares gives the CFO of Amazon both voting rights and profits. So no, you are wrong.
    1
  77.  @oscartang4587u3  You're sounding more socialist by the day. Thanks.
    1
  78.  @oscartang4587u3  Because it is. I just explained that.
    1
  79.  @oscartang4587u3  I already explained why it doesn't.
    1
  80.  @oscartang4587u3  Worker owned business are literally the opposite of undemocratic. Stop violating people's rights. Oh, and maybe try reading Marx.
    1
  81.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, market socialist, it's more complicated than that. You should look it up.
    1
  82.  @oscartang4587u3  No it doesn't. You can start businesses and employ people in market socialism, and without exploiting people.
    1
  83.  @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
  84.  @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
  85.  @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
  86.  @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
  87.  @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
  88.  @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
  89.  @oscartang4587u3  Google representative democracy.
    1
  90.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes it is. Stop making up stupid arguments just because you can't speak English.
    1
  91.  @oscartang4587u3  Because doctors aren't the common owners, the entire British public are.
    1
  92.  @oscartang4587u3  It is common ownership.
    1
  93.  @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
  94.  @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
  95. ​​ @KameradVonTurnip  You're confusing that state for the people. But thanks for showing that you don't know what socialism is.
    1
  96.  @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
  97.  @colebehnke7767  Ownership and rights over personal possessions and the fruits of your own labour are fundamental to socialism.
    1
  98.  @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
  99.  @colebehnke7767  I mean sure, if you want to own and copyright or something then by all means.
    1
  100.  @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
  101.  @colebehnke7767  I show my idea to someone trying to sell it to them. They turn me down and make it themselves.
    1
  102.  @colebehnke7767  Yeah, good luck with that.
    1
  103. ​ @mobiusone6994  You mean TIK right.
    1
  104. ​ @KameradVonTurnip  Copying the same nonsense doesn't make it true. By your argument monarchies are socialism, which makes absolutely no sense as much of socialism was written in response to monarchies controlling nations rather than people. To argue that all governments are representative of the people is sheer blindness.
    1
  105.  @KameradVonTurnip  Dude, you're so indoctrinated you think monarchies are socialism. Enjoy your brainwashed religious zealotry but you aren't really worth a conversation if you genuinely believe something so psychotic.
    1
  106.  @KameradVonTurnip  Here, let me break it down a little to help you: "Ever heard of Conservative Socialism or Bourgeois Socialism? The ORIGINAL Socialist." Neither of these are actually socialism, which is why these days we use the term paternalistic conservatism. They are conservative efforts to try to steal support away from socialist parties and policies. The idea was if conservatives gave people welfare, solving some of the immediate issues in society, then people would be grateful and forget about the wealth of issues that socialism is also trying to tackle. Otto von Bismarck's entire premise for creating welfare programs was to blunt the push of the socialist party at the time, which would have pushed him out of power. The idea that nonarchist, nobles and aristocrats didn't work in direct conflict of socialist parties is nonsense. "Where do you think Bourgeois comes from? It's French for Middle Class. The Original Socialist targeted the Middle Class because they were a threat to their "POWER"" At the time the middle class was a very small subset of business owners who spent most of their time dramatically underpaying workers and asking children to climb between large pieces of machinery. The idea that the Bourgeoisie were anything like the middle class of today is a joke. "Capitalist don't even disappear in Socialism, they just become Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini and all those who serve under them, becoming a new exploiting ruling class" So you admit that these systems were in fact state capitalism run by oligarchs and not in fact socialism at all. Thanks I guess. "Without some central power you can not twist people's arms to be good LOYAL socialist without Authority." Welcome to every nation and every economic system ever.
    1
  107. @KolyaUrtz  Oh look, a capitalist is upset that his fellow capitalist has dehumanised people, and has responded by dehumanising people. 🤣
    1
  108.  @oscartang4587u3  Acclaimed communist regimes and Nazi Germany were all state capitalists. Businesses were owned by a select few oligarchs and the state controlled the markets. The private owners enriched themselves using said businesses. You could argue that the state owned those businesses, but we can all see who took the profits.
    1
  109.  @oscartang4587u3  When did I say socialism means no private property.
    1
  110.  @oscartang4587u3  Not everything is a means of production. Want to try again?
    1
  111.  @oscartang4587u3  You can argue all day if yours is the correct definition, but you just admitted that the very ideology you are attempting to debunk does not use the terms private and personal property in the same way you do. Changing a term in an effort to warp a conversation has no real value. If you want to go ahead and talk specifically about private business ownership then we can do that, but we would also need to talk about how socialism and capitalism are sliding scales, how a nation can reduce capitalism and introduce socialism, and how many European countries have done just that to a very large extent even guaranteeing food, housing, medical care, social aid and more to all residents. Wonderful, so we agree that North Korea's name does not match their policies, so much so that them calling themselves a democracy does not make them one. Not sure what your last point was about though, makes no sense to everything else that was said.
    1
  112.  @oscartang4587u3  I didn't say any of that about private ownership. Try again.
    1
  113.  @oscartang4587u3  Yeah, not sure how that matches what you claimed I said. How does pointing out that socialism is about common ownership mean that I think private property cannot exist without democracy?
    1
  114.  @oscartang4587u3  And? Still looking to see how that validates your claim. What does any of that have to do with private ownership requiring democracy?
    1
  115.  @oscartang4587u3  I did but your comments are always a little hard to interpret. I'm assuming English is not your first language. Yes, socialism cannot exist without democracy. The democracy index is a measure of democracy, specifically in nations in respect to their governments. It does not account for democracy and common ownership in say a business or a community. It purely deals with nations. But sure, when talking about a nation's government there must be democracy to achieve the common ownership principles of socialism.
    1
  116.  @oscartang4587u3  Not at all. As I stated many EU states have large socialist aspects that were not present in Nazi Germany. I worry I have to repeat myself to you so much. Are you okay?
    1
  117.  @oscartang4587u3  Then why are you complaining?
    1
  118.  @oscartang4587u3  Sounds like complaining. Try harder oscar.
    1
  119.  @oscartang4587u3  I mean this went from you not understanding how private ownership works to you having a total meltdown. You're just complaining again.
    1
  120.  @oscartang4587u3  See, meltdown. Do you save my comments because I'm in your head?
    1
  121.  @oscartang4587u3  Google doesn't search YouTube comment. You saved my comments didn't you, on a document. That's just sad.
    1
  122.  @oscartang4587u3  Lol, okay dude. Enjoy your excuses. Are you done deflecting from your own ignorance.
    1
  123.  @oscartang4587u3  Glad we agree you are deflecting away from your ignorance. Did you want to address your issues or just do the same thing you already admitted is a blatant deflection?
    1
  124.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, you continue to deflect from your own ignorance. Is sticking to the point too hard for you? Does it hurt your head?
    1
  125.  @oscartang4587u3  You can just say you have no real response and don't want a real conversation. It would save us both a lot of time.
    1
  126.  @oscartang4587u3  Maybe you just don't understand what oligarchs are. Is that the issue?
    1
  127.  @oscartang4587u3  It is however relevant to Nazi Germany and the USSR, you know, the things you brought up.
    1
  128.  @oscartang4587u3  More deflection. Are you just incapable of supporting your own nonsense?
    1
  129.  @oscartang4587u3  I already explained that. It's just sad watching you run. I get it, your ideology is utterly incapable of distinguishing itself from the absolute horrors of history so you deflect. Makes sense really, if a little sad.
    1
  130.  @oscartang4587u3  So we're just ignoring your first comment then, making your entire argument moot. Cool.
    1
  131.  @oscartang4587u3  Okay, so you have nothing, are arguing nothing, and just want to be a child. As I explained before, the EU economy has elements of socialism in their food, housing, medical care, social aid and more programs that residents democratically voted for.
    1
  132.  @oscartang4587u3  Got it, so you have no argument, but want some evidence for an argument that doesn't exist. Makes perfect sense. I also just repeated my comment, as did you. Need me to do it again?
    1
  133.  @oscartang4587u3  Except I literally just restated it. With how much you love posting old comments you should have found it by now.
    1
  134.  @oscartang4587u3  Nah, already restated it. Try harder.
    1
  135.  @oscartang4587u3  Look manually then. I'll wait.
    1
  136.  @oscartang4587u3  Go look kid. It's in this thread.
    1
  137.  @oscartang4587u3  You spent almost 2 days being antagonistic rather than just looking for the comment yourself.
    1
  138.  @oscartang4587u3  Some researcher you are.
    1
  139.  @oscartang4587u3  ^ feel free to find your way
    1
  140.  @colebehnke7767  From you that's a compliment.
    1
  141.  @oscartang4587u3  I'm not the one who wants to see it. Find it yourself.
    1
  142.  @oscartang4587u3  Nah. Jog on mate.
    1
  143.  @oscartang4587u3  Clearly you don't get it. Try again.
    1
  144.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, you seem incapable of doing even the most basic research. Go find it yourself.
    1
  145.  @oscartang4587u3  Because I chose to. Now off you pop, find it like a good lad.
    1
  146.  @oscartang4587u3  Many European countries are members of the EU. This comment applies to them. Good job finding the comment though. I knew you could do it.
    1
  147.  @oscartang4587u3  You seriously spend this many comments just to be a pedantic baby when you found your own mistake? Also, I said many, not all, which makes it still relevant. Many European countries are EU members, and many European countries who are EU members have large socialist aspects to their economies. Maybe try some common sense.
    1
  148.  @oscartang4587u3  I don't equalise them. All EU countries are European. Many European countries have socialist programs, and many EU countries have socialist programs. You are a child. All these statements are true.
    1
  149.  @oscartang4587u3  It does when one is a subset of the other. Thanks for admitting that it's true though.
    1
  150.  @oscartang4587u3  Depends, are both statements true?
    1
  151.  @oscartang4587u3  Honestly, this many comments because you wanted to be pedantic is a waste of everyone's time. Let me know if you want to address the actual point.
    1
  152.  @oscartang4587u3  So no. Thanks Oscar for wasting everyone's time.
    1
  153.  @oscartang4587u3  Sure. As explained already, your first comment is nonsense and the Nazis were state capitalists. Your tangent was entirely irrelevant.
    1
  154.  @oscartang4587u3  Your response had absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi economy. You just flew into an irrelevant tirade about how you don't understand socialism. So again, care to actually respond to the point?
    1
  155.  @oscartang4587u3  So nothing to do with the point. Cool.
    1
  156.  @oscartang4587u3  It has to do with your comment, showing the blatant inaccuracies. If you really want to go in depth on the EU and socialism then we can do that, but your Nazi claims continue to need addressing, as per usual.
    1
  157.  @oscartang4587u3  EU nations have large elements of socialism that both Nazi Germany and the USSR did not. I already told you that.
    1
  158.  @oscartang4587u3  Bingo, because socialism is about common ownership. Except many EU nations have removed private ownership over various industries.
    1
  159.  @oscartang4587u3  "no EU state aims to eliminate private ownership of means of production" Hospitals are a means of production. Many hospitals in EU countries are owned by a democratically elected state. The same goes for a lot of basic infrastructure such as roads, telecoms, trains, ferries and more, as well as police, fire and other rescue services. These are all businesses that have been bought by the state. Those are examples of socialism. In fact during the financial crash in 2007-08 the British government bought massive amounts of stocks in several banks, which it eventually sold once the business had turned around. They created specific provisions for the banks to hold to in order to reamain in business. When the stocks were later sold the people got their money back with a bit on top, which the people in those banks maintained employment, keeping the economy afloat. These are all examples of ownership being moved into common control for the people under their democratically elected government. Maybe you should go back and try to actually understand what my defintion of socialism is, because as I said before, it's when the means of production are owned in common.
    1
  160.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes, everything would stop being commonly owned. That's how common ownership works. Again, you misunderstand a definition and insert your own bias. Again, socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. That's it.
    1
  161.  @oscartang4587u3  1. Yes, look at you learning. 2. When you completely misunderstand them. You really are a TIK fan.
    1
  162.  @oscartang4587u3  Got it, so you are actually a child. Come back when you have hair on your balls Oscar.
    1
  163.  @oscartang4587u3  Socialism is literally the common ownership of the means of production, so sure, if you want more socialism then you would move more businesses to common ownership. Not rocket science, and not hypocritical.
    1
  164.  @oscartang4587u3  Of course it is identical. Both are about socialism being common ownership.
    1
  165.  @oscartang4587u3  Exploitation also isn't a human right. Try again.
    1
  166.  @oscartang4587u3  Nope. It's all degrees of socialism, in the same way that you used the phrase "full capitalism" earlier.
    1
  167.  @oscartang4587u3  Disbanding trade unions is textbook capitalism.
    1
  168.  @oscartang4587u3  No, they were authoritarianism who used capitalism and market controls, state capitalism, to control the country, while denying the people the right to decide their leadership. Honestly, watching you fail to even understand my quote really shows why you keep posting Marxist quotes and claiming it says the opposite of what it means.
    1
  169.  @oscartang4587u3  The part where you have no idea what state ownership is. Honestly, watching you brain gonin circles all to avoid you failing to understand socialism is pretty sad.
    1
  170.  @oscartang4587u3  It depends on the specifics. If it is a state property as you say then no, but again, if decision making and profits are flooding to an individual and not the state is it really state property?
    1
  171.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes, in that specific circumstance. That is now however all instances.
    1
  172.  @oscartang4587u3  Glad we agree.
    1
  173.  @oscartang4587u3  What do you mean stop? Socialism isn't the transformation, socialism is common ownership of the means of production. The transition causes more or less socialism. Is that why you've been so confused? You think socialism is what the transition from private and state to common ownership is called and not just common ownership of businesses? No wonder you are so confused.
    1
  174.  @oscartang4587u3  I'm saying you are very clearly misunderstanding it. It's a scale, like all economic systems. You continue to show you don't understand...anything.
    1
  175.  @oscartang4587u3  Like what?
    1
  176.  @oscartang4587u3  Right. Now, "I think we should have more common ownership of the means of production", that is the ideology.
    1
  177.  @oscartang4587u3  Social ownership, I just said that. Honestly, having to repeat myself a hundred times over across various comment sections just so you can follow basic English is tedious. Tell you what, why don't you define socialism for me.
    1
  178.  @oscartang4587u3  So you agree that socialism is common ownership of the means of production. Good.
    1
  179.  @oscartang4587u3  So what do you think socialism is?
    1
  180.  @oscartang4587u3  Define social ownership.
    1
  181.  @oscartang4587u3  So how can an asset be in possession of society as a whole on an authoritarian state where the vast majority of society has absolutely no say over what happens to or who is in charge of said asset. In other words, what differentiates your definition from a monarchy or any other dictatorial system of government?
    1
  182.  @oscartang4587u3  But in Russia the proletariat already seized power, then they had an election, then Lenin lost to the SR socialists. Then he used the military to take control. So sure, Lenin believed that, but it happened and he them ignored it. Everything else you said is just proof that Lenin never had socialism in mind, and nothing you said does anything to refute the point that a dictatorial government cannot claim that government assets are owned in common.
    1
  183.  @oscartang4587u3  The comment you posted agrees with me. Lenin was full of it.
    1
  184.  @oscartang4587u3  So your definition of socialism uses common ownership, then you try to claim that common ownership has anything to do with authoritarian state control for absolutely zero reason, then when questioned on it you claim Lenin's justifications for subverting democracy and the will of the people show you are correct. You've actually lost the plot.
    1
  185.  @oscartang4587u3  Yee, but if you read your own source it does not encompass all instances of all of those forms of ownership.
    1
  186.  @oscartang4587u3  Not in the form of social ownership. Not all state ownership is social.
    1
  187.  @oscartang4587u3  No it isn't. You're just condoning fascism now.
    1
  188.  @colebehnke7767  Correction, through democracy, be it a company, city or state.
    1
  189.  @oscartang4587u3  Your definition is completely separate from socialist theory. 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
  190.  @oscartang4587u3  Common ownership can be done through a state, as your own source attested.
    1
  191.  @oscartang4587u3  Your other source sunshine, Wikipedia. But keep quoting communists, it's funny.
    1
  192.  @oscartang4587u3  So you are contradicting yourself. Great thanks for playing.
    1
  193.  @oscartang4587u3  So you didn't form your argument from Wikipedia and a quote from a communist?
    1
  194.  @oscartang4587u3  Not baseless at all. Your sources contradict.
    1
  195.  @oscartang4587u3  Your one source stated that ownership can be done through a state, while the other disagreed. But keep projecting and gaslighting, it is your main angle 90% of the time.
    1
  196.  @oscartang4587u3  Try reading your sources.
    1
  197.  @oscartang4587u3  Again. Read your own sources. You know, Wikipedia and the actual communist. Funny that those are your sources, but so be it.
    1
  198.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, these are your sources. If you wish to withdraw them along with your definition then by all means.
    1
  199.  @oscartang4587u3  Clearly. It's your sources dude, they contradict. Comprende?
    1
  200.  @oscartang4587u3  Literally your only 2 sources. They directly disagree on ownership. So again, you have no argument.
    1
  201.  @oscartang4587u3  We're talking about your definition, which was 2 sources. Now you see my issue. You have been unable to create a single salient point in days.
    1
  202.  @oscartang4587u3  Already told you which ones. You're so bad at this.
    1
  203.  @oscartang4587u3  Clearly you don't understand. Maybe if you spent those 8nhours acrually reading a single comment and reviewing your sources as I explained rather than jerking yourself off as usual you could save us both some time.
    1
  204.  @oscartang4587u3  Told you already. I'm not your maid mate. Go back and look.
    1
  205.  @oscartang4587u3  I did. So the one gaslighting is you. Stop it.
    1
  206.  @oscartang4587u3  Yeah I did. Try again.
    1
  207.  @oscartang4587u3  Clearly. Apparently you need people to repeat themselves just for you to have a conversation.
    1
  208.  @oscartang4587u3  Did that, you went circles not understanding my points. I can only spoon feed you so much.
    1
  209.  @oscartang4587u3  Did already. Proving my point. Thanks champ. Let me know next time you want to embarrass yourself.
    1
  210.  @oscartang4587u3  And round and round we go. It's all projection with you Oscar.
    1
  211.  @oscartang4587u3  Gaslighting and projecting. Typical Oscar.
    1
  212.  @oscartang4587u3  More projection from you. You literally just did exactly that.
    1
  213.  @oscartang4587u3  Anton Pannekoek literally advocates for market socialism. Lol.
    1
  214.  @oscartang4587u3  You should read it some more, as he outlines that state ownership can be common.
    1
  215.  @oscartang4587u3  And neither was the USSR, meaning they were not socialist.
    1
  216.  @oscartang4587u3  Or I just reject your definition of common ownership. Duh.
    1
  217.  @oscartang4587u3  Considering Anton Pannekoek doesn't even consider Russia during the Soviet Union to be socialism, I don't actually have to. Your argument has no grounds because your own source directly disagrees with your conclusions. But sure: Common ownership refers to holding the assets of an organization, enterprise or community indivisibly rather than in the names of the individual members or groups of members as common property.
    1
  218.  @oscartang4587u3  The relationship is your source. You are cherry picking definitions to fit a narrative, taking from some but ignoring others. You use Anton's definition for common ownership, but not socialism. So you just disregard your own source when it suits. By doing so you show that your own source can be wrong when considering definitions, meaning I have no reason to even consider it for any definitions.
    1
  219.  @oscartang4587u3  You should read the rest. "The institute of State and government cannot serve for this purpose because it is essentially an organ of domination, and concentrates the general affairs in the hands of a group of rulers. But under Socialism the general affairs consist in social production; so they are the concern of all, of each personnel, of every worker, to be discussed and decided at every moment by themselves. Their organs must consist of delegates sent out as the bearers of their opinion, and will be continually returning and reporting on the results arrived at in the assemblies of delegates. By means of such delegates that at any moment can be changed and called back the connection of the working masses into smaller and larger groups can be established and organization of production secured." To paraphrase, state ownership cannot be used for socialism. You must use worker representation. He also said this: "Lenin was a great politician, much greater than his socialist contemporaries, because he had greater tasks and objectives." Meaning Lenin was not a socialist in his eyes.
    1
  220.  @oscartang4587u3  "The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry: the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state." "Such a form of society cannot be stable, it is a form of retrogression, against which the working class will again rise. Under it a certain amount of order can be brought about but production remains restricted. Social development remains hindered. Russia was able, through this form of organization, to change from semi-barbarism to a developed capitalism, to surpass even the achievements of the Western countries' private capitalism. In this process figures the enthusiasm apparent among the “upstart” bourgeois classes, wherever capitalism begins its course. But such state capitalism cannot progress." "Dictatorships, as those in Italy and Germany, became necessary as means of coercion to force upon the unwilling mass of small capitalists the new order and the regulating limitations. For this reason such dictatorship is often looked upon as the future political form of society of a developed capitalism the world over." This one REALLY undercuts your Hitler and Mussolini claims. "The arguments for a new labor movement, which we designate with the name of Council-Communism, do not find their basis in state capitalism and fascist dictatorship. This movement represents a vital need of the working classes and is bound to develop everywhere. It becomes a necessity because of the colossal rise of the power of capital, because against a power of this magnitude the old forms of labor movement become powerless, therefore labor must find new means of combat. For this reason any program principles for the new labor movement can be based on neither state capitalism, fascism, nor dictatorship as their causes, but only the constantly growing power of capital and the impotence of the old labor movement to cope with this power. For the working classes in fascist countries both conditions prevail, for there the risen power of capital is the power holding the political as well as the economic dictatorship of the country. When there the propaganda for new forms of action connects with the existence of the dictatorship, it is as it should be. But it would be folly to base an international program on such principles forgetting that conditions in other countries differ widely from those in fascist countries."
    1
  221.  @oscartang4587u3  It doesn't say other socialists, of it did it would mean what you imply. Instead he drew a firm distinction between Lenin and socialists. It's very sad that you also have to ignore the points he made about state capitalism. Anton also describes state capitalism and state socialism as synonymous, but specifically named the articles and used the term state capitalism more, helping readers to understand the capitalist nature of state capitalism. "Second, we find that a condition is defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading, however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance system for the workers is accepted. It depends now on the degree of state interference in private enterprises. If the state passes certain laws affecting employment conditions, such as the hiring and firing of workers, if enterprises are being financed by a federal banking system, or subventions are being granted to support the export trade, or if by law the limit of dividends for the large corporations is fixed – then a condition will be reached under which state control will regulate the entire economic life. This will vary from the strict state capitalism in certain degrees. Considering the present economic situation in Germany we could consider a sort of state capitalism prevailing there. The rulers of big industry in Germany are not subordinated subjects of the state but are the ruling power in Germany thru the fascist officials in the governing offices." You get the point. It's all state capitalism all the way down.
    1
  222.  @oscartang4587u3  No it doesn't. It means they lived at the same time.
    1
  223.  @oscartang4587u3  Yes, socialists that lived at the same time as Lenin. I just said that.
    1
  224.  @oscartang4587u3  No, it says that he was a better politician than socialists in that era. It does not say other. In this context the socialists would also be a similar age to Lenin.
    1
  225.  @oscartang4587u3  Again, the word other is not used. It just means socialists alive at the same time as Lenin. I recommend reading Lenin as Philosopher, specially chapters 6 and 7, where he absolutely dismantles the idea that Lenin understood Marxism or ever introduced socialism. He ends chapter 7 with this: "We cannot speak of a victory of Marxism, when there is only question of a so-called refutation of middle-class idealism through the ideas of middle-class materialism. But doubtless Lenin’s book was an important feature in the history of the Party, determining in a high degree the further development of philosophic opinions in Russia. Hereafter the revolution, under the new system of state capitalism – a combination of middle class materialism and the marxian doctrine of social development, adorned with some dialectic terminology – was, under the name “Leninism,” proclaimed the official State-philosophy. It was the right doctrine for the Russian intellectuals who, now that natural science and technics formed the basis of a rapidly developing production system under their direction, saw the future open up before them as the ruling class of an immense empire."
    1
  226.  @oscartang4587u3  Let me make it easier for you. "Marxists have outdone their capitalist contemporaries in imaginative structural analysis." Is this writer calling Maxists capitalists?
    1
  227. Well that's just a lie. Hitler praised the US on many counts, including racial barring of citizenship, segregation and their overall legal system. In fact, just 8 days after the Reich Citizenship Law, the Law on the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, and the Reich Flag Law were formally proclaimed 45 Nazi lawyers travelled to the US to gain special insight into the US legal and economic systems. The Nazis literally copied Jim Crow laws. In fact a transcript of Nazi lawmakers in 1934 shows they opened their meeting with the Minister for Justice giving an overview of US race laws, and throughout the meeting the US was used as an example repeatedly. They straight up made the comparison between Jim Crow laws targeting non-whites and how their own laws would target the Jewish population. Even racial moving characterisations. And even worse, in 1925 Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the US was the one state that made progress towards a racist society. The idea that he hated the US is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
    1
  228.  @oscartang4587u3  So the fascists took advantage of the class struggles people were facing, and created propaganda that cooped their movements and shifted disgruntled people towards the right-wing. I mean, we all already knew that. Doesn't make fascism socialist.
    1
  229.  @oscartang4587u3  No, but Italian syndicalism went through several changes before becoming fascism, most notably the switch to national syndicalism. The movement turned against democracy and even doubted that the workers could achieve any real change, so they moved toward getting elected and removing democracy. This combined with their radial right-wing nationalism made them further and further away from any semblance of socialism. By the time they took power they had nothing in common with the left, and actively worked against them. They threatened and scabbed worker's strikers, and openly advocated for and supported corporate monopolies. So no, I don't need to define revolutionary syndicalism as right-wing.
    1
  230.  @oscartang4587u3  Maybe try researching it.
    1
  231.  @colebehnke7767  More centre, but yes. Nothing socialist about a bunch of unelected oligarchs hoarding wealth.
    1
  232.  @oscartang4587u3  You mean aside from their policies?
    1
  233.  @oscartang4587u3  So yes, their policies. The source is the Soviet Unions. You should try looking into it.
    1
  234.  @oscartang4587u3  Clearly. Try looking at actual primary source on what the Soviet Union did. It works better than letting others think for you.
    1
  235.  @oscartang4587u3  If you're this ignorant about what the Soviet government actually did I suggest going back and start again. I don't have the time or the patience to educate you on an entire country's history, especially when you have clearly shown you don't understand even the most basic concepts.
    1
  236.  @oscartang4587u3  You seem to have forgotten the entire point of this conversation. Try going back and reading again. Nobody was claiming the Soviets were syndicalists.
    1
  237.  @oscartang4587u3  You mean aside from the literal basis of syndicalism? Do you even know what syndicalism is?
    1
  238.  @oscartang4587u3  I'm not the one who even brought up the Soviets. Are you getting accounts confused?
    1
  239.  @oscartang4587u3  Cole brought them up. Try again.
    1
  240.  @oscartang4587u3  You mean you want me to point out that it didn't just exist in Italy and was built around the idea of workers getting their voices heard through democratic union representation, allowing them to gain better control over the fruits of their own labour? This is all really basic stuff Oscar. One would think you would know any of this.
    1
  241.  @oscartang4587u3  Wonderful, so care to define revolutionary syndicalism?
    1
  242.  @oscartang4587u3  So what's the problem? Is this what happens when you copy paste too much, you don't read what you write?
    1
  243.  @oscartang4587u3  Given your source agrees with me I'm good.
    1
  244.  @oscartang4587u3  Your source. The one you just told me to look at. Thanks for playing though.
    1
  245.  @oscartang4587u3  Your one Oscar. And it's not that I can't, you really just aren't worth it when you forget or don't read your own comments.
    1
  246.  @oscartang4587u3  I already told you which one. Go back and look.
    1
  247.  @oscartang4587u3  I already told you which one. Go back and look.
    1
  248.  @oscartang4587u3  I already told you which one. Go back and look.
    1
  249.  @oscartang4587u3  Nope. Voiding the stockholders ability to vote means the directors have more power, not the state. Profits were still private. Ownership was still private, and even remained private after the war.
    1
  250.  @oscartang4587u3  Private property rights are not the same as private property. Private property still existed. Those new owners were still the legal owners. Profits being shared also doesn't change ownership. These days we just call that taxes. The Nazi government controlling markets through heavy regulations is not the same as the government owning the businesses. The DAF is just the government. Trying to claim it is some mysterious separate entity is ridiculous. So you agree that the owners remained the same in many German companies. And no, they did not grant ownership, they guaranteed existing ownership. Again, property rights are not the same as ownership.
    1
  251. ​ @praxlandy Yes you can have private property without it being recognised as a right. Nazi Germany had private property. Your analogy also makes no sense. You juat agreed that of a slave owner freed some slaves but kept others then they would still be a slave owner. surely if a state took some property but left other property then private property still exists. You have defeated your own argument.
    1
  252.  @colebehnke7767  Policies that increase common ownership of the means of production.
    1
  253.  @colebehnke7767  Only in a democracy.
    1
  254.  @colebehnke7767  Because you can't own something in common if the common owners have no say or influence over its use. Even if that ownership is just 1 of millions of owners, deciding how that things is used is their right. Without that it isn't common ownership.
    1
  255.  @colebehnke7767  What goes on in that head of yours to thing democratic ownership and equal collective decision making are authoritarian. They are literally the opposite.
    1
  256. ​ @colebehnke7767  You're confusing rights with ownership. While people could have their property taken as they did not have a right to it, overall private property ownership increased.
    1
  257. ​​ @colebehnke7767  No. State capitalism is when the government controls markets but businesses are still owned privately. Hitler did not own those businesses.
    1
  258. @colebehnke7767  The label "state capitalism" is used by various authors in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state, i.e. a private economy that is subject to economic planning and interventionism.
    1
  259.  @colebehnke7767  There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which existed before the Russian October Revolution of 1917. The common themes among them identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that capitalist social relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism, fundamentally retaining the capitalist mode of production. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880), Friedrich Engels argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. He argued that the tools for ending capitalism are found in state capitalism. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Lenin claimed that World War I had transformed laissez-faire capitalism into monopolist state capitalism.
    1
  260.  @colebehnke7767  I pulled my info from Wiki. You just didn't read more than a single line to read the full scope of the definition.
    1