Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "“Hitler privatized the industries” is ridiculously misleading" video.

  1. How did you arrive at these definitions?
    5
  2. I don't think "robbing people then selling the stolen goods to my friends" is privatisation, but sure.
    5
  3.  @guerillagardener2237  Let's take the privatisation of BT: who was that stealing from?
    5
  4.  @guerillagardener2237  Well, I have always understood capitalism as private direction of capital goods and socialism as collective direction of capital goods, but point me to the true source which contradicts all the mainstream sources.
    4
  5.  @guerillagardener2237  Interesting I wonder what one of these websites have to say about socialism: "Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on collective, common, or public ownership of the means of production." Ah.
    4
  6.  @guerillagardener2237  Last time I checked a British chap was in charge of BT
    4
  7.  @guerillagardener2237  Well the a member of the British public directs it, so what is your problem?
    4
  8.  @guerillagardener2237  You didn't really answer it, you just said "It's ours because it's ours" okay, what is stopping the current director of BT from just saying "It's mine because it is mine"?
    4
  9.  @guerillagardener2237  How does "the British people" get the right to the property of BT?
    3
  10. Lenin killed socialists too, so I guess he isn't a socialist
    3
  11.  @guerillagardener2237  Well, good thing members of the British public still direct it then.
    2
  12. TIK is a general history (and occassionally economic and philosophy) YouTuber. He can't speak about military history without speaking about the beliefs which caused the wars, regardless of how many toes he may tread on.
    2
  13.  @guerillagardener2237  Why do we have the right to the property of BT?
    2
  14.  @guerillagardener2237  Okay, I understand, I have been having similar issues with myself. I don't see the equivalency between privatisation and a Ponzi scheme. All privatisation means is that the State transfers control of it's capital goods to an individual, this doesn't mean said individuals are then going to commit fraud.
    2
  15. He has been quite successful in the past
    2
  16. Well, no, he gave it to his children, but there is probably an argument that companies like Lockheed Martin are parts of the State since they primarily derive their income from providing services to the State.
    2
  17.  @LaborPrince  Why would the workers need to? It's a socialist paradise after all, is socialism not really for the workers?
    1
  18. how is it in my interest to get rid of people who are saving me so much time?
    1
  19.  @guerillagardener2237  And where do they derive their claim to those capital goods?
    1
  20. 1) Perhaps, but Hitler did say he intended to destroy the USSR first before fully implementing socialism 2) Well, they wouldn't be letting the economy do it's own thing insofar as it was totalitarian, perhaps for example Singapore needed to produce herion however the state stopped them from doing this
    1
  21. And he isn't claiming that Hitler is a communist.
    1
  22.  @julymagnus493  What would be a more commensurate definition of socialism then?
    1
  23.  @julymagnus493  I.e. includes all members of a class and only of that class. Your definition for example is too narrow, since the workers aren't a hivemind, and so any decision that has to be made by the workers will necessarily exclude some workers from being allowed to do with the MOP as they wish which means they don't own the means of production.
    1
  24.  @julymagnus493  A proper definition needs is a genus and differentia to get at the essence, you should consider reformualting it such that "state that is pursuing communism" is included. It fine to say "a family controls x" in a colloquial sense, but we are speaking about what the essence of something is here, it is very relevant if I a worker are in a system where I supposedly can do what I want with the MOP but there are many instances where I cannot.
    1
  25.  @julymagnus493  Well (1) is impossible since the workers aren't a hivemind and (2) is incommensurate since there are many examples of socialism where the state does not pursue communism despite it being socialist, such as post war Britain until 1979
    1
  26.  @julymagnus493  same reason none of those other groups owned things: they were groups, had disputes, and thus had to exclude ownership from certain members of that group.
    1
  27.  @julymagnus493  They could if there is constant consensus, however then it would be legally irrelevant and the context for ownership to arise would not exist.
    1
  28.  @julymagnus493  Well if they do control things, they would be allowed to do what they please with a good.
    1
  29.  @julymagnus493  If they did control things, they would be able to do what they want with things: they are not allowed to do what they want with things, therefore they do not control them
    1
  30.  @julymagnus493  Well, if they cannot do as they please with something, then it means they do not control it.
    1
  31.  @julymagnus493  Whatever the majority is. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean (and usually isn't) every single senator.
    1
  32.  @julymagnus493  Could be a split between a republican-democrat majority and a republican-democrat minority. The point is that not all senators have control of the senate.
    1
  33.  @julymagnus493  So it would seem collective control is impossible, because when disputes arise one element of the collective is excluded from the control.
    1
  34.  @julymagnus493  Well clearly not given some members of this collective are not in control.
    1
  35.  @julymagnus493  ... but they aren't. Some members of this collective are not in control.
    1
  36.  @julymagnus493  But a portion of this collective are not. Thus the collective is not in control.
    1
  37.  @julymagnus493  Well it does if you are saying the collective is controlling something but once a dispute arises it becomes "the collective minus this guy"
    1
  38.  @julymagnus493  Then it isn't the collective.
    1
  39.  @julymagnus493  No, it's like saying all senators don't control the senate because some senators are in the minority. Which is true.
    1
  40.  @julymagnus493  And I will make mine more apt: Me: All senators do not control the senate because they can lose votes. You: Well senators who lose votes still control the senate even though they cannot do as they please with it! Also, is "joke" a foreign concept to you?
    1
  41.  @julymagnus493  Likewise then. Yes, and it is because I know what a collective basically is that I know that it cannot own anything.
    1
  42. @gnus493 So saith July Magnus, arbiter of analogies. It's fine to state is in a colloquial sense but when speaking about law as I am doing you have to be specific; it is why only people involved in the Nazi State apparatus was charged with war crimes (Wehrmacht, SS, etc.) as opposed to every German.
    1
  43.  @julymagnus493  So saith July Magnus, decider of understanding. Well it is, we are speaking about ownership.
    1
  44.  @julymagnus493  Then it is just might makes right, which is not a correct legal ethic. I understand, having the same problem.
    1
  45.  @julymagnus493  But it would just be who is in charge of the mafia directing resources, not the collective consciousness of all the people involved. Of course some laws are unethical, but that's a bit like saying there are wrong ethics; discard them and keep the correct ethics and laws.
    1
  46.  @julymagnus493  But it is still a fact that it is impossible for 2 disagreeing people to control something
    1
  47.  @julymagnus493  Yet we are left with 3 options: Alpha gets his way to the exclusion of Bravo, Bravo gets his way to the exclusion of Alpha, or neither get their way, which means neither can do as they please with it.
    1
  48.  @julymagnus493  Well, evidenty parts of this collective don't, since one action is going to exclude the other.
    1
  49.  @julymagnus493  Well it does, collective implies that it is every member which is controlling something, but it appears I have found a counterexample
    1
  50.  @julymagnus493  Yet it seems the whole cannot own things without causing a contradiction
    1
  51.  @julymagnus493  No, I said it cannot be controlled without running into contradiction, and contradictions are impossible, meaning collective ownership is impossible. The reason why is that in any dispute, one part of the collective is going to be excluded from control of the good, and the excluded party ipso facto cannot be the controller.
    1
  52. I suppose Robert Owen and Clement Atlee weren't socialists then
    1