Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on ""TIK's definitions are wrong!" (about Socialism & Capitalism)" video.

TIK while I do generally agree with most of your points. I do believe you have it wrong on trying to equate a company like Amazon to a state. By your very metric a state would have to be a political community. But corporations, at least ones not meddling in or by state affairs are not political. Not to mention corporations don’t occupy a nation or territory. Not going to lie but this is rather contradictory to your National Socialism is socialism video. Has there been a change in mindset or is there a specific aspect I am missing? I would like you to clarify when possible because I won’t lie, this has led me to be a little disillusioned of your arguments.
3
To a degree I would agree with this. But ironically he does call this out stating that there needs to be a term that defines some kind of in between the private and public sector that would describe corporations and that none exist yet. This is something I actually agree with.
2
Having a team of people working together in a hobby or fanbase is not the same as a state monopoly. Yes, they are technically operating as a socialized group. But they have no bearing within the economy and as such, would not alter it to be socialist in any way.
2
Could be the British accent
2
@Cloud_Seeker I already highlighted before that I left out the ones directly involved in state affairs. And having an office meeting to discuss and make agreements related to running the company does not make the corporation political. By that logic, a charity organization is political.
1
@Cloud_Seeker I never said some charities aren't. But they aren't inherently. By your logic, even a small business composed of only 5 members is political to you. If politics to you is simply a matter of how an organization is ran, then I don't know what isn't political to you. And you going about rants of corporate corruption has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
1
@Cloud_Seeker ok and you’re undermining the point I was making. If your broadening politics to the point where you could call a house disagreement political then it loses the meaning in what we are talking about. A family isn’t a state, a small business isn’t a state, even by TIK’s own admission. Trying to say anytime someone disagrees on anything makes it political changes the very context on what is being discussed. Is it political if me and my friend argue which car we should take to the movies? No.
1
@Cloud_Seeker there is no dishonesty involved. You were trying to refute my point. My point was not all corporations are political. Anymore than any family being it. The point was that corporations aren’t states. 🤦‍♂️ And not every power struggle comes down to politics.
1
In theory, yes. In fact I would operate that TIK's assertion of corporations does to a degree undermine his overall economic logic. I hope in the future he does do a better job to clarify this, because this is an aspect I personally disagree with.
1
@mikemcmike6427 LOL, even when I find something I agree with you on, you still find a way to try to insult me all the same. Mike don't you have anything better to do than being a petty 12 year old?
1
He literally explains this in the video
1
It would definitely operate as a factor
1
That isn’t a market. Nor is it even possible
1
@ulfljung4630 I detect more Marxist propaganda. The only time a capitalist can rig the market is through the meddling of the state. Very few markets can naturally form monopolies and oligopolies usually only form when they perfect a product in their making or have a wider reach. That does not prevent competition. It is not the fault of capitalism that more people would choose to go to Starbucks rather than a local coffee shop.
1
This is actually a point I do agree with somewhat. While I think TIK has a point about a third sector tier needing to be created to describe public shared corporations, I don't buy into the idea that public shared corporations are the same as state owned enterprises. I especially don't agree with his assertion of a corporation being a state of its own. That would especially fall into the face of Anarcho Capitalist theory which if I am not mistaken, TIK subscribes to. How can capitalism operate without a state if every corporation is automatically a state of its own? Also what prevents a normal business' owner from desiring to sell shares or percentages of his company in exchange for profit? I think TIK definitely needs to clarify this as it does server as a gap in his economic theories.
1