Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk Capitalism is private/individual control of the means of production. Therefore, the state controlling these things cannot be Capitalism. "State Capitalism" is an oxymoron.
Capitalism can, and does, function without the state getting involved. A farmer does not need the state to sell his produce to the local market.
Ownership and control are two sides of the same coin. When the state controls the means of production (as was the case in NSDAP Germany), nominal ownership means nothing. And Socialism is not democratic. In virtually every example of Socialism actually being attempted in practice, it quickly fell into authoritarianism. Are you saying that in the case of monarchy, the monarch does not embody the state? Therefore, the monarch is not a private individual, but the state. No different from a dictator.
"Incorrect. The vast majority of the means of production in NS Germany was privately owned, for private profit."
Sorry, but you clearly don't know the economic history of Germany during the 30s and 40s. The state seized control of the means of production of almost every heavy industry in Germany within the first few years of NSDAP rule. The state gave ultimatums to business owners: do what we say, or else. Those that complied stayed on in mostly figurehead positions in those companies with little actual control over what the company did. Those that refused were arrested and outed from their own companies, like Hugo Junkers.
"Redneck American fantasy"
No, it's statistical truth. Before the Democratic party forced the government to stop taking statistics on this kind of thing, there were about 2-3 million instances of a self-defensive use of a firearm every year. In most of these cases, it was used to defend one's life and their property. So it's mostly us defending our own property, not the state. The police are usually called afterwards to clean up the mess pretty much. Contrary to what you may believe, the state does not have a monopoly on violence in America. The Castle Doctrine makes it perfectly legal for a citizen to use anything up to and including lethal force against someone who breaks into their home and presents a threat to their life. Of course, the political left has been trying to remove this law because it gets in the way of all their looting mobs.
For the union argument, please refer to my other comments, as you clearly go against your own definition of "nationalization" by insisting that unions are not part of commerce, but use a definition that considers nationalization to be the seizure of commerce. Upon questioned on this, you then say you never said unions were not part of commerce. So which is it? Please try to remain consistent. Inconsistent reasoning and floating definitions is the hallmark of extremist ideology.
"Not in the Socialist sense"
Yes in the Socialist sense, as corporations are owned collectively by anyone who wants to buy stock in it. I guess it differs from most forms of Socialism in the sense that it's voluntary while Socialism tends to be forced upon the masses at gunpoint.
Are corporations owned collectively or are they not?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@slaterslater5944 Re-read my comment. Evidently, you did fail English class if you fail to understand that ", as" is setting up an example in the Dictionary com definition (If anything the "children's" dictionary Merriam-Webster is more advanced than them, but we'll roll with it).
If you would have bothered to read the entirety of the Investopedia article instead of the first sentence, you will find it explains that more than just "industries" are able to be nationalized. Specific assets, or general things of value, can be nationalized as well (which means pretty much anything, which is technically true as totalitarian governments essentially take whatever they want). Additionally, some third-world nations nationalize natural resources or rather, the ownership of national resources, regardless of whether or not businesses and industries have been set up around those resources yet, which makes your explanation null and void as the process of these nations doing this is still called "nationalization."
As for the CFI, that's an online training course provider in the field of corporate finance, so a government nationalizing some forest, or the ownership of some forest, somewhere would be of little concern to them as opposed to that same government nationalizing a corporation. That doesn't mean the government didn't nationalize the ownership of the forest before.
An issue with both Investopedia and the CFI is that both deal specifically in the field of finance, so the nationalization of businesses would be the only aspect of nationalization of interest to them. Why do you think they talk more about those particular aspects than the dictionary definitions, which do not state being a business or industry is a stipulation of nationalization.
The notion that unions cannot be nationalized is one that you are making up. In both National Socialist Germany and Soviet Russia, formerly private unions were placed under state control and "nationalization" was the term applied to the policies.
And like I said before, there is a case to be made that unions operate like an industry in its own right.
3
-
@slaterslater5944 Maybe try re-reading the Collins dictionary again, it gives multiple explanations, some of which give an industry and company stipulation and others don't. One definition even lists land, but not industries or companies. Still others give the definition as the one I give you, the government making something public that was once private, with no stipulations attached.
Once again, you open your sources, picked a sentence that you liked, and post what you read looking for that "gotcha moment" without having read the rest of page. Do you think I don't have the ability to check? Here's another one of their definitions:
Nationalize - to transfer ownership or control of (land, resources, industries, etc.) to the national government
Notice how it's explanation of what can be nationalized is broad.
Last time I checked, unions are things. To some, it could be a thing of value. Being a thing of value under private control, it is eligible for nationalization. The National Socialists and Communists both nationalized the unions in their respective countries, and nobody denied that this wasn't nationalization, not even them.
And like I said before, there's an argument to be made that unions are an industry themselves from the profit that union bosses and organizers make from it. The fact that one can make a living as a full-time organizer is evidence of this.
3
-
@slaterslater5944 "Seized by the state" and "nationalized" are the same thing Sally, providing that they were in private control before.
Again, you deny the reality that nationalization is not limited to businesses, industry, and land. Look at the definitions, some mention land but not businesses or industries. Others mention industries and businesses, but not land. The fact that states have nationalized natural resources is proof that definitions that don't include land are incorrect. Either that, or nationalization is not exclusive to those things and businesses and industries are simply given as examples, as is the case for the definition from Dictionary com. The most accurate and clear definitions, like the one from Merriam-Webster, don't limit it to certain things.
Even if it was exclusive to those things, unions are an industry. The union bosses and organizers make lots of money from it off of the backs of the workers they claim to represent. I looked up union organizer jobs and got tons of results, some paying in excess of $80,000 a year. People make full time jobs out of it and unions lobby the government. It's definitely an industry. I like how you think that saying I'm not clever is enough to reject my points here, almost like you can't actually argue that unions aren't like an industry.
Again, the notion that labor unions cannot be nationalized is one that you are making up. When the National Socialists and Communists seized control of all private unions in their countries, it was called nationalization and nobody objected to that description. You're simply trying to change the definition because it doesn't align with your argument.
Instead of screeching about words you don't like the meaning of, how about coming up with a better argument?
3
-
@slaterslater5944 Yes, Sally police seizing drugs from a drug dealer could be a form of nationalization, albeit on a small scale and something like that isn't often described as nationalization, which is usually reserved for larger acquisitions.
And yes Sally, unions are like an industry. You still haven't addressed my points on how it is either similar to an industry or straight up an actual industry itself. The way they operate in our society is similar to how corporations operate, only they don't actual generate wealth, they take it off of the people they claim to represent and use said wealth to lobby the government and line the pockets of the union bosses and organizers. And again, people are making full-time jobs out of being union organizers, that alone is evidence that unions encompass some sort of industry.
I've been trying to explain to you that National Socialism is a form of Socialism. What they did to the private unions was the same thing that other Socialist nations did to private unions, they all nationalized them, placing them under state control. The National Socialists did this by folding them into the German Labour Front, which was a national labor union.
3
-
3
-
3