Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@raydavison4288 That's thing about Socialism, it's an extremely broad collection of ideologies. The dictionary doesn't even describe it as an ideology, but a collection of ideologies. At it's core, it is collective control of the means of production. Aside from that, it branched out into many different versions.
People often confuse Marxist Socialism for general Socialism, especially the Marxists themselves who consider it the only "true" form of Socialism, much like many other Socialists and their specific flavors of Socialism. Because of the influence of Marxism throughout the 20th century, many people today confuse aspects of Marxist Socialism for being aspects of all Socialism.
Marxism is internationalist, for example. National Socialism and Fascism were extremely nationalist, so an uninformed person may use that as an argument for why they weren't Socialist. However, Socialism doesn't bar nationalism, Marxist Socialism does. Basic Socialism is collective control, so as long as that is a key value of the ideology, anything else that doesn't interfere with that could be added to the ideology and it can remain Socialist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@oljo0527 Again, nothing in any of the definitions make mention of "workers" or anything similar to them. Rather, they all speak of "collectives," would could be interpreted in many ways, which is why Socialism is more accurately described as a collection of ideologies rather than a single one. They all differ in terms of what they define as that collective. Marxists organize along the lines of class (specifically the "proletariat") while National Socialists organize along the lines of race (specifically the "Aryan" race).
This issue here is that democracy and Socialism simply cannot mix, as the people themselves are all ready in control of the economy under a Capitalist system, with the freedom to purchase what they want and establish whatever kind of business or industry they want without fear of government interference.
In practice, only one of two things ever seen to happen: the state becomes an undemocratic dictatorship (which is usually the case), or the people vote out Socialism not long after it has been implemented. Even in a democracy, the state often exerts powers and implements policies that the majority of the population does not approve of. For example, in my country of the U.S., members of Congress have no term limits, meaning they can keep getting reelected until their deaths. Every poll on the matter shows the American people are in favor of adding term limits to Congress by very large margins, yet that is something that is unlikely to occur since Congress is the entity that makes new laws.
The position of workers' within their companies is not comparable to the position of citizens' within their state. When you're born into a country, you don't have a say in the matter and the only way to remove yourself from it entirely is to go somewhere else and renounce your citizenship. For people working jobs, they are not born into a company to work for, they apply for jobs and have complete control over what jobs they choose to accept. They also possess the ability to quit jobs they don't like and even go into business for themselves. Furthermore, your boss has no real authority over you once your working day is over and you've gone home.
Calling Marx a "scientist" is quite funny to be honest. He possessed no real education in most of the subjects he wrote about and most of his theories have been discredited by actual academics over the course of time. You're saying that Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen did not own the concept, but at the same time, you are acting like Marx did invent and own the concept when he simply didn't. There were Socialist movements and groups present before Marx arrived on the scene. In fact, he was an obscure figure until after his death, but obviously there was Socialist activity going on during his lifetime. It is also inaccurate to claim Utopian Socialists seized to exist after Marx's work became famous. Marxism did gain ground to become the most popular variant of Socialism, but the other variants never disappeared entirely. As we know, some of them evolved into Fascism and National Socialism. As for Utopian Socialists, small groups of that view did continue to exist.
Marx was not a prodigy, he was a lazy failure who mooched off of others for most of his adult life and had two of his children die of malnutrition because he refused to control his spending habits.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andyknowles772 First of all, it's not "my" definition, it's Merriam-Webster's.
If you have an issue with the definition, then you're taking issue with the dictionary definition. What do you think Socialism is?
Monarchism is the practice of having a monarch . . . that's not inherently an economic system. I believe you were trying to refer to Feudalism, which is a sort of early economic system. Feudalism is basically where nobles owned land and collected tribute from those living on the land. In return, the noble raised a private army to protect the people living on the land. In times of war, the monarch would sometimes call all the nobles to arms, who would take their private armies to war. Remember that by the time Capitalism became established and Socialism was first being thought of, Feudalism was almost dead as an economic system. You must also remember that is was relatively de-centralized. The monarch was essentially the state, but what were the nobles? Technically speaking, the nobles owned the "means of production" (farmland, since there was almost no industry at the time). I wouldn't consider the nobles to be "the state" since they were a distinct entity from the monarch. What little industry there was at the time was controlled by guilds ran by skilled craftsman.
Later during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, the monarchs greatly increased their power at the expense of the nobility, but this also saw the emergence of Mercantilism as the dominant economic system.
In either case, you're trying to apply relatively modern concepts to a pre-Industrial method of societal organization that was essentially dead already by the time the Industrial Revolution occurred.
And I believe Buster Crabbe named over a dozen specific socialistic policies implemented by National Socialist Germany. I find it curious that you have not replied to him yet.
2
-
@andyknowles772 I already said that the economic system in place during the Enlightenment, which was the time of the absolute monarch, was Mercantilism. "Absolute" monarchs of the time had a lot more power than monarchs in previous centuries, but nothing compared to the power wielded by 20th century dictators. It mostly referred to their consolidation of their country's political power, but not really economic. Kings like Louis XIV were not micromanaging the French economy, he was collecting revenue through Mercantilism, which was basically hoarding valuable stuff as an economic system, not much investing and growth like you would later see with Capitalism. Essentially, it would be inaccurate to say the monarch was in direct control of the farmlands and what little industry existed at the time.
Also, many stress the "collective" nature of Socialism. All forms of Socialism, whether it be Marxism or National Socialism, claim to be operating on the behalf of the people, specifically whatever their in-group is. They stress a collectivist mentality through state-mandated celebrations and traditions. Monarchs didn't do that, they claimed right to rule directly through God, which gave a heavily religious nature to the monarch that is absent in Socialism. There was also nothing "collectivist" about the monarch or his system, he simply ruled.
And like I said before (it evidently flew right over your head), you're trying to apply modern concepts and theories to a pre-Industrial society. Informed historians don't really do that because they know that it was a whole different world before the Industrial Revolution, and it is sort of pointless trying to tie modern theories of economics to societies that did not have modern economies. Almost like using 21st century morality to judge the actions of people in Classical times. It's stupid because the people of that time did not follow modern morality, so historians look at these events through the context of the time, understanding what the morality at the time was.
Given that Socialism is collective control of the means of production and the National Socialists seized control of the means of production under the state . . . that pretty much makes them Socialist.
So you believe the dictionary is wrong? What is Socialism then since you claim to know more than the dictionary.
2
-
@bustercrabbe8447 I disagree, Socialism must be collectivist, even if only nominally (almost all of it is nominally come to think of it since it never actually benefits the masses). Monarchs are not a collective or claim to be, they are individuals. As I explained to the guy who doesn't know what Socialism is, Socialism is a broadly collectivist ideology.
If one person ruled with an iron fist, including control of the economy, and was not doing it in the name of some collectivist ideology, that system wouldn't be Capitalist or Socialist. This doesn't apply to 17th century monarchs anyway since they did not control the means of production in their nations, they simply taxed and tariffed the crap out of everything, maximized exports while minimizing imports, and hoarded precious metals like gold and silver . . . all tenants of Mercantilism.
And as I also said to the guy who doesn't know what Socialism is, you cannot apply modern economic theories to pre-Industrial economies, like he is trying to do. Mercantilism is its own thing that is neither Capitalist or Socialist.
2
-
@andyknowles772 You're contradicting yourself and you do not even realize it. Before, you said absolute monarchy, specifically saying you were not talking about Feudalism, which is older. Now you are saying they are the same thing? That is nonsense and you are showing your ignorance of both history and basic consistency.
Absolute monarchies did not come about until around the 17th century, by which time Feudalism was almost dead in Western Europe. Under Feudalism, it was the nobles who owned land and collected tribute from the peasants, as I told you. The monarch would ask the nobles for help in times of war. These older Medieval monarchs under Feudalism had less power over their nations than Enlightenment-age "absolute" monarchs had over their country.
In the time of "absolute" monarchs, the economic system in place was Mercantilism, not Feudalism. The monarch did not own or control the means of production, they simply taxed and tariffed stuff.
Do you genuinely believe Mercantilism is Socialism?
Even then, as I've tried to explain to you before. Only economically illiterate nitwits would try to apply modern economic theory to pre-Industrial, non-modern economic systems that have been dead for centuries.
2
-
2
-
@andyknowles772 No, for a long time, you have refused to give any definition, though you did criticize the dictionary definition that I gave you.
The definition you have just given is the dictionary definition, indicating that you have finally accepted it. Since you've finally accepted the dictionary definition, you must accept National Socialism to be Socialism.
"it remained almost exclusively in public hands"
Yes, correct again!!! The means of production were in public hands, not private. That makes it Socialism, I'm glad you're starting to see reason. (I saw that comment before the edit, guess it was a Freudian slip.)
The NSDAP promoted a collectivist worldview, same as the Communists and other Socialist groups. Only their collective was racial while that of the Communists was class-based. It would be just as accurate to call National Socialists Socialists than it would be to call Communists Socialists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@beardedchimp In a sense, yes. If there is a free market that the state does not interfere in, then it is a form of Capitalism.
Capitalism and Socialism can be described as a scale and the matter is where the line is between "Capitalism" and "Socialism" and if there is a different name for anything in-between is a matter of debate. Generally, the more regulation you implement, the less Capitalist the country becomes. It may interest you to know that the Scandinavian countries, which many foolishly believe to be "Democratic Socialist" (an oxymoron) actually have less regulation and lower business taxes than the U.S.
And let me ask you how is "social ownership" achieved? Through the state. 100% of attempts at Socialism on a national scale involve the state for the very simple reason that most people would not submit to any kind of collective arrangement if allowed the choice to participate or not. Their requires the existence of a strong central entity to force Socialism into existence, making the old saying "Socialism only happens at gunpoint" true, since it necessitates authoritarianism, unlike Capitalism.
Interestingly, the only exception to this seems to be buying stock in corporations, which is 100% voluntary. It is perhaps that reason why most other Socialists hates them, because they hate it when people have a choice.
2
-
@beardedchimp I'm talking reality, not ideology. Every flavor of Socialism has its own theories on how "social ownership" is achieved, yet when you look at those ideologues try to do it in practice, you notice a interesting trend of them quickly resorting to forcing it on people and establishing said central entity that eventually becomes the state if the "revolution" is successful. The reason for this is simple, as I have explained before: most people will not give up their stuff to some collective if given the choice. Because of this, Socialism must be mandatory, because most people wouldn't go for it if it were voluntary.
And if Mussolini's government had complete control of companies and their actions, how is that not nationalization? What was the technical difference between businesses in Facist Italy and businesses in Soviet Russia? The name . . . that's it. The Soviets erased the name and declared it to be part of some government ministry now basically to do the will of the state and only the state. Mussolini allowed the businesses to keep their names, but they still only performed the will of the state and only the state. So there's no practical difference between those two scenarios. Fascism and Communism are different variants of Socialism on paper, but in practice their economies look pretty similar from an organizational standpoint.
I just told you, the Scandinavian countries have even less regulation and business taxes than the U.S. and they thrive. Hong Kong also used to have less regulation and taxes than the U.S. (before CCP takeover, that is) and they also thrived at that time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DeathRayGraphics "And yet, you cannot deny that these are all features of capitalism."
No because none of them are exclusive to Capitalism, often occurring in even Socialist nations.
"Well, we did have LITERAL slavery in the the capitalist United States for quite some time, so I wouldn't go there. >:)"
Yes, the WHOLE WORLD had slavery for several millennia before the Western Capitalist countries started to crusade against it in the 19th century. Even today, it still exists in some areas of the third world.
The curious thing about Socialism is that it pretty much revived slavery in the 20th century, when most of the developed world agreed it was a bad thing.
"If you were being paid to do something that generated less money for the company than you were being paid, I would say your company had quite a bad business model. But no one is ever explicitly hired to do a job that is unnecessary, although many capitalists pay themselves far more than what their contribution is worth."
A job that is necessary doesn't mean it is inherently very valuable. If you were hired to do a task so simple, nearly anyone could do it with little to no training, the value of that job is not high. At the other end of the spectrum, a job that requires a specific skillset or qualifications not common among population will hold much more value.
I find it quite ironic that Socialists ramble about "Capitalist greed," yet they as individuals are among the most greedy people you will ever meet, constantly obsessing over people more talented and skilled than them making more money than they do.
2
-
@DeathRayGraphics "I never claimed that other systems are without flaw. But those features I mentioned are integral to capitalism."
Do you also believe breadlines and gulags are integral to Communism, going by your line of reasoning?
"The whole world did not have chattel slavery. Regardless, you are the one who invoked "slavery" re: socialism. That was a bad move."
Yes, nearly every human society practiced chattel slavery in the past. It wasn't until the 19th century that the Capitalist West killed the practice in their own nations and then crusaded against it in the rest of the world, making it illegal in many of their colonies that prior to that had practiced chattel slavery.
Not at all considering Socialism revived slavery in the Western word when civilized society was against it. Then again, what else do you expect from a fundamentally uncivilized ideology.
"Then why is anyone doing it? It must be essential to some degree if you can't help paying someone for it."
They are being paid, just very little, in relation to the low cost of the task they perform. And why should you be paid the same as a lawyer to do a job someone else is willing to do for far less?
You fail to understand the most basic concepts of supply and demand.
Again, you're giving me examples of tasks that require no advanced skillset. Anyone has the ability to clear trash. Not anyone has the ability to design aircraft.
"The man who designs the screw will not have a job without 20 people to turn the screws."
Without the man who designs the screws, there will be no screws for the 20 unskilled laborers to use, putting a halt to their entire profession (as well as innovation as a whole if we are unable to use screws)
"That is not "greed". That would be "envy". Weren't you the one hammering me about how to use a dictionary?"
A desire to take from those who have more than you is still greed because you still lust after material possessions you do not already own. Just look at the large number of self-described Socialist activists, celebrities, and politicians who became rich and lived a similar lifestyle to rich they claim to oppose.
2
-
@DeathRayGraphics "I was just saying that to give you something to agree with."
And I was using your own previous would-be "ah-ha" moment against you. You compared the Communism's relation to breadlines and gulags to Capitalism's relation to profit and monopolization (I don't think making a profit is on the same moral level as borderline famine and concentration camps by the way), so I ask if you're still sticking to that comparison.
"No, actually, that isn't true"
Yes, nearly every human society practiced some form of chattel slavery at some point in their histories. Slavery was common all over the world and it wasn't seen as a moral wrong by most of the public until the 19th century. The first dedicated abolitionist societies only began to appear in the 18th century. The U.S. was far from the last to abolish slavery in the Western Hemisphere, much of Latin America still practiced it after the Civil War ended in 1865. Brazil didn't abolish it until 1888. In fact, the overwhelming majority of African slaves sent to the Americas went to Brazil and the Caribbean in the first place, relatively few came to what is now the U.S.
"And it doesn't matter what others did"
Slavery is slavery. If you accept it to be a moral wrong (which every sane person does), then you deem it an evil practice regardless of who does it. This is the epitome of hypocrisy, making excuses for barbaric practices when they're committed by groups that you find politically inconvenient to criticize (because again, you're entire argument revolves around your political beliefs).
You show a complete ignorance of the history you're trying to represent. The Enlightenment started in the mid 17th century, but it wouldn't be until the late 18th / early 19th century that Enlightenment ideas would actually be put into practice on a significant scale. Compare this to Socialism, it originated in the 1790s, but Socialist states only began to appear in the 20th century. Ideas are not instantaneously transferred into policy. And at the end of the day, the West abolished slavery in their domains. Socialism revived it.
"I think you are playing extremely loose with the word 'slavery'"
If you consider working against you will with little to no compensation, then there certainly was slavery under Socialism, as everyone became slaves to the state. Soviet collectivization efforts effectively turned the peasantry back into serfs.
"In the first place, people are always paid as little as an employer can get away with"
And most people do as little work as they can get away with (emphasis on the most). And companies with unionized workforces typically do worse than companies without. In fact, unions are a major reason why the part of the U.S. I live in is a worse state than it was 60 years ago.
Besides, with regard to the value of items, more is put into it than just labor. If you're building something, you obviously need tools, materials, and often machinery to actually construct the product, all of which is paid for by the employer. Even if a company did sell something at a breakeven price, the workers' pay would not be equivalent to the total (breakeven) value of the product since they are far from the only expense incurred in the process of making the product.
Please learn basic economics.
"But no society can survive without people to clear trash and unclog toilets"
But anyone can be hired to do these, which are unskilled jobs, and their pay will reflect that. You want to get paid more? Then get off your ass and either develop a useful skill or get an education in something that's in-demand.
Again, why should an employer pay you more for a job anybody could do and many would do for less?
Pilots and flight attendants are two different jobs with 2 different skillsets, just so you know. There's a much higher bar for pilots than there is for flight attendants, and they are compensated accordingly.
"And without the mother to nurse the baby who grows up to design the screws we'd have neither screws nor screw turners. We could go around and around like this"
No, it pretty much ended with my last reply. I can't believe you didn't realize that your 20 laborers would instantly be out of work without the guy who designs screws. This is just a sad attempt at continuing the cycle when I pretty much shot it down.
Again, the value of your labor is heavily dependent on your skills and experience. If you are unskilled, anyone could do your job, you are not special and are easily replaceable. When you develop a useful skill that is in-demand, you are not so easily replaceable, increasing the value of your labor and giving you more leverage in negotiating your pay. It simply does not matter what the end result of the labor is if the labor itself is unskilled with many people willing to do it for less than you are willing to.
And I would happily bag my own groceries so the unskilled people working the registers won't break my eggs. Some places do let you do that, and I find it to be quicker.
"Taking what does not belong to you is exactly what capitalism does as regards labor"
Under Capitalism, workers are hired. They agree to work for money and unlike Socialist countries, they actually have choices in the matter. They do not have to work for a certain employer if they don't want to, they can quit a job they currently have if they want to, and they can go into business for themselves if they want to.
By that same logic, if you sell me your couch and I pay you for it, am I stealing something that does not belong to me? If we make the transaction and you find out the next week that the couch was worth double what you agreed to take for it, do you have grounds to take the couch back?
"I still don't think you have quite wrapped your head around the idea that if you are paid $15.00 an hour for providing $25.00 or $50.00 dollars of value, a chunk of your labor has been stolen."
Except your labor probably isn't making that much value. Many minimum wage jobs aren't even worth that. And as I said before, your labor is far from the only input being put into the production of commodities. Where are material costs? Where are the shipping costs? Where is the cost of the machinery, tools, and equipment? Where is the rent or property taxes on the facilities used for production? Are sales taxes being accounted for? . . . I'm talking to somebody with absolutely 0 business sense who lives in a Communistic fantasyland.
2
-
2