General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Rusty Shackleford
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "TIKhistory" channel.

Previous
9
Next
...
All

@DeathRayGraphics "I didn't ask if unions can rr can't form. I asked if you support them. Sounds like you prefer that a company exercise any means necessary to prevent their labor force from organizing and having a say in their own pay and working conditions." You asked if labor has a right to unionize. I told you they have every right to try, but the employer also has a right to say no and dismiss those who try. Everyone does have a say in their pay and working conditions. Anyone who has ever worked a job knows that they are told of the pay and tasks required beforehand. They have a choice to accept the job or not, and they have every ability to quit later on if they do take the job. Have you ever worked before? Your inaccurate view of how people obtain jobs leads me to doubt that you have such experience. "Making a business a union shop is necessary to prevent freeloaders from taking the benefits that unions grants them without having any skin in the game. Naturally any unionized business wants as many freeloaders as possible to create friction with the union workers." You seen to have the situation reversed. Unions themselves are freeloading organizations. Their goal is to maximize the benefits the unskilled workers receive while minimizing the actual work that they need to do. As a result, businesses with unionized workforces perform more poorly, as the unions themselves care little for the overall health of the business. This is why in the long-term, unions tend to destroy the businesses and industries they attach themselves to. "You have a delirious perspective on the power of the worker to individually negotiate favorable pay and bennies outside of what the employer wants to grant him. When have you actually done this yourself?" You have little sense of how economics actually work. You base your entire view of the subject on an incredibly biased political ideology that was debunked by economists decades ago. As I told you before, the individual does have power to negotiate his pay, but an unskilled worker should not expect to make much under any circumstances. We live in a high-skill, educated country. Any fool that allows himself to be unskilled and uneducated in such an environment should expect no sympathy. Marxism is the Flat Earth Theory of economics.
2
@slaterslater5944 Learn what Socialism is, Sally. Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster) The NSDAP fit the definition of Socialism perfectly.
2
@OP-01 Evidently not since the Soviet Union collapsed under its own inefficiency and corruption.
2
@slaterslater5944 You know that a user named King Orange generously gave you several such quotes from the Communist Manifesto in another comment chain. Perhaps you should address him? Here's one from Das Kapital that you would've seen had you watched the first 15 minutes of the video: "socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature" Das Kapital, Volume 3, pg. 593.
2
@zakmarsden5997 The industries were nationalized because they were controlled by the dictatorship. They did not operate independently to do as they wished like businesses do in Capitalist countries. The government was in direct control of the decisions made by the leaders of the businesses. That is state control of the means of production, also known as Socialism.
2
@andyknowles772 I think your statistics are misleading. Say you have a family of 5 living in a house. 4 members of that family don't technically own the house, 1 does, but the family still lives on private property. Besides, the solution to this is Socialism where you own nothing?
2
@andyknowles772 Mortgages are done to pay for a house. And statistics are their prevalence are difficult to calculate. I do know that rates of homeownership in the U.S. are roughly 65%, so more heads of families own their home than don't. Under most forms of Socialism, you would own nothing. I fail to see how they would be an improvement.
2
@slaterslater5944 Some do take pride in their adherence to facts. Others, like yourself, act purely on emotion, never arguing anything that can be backed up.
2
@slaterslater5944 They seized control of the means of production, we've been over this.
2
@slaterslater5944 I guess in your mind "private hands" means the government makes all the business decisions and arrests all business owners who refuse to comply. That's not what "private" means in case you don't know.
2
@slaterslater5944 I bring it up because they did. They arrested everybody who refused to comply, like Hugo Junkers. The NSDAP seized control of the means of production. Those that did comply had to do what the state told them , as the state was making all the business decisions, turning them into little more than figureheads in their own companies. As for profits, the state determined how much it would pay to the companies (much of which went right back to the state in the form of taxes) for their services. So the state basically made all business decisions and determined how much businesses made . . . it's little surprise than most businesses lost profits under the NSDAP, as the state does not care about the bottom line.
2
@slaterslater5944 Again, "private hands" is not when the state is making all the business decisions, decreeing what the businesses are going to get paid (often very little), and arrests all who oppose. Yes, we have been through this, but you fail to see the truth. You ignore everything I say and claim the NSDAP was not Socialist, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to conclude that they were. They nationalized unions too by the way, a common feature among all Socialist ideologies.
2
@slaterslater5944 If the state could just take your business from you without cause any time it wanted Sally, that's not "private ownership." As I've told you, they stole Junkers' aircraft company from him in 1934, arresting him and forcibly removing him from his company. Did Junkers still own his company? Other businesses owners that did comply were obliged to do everything the state told them and weren't allowed to do anything without the consent of the state, which also dictated how much their company would be paid, as well as implanting NSDAP officials within the company leadership to watch everything. Does ownership mean anything here? If the state is essentially micromanaging your business, making all the decisions for it, and you are unable to do or say a single thing about it without getting arrested, then the state is controlling your business. In turn, the state controlling all the businesses of key industries in Germany means the state is controlling the means of production. In 1933, the year they gained power, they abolished Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution, which guaranteed the right to property. I wonder why they did that? So early in their reign too.
2
@slaterslater5944 Government control = private ownership? You deny reality because it doesn't align with your political leanings. The NSDAP seized control of the means of production, they took effective control of all of Germany's key industries with or without the consent of the owners. They directed the actions of the businesses by making decisions on their behalf. This isn't "private." This is state control of the means of production. The means of production are tied to the economy, being an integral part of it. It something is in complete control of the economy, it naturally also controls the means of production, going by the actual meaning of these things of course and not the ones you are making up.
2
@slaterslater5944 Again, it's an equivocation fallacy you are making. The economy under the NSDAP was state controlled and you deem that to be "private" ownership, which is about the furthest thing from state controlled that you can get. If the state is making decisions on behalf of the businesses, that isn't private. It's the opposite of private. National Socialism is Socialism because the NSDAP called for state control of the means of production. Sally, please read a book about the economic history of National Socialist Germany, as it is clear that you have never read one before. I would recommend The Vampire Economy by Gunter Reimann.
2
@slaterslater5944 Sally, if you control the economy, you also control the means of production since the means of production are automatically part of an economy. You again try to distort the meaning of words because the truth doesn't align with your argument. And no, there was no private ownership in National Socialist Germany. The NSDAP even abolished Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution right after they gained power in 1933. Article 153 gave the right to hold property. After they abolished it, nobody had property rights anymore and the state was free to seize anything it wanted, which they did. Again, I would like to ask you how the state making decisions for companies is private ownership in your mind? Or are you going to run away from this?
2
@kasunex1772 You claimed the left does not support hierarchies. I pointed out hierarchies are quite common in the left, so it's very relevant. Ideally in Right-Libertarian ideology, nobody should have any legal privileges over anyone else based on their class. Somebody being richer than you doesn't make them above you in a "hierarchy," as they have no authority over you just based on that. If the spectrum is able to shift, that alone indicates it's a flawed metric for graphing ideologies. It's ability to be different based on different locations is another indicator. Politics is more complex than a simplistic "Left-Right" spectrum. There are some ideologies on the "Right" than have more in common with some ideologies on the "Left" than other ideologies on the right and vice-versa.
2
@kasunex1772 Almost every form of Socialism is "for one group alone." Look at Marxism, it's for the "proletariat," but not for the nobility, bourgeoisie, or even the peasantry. And Socialism isn't about class, it's simply about collective control. A collective can be defined in many different ways, which is why we see so many differing versions of Socialism.
2
Socialism is collective control of the means of production. Hitler had the state seize control of the means of production, which was administered by the state under the NSDAP. That's Socialism because the means of production were not in private hands.
2
@razorwireclouds5708 Dude, the state seized control of all of those companies. Did you even watch TIK's video. The National Socialists told business owners to do what they said, or else. Those that refused, like Hugo Junkers, were arrested and forcibly removed from the company. Those that complied were turned into little more then figureheads in their own companies, having to take orders from the party and becoming party members if they weren't already. This is state state control of the economy. The reason the National Socialists did things this way was because they wanted to keep up the appearance of it remaining a free economy in order to not scare the Middle Class. Marxists are still fooled by this appearance to this day . . . well that, and they refuse to believe it since they are dogmatic cultists who reject facts that don't align with their worldview.
2
@razorwireclouds5708 A quick look at your channel shows that you are a Vaush fan . . . that explains a lot.
2
@slaterslater5944 How's Andy doing :D
2
According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods," so it does not appear to have changed much from the original definition used by TIK in the video.
2
The two are one in the same.
2
@esbenm6544 They are, Fascism is a variant of Socialism. Most Fascist and National Socialist leaders in WWII used to be involved with other Socialist movements before turning to Fascism and National Socialism. They are all cut from the same cloth.
2
@You just lost the game Because he told the truth about Hitler being a Socialist, therefore Socialists will mindlessly reject his argument no matter how sound and backed-up with evidence it is.
2
Only difference there is that NY State had no history of being "Canadian territory." Compare that to the Polish Corridor and Gdansk, which were both Polish for hundreds of years before the Prussians stole them during the Partitions.
2
@KameradVonTurnip So you know, the guy you are talking to claims to have a degree in political science, which I find very doubtful since he uses terms like "conservative reactionary." He constantly likes to appeal to vague things like "academic consensus" and the "experts" yet never bothers to cite any academics or experts. He mostly uses pseudo intellectual lines of reasoning to come to conclusions that align with his political beliefs, and belittles anyone who dares disagree with those conclusions and political beliefs, throwing around insults when he is outsmarted. I've presented him with the dictionary definition of Socialism and watched him squirm because it didn't fit his argument. He resorted to claiming all definitions are wrong, "that's not what the academics say," and all this other nonsense.
2
@mikemcmike6427 Nah, you're still here.
2
@andyknowles772 You've been upvoting yourself this entire time, which is quite sad. What's even sadder is you using your alt accounts, Andy Knowles (Stalks NGS) and Andy Knowles Stalks Kids Online, to upvote yourself as well. Yes, the National Socialists did seize control of the means of production. TIK explained the whole process of how in the video. If you watch it, you will see. The party controlled all the key industries. I find it funny you try to use Krupp to justify your argument when it does nothing but solidify what TIK explained. Gustav Krupp was one of the business owners that agreed to National Socialist demands. The company's board of directors was abolished and Krupp took orders directly from the party. We call this state control of the means of production. You're in denial that the actual state of the German economy was Socialist. Your comments indicate that you may be sympathetic to Socialism, so the idea that the National Socialists were Socialists is unacceptable to you.
2
@verdadylibertadmagufa She's no troll. Trolls have more brain cells.
2
As was every other country in Eastern Europe at the time, USSR included.
2
@slaterslater5944 Many "jobs" in the Soviet Union and Red China were also little more than slave labor. Those states forced millions to work hard labor with little compensation. And no Socialist nation ever advocated for "everybody" having a job, only those in the "in-group." In the case of the National Socialists, "Aryans" were the in-group. In the case of the Soviets, the proletariats were the in-group. The Soviets arrested and murdered many people who were not in their in-group, namely nobility, bourgeoise, and even the peasantry.
2
@andyknowles772 They didn't outlaw unions, they nationalized all unions into the German Labour Front, which was similar to what other Socialist nations did. Most Communist and Socialist nations did not allow for independent labor unions.
2
@mikemcmike6427 You know somebody is talking out of their ass when they say "reactionary conservatism."
2
Socialism has nothing to do with class, it is simply collective control of the means of production. Did you even bother to watch the video?
2
Marx was the grandson of a rabbi, not a son. His immediate family converted to Christianity before his birth and he received a largely secular upbringing.
2
You do realize the "Left" also supports hierarchies, just ones of their own making.
2
@PantheraKitty National Socialism requires a totalitarian state to assume control of all aspects of life, economy included. Those "requests" were really death threats directed ay people to do the will of the state or else. That is control. The National Socialists were Left-Wing.
2
@slaterslater5944 The state told Krupp what to do, or else. Krupp then did exactly what the state told it to. As with every other major company in Germany, they were obliged to perform the will of the state, lest those in them get arrested and replaced with people who will. The word for that is control in case you are wondering :) It has little to do with profit. Most companies lost money under National Socialism anyway.
2
@PantheraKitty National Socialism is Socialism, as the state controls the means of production and distribution of goods. And it was a far-left ideology by the standards of the political spectrum, as they were economically much more in-line with the U.S.S.R. than they were with Capitalist countries like the U.S. And the Soviet Union was very anti-Semitic. Remember, Marx himself hated the Jewish religion and culture, and the U.S.S.R. was supposedly built off of his views. Stalin was close to having all the Jews in Moscow deported to gulags in the 50s, but his own death prevented that from happening. And the Jews were there first. Was a country about a few thousand years ago called Israel. I suggest you lay off the conspiracy theories.
2
@slaterslater5944 No, Sally. Krupp was a government ministry in all but name. The state called all the shots and those within the company either obeyed or were arrested. And what profits? :) Most companies lost money under National Socialism.
2
@slaterslater5944 Sally, hearing you talk about evidence is like hearing a dunk talking about sobriety. To date, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence for any of your claims. They all come from your own opinion.
2
@PantheraKitty Yes, "old names." The companies kept their old names and nominal leadership in the sense that they weren't folded into official state-run ministries like the Soviets did, but they were state-run in all but name. And the Soviets technically had a "market" too, though it wasn't free. All countries have "markets," whether they be Capitalist or Socialist. The Soviet Union was not a Jewish invention because the Jewish religion and culture had nothing to do with its founding. The Jewish Bolsheviks had long abandoned their religion and culture. They were all self-hating atheists like Marx who possessed a distain for Judaism. As a result, the Soviet Union was quite anti-Semitic, heavily cracking down on Jews' abilities to practice their religion and culture. Israel is the rightful home of the Jews, as it had been for thousands of years. Like I said, most of the Arabs living there now are the descendants of people that moved there in the 20s and 30s for the explicit purpose of crowding the area with Muslims so the British would be deterred from giving it to the Jews.
2
@matrix5062 What are you talking about?
2
That's basically what the National Socialists believed.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk Why would I? Factually, that's exactly what he did. He nationalized all labor unions into the German Labor Front (DAF). All other Socialist nations have done things similar, as they do not tolerate unions that are not controlled by the state.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk 1. Yes, you can. Seizing control of it and placing it under the control of the state is nationalization. You could nationalize a labor union just as easily as your could a business. 2. He nationalized the unions, same as the Soviet Union. 3. The DAF, much like every other union, claimed to bargain on behalf of its members. In reality, the interests of the union itself and the interests of the members did not always align, but that is typical of most labor unions, especially larger ones. The DAF functioned much the same as the nationalized unions of the Soviet Union and Red China did, serving the interests of the state. And the Soviet Union and other Socialist nations did not allow for strikes either. Yes I have, don't know if you could say the same considering how ignorant you are of business operations. Basically everything you say could easily be debunked by looking at the policies of other Socialist nations and comparing them to NSDAP Germany. When done, you find an uncanny amount of correlation.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk 1. To argue labor unions are removed from commerce is quite comical, given the amount of influence over economic activity they possess. Besides, you are playing semantic games. I could easily give you another definition: "to invest control or ownership of in the national government" from Merriam-Webster. Note how this definition doesn't confine the term to only relate to businesses, because the government can seize more than just businesses. 2. He nationalized the unions, same as the Soviet Union. Do you believe the Soviets (and every other Socialist country) also "abolished" unions? 3. Again, when you compare the DAF to labor unions in other Socialist and Communist countries (as well as large unions in Capitalist countries), you see quite a bit of overlap. None really benefit the workers that much, which is fairly typical of unions. Please give me an example of something that nationalized Soviet unions did that the DAF didn't. Your failure to understand that labor is merely a small part of the costs associated with producing products shows your ignorance. And again, I shall pull this quote from you in another comment: "So we agree that you have to pay your workers less than the value they generate for you" How can one make such a claim when they don't know what proportion of costs associated with producing a product is attributable to labor? That was your motte and bailey: you said to me "[a]ll I have said is that the cost of all the factors that go into that production must be less than the price you sell it for, or there is no profit" which completely contradicts your previous comment above relating specifically to the value of labor. You retreated to an easier to defend position, originally claiming labor must be paid less than their value but then changing your argument to total costs as a whole simply being less than the final selling price.
2
@BurtReynolds-qp1jk I love how you're ignoring the main point/question I am trying to make to do: What exactly did the DAF do differently from unions in other Socialist nations? Collective bargaining (as well as striking) was abolished in the Soviet Union too. There's no need for it after all, Socialism is here! The collective will see to all your needs. If you deny the DAF's status as a union, then you must also deny the existence of legal unions in other Socialist nations as well in order to remain consistent, as the DAF was functionally no different from them. The DAF acted as a nationalized labor union, same unions in the Soviet Union and Red China. All were state-ran, in accordance with Socialist thinking, as private unions simply won't do.
2

Previous
9
Next
...
All