Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on "My late update! (Gazala, Patreon Q&As, and more)" video.
-
As stated by Engels, joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of private means of production,[1] however, socialisation for someone’s private interest did not constitute Socialism.[2] As long as he didn't deliberately say that "Amazon is Socialist", TIK is right under Marxism theory, even using the theoretical standard which no Socialist regime IRL would able to pass.
Amazon being public or worker-owned (in share) doesn’t necessarily means it is socialist. Fredda is either confused with the concept, or he was putting words into TIK’s mouth to defame him.
[1] “This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognised, forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the SOCIALISATION of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of communication are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring)
[2] “But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes – this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company [founded as a commercial and banking company in 1772 and granted a number of important privileges by the state. It advanced big loans to the government and, in fact, became its banker and broker], the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring)
3