Comments by "OscarTang" (@oscartang4587u3) on ""TIK's definitions are wrong!" (about Socialism & Capitalism)" video.

  1. Individuals in USSR and North Korea also didn't own any means of production. Member within a public entity doesn't need to own the means of production cannot prove whether an entity is a privately or publicly entity.
    2
  2. This depended on which factions of Socialists you are asking. While the public in “public ownership of means of production” means the State in Marx’s and Engel’s Literature. That same public can mean the worker cooperation, the worker syndicate, or the commune, depends you are asking Market Socialists, Syndicalists or Anarchists. The public of those “public ownership of means of production” just included the members of those entities instead of the entire public of the state.
    2
  3.  @vod96  Sorry for the misunderstanding. I mean, I cannot find ["all that is private is good"], what I can find in this video is “ the free market is good, and socialist totalitarianism is bad, unsurprisingly.” 19:16 _____________ Sure, but I heavily doubt those studies you mentioned defined Amazon as worker co-ops. If they did, then either Amazon workers didn't complain their working condition, or the idea of worker co-ops didn't work as socialists intended. _________________ You said, " That's especially confusing when i never heard or read any socialist praising the stock market" Therefore, I give you the corresponding function of the joint-stock companies (the stock market is just gambling according to anti-dühring) under Marxist narratives. If you cannot see the relevancy between our replies, I am so sorry; I forgot to include the most important part in the summary. Under Marxism, the terms "socialisation" and "socialised" were used to describe masses of privately owned means of production transformed into public traded companies or State ownership. "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." (175, anti_duhring.pdf) "Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already SOCIALISED, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property." (177, anti_duhring.pdf) Under the Orthodox Marxism narrative, "The proletariat revolution" would only happen in the Socialist States of the capitalist mode of production, aka late-stage capitalism, where the state would exploit almost everyone, which has been transformed into proletarian. In contrast, market socialists would suggest that "worker ownership" should happen at the cooperations, by converting them into workers co-ops (with stronger worker voting rights) and prioritize worker welfare over profits, and let the free market handle the distribution.
    2
  4. Because Hitler also got the majority vote in both 1932 and 1933 federal elections. The State also may not act upon the will of the majority after they won the election.
    1
  5. ⁠​⁠ @vod96  For your first comment: Did TIK said that in this video, because what I can find in this video is “ the free market is good, and socialist totalitarianism is bad, unsurprisingly.” 19:16 ———————————— Seems the greater free market didn't exhibit those studies’ result, otherwise why don’t Apple or Amazon ran for those company structure. ——————————————— According to Anti-Dühring, because public traded companies, together with State ownership under Capitalist Mode of production would only lead to more exploitation and transform more people into proletarian. The means of production would only back to the hands of the proletariat after the proletarian, which Capitalist Mode of production would convert into Socialist mode of production. (175-177, anti_duhring.pdf)
    1