Bit of an update guys. I’m debating whether or not to publish a video next Monday in order to free up a few extra days for me to do research for future videos. As I’ve said a few times now, Stalingrad is killing me. It’s taking up so much of my time that it’s a struggle to do enough research for the other videos, and now I’m at a point where I desperately need time to study. Therefore, if there’s no video next week, or it’s just a short one, you’ll know why. Stalingrad will be the week after that though regardless. And my new editor is coming along, but isn’t up to speed yet. They’re still creating more work for me at the moment, not less. There will be an inflection point but that hasn’t happened yet. Them struggling to learn the animation process in Blender has made me realize that I have more skills than I originally thought.
Your standard of excellence is what makes you rise above the rest. Take as much time as you need. To be honest even if i watch every episode the moment of release i will still go back and watch the long form videos.
Only around 10 minutes in but I think you have started with an erroneous assumption about definitions. The dictionary is not meant to be a comprehensive definition for each word but a few sentences. Theres also a problem with defining what it means for the state to have comprehensive control over the economy.
It’s because they’re either mental midgets, thirteen years old, or were people whose parents failed to educate that Santa Claus isn’t real. I’ve know respectable socialists that have been willing to admit that National Socialism was socialism but with the asterisk that is wasn’t the socialism *they* were seeking to bring about.
Even if they define it they will make it as broad or as narrow as needed. Exp... Arent public roads just another form of socialism to society as a whole is a socialist grouping by nature. Its the same old arguement.
When I used to be a socialist, I thought it was pretty obvious that it was state ownership... Statelessness would be anarchism... Which is why I always got really confused that the anarchists used to align to some extent with the socialists... It's like an oxymoron, like a fox hanging around with the hounds.
That's because 1) They are lying or 2) They are confused because they believe that the State "dissolves" when socialism/communism is achieved, despite all evidence to the contrary. I do have an alternate interpretation of "the state dissolves" and it's less "the state ceases to exist" and more "the state becomes so totalitarian that it can no longer be distinguished from any one individual". Because Communism requires all humans to lose individuality and become part of the collective in body and mind then the State cannot be separated from them. And so, much like how dissolving sugar in tea does not mean the sugar ceases to exist, dissolving the state trough communism does not mean the state dissapears, it just becomes indistinguishable. That means the "stateless utopia" of socialism is less actual Anarchism and more Borg Collective.
I actually subscribed to your channel because you use sources and have in depth explanations of these issues. I was generally frustrated by the gross oversimplification of so many of these things and don't have a ton of time to find and read every book you have. The information is greatly appreciated (and the book list)
This remark reminds me of the story about the company, "Public Storage". These guys got together, bought property, erected buildings with individual units (say, 10'x10', 10'x6') and proclaimed "Public Storage is open for business!!!" Underwhelming response. No one was renting, few transactions. Finally, a guy walks in and asks, "Hey, it's great that you do storage for the 'public'. But where do individuals go, that need to rent 'private' storage...you know, for the non-public?? ???!!! ??? !!!!! A massive perception problem, by use of the term "Public" in the company name. Advertising all recalled and recast: "You, the individual who needs to store his privately-owned stuff somewhere...come to Public Storage, where individuals can rent a storage unit!! "
In LatAm we have a joke about an exchange university profesor from some european country (say Germany). He saw that people in LatAm wash their cars on the streets, and the run off makes puddles and damages the pavement. He asked; hey, why do you wash the cars on the street? The LatAm reply was: the street is public, it's for everybody, so we *CAN* do that. The profesor goes back to Germany and asks his neighbor; Would you wash your car on the street? The german answer was: No. The street is public. It's for everyone to use. We *CAN'T* do that! same word, "public". Two very different understandings of what it means. respectfully
"Owned by" isn't exactly correct but not incorrect. A public park is one that is paid for, by the people and administered by the government - that is where the thought of "owned by" is correct-ish. Technically, it is owned by the people because it is paid for, by the people through taxes. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. are private companies - they have share holders, etc. But, they work in both the private and public sectors, as they create things for the use of the people (e.g., airliners) and things paid for by the people and administered by the people's government (e.g., military equipment). The distinction comes from the administration and the source, of the funding.
@@jasontrauger8515 The government pays for these services not the general populace. The government took money from the populace and then the government spent it on the park. The government then turned around to the populace and said "look at this nice park you paid for". This is a deflection designed to instill pride in the nice park "you" paid for but in fact you had no control over the purchasing of the park and the deed is in the government's name.
The main thing is using consistent definitions and clearly starting what they are. I think public discourse would be a lot better if people let other people know they are willing to change their mind, and that those listening don't find this to be an inherently bad thing. It's a big cultural thing that I dislike, people use their anger to make the other people angry, which results in entrenching ideas, which means less and less correction, and more and more mistakes, whatever the field is.
There is a small sect of intellectuals out there, who are primarily professors and journalists, that organize social trends by using language incorrectly. They do this on purpose - claiming that their definition is more "academic", and then tricking the public into being in-favor of something they normally wouldn't be in-favor of. Because they don't know the meaning of the words being used. For instance: "Social Justice". The implication of this term implies that there is social injustice in society. But by social, they mean societal. By justice, they mean equity. And by equity, they specifically mean that every single group of people with specific characteristics must be evenly split, perfectly - in all walks of like. There needs to be 50/50 women/male CEOs, there needs to be a black person in every movie, add, or video game you see, there needs to be gay romance in every piece of media you view, there needs to be more trans people in political office, etc... The list can go on forever because the definitions are so vague, that it can only be assumed that this is all being done to justify political power grabs and entryism. The average public would never go for social justice if they realized what it meant in application. Its simply a fairy tale that could never be done, unless humanity is turned into the borg. And yet vast swathes of the public scream and fight for social justice because they think that its JUST about police brutality. Its JUST about protecting trans/gay people from being assaulted. The academics know there's more to it than that, but they duck under the harmless definition when criticized and they whip out the satanic definition when no one is paying attention. Such as in 1000 paged senate bills that no one reads. These are the exact tactics that were used in Maoist China and are leading down the same path that they went down.
i use swear words which are accurate to wake people from their slumber and brainwashing - do you think it doesnt work ? For example if you say an obvious inaccurate statement like communism killed 100 million people youre a either a brainwashed ignorant antisocialist who doesnt critically think (ie stupid) or a malevolent antisocialist trying to brainwash people by spreading misinformation by the way TIK hasnt responded to any of my comments and questions no matter what words i use
I have to say that I subscribed to you primarily for your political and economic analysis. I know a lot of other RUclipsrs who cover battles, but you are the first one who provided a hollistic presentation involving politics, economics and military history.
@@PrinceOfDolAlmroth - What a wonderful quote! And, arguably, it works both ways: Amateurs study logistics and economics, professionals study battles (and economics and logistics)... or, a little more accurately, the application of the force of the state in battle (and against its own population, such as with tax collection at gunpoint or under the threat of jail) goes fist-in-glove with the economics and logistics sooner or later. Or, at least that's the way it seems to me, as an amateur! :) In any event, I also tune in here for the political and economic analysis - those add a depth to topics that would be sorely missed otherwise.
Just started the video, and I'm going to just say this. TIK is rarely wrong. And he makes the effort not to be, and gives disclaimers when something is up for interpretation & debate.
Yeah, I really don't understand why my critics think I'm wrong on this particular issue. EVERY source says what Socialism and Capitalism are, but for some reason 'my' definitions are wrong. It makes no sense.
@@TheImperatorKnight Because its still a political debate happening today in some circles, so people get really defensive and red vs blue very quickly. That being said I found your definitions to be the most logically sound and least loaded amongst modern historians on the time period, so keep up the great work 👍
@@spaman7716 Yeah I understand that, but when I was a socialist, these were the definitions I used. It genuinely is the case that if I had said all this as a Socialist, the Left would have (largely) agreed with me. But because I converted from being a socialist to someone who actually understands economics, they've decided I must be wrong just because. It's insane.
@@TheImperatorKnight Don't worry Tik, for soon your critics will implement the Stalin method and remove those pesky definitions that are inconvenient to hear
@@TheImperatorKnight The problem is unfortunately. People are emotional as opposed to controlling their emotions and that causes a lot of clouded judgements and interpretations. People have become too emotionally attached to their beliefs. It's sad that this is more common than intelligent and open debate mate.
Did it ever come across your miniscule mind that maybe there isn't a single definition of socialism, and what is about TIK's obsession with trying to define and oversimplify everything? Trying to define socialism is like trying to define 'working class' or 'feminism', it is even hard to define 'capitalism'. These definitions were never beholden to any single definition, and their meanings keep constantly changing. Even Bill Gates and Elon Musk define themselves as Socialists, does that mean these billionares actually are socialists??
@@krey3486 you can’t debate alternative definitions if none are offered you twit Just saying someone definition is wrong without offering an alternative is the definition of being a screeching autistic kid Also dumb arse you can’t say there are different definitions of a word then tell everyone who offers an alternative to yours that they are a wrong I didn’t bother reading the rest of your speg out
If you want a simple the definition of Socialism, just flip the hierarchy pyramid upside down. It’s where the state is dictated to by the people. Academically, it’s when power is decentralized through worker owned means of production. Historically, socialism has never happened, although many people disingenuously use the platform of socialism to centralize power (which is antithetical to the heart of the ideology). To believe a party like the National Socialists were a socialist party is equivalent to believing the Democratic Republic of North Korea is actually a democratic republic. Tik knows this. I find it hard to believe he doesn’t.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.”
You simply can't make an abstract string of words connect with the true essence of socialism over all of history and the modern times. It is something always changing, always in motion. If anything you are the one invalidating the utility of words seeing as you believe in this dogmatic use of definitions where every word is defined by another string words, in that case it becomes a never ending cycle, you effectively destroy any use of language because at its fundamental level it must be based in reality, not in just more words. It's based in a collective subconscious level where we fundamentally, when in good faith, understand what the other person is talking about. Sure, you can have an abstract, short description of a word, but it can only ever be used as a guide, not as some Big Other-like figure you never can stray away from.
From personal experience, I can assure you that "they're an idiot" and "they don't know what they're talking about" (or similar phrases) are code words for "I disagree with their beliefs so strongly that I refuse to admit the possibility that they might be right."
When I have that thought, "What an idiot," it's usually because there's so much wrong with what they're saying I don't know where to begin and there's alot of work to do to get down to their underlying assumptions before getting back to the issue at hand.
I like your videos. I think you've been fairly clear on your definitions. Yeah the conflated definitions are exactly how they trick the workers. The Soviets started out with the workers trying to run the factories but it didn't take long for Lenin to get his party activists in charge of the Soviets instead. They put the state in charge of the means of production once they had control of the state.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. a class of bureaucrat-rulers, arose to manage the big pile of stuff from which everyone's needs were to be met.
But one problem is that he has changed the definition of "private enterprise" from the one that Murray Robinson quoted to his own, simply based on his (misguided IMO) view of what "public" and "private" mean, without regard to what the term means in traditional economic lingo.
thats not word definitions tricking the workers , thats just people in power not doing what they wanted to do and promised- to make that comment shows youre anti socialist and dont really want to understand the filings of socialism
TIK, I have studied history and dealt with anthropology, sociology and the importance of concepts and I see that you are a really, really well read person. You made a very long video, with a lot of conceptual discussion, and I am afraid you were missing a mark: your critics do not realize the importance of proper grasping the concepts they use and the more you explain them, the less they will understand. Maybe have a proper video (series) dealing with the importance of concepts and using WW2 as a case study. I am rooting for you, though, because I like the way your videos make me raise questions on the topics you discuss, which is like you say, the essence of history - make you want to debate. Cheers!
Thanks for your comment. Can you be more specific in what concepts I should cover in a series? And why do you think the more I explain, the less they understand?
@TIKhistory I imagine that he thinks that. Because the more examples you give the more the more arguments you make, the more complexity people have to sift through. I think you might be able to make a thorough video on the topic by using a case study the frame of history. Like say track the history or socialism and how it's developed as an ideology and sub ideologies throughout its origins to now. Maybe even tackle the roots of communism and socialism pre Marx. I think it may also be effective to describe what the definitions of those words like state and capital meant throughout these periods as well.
@@scottmacadam6599 no he shouldnt - hes a biased anti socialist which is why often his information ie opinions are wrong -his video wouldnt be accurate just misleading
TIK, you support the definitions with substantial sources and professionalism. An admirable quality. Your scholarship and patience are commendable. Always enjoy your videos.
I am a huge fan of TIK and give him credit that he names the sources he uses, but he often neglects the caveat that there are other well-argued and established definitions that contradict his personal opinion. In other words, TIK presents opinion (albeit well-informed opinion) as fact. Brits tend to do this a lot.
@@dirremoire That's the job of the person arguing from the other side. I'm not surprised you find that's in our British character, our legal system works this way also
@@dirremoire he is using the definitions that have historically always been used. These "new meanings" are marxist perversions intended to deceive. fuck that
@@dirremoire Whilst this "fact" isn't simple as gravity down, not up - assuming the normal trivial definition of up/down - the professional politician class (= the bosses) just use this as mental football i.e. the opium of the thinking classes... - the effort you have to make, the loyalty in thought and speech you have to give to rise up in the 'party' classes means there will ever be little change. Afterall Liz Truss - that "liberal" mole in the Tory party, won, but got caught early and may not have damaged the tories enough to sink both party and those Austrian economists... ...
@David Dirré-Moire. What's he ignoring? He is going over the best alternative arguments in these responses videos. He's not ignoring anything. He's logically laying out how those other definitions don't already stand up to logic and history
Ironically, I learned this at a very early age due to getting a hand me down, early 60's Funk & Wagnel Encyclopedia set. I remember having to show my sources to my teachers in elementary school because they had it all backwards. Thanks for explaining this TIC and everybody should check out an old Encyclopedia to see what's changed or 'evolved'. Most of the inconsistencies TIC points out in WWII are repeated in the US Civil War and usually due to 'Memoirs'.
Just an observation as a capitalist: I'm not sure you can compare publicly traded companies with what socialists consider owning the means of production. More accurate to say that in capitalist systems, publicly traded companies are owned by public investors. If the workers of a particular publicly traded company can't afford to buy shares of said company, they certainly don't "own" any part of the company they work for. In a socialist system, the workers don't have to buy shares (of course, they don't actually own the company or its means of production, either - the State does).
I agree with you on private co but youre wrong on on socialism & socialism definition as most right wingers are. SOCIALISM is the common ownership of the means of production , its collective and international thats its defining features- state implies borders and nationalism The biggest misconception of socialism is its state owned-- NO , NO NO its worker owned. Some view market socialism and democratic socialism as having a state but that would be a country of co-ops where workers owned factories etc - The confusion arises when the capitalist state starts nationaliising certain industries but thats done to make capitalism work better not to advance socialism. Fascism is much harder again to explain -but its primarily conservative social policy and govt and mix of eco policys only under NAZISM when Hitler changed the definition incorrectly calling his party national socialism but that was mostly govt org eco system of private companies .
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 The biggest mistake of socialists is assuming they will be allowed by the resulting state to own anything. No example of large scale socialism in practice has ever allowed it, by necessity. Oppressive central planning is always required to implement (force) socialism on the population, and worker ownership is never implemented. In other words, socialism my be the goal of the workers and the common revolutionaries, but oppressive, authoritarian communism is always what you get. So no, I didn't misspeak or misunderstand socialism - I'm simply observant of history and have a better understanding of human nature than you do. And how many times does Tik and others like him have to explain to you that the National Socialists were indeed socialists? I know it must pain you to have your movement associated with such a person as AH, but he is your bedfellow, like it or not.
The explanation of the term "corporation" I was taught by one of my history professors was that it came from "corpus" and had a legal purpose which was that a corporation is, legally speaking, a person, which is why a corporation can be sued in court for example. It was just the way the legal system developed to recognise that an organisation can own things instead of individuals. That's why when someone owns a tiny corporation they pay personal and corporate taxes as separate things. If the corporation goes bankrupt, the owner does not have to go bankrupt.
@@gilgamesh310 After some quick Googling, it seems like the modern terms might all have different legal meanings depending on the country. USA seems to have corporations and companies as separate but Britain doesn't seem to have a distinction. Very well could be wrong though, I'm no legal or business expert and only did
@@gilgamesh310 A company of shareholders come together to form a body corporate if you want to go back to 17th century coffee houses. The terms are synonymously used today.
@@KingRyanoles you may not be aware that compared to debt investors equity investors take more risk and have more skin in the game. The concept of limited liability for passive investors (i.e. - that they can loose no more than their investment) is defensible on moral grounds (it is the directors' responsibility to manage the company and the shareholders are not to blame for any turpitude of the directors), though I accept reasonable people can disagree here. What is not in doubt is that the market economy would not function without limited liability protections for passive investors. Nobody would invest; money would not be freely allocated to big projects which involves more than a single individual's scope of personal oversight. People would live a life of subsistence farming; a village life; the kind of life which the anarchic Kropotkin black army said it wanted, but then realised it couldn't have without contradicting itself and forming an organisation multiple orders of magnitude larger than any village collective.
Corporations are a group of people with the same job, basically. Or at least that's what it was in France. You'll have a corporation of bakers, butchers... With coat of arms and everything. As you said, it's primarily to serve as (what we call) a "moral person"(as oppose to physical person), in other word a figure that is liable and can enable legal procedures, but is an unreal entity that exist only in the legal world. These still exists, for example for medics : they decide if X respect the ethics or not and apply punishment, and are also responsible for other administrative work.
Hi TIK, I've been following your work for a few years and I've always had a lot of admiration. My question is, can I translate one or more of your videos? I would, of course, give you all the credit. I'm not very skilled with either video or audio, but I have friends with more experience who can help me and I'm keen to try to make it work. My mother tongue is Portuguese, I'm Brazilian, watching videos between 1 or 5 hours just by subtitles is very difficult for most people, the idea would be to "re-record" your videos by translating them. Tell me what you think of the idea. Thanks in advance
i hope he sees this because i was contemplating the same about german. Theres a plethora of people here who lack the understanding in english but would otherwise be openminded to seeing the damage the Frankfurt School Grift has done to us as a people. Labelling Hitler as "right wing extremist" is still not being challanged in the realm of german political debate.
Hi mexican here, I and some mates were thinking to do something similar, for as you can imagine the entire of latin america its riddle with what I call left illiteracy, so if tik may agree I volunteer for the spanish version.
I think when people say "privately owned", as in "most schools are publicly owned but some are privately owned", they use the term "private" to distinguish from state-owned. They aren't necessarily saying the entity isn't publicly traded. In a business context if someone says a company is "privately held" they usually mean that it's not publicly traded, e.g. Twitter after Musk "took it private". I think "publicly owned" means owned by the state (and therefore at least in theory, every individual has some ownership claim). But your claim to a publicly-owned asset can't be bought or sold, it's derived from your citizenship, unlike shares in publicly-traded private corporations.
@@thotslayer9914 I do not. Ive thought about it for. a while, but never got around to it. Perhaps one of these days, The New Bohemian will be a real Chanel.
Definitions and terminology are everything. Over the years I had endless debates (over the drink or two, of course) about all kinds of topics. Having few decades under my belt, now, first thing I do is making clear of terminology before starting a debate. And funny thing happens - debate never really starts, we always get stuck in a mud of the terminology. People use the same words, but they mean different things to us and that is why debates, especially those online, are mostly pointless. Terminology first, debate second.
I am willing to engage with someone else's definitions in order to understand their reasoning. Our modern world is governed by complex systems that are defined in vague ways, personally I think things have been intentionally obfuscated but thats besides the point. I don't fault anyone for getting definitions mixed up or having a different understanding of a topic. That being said I think its important to get beyond the weeds of terminology so that we can understand the larger picture.
I think some of the problem is the debate between the prescriptivists and descriptivists. Unlike most other languages, the English language does not have a governing body that reviews the lexicon. (Strangely, Canada has one for French but not one for English.) There are merits and demerits to this. Personally, I'm a prescriptivist with some nuance. I think a formal language with grammatical rules, correct spelling, precise lexicon, etc. should be taught and used in school and in government documents. Get everyone on the same page so that they may discuss things without bickering about meanings. The language of the street is perfectly fine for ordinary communication. People can move between both worlds. The descriptivists see formalised language as the exercise of power by the ruling class over the oppressed. 'Words change meaning over time', they state. This is accurate. But why? Well, a long time ago few people were formally educated. Books were rare and precious things. No doubt in such an environment imprecision occurred and took hold. For example, nice originally meant silly or foolish. Today, if you say someone is nice, it's not an insult. But, the era of restricted knowledge is no longer. Peopled are schooled. They have plenty of books, perhaps even read some. They have near instantaneous access to dictionaries and encyclopaedias. There is a less justifiable reason to accept imprecision today than 500 years ago. Errors may be easily corrected. The descriptivists state that 'wrong' cannot be. To claim so is an abuse of power. Yet, errors usually happen because people are talking above their knowledge or because they are playing political games, wanting to change meaning to suit their purposes, derail discomfiting discussions, etc. Unfortunately, the descriptivists rule linguistics and this cascades to most other departments of the academy as well as into the schoolhouse and politics.
Hi, TIK. Thank you for yet another great video. As far as publicly-traded corporations go, I think clarity of language is helpful. A corporation may sell shares of its equity on exchanges whose access is not limited to certain persons or institutions; that does not mean its ownership is “shared” amongst the general public, I.e. the society or the State. The ownership is limited to those who purchase the equity. You may choose to buy 100 shares of XYZ Corp, and I may buy 10 shares, and some other person may buy zero. We do not all together hold those shares in common: one person has no ownership at all, and you own more than I do. If/when dividends are disbursed, you will receive 10x more than I will, and the person with zero shares receives nothing. Those shares you own are exclusive to you and under your control. That does sound an awful lot like private property to me. If we say that publicly-traded companies are better described as being openly-traded multipartite ownership firms (which is an accurate way of describing these companies), the clarity is great. Very few businesses have only one owner. What is the difference between Steve’s Auto Parts (in which Steve owns 100 shares, Steve’s mom and dad both own 50, and Steve’s wife owns 100) and NAPA whose many shareholders exchange their equity openly? The only real difference is the forum where those shares are traded: one is big, one is small. Being “publicly-traded” does not imply public ownership. Just like if a golf course describes itself as public, that simply means anyone has the opportunity to pay green fees and play a round. It doesn’t mean that random citizens can just choose to play for no cost.
You are confusing owning stock with owning the company... If you own all the stock you own the company and then it is private. If you own some stock and other people own other stock then you alone do not own the company, the public owns the company. You are also confusing "the public" with "everyone", the public is not everyone, the public is the group that owns the stock. A public golf course is public because you can pay money to be in the club and then you can play a round or many. You pay to be part of the public that runs the golf course and so you can use it. But you can't sell the golf course, you do not own it just because you paid to be in the club, much like you do not own a company just because you bought some stock. At last, the real difference between Steve's Auto Parts and NAPA is that you cannot buy into Steve's Auto Parts, not unless they go public.
@@supernus8684 1) Owning shares of the company is precisely the same thing as owning the company. Almost no businesses ever are limited to one equity shareholder. Owning one out of 10,000,000 shares might make you a small owner, but you still own that small sliver. 2) "The public" do NOT hold equity in a publicly-traded company: the shareholders do, and nobody else. 3) The difference between a privately-held company and a publicly-traded one is simply the forum in which ownership stakes are traded. The companies are entirely private to the shareholders in both cases - unless the State owns the shares. 4) The vast majority of "public" golf courses are privately owned. They simply do not restrict access to a particular membership group. 5) You are entirely incorrect about not being able to buy a stake in a non-publicly-traded company. Those transactions happen literally all the time. Ownership shares are not conceptually limited to those traded on public exchanges.
@@va3svd 1. Exactly, you do not own the company, you own a small sliver of the company, difference. 2. Exactly, the public are the shareholders. 3. No in the case of a publicly traded company anyone can buy shares making it public and not private. 4. No they are owned by the public that runs the golf course. 5. Yes you could buy shares if lets say you knew a share holder and he agreed to sell them to you, but anyone can not buy shares, so it is not public. Conclusion: once again you are confusing what public means. Lets call everyone in a society the "general public" for your leisure. The general public can buy stock into a public company to become part of the public that owns the company, it is not privately owned because it is owned by a public, you may own a small sliver of the company but you cannot decide by yourself how the company is run etc, you have to do that together with the public that runs the company. The public that runs the company is not the general public but as the general public you could purchase shares and become part of the public which controls the company. It is an hierarchy, see?
@@supernus8684 I really think you do not understand how equity share trading works. This is causing some of your many errors in this discussion. Also, you insist on misusing the definitions of "public", following TIK's initial error. 1) Companies may issue equity shares to raise cash. They sacrifice their share in the equity of the company to raise the cash they want. This is not revolutionary or new. Those shares may be issued to a public trading market or an exclusive one, but the idea is the same. Almost *no* businesses have only one equity shareholder (known as "sole proprietorships"). That means almost every business ownership arrangement is fractional. The mere existence of fractional ownership does not diminish the fact of ownership; it is solely a question of scale. Whether the fellow owners are mom, dad, and spouse, or 5 pension funds and 100,000 random individuals, the concept of ownership or fractional ownership is exactly the same. Your attempt at making different categories of ownership on that basis is simply wrong. 2) The public are NOT the shareholders; the shareholders are the shareholders. Period. You have to buy a share(s) to be a shareholder; the public does NOT participate in the ownership unless the State buys those shares. 3) The only difference there is the forum in which the equity shares are traded. 4) Golf courses calling themselves "public" are almost always NOT publicly owned. They are privately-owned. They are public only in the sense that access to the course is not exclusive to a paid membership. Publicly-owned ones are usually owned by a municipality and call themselves municipal golf courses. This is yet another example of you not parsing the varying meanings of the word "public" properly. 5) Your segment about the "general public" further confirms your confusion about what ownership consists of and how equity is traded on open markets. A business is not "private" or "public" based on how much directive power the majority shareholder has; that's silly.
@@va3svd 1. No it is not, the difference lies in who can buy shares. If the general public can not buy shares the company is not public. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 2. The public are the shareholders. In a public company the group referred to as the public are the shareholders. 3. In a private company the public do not hold the shares. In a public company the public do own the shares. 4. The word public means one thing, not many. 5. I never said it was. A company is private or public based on if the shares are traded privately or publicly. If you want to understand you HAVE TO understand the meaning of words first and the concepts second. Conclusion: you are still confusing the word public as meaning every person in a state which it doesn't. The word public means a group of unrelated people. There can be many different such public groups. One of these public groups is the general public which refers to every person in the state. Do you see? The word public can be used to describe the people in the state but this us not what the word means. You are confused as to the meaning of the word. Go read the dictionary. Im out.
Wouldn't it be a good way to separate the words "public" and "state" for the sake of clarification between a publicly traded corporation and a state? The state then would be defined as the highest institution that rules over a defined territorial area, while a publicly traded corporation can be anywhere within a state or outside. I think that would be more consistent and logical especially when we talk about modern times. After all "public" and "private" cant really be defined by the number of people that can or have to be involved.
And if u ever formed a Corporation you gotta file for charter from your national govt...here in US the States and Federal Gov both can charter corps. 🤓
Yeah it was insightful, but TIK misses the point sometimes, not every government who interferes with free market is socialist. Look at anti-cartel laws (even in the US) and such. In Germany we have social-market-economy since end of WW2. Few calls us socialist....at least since GDR is no more
@@rainerbandowski1999 agreed, it's like when talking with some of my more liberal friends, they all automatically make this assumption that conservatives want there to be zero regs and absolutely no govt interaction...which is just fantasy. When talking regulation, it varies so damn much between industries that it's totally useless to make a blanket generalization like "I'm against any and all regulations." They also seem to have this strange impression that a more conservative view of the markets would mean that you are against breaking up monopolies, which I have absolutely no idea where that comes from. It's essential for a free market for there to actually be competition, something that's not often possible with monopolistic holds over industry. It's not impossible to look at regulations that hurt industry while providing very little benefit, while at the same time agreeing with some other regulations that actually DO have a measurable benefit. But this hardline black or white, my way or the highway, all or nothing type of shit is nothing but hugely detrimental to society. It's very screwed up that people living in the same country are starting to think they can't find common ground. Especially when they are closer to each other, as far as political leanings go, than they are people from anywhere else on the planet. I'm glad people are seemingly waking up to the nonsense, however. People who live on the same block but support different candidates are not enemies. Nor is one automatically better than the other simply because of who they chose to vote for. Shit is crazy nowadays.
Fu*k i hope not - people that win arguments are not always right - TIK isnt right here and he hasnt won the argument - it appears most right wing commentators agree with him but that doesnt mean anything- Ben shapiro isnt right alot or most of the time- hes just the best debater /arguer
34:32 No they WILL have a CEO. And the CEO is not the "public representative of the public corporation". He is the employee of a private entity. That entity can hire or fire him without the input from anyone else. A corporation is not a state or some public actor. It is an piece of property conceived to make money. A State is not a financial enterprise, but serves a very different function.
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 And the membership of the board of directors is made up of share holders, i.e. the owners of the property. Ergo, the CEO is an employee of the owners.
To this day, Tik's explanation and definitions of "Left" and "Right" are by far the best explanations of the terms I've heard. However, litterally every time I talk about this to someone, they say Im wrong - but never present any compelling arguments to back their assertion up. They always point to differences in the current left and right wing here in the US and say "See, this is the difference!". When, in reality, these are always just specific points of disagreement between the two specific groups in the US - not a definition of the root "left" and "right". For example, legal abortion isn't inherently left or right wing - but is pointed at as a difference between the two.
"Left" and "Right" have no meaning. They might as well be called "A" and "B" or "Red" and "Blue". They are just team names: you pick one to "identify" with and then you fight against the other. That is the only thing you can communicate with these words: tribal affiliation. You can't do any logic with them, because they have no definition. You can define them, sure, but why would you pick such abused strings of letters for your new word when there are countless other letter combinations available.
Left and right are just simple terms used to make it easy for someone like you to understand. It has no meaning at all. People agree with some policy on the right and some on the left. That’s just how human works. So Tik’s definition of left and right is just as meaningless as others. However his definition of socialism is very flawed. Socialism isn’t a left/right issue. Socialism is how a country or society choice to organize its economy and means of production. Nazi Germany have some socialistic policies just like everyone, but it is not socialism because means of production aka factories, farm etc is not owned by The government. It is owned by private people, that’s called capitalism.
By this definition, the so called socialist European country are not socialism, they are still under capitalism. China calls itself under socialism but that’s only true from 1950-1979. After 1979 they are no longer a socialist country.
@@royhuang9715 but the "private" people still answer to the government, if they don't bow to the will of the government they will be removed forcibly. so it's kind of a stretch to call it capitalism when the government still controls the means of production just through a slightly longer channel.
left and right belong to european politics. lumping some hardcore liberterian in with nat socs makes as much sense as the alleged rightwing nat socs. its just a brush to smear the US commie fifth column's enemies.
Thank you very much, TIK. I recently rewatched your “what is fascism” video by George Orwell and in away it applies here. People use the words socialism as if it’s a swear word without fully knowing what it truly means. Second Thought’s video on why the Nazi’s were capitalists was a fascinating watch in seeing socialists pick and choose what is or is not socialist. Either you tick every box to be a socialist or your not. While of course he makes the claim socialism is more than just the state seizing the means of production. Now he uses coded language to mean the “people” when it’s really the state/ government.
I think Second Thought is a bad example, although (sadly) typical of many members of the radical left. He is a marxist and marxists almost always think that they have found THE definitive explanation of how the world works. Many of them a very dogmatic in my experience. I would consider myself to be a member of the left too, but not a marxist. It's funny, I tried to argue with both Second Thought and TIK and both rejected my definition attempt of the term socialism, but for opposite reasons. I thought for a long time that I was some sort of anarchists, but then "real" anarchists told me that my opinions were not radical enough. Kind of frustrating.
From what I've seen Hitler definitely didn't have any interest in directly controlling the means of production, but he did believe the state should regulate the economy and that companies shouldn't be allowed to violate the national interests, or the rights of workers simply for profit. He also had very big criticisms for capitalist states, calling them plutocracies that put the interests of capital above the will of the people (he wasn't referencing democray though, since he also didn't believe democracy conveyed the people's will, at least he didn't believe in multipartidarism). The best way to define Germany in that period, is that NS was Socialism, but with different principles from those of Marxism. Obviously these explanations will never convince Communists, Socialists, and modern Marxists in general because they are more afraid of being viewed remotely similar to Hitler's ideology than they are interested in truth, despite the fact that most of the modern world ended up adopting Hitler's economic theories in some capacity, that nobody cared about his economic policy to begin with, and that he himself wrote that economics was only a means to an end and not supposed to be a crystallized aspect of the state that you have to keep immutable forever.
@@untruelie2640 I've just double-checked our previous conversations via my comment search, and it went exactly like this: you said I was wrong. I said I was using the historical definitions. You said "there is also a wider definition of socialism; a more descriptive one that is often used in the discipline of political theory." So I said: "Okay, despite the fact that the historical definition is clear, I'll bite. What is this "wider" definition you speak of?" Your reply was: "I tried to explain it above. I don't think that ANY definition outside of natural science is really clear or agreed on by everyone. At least that was one of the things I learned when I studied philosophy." In other words, your definition of socialism is "it depends and it's not agreed on". Well, it's no wonder I and Second Thought reject that definition because that's not a definition. You have failed to define socialism. In reply to other users you also said you reject "absolute definitions", and then proceeded to call anyone who defines things "dogmatic", whilst at the same time saying to them: "Claiming that YOUR personal conviction is the one and only absolute truth in the universe is not only unscientific but also rather narcisistic. That's simply the nature of a pluralistic world." It's not "personal" or a conviction. EVERY socialist who can actually define socialism, every political thinker, every historian, the dictionary, numerous other sources, all point to the same definition. When socialism is attempted the results are unanimous - totalitarianism and state ownership or control of the means of production. We have a convergence of evidence on this matter conclusively proving what the definition is. But you selfishly reject this, and when asked to give a definition, you then proceed to write paragraphs of purple prose that doesn't actually define anything. You have failed to define socialism because you either don't know what it is, or because your belief in the Hegelian religion (which you admit elsewhere) hinders your cognitive development. Like a typical dialectic materialist, you don't believe in definitions simply because defining what socialism is opens "The Idea" to criticism. Well, I don't believe in Cosmism, and I don't believe in Hegelian -logic- emotionalism, so I'll stick to the evidence which all points to the same conclusion. Socialism is state ownership or control of the means of production. If you disagree, you'll have to come up with a concrete definition for me to challenge you on. Failure to even do that is to admit that you're wrong, at which point this conversation is over. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who accuses me of being wrong but can't define the thing I'm supposedly wrong about. If you can't define it, you can't prove I'm wrong.
I've only ever done like three tank videos ever, and the last one I made (the one on the Maus) didn't perform well at all. People aren't here for the tank content!
Damn, AFGuides? I've watched some of your playthroughs, and I've seen you in a few comments sections here and there, but I wasn't expecting to find you scrolling through a TIK video.
Losing your faith is painful, and people will go through lengths to justify anything to keep it. Because humans are a social creature, and they understand fully that it will mean they become more alone outside of the in-group. That's why almost everyone will sacrifice themselves to the organization they claim their allegiance to, be it religion, politics, company, or any other kind of organization. I understand this very well, having done this journey not only once, but twice. The most recent being actually from socialism to libertarianism. The journey itself is cleansing, but i fully understand the reasoning of those that refuse to do it. It's a common trait, and a logical fallacy at that. (sunk cost fallacy) They're too invested socialy to the particular group. I don't know how many people i know that hate their job, with a passion even. Yet they stay. They really don't understand freedom, nor do they understand independence, economy, politics, or pretty much anything. It's a condition coming from conditioning.
I gotta hand it to Horatio. He's an example of how civil disagreement can be done well. I on the other hand, agree fully with you and am happy to learn more on economics because you have some of the best videos on economics and political ideology. I used to have a lot of miconceptions on economics (i'm bad at math) and you have inspired me to learn more about economics ever since you started "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments." It was my first video of yours I watched, so after that I went backwards to Public vs Private. I have used you as a source to educate people and it is difficult, but I think you are doing it rather understandable to anyone. If I had you as my history teacher when I was a kid, you'd have been my favorite history teacher. I believe a case of why people are so muddled an confused is because modern Marxists (the 'woke' kind who can't even define man and woman) have been artificially changing and subverting the definitions for decades. Thank you for doing what you do, even if it's a exhausting endeavor. I get the same lies and misconceptions as you do, projected onto me on a much smaller scale, which is a reason why I respect you so much for sticking to the truth. Edit: I have been seeing a lot of rhetoric about the Industrial Revolution being an utterly terrible thing from both the left and Christian traditionalist Conservative right. Since that is linked to Economics and these relevant ideologies. I'm wondering if that should be explored with real historical coverage.
Was it Bill Gates? He does love his population control ideology. On a more serious note, terrible how? I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to seriously argue that.
@@alexgray2482 They're ideological, highly religious or ideologues. I don't want to the west to become a Christian Caliphate any more than a communist section of the world.
@@TheMattTrakker they're mostly Christian 'Conservatives' who think Conservatives are all abut Religion. They're becoming increasingly common on counterculture and commentary channels as well as political discussion sites. I feel like i'm in a Christian Caliphate or something lately because i'm a Conservative myself, but some say i'm a leftists because I'm not religious. TIK is one of the guys that has proof that's not true. On the other side of the political spectrum it's Climate Change fanatics, such as Chinese Communist Party puppet Prime Minister of Britain Rishi Sunak saying Brits need to pay 'climate reparations' to third world countries for the Industrial Revolution.
I like this. Breaking it all down and discussing it is enlightening. I find it worthwhile to look at the definitions and how we seem to say one thing and mean another while we think we were so clear. Great work again!
I think it is great that this definitions video was made. More You Tubers making videos on politics and economics should do this too, to see what their baselines are, and to see if they start from the correct place.
Don't stick to tanks, definitely include economics. Without understanding economics, one can't fully grasp history, including military history. You are doing a great job TIK, and the only people who disagree with you on economics have little understanding of it themselves. In fact, many have been taught false economics by people with a political agenda. FWIW, I do have a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from a highly regarded university.
And i have a diploma in business studies in accounting which includes economics, yet it was only taught capitalist economics - i used capitalist economics and accounting in a capitalist corporation then once i quit i met the socialists and learnt about socialist economics and marxism which has different views on capitalism and socialism and communism . Professor Wolf a confessed marxist , said when he was at university no one taught marxism . My point is which economics did you learn because in my experience its only capitalist economics the school system from high school to university teaches unless you know about others and can seek them out. NB this was 30 yrs ago s cant say how its changed today.
from that moronic statement youre either a moron or extremely dishonest malevolent anti socialist Im not an astromer nor nuclear physist and wouldnt argue with either and pretend i now more and make that same idotic incorrect claim In case your brain couldnt work that out making dishonest straw man arguments about socialism isnt good arguing and wont get accepted. Theres plenty of good arguments and critiques against every system , socialism , capitalism , fascism and fuedalism because every system involve humans the problem is people like TIK dont make them.
This was fun, I am a repentant socialist, a repentant teenager communist, or anarcho-syndicalist romantic. We need balance in our world but ignorance is no answer to history. Personally I loved this chat. Today I learned a few reasons why I already do not like state control or too much socialism. On the other hand I learned in my life we need some state control of a justice system maybe, a police force and other things. May we all live long enough to experience democracy. Thank you for sticking to history, and well done Tik
Something I've posted on your other videos, and I cannot reiterate it enough. When your channel is dedicated to World War II and a general study of it, its causes, and what led to it and how it was actually conducted (correct me if I'm wrong there, but I believe that to be true enough), you SIMPLY CANNOT decouple the economics from the military aspects of the war because the war was motivated and conducted for primarily economic reasons, for both the European Axis and the Japanese Empire. Having your terms correct is incredibly important, and you do this as well as Drachinifel does his homework on his Naval History Channel. Keep it up man; you produce objectively some of the best WWII history takes and explanations of anyone on RUclips and easily some of the best work even from an academic level.
the victors write history and this is a video on economics and politics not war - the victors of capitalism are the winners they have managed to socially construct what socialism and capitalism is and this does nothing to correct those false ideas.
Hey Tik. Hope all is well. Take the time you need. If you need to switch from Stalingrad to something else, I'd say go for it. It's best to switch to a different topic that is fresh and keep your enthusiam up rather than bog down in a project. You may find a fresh charge of energy when you return. Cheers for all your hard work from a subscriber across the pond.
Hey Vass, thank you. I do wonder if I should take a break from the Battlestorms for a bit to allow me to recover... but I don't know. How's things with you?
Perhaps a simpler Battlestorm operation for a while would balance the attention of the tanks-oriented crowd with the time and resources involved with creating it? Stalingrad has so much going on, I imagine a smaller operation would help the new animator catch up more easily without that full burden during the learning process. I mean, I'm perfectly happy with a pause on Battlestorm, just figured audience retention might be a concern there.
TIK, I really like your videos and it’s so great to hear well thought out opinions in detail. So please know my critique is in the spirit of good debate. I think publicly traded companies are distinct from state owned companies. To me it’s all about the shares themselves still being privately owned. If I buy a share then I own that share privately; even though I purchased the share through the public exchange. It’s no different than going to a shop and calling that “going out in public”. Technically the store property is privately owned & the products are being transferred in private exchanges; yet we still call shops and restaurants public places. It’s more word confusion/creep but conceptually it’s distinct. When I buy a share I don’t jointly own that share with the rest of society. Nor indeed is the company as a whole owned by the rest of society. The company is owned only by those individuals who bought in and only in proportion to the amount and timing of that purchase. Non-controlling shares of a company act identical to end products: acquired through free exchange , private ownership, private value. A Controlling share acts identical to private ownership of the means of production with full private decision making authority. Hypothetically, every citizen in society could simultaneously purchase equal amounts of every company; such that everybody owns the means of production equally. And that would be mathematically similar to socialism. But it still would not be actually equivalent to socialism. People could still freely decide to sell or buy more. So that option would have to be removed. Yet even then it falls short because everyone purchased equally at the start. To reach socialism the government would have to take the assets of every citizen and use that to purchase all the shares and then evenly distribute the shares to everyone and then ban all sales/purchases following the distribution. So basically it’s socialism anytime the government buys shares but not socialism if an individual privately owns shares
My first impressions when I listened to the original video was that your argument was semantics. Then I realized that of course any argument about definitions would necessarily be semantic in nature. That doesn't make it wrong. Good job TIK.
@@timacbluke7017 No, he's right about that. The non-socialist version is known as a private limited company where the shares are not open to the entire public to buy
@@juliantheapostate8295there is NO state in the world were there are NOT EVEN SOME companies run/owned by the state (at a central or more local level). So we can say that there are NO capitalist country in the world, but only MORE or LESS socialist countries, according to this channel!!!
I think the confusion is because when we think of the private sector and corporations and private entities, we mean that ownership and participation in them is by private individuals and is VOLUNTARY. When we say "public sector" we're usually talking about government ownership, making our ownership of it and interactions with it by definition INVOLUNTARY. Maybe that's not the best technical use of the terms, but I think it's the common one.
I understand, but that doesn't work. If the State's Central Bank prints currency and throws it at the stock market, which is full of public corporations, the public corporations grow large and out-compete their competition, leading to many competitors shutting up shop. The banking sector also gets centralized, and everyone is forced to be in the system. The fiat currency we use as a means of exchange is heavily manipulated as a result of inflation and interest rates, both caused by the State's Central Bank. So I don't think corporations are voluntary in any way shape or form. I have to have a bank account (banks are corporations) in order to pay my taxes, for example.
@@TheImperatorKnight Your definitions are extremely wide though, especially the "publicly-owned company" part. In most cases, the overwhelming majority of shares are owned by a very limited amount of individuals or institutions (owned by, again, overwhelmingly by a few individuals). In practice, one can usually control a company even if they own significantly less than 50% of the shares, which is a very common occurrence, and many major corporations have bylaws that makes the influence of their small shareholders extremely limited- the workers definitely do not "control the means of production" in any practical sense.
@@FeherMate A very large portion of shares (actually the majority) are owned by mutual investment funds, divided up into the proportional share of individual investors. This is about as socialist as you can get, minus the mass murder and deliberate famine
Youre correct - TIK knows this as he stated in his video public has multiple meanings depending on context then dishonestly used it in one context claiming its the only correct one Try and tell the government youre not a citizen of the state because youre a man not a person and dont consent and they will take you to court or worse using the police- They say you were born in (name state ) therefore youre a citizen of that state - its not voluntary . While the govt creates the register of companies these companies /corporations are listed voluntarily by the private individuals who register them. They are always registered as private companies as they are not for sale to wider group of individuals . Ergo the govt aka state created them . TIK sorta omitted this . This is another thing govt do to make capitalism work aside from stealing property and making it private and protecting it - dang better stop im getting into anti ancap arguments . now.
@@TheImperatorKnight your video arguments false -what you call public corporations are still private when we are describing capitalism- ive rebutted this multiple places in comments- they are private corporations with a larger group of private individual investors -we dont know how many you havent said and your claim is when a private group gets to big it becomes public . Youve also said private family groups in the medieval times comprised of thousands (my family history dates back to the war of the roses) so your claim at this stage is just a claim. The only truely public corporation is the government as all citizens can vote in its elections. Now for arguments sake lets say these private corporations traded on the stock exchange are public so were talking about the same thing , how does your statement above mean anything ? . What you speak of refers to both private and public companies so how does voluntary v forced separate private from public which was virgina hansens point .
Love your videos and the VERY CLEAR explanations therein. Problem is that certain people hear, or not hear, what they want. Not what you say. And one can not argue with those who choose to misrepresent or even be deaf to what you explain. And even when you use given definitions, the very same group you appear to adress will opt to rewrite said definitions....
Any definition of Socialism that makes Socialism not look like the flawless penultimate solution to everything, will be called a wrong definition by Socialists - who will then usually proceed to not give a definition of their own and just keep calling you wrong instead and leave, stomping their feet. That is so far my experience in this issue. There is of course the rare moments where a Socialist then does try to give a definition, but it is stammered, pulled out of thin air, and tends to be incoherent and useless - or it is some quickly copy-pasted lines that were never thought about and are at best Socialism's advertisement claims about itself, and not what it in practice and truth is and does.
The problem is that "socialism" is, like many other terms in political theory/history/philosophy a very unclear and ambiguous term. So many people have used so differently that it's hard to get a grip on it. So when someone doesn't have a clear definition it is not necessarily because of intellectual dishonesty, but because of the nature of the terminology. I could give you several dofferent definitions of "socialism", but none of them will cover every aspect of this complex phenomenon.
This discussion is timely. The term socialism has been used frequently in the debates and advertising related to the midterm elections here in the US. In my view you are being accurate when you say that there is little agreement as to what the word means. It's being used as a label, as a stick to beat others over the head in any discussion about politics. We are well served by discussions such as this which seek to define at least what the speaker means when they use the word, and what they don't mean. Better to have a dialog however this format does not support real time dialogue. Your timely thoughts on this are appreciated.
25:50 -"is publicly traded shares not shared ownership"?. Earlier in the video TIK states that it is his personal opinion is that the state does not represent the people. That might help him here. People own publicly traded shares, not the state.
government who interferes with free market is common sense not socialism, if you havent heard of cartels you should probably stopped teaching 35,5 years ago
@@rainerbandowski1999 Cartels use violence to enforce their power over other. It is by definition, anti free market and to some extent, I would even say anti-capitalist for what capitalism in the eyes of it's proponents and what they want it to achieve. The voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. Once you put violence as a tool in this, you obligatorily try to coerce and impose what is most beneficial to you at the detriment of others. This is one of the reason why a umpire state should exist to be used by the population to protect themselves in case of such violent overthrow of the market. It is a measure to protect the free market and protect capitalism. To stop an infringement of the free market isn't anti free market. But this does raise a point. If the Cartel trades in illegal products, than their sole reason for violence is because their market was born in a necessity for violence. Maybe the legalisation of those products would have prevented the necessity for violence but it is now too late for this to be corrected simply by legalisation.
@Rainer Bandowski. Oh boy. You already are strawmanning or misunderstanding. Yes. Correct. Safe interference(regulation) is NOT socialism. State OWNERSHIP and/or ultimate CONTROL over private business IS socialism. Which is exactly what TIK is saying.
Love your work man. As a young libertarian who is fairly well versed in the ethos of Mesis and Rothbard, I found you to be incredible. You have been an absolute treasure trove of knowledge and wisdom. I doubt many humans disserve an intellectual like yourself. I was wondering who any of your inspirations might be, as well as your opinions on Ayn Rand. If you don't want to disclose this information, I get it. Thank you so much for your content. I can't wait to start employment again. First thing I'm going to do is join your patron.
I'm obviously not TIK but I'll chime in anyway Rand is good for insisting on objective reality, reason (although she gives it pride of place instead of just an epistemological role) and capitalism (although she advocates it as a Platonic ideal society, not practical guidance for the individual) Rand is pretty crazy in my mind for insisting on ethical self-interest where the "self" is a psychological or narrative projection instead of flesh and blood. She turns the survival imperative from "life" as in life and death to "Life" as in achievement and eudomania. A more logical extension IMO is genetic survival and reproduction, which is obviously necessary if the philosophy is supposed to be for living organisms. Rand seems to have very little grasp of sex and reproduction. For example she violently opposes "whim-worship" except in abortion where she says there is no moral dimension and "only the wish of the woman" is morally relevant. Rand resolves the mind-body "dichotomy" by declaring the two to be united, but in practice she seems to view the mind as really fundamental and the body as a tool of the mind. In contrast I have been convinced by Rand's metaphysics and her arguments regarding the "stolen concept" fallacy that in fact mind does not exist, it is a behavior of the body.
@@reasonator9538 I think I've read everything she's ever written Ayn Rand Lexicon is great for finding her material on different subjects (and there's a free hyperlinked version online)
@@reasonator9538 I think if you want a single guide to the philosophy the best is Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) by Leonard Piekoff. Piekoff was her protege near the end of her life and I believe OPAR enjoys some sort of approval from either Rand personally or at least the Institute If you want to think for yourself about psychological vs genetic self-interest I would recommend Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene
Tik, love the video and your channel. The issue I’m having with your definition of publicly traded companies as socialist entities is that, theoretically, they aren’t controlled by state interests. Amazon is comprised of many individual owners making up the community of ownership. The state, at least here in America, technically doesn’t have the right to decide company policy, make executive decisions etc. Now you may argue that massive corporations collude with the government a majority of the time to crush smaller business competition. Or that government regulation definitionally means that it’s not a private company if the government can regulate it. I am sympathetic to those arguments. But that doesn’t change the core point which is, “publicly traded” is a colloquialism we use to say that the masses can buy a share of said company as opposed to a truly private company that is owned by the individual founders and shareholders. It does not however mean that the state controls the corporations actions as they do in true socialist states like USSR, Germany under the national socialists, China, Cuba etc. would love to hear your response to this. In any event, love your work!
Another example of "state control" is state defined, mandated and enforced school curricula. In most countries the state defines what is taught at schools, public or private. It also engages in unfair competition by providing "universal schooling" and repeating ad nauseaum that it is "free" (it is not, it is paid by taxes) In some countries, private schools are outlawed, because state controlled schooling cannot allow competition. If you attempt to home school or teach your *own children* outside of the state enforced system... you get violence and coercion
@@alphana7055 If you're rich, intelligent and have time you can give your child a better education than it could ever receive from a school. If you're rich you can just hire intelligent and educated people to come to your home to educate your child. If you're intelligent, educated and have the time and resources then you can educate your child yourself. Homeschooling is a better and more efficient way to give your child an extremely good education if you've all of the above. As long as you let your kid outside to have normal and social interactions with other kids there will be nothing wrong with your child, it will just know more about everything that is taught in school than the others and much sooner too.
@@alphana7055 strawman argument Having your kids outside the statist forced indoctrination system is not "isolating" them from society. If I send my kids to a private posh school. there is no isolation. If I create my own cooperative school with other like minded people, there is no isolation Ad hominem You are implying that I am some sort of pervert or mental patient That is all you've got?
@@alphana7055 sounds a like youre projecting a bit groomer. Had public schools stuck to STEM and basic philosophy no one would have an issue. but theyre transing the kids now cause theyre groomers, like you.
Love these videos. Thanks to you, I learned about Fascism, National Socialism, Marxism, Capitalism, Democracy and Dictatorship that the traditional narrative never would teach me and I often quote the philosophers and politicians who believed in these Ideologies and I get called a liar, misquoting them or even trying to distort what they said/believed. Like me saying that Fascism, National Socialism and Marxism are pro democracy because Giovanni Gentile, Hitler and Marx said so. Your videos are amazing and keep them up, just don't listen to those trying to push the traditional narrative and distorting history by creating Pseudohistorical narratives.
I am mad at TIK. Because of his political videos I have ended up spending close to $2000 to get many/most of the books he referenced (and several others that he didn't but are worthwhile to get like Thomas Sowell, The Federalist papers etc.). It's going to take years to read them all (Game of Thrones, Tolkien, these are not).
In regards to the private-public divide and why a small family is considered "private" historically, I would theorize a lot of it has to do with the level of interpersonal relationships. Within a family, everyone has a particular relationship with everyone else. They all know each other. At a certain size, however, a group will no longer have particular relationships between all individuals. There is a reason that cities need laws, where as a household does not, at least not in the same way. Interactions between strangers are in a way transactional, they are not part of a larger rapport-building paradigm. Once a size is reached that formalized rules a required, you have moved from the private to the public.
I think for a lot of people, it comes to down to ego. They learned something new by reading some thinker/theory, now they rushed on-top of the hill to tell everyone and having to admit they were wrong is the hardest thing to do, easier to just double-down.
I think the biggest issue is that people are solely defining "the state" as the government/country instead of an expanded view of the definition extending to any corporation. I think it's also a difficult concept because it doesn't seem that any country or country level government could actually be a fully capitalist one and would have to have some socialist aspects/components to it. People normally see a government/country as one or the other, not a % of each.
I think you're pretty spot on, for many anyways. Lots of people don't understand what fully constitutes a state. The fact that corporations are mixed up with capitalist ideals really says it all. And yeah, to be FULLY capitalist (as far right as can be) would mean no state whatsoever. Pure anarchy. I think most people recognize that as being a bit much. Relatively speaking having a free market with private ownership of the means of production is enough to fulfill the definition of being capitalist.
@@MintyLime703 I disagree that no state and anarchy are inherently the same thing. I have long said the Torah is written to establish a stateless society. It has laws, but they are immutable. There are no legislative or executive bodies. There is a hierarchy of judges, who apply the law to the case at hand according to their ability to do so, and nothing more. There are no taxes or bureaucracies created to support said judges; it is not a profession one can (legally) profit from. The people themselves bring cases and witnesses before said judges, and carry out the punishments decreed by the Torah after a guilty verdict. In other words, law enforcement is the responsibility of every person, rather than a public/state organization (the same is true for military defense, which relies on a militia system). There is also no compensation for their efforts either; it is simply a responsibility. One could argue the Levitical system/priesthood constitutes something of a state, since there is a pittance of a tax for temple services, but they are not granted the authority to govern the society at large, only apply highly specific religious judgments in the same objective manner as the secular judges do for day-to-day matters. The most irreconcilable disconnect between that system and our current potential is that it has a process for petitioning a decision from God when the correct application of a law cannot be determined with certainty by even the most senior judges. In this way, the Creator of said law explains exactly how it is intended to be interpreted in the given circumstance, and a completely objective legal precedent is thus established. Without the ability to utilize such a mechanism, the only option left is to employ what effectively amounts to legislation (whether by passing a "law" or merely setting a precedent from the bench based on best judgment) in the hopes that the original intent has been faithfully interpreted. Still though, that process does not necessarily require a state apparatus if it is simply the existing judicial hierarchy making their best educated guess. The reason I would not class that system as truly Anarcho-Capitalist is because there ARE the judges and the legal code, which extends, albeit very minimally, beyond merely the Non-Aggression Principle. It is entirely free market, though, because there are no economic regulations or taxes nor the possibility of creating any (there are outlawed behaviors like fraud, theft and prostitution, but in the form of absolute moral imperatives rather than adjustable economic regulations).
I sometimes watch ww2 videos from this channel that show up in my feed, but maybe once or twice a year it's some strange "Hitler was a socialist" PragerU tier nonsense. I respect your work and your dedication to sharing history, and some of your analyses are very important. But whatever case you're making here is not rooted in political theory, but a semantic game. What's the point? Best wishes :)
I appreciate the stimulating challenges to accepted historical "truths" which often raise a eyebrow shall we say but the main reason I like this channel is...no bloody stupid distracting and overly-loud "background music".!! Other history youtubers please take note.
I think there is a term definition that, like much of the language, is re-using of common words. A "Private Corporation" is a shorthand for "Privately Held Corporation" or one who's sales of stock is limited to being sold by private individuals to other private individuals (and may be one where the corporation is held by a limited - private - number of people. A "Public Corporation" is short for a "Publicly Held Corporation" one where the shares are traded on a public market (i.e. stock exchange). "Private Corporation" may be an oxymoron, but such is the nature of language. Usually, using Public/Private is to talk about the ownership structure of the company not the number of owners, although, by its nature a privately held company is more often held by fewer people than a public company, but like the "city / town" distinction, there are privately held companies with hundreds of owners. And you are incorrect at (36:40) not all corporations are publicly owned. An individual or small family may own a corporation and is therefore, by your definitions, not publicly owned. And, similarly, the structure of the company has nothing to do with the "for profit" nature of a company. A company can be for profit, not for profit or non-profit. (Yes, not for profit and non-profit are different.) These distinctions are different than the ownership model and have to do with tax status. So you can have a not for profit privately held company that owns shares of a for profit publicly held company. Lastly, technically, corporations are not charted by the state for monopoly purposes. They are chartered by individuals (or other corporations) within the rules and guidelines setup by the state (generally - meaning a corporation can exist outside of state rules). Technically, they are acknowledged as existing by the state, but not setup by the state. (US Law, not sure about how it is the UK.) You can, as an individual, setup a corporation and not register with the state. At its heart, a corporation is a legal contract between individuals and when shared with the public grants certain legal benefits to the corporation as an existing legal entity within the state.
aight got a question "they are chartered by individuals within the rules and guidelines setup by the state" that sounds pretty much like the state being in control of how they're set-up as it sure as hell sounds like for a corporation to be allowed to set up by the state they must follow those rules and guidelines and if not the state would take issue at that
Socialist: "Capitalism has created a vast market of jobs that are completely pointless, in that, the workers are merely exploited, without contributing to society as a whole." Me: "Do you think it's vital that workers pay their taxes?" Socialist: "Yes, absolutely!" Me: "...I rest my case."
The transition from Private to public isn't a fixed number issue, it's more of an organizational structure issue. When you have a certain number of people the social structure they live under will have to be manually changed for efficacy and public good. That transitions is a conscious decision the group makes for it's continued prosperity. Some group resists this change as they don't want the negative effects of it (it's has pros and cons) anyways that's why you can't define it as a numbers issue, there's no number where the private group becomes a public group it's structural change that is encouraged by the increase in the size and number of people in the group. Also love your videos TIK, keep up the good work
"Public vs Private" video is the best video on this channel. It's the first video I saw on your channel. And it is the video that made me donate on Pathreon for the last ~3yrs ps. That being said I can't wait to see this follow up :)
People struggle because we far too often fall back on the "everybody knows" version of events/definitions/concepts, etc. It takes *effort* dig down and look at things like definitions, specifics of evidence, contrary information, and, most importantly, being OK with the idea that not everything is cut and dry clear. That is, as you demonstrate in this video, definitions can be "confusing" because of how things are defined, depending on location and chronological time. Thus, those of us who are older might very well have different understandings of some of these concepts than those who are younger. Or if I tend to read older texts, I might very well have a different understanding of many of these issues. As Denis Praeger says, "clarity over agreement." It seems to me that you are trying very hard for clarity - but that isn't really what the left tends to want. They instead tend to want, if not actually demand, conformity. I think that's the biggest problem when it comes to these sorts of discussions: the discussions often hinge on people who carry different understandings regarding the basic terms/concepts using the same words without putting the effort in to clarify what those terms/concepts actually mean. Which brings me to a couple questions: I think you might be wrong when it comes to corporations being owned publicly and thus socialist. That a block of *individuals* owns shares in a corporation does not *necessarily* mean it is "publicly owned" in the same sense that you've been talking about. It seems to me that "the public" being synonymous with "the state" is vastly different than "the public" ownership referenced in the Amazon example. Those *individuals* who own any numbers of shares may be *called* "the public" ownership block, but that doesn't mean they act in uniformity NOR, and I think this is key, is it the whole of "the public" which is what, it appears, you mean to be equivalent to "the state." Nor does Marx calling for the "shared ownership of the means of production" prove that private individuals CHOOESING to own shares in SPECIFIC (sorry, I'd italicize or underline but, you know, youtube. I'm not "shouting") companies based on individual choice introduces just that: choice. Voluntary activity. I'd argue that such an element takes it far, far from Marxism. Wall Street loved Marxists because greater government control meant choking off small-time competition through regulation, not because Wall Street "fat cats" wanted to lose any and all ownership of any of the companies/stocks they invested in. After all, if "the public" (the state) actually "owns" the means of production, and they are consistent about it, then only the members of government actually make any money off of it. Everyone else just gets what the government (the state) doles out. "Publicly owned" and "publicly traded" may be the same thing (to a certain extent. I mean, seriously, we can't rule out a certain level of laziness by most people when it comes to being precise definitions and distinguishing characteristics. You're one of the few people who puts forth such effort to do so), but that does not * necessarily* mean that it's the same thing as "the public" when understood as "the state." Instead, it seems to me that calling something "publicly traded/owned" in this circumstance is falling back on a different definition under the "everybody knows" umbrella of "knowledge," instead meaning that anyone in the general public, theoretically, could own a share. Which brings me to this question (I hope you can clarify for me): it isn't also true that the idea behind "worker ownership" was the workers *in that corporation* or THAT particular field were the ones who had ownership? That is, they would "own the fruit of their own efforts." That isn't true for what we colloquially refer to as corporations these days. Again, anyone can theoretically own part of any corporation that is "publicly traded," not just the workers of that particular company or within that particular industry. Further, it still includes the vital element of voluntary involvement in ownership. I think we can't simply ignore the importance of free will involvement when it comes to distinguishing types of "public ownership." I'm sorry, I'm rambling and I'm not so much arguing as asking questions, I guess. I appreciate ALL of your videos. Thank you so much for all that you!
You can _italicize_ text in RUclips comments by putting underscores on either side of it; similarly, using asterisks you can make text *bold.* Underlining? No idea.
Wow, I had all this figured out in middle school. I completely understood exactly what you were talking about. Need to thank my father for explaining it in great detail. He hated socialism and would talk about its evils all the time.
@@redmonkeyass26 it's amazing that you say this considering that he's actually pretty moderate and liberal leaning you're not beating the ideological fanaticism allegations
@@RUINOUSDOLL someone that claims that capitalism is slavery and that follows Marxism, a failed ideology that caused the death of millions of people is not a moderate in any measure..... but hey, being a Marxist while living in NY and not in Cuba is always easy.
I just finished the Economics in one Lesson audio book you recommended. A good listen to, and to come to this brings a greater contexts. Though I agree with you and much within the book recommended. I do wonder what you'd think how dealing with extreme profit driven/greed of people could be dealt with. I know he stated unions can be good, and I think of Victorian times as to how bad business could be. There's a balance between things, but knowing how to strike an actual balance is key. Keep up the good work. Love it, as a major fan of history.
33:50 No. Corporations are *NOT* publicly owned. They are private entities, the ownership of which can be bought and sold by the public just like any other piece of property. Every year at the annual stockholders meeting attendance is limited to share holders. It is a private event closed to the general public.
You literally contradicted yourself in two sentences. You say "Corporations are NOT publicly owned," and then say "the ownership of which can be bought and sold by the public"
@@william_prescott_ii3277 Assuming you are an honest interlocutor; Think of it like a private country club. The club can restrict it's membership, yet be open to new members. That openness to new members does not change the fact it is a private club and can trespass any non-members who wander onto its property. Even if said trespasser could theoretically (at least) later become a member. Members of the public can become members of the club by paying the fees or taking whatever steps the club requires for membership. That is part of the nature of them being private, they can restrict their membership and OWNERSHIP anyway they want. It isn't open to the public, but individual members of the public can join, if they want and are allowed by the stake holders. IMPORTANT - the right to determine _how_ you own a piece of property is essential to your right to the property. The club is property. And the owners of that property have the right to determine who is an owner and how their ownership is exercised. The club can determine that no new members can join, or that they will admit a certain number a year. They can rule that members canot sell their membership, or that membership is transferable but not inheritable, or it is, or anything else they choose without some outsiders input. Their ownership allows them to determine who and how ownership functions. Ownership of property is absolute in a capitalist system. That's is what TIK (and I assume you) don't appreciate. TIK, just like the socialists he declaims, wants to infringe on property rights. He wants to limit how people can own things, and how their ownership is exercised. He's fine with what he terms "individual ownership" but if an individual owners wants to incorporate, which is his right as a property owner, then TIK has an issue. TIK wastes huge time parsing out contorted definitions based on scraps of philosophy and speeches from Hitler. CAPITALism is about CAPITAL and ownership. TIK would be better served reading deeds and corporate minutes to understand how capital works. Frankly, and I say this with no sense of irony, Karl Marx had a vastly better grip on capital and property rights than does TIK.
I appreciate your definitions and the time you give to establish these words in historical context. I especially find it helpful to see publicly traded companies as states, though it makes science fiction stories like bladerunner and cyberpunk seem closer to life now, not merely futuristic.
1. I love this channel, especially the historical content. 2. I think the debate about the economical and political content on this channel is polemic since months - from TIK and some commentators. 3. If you, TIK, have a "real" interest in understanding your "opponents" take their arguments and defend them (like in scholasticism). 4. I am a German native speaker. You, TIK, could - if you enjoy it :-) - start with basic definitions like the difference between "possession" and "ownership" some of your definitions lack of a differentiation of these two terms. Also it makes no sense to use words like "private", "public", "state-owned" in a not "common-sense" without defining more basic ideas of possession, ownership, "control" etc.. I could in - TIKs logic - argue that, if a country is reigned and owned (and all inhabitants are slaves and also owned by this king absolutisticly) it`s a perfect "capitalistic" state, ofc it is not... 5. Although I like your humor and irony, TIK: your definition of capitalism and socialism is - in a common sense - misleading. E.g. Amazon/ Google et al. are NOT owned OR possessed by the state (even not some minor amounts of shares as far as I know, maybe foreign state funds maybe exceptions?). If they are NOT owned OR possessed by the state, they are ex negativo "private". Even though there are 1000nds of shareholders. Any other definitions makes the differentiation between "private" and "state-owned/ public" senseless. 6. Wish for a future video: pick simples REAL LIFE examples. If I understood you correctly eg. British railroad company was once formerly state-owned (and therefore NOT a private company), later it was privatized (and therefore NOT owned/ possessed by the state) and in your (misleading) definition it is now also "public" and therefore NOT private, because it has 1000nds of shareholders - this doesn`t make any sense.
I think Amazon and Google have millions of shareholders. I’d be inclined to agree with you, though. His definition of the word ‘state’ is a bit too nebulous.
Right or wrong..with debate comes learning. He is NOT a fascist as far as I can tell. In my view he gives reasoned debate. WELL WORTH A WATCH if only to disagree..that is how we learn and progress not through agreement.
Fellow reformed socialist here - greatly appreciate you my friend. It may be too late for us here in Seattle but you give me hope the left can be saved
Firstly, I'd like to say this is a great video as always. Common TIK W. As for why a corporation could be classified as a private entity despite the the shares aspect of it could be the fact that there is still more or less a singular owner for this corporation who has made voluntary contracts as to how the company shall be run with other people. For this reason it is still technically owned by one individual yet it was dealt with in a manner that makes it seem public. I could be wrong and feel free to point out any mistakes but as always, thank you for your content.
25:53 "what's the point of a share of ownership"? So that shareholders can efficiently take risks in allocating their capital to publicly traded companies so that (the free market hypothesis). When a company starts up and wants investors to invest their shares, the willingness of investors to do so and the returns they would look for before investing are around 3-5 times higher in shares which are not publicly traded, becuase there is no clear exit route if the shareholder wants out.
"All zis doesn't matter, Mr. TIK. Ve are introducing public-private partnership, ze thousand-year stakeholder capitalism! You vill ovn nothing and you vill be happy!"
From a purely linguistic perspective, you are right that characterizing large corporations as private fits poorly. But words are sometimes effective for conveying concepts in particular contexts even though the words do not fit well if interpreted literally. In the context of how the terms "private sector" and "public sector" are commonly used, it makes perfect sense to characterize at least most publicly traded corporations as being part of the private sector. Corporations in their modern form were invented to provide a good way to scale up private enterprise to pursue larger projects than are generally practical for individual investors. People invest private capital in corporations and expect to receive private profit if the corporations succeed. The ability for individual people to invest private capital in pursuit of private profit is the central essential nature of capitalism. Thus, corporations clearly fit within the scope of a capitalist economic framework. Corporations generally require some kind of governance mechanism that superficially resembles mechanisms for governing states. But the powers given to corporate governance mechanisms are far more limited and far less coercive in scope than the powers of states. The idea that because corporations share some characteristics with states, corporations are a kind of state, is just as nonsensical as the idea that because motorcycles have some of the same characteristics as buses, motorcycles are a kind of bus. In order to characterize buses and motorcycles as falling within the same category, it is necessary to use a category such as "motor vehicles" that is broad enough to encompass both. Similarly, in order to justify characterizing corporations and states as falling within the same category, it wold be necessary to use a category such as "organized cooperative endeavors" that is broad enough to encompass both. Any category that is broad enough to encompass both corporations and states is too broad to serve as a reasonable basis for trying to distinguish between socialism and capitalism. Publicly traded corporations are public in a very limited sense that opportunities to invest are open to the general public rather than requiring prospective investors to go through some kind of special approval process. But at least as a general rule, publicly traded corporations are clearly not public in the socialist sense of being owned or controlled by the public as a whole.
@Undead38055. "That wasn't real socialism" "socialism has never been tried." Free market advocates renamed to "capitalists" by Karl Marx to paint them as greedy
thanks for making this video. You helped me clarify the concept. I got it wrong thought every society is socialism after watched the public private video.
On the idea of "private corporation". Would a business that offers public shares, but retains a voting majority of shares in the hands of one person (or a small "family" of individuals), fall into that idea? I mean, while it would technically be owned by the "community", no amount of public shareholders could override the private decisions of the primary ownership. Great content TIK, thank you for your dedication.
Losses and profits would still be divided, so there's still a difference. The way I see it, the administration would still be private, but the ownership would be shared with the public.
The change is when the people who make the product earn the money only. So if a person makes a table, another markets it, and some one else does the accounts this is private/family. If they give their earnings to some one not involved in the process of the table and earns purely because of ownership it's public/state. Think why King John signed the magna carta to devolve the State into the king, the church, and the private ownership.
The definitions are all there in the Oxford English Dictionary - all very clearly explained. The problem comes when people, who should know better, start re-defining terms for their own aims. I gave up history when I was 16 because a lot of what we were we taught was clearly not true or only half truths at best. I like to use the scientific method when looking at historical events; it helps a lot!
Again, great break down of established definitions to support your stance. Many today fail to understand root definitions or where certain ideological terms originated from. As for the comment of "two girls and a cup", wow lol. Spicy, had me clapping hard while my car was parked at a stop light.
When a family enterprise becomes large enough to begin projecting controlling political or economic influence over the surrounding community, that would be a good indication that it's tending towards becoming public rather than remaining private.
Yeah but it could be owned by 1 person that is successful and is influencing the community. I get your point but I don't think that's it. It needs to be a number, 2 people, 5 people, 10, 50. How many co-owners until it's considered public? For example, the sole business owner may campaign for lower taxes, a faster speed limit to speed up delivery, etc, I wouldn't then define it as public
@@Habdabi Do you have any examples of businesses with a large influence that meet the criteria of a one-man-show in a sense? I think haggling about the number of co-owners is the wrong thing to focus on and to rather focus on the political or economic power the enterprise is able to project.
@@ew6546 perhaps a local restaurant than wants speed limits increased for faster delivery? Just off the top of my head. I'm struggling with a good definition personally
@@Habdabi But every restaurant that does delivery would be able to use the new higher speed limit. The political or economic influence it wishes to project would have to in some way inhibit market competition.
Bit of an update guys. I’m debating whether or not to publish a video next Monday in order to free up a few extra days for me to do research for future videos. As I’ve said a few times now, Stalingrad is killing me. It’s taking up so much of my time that it’s a struggle to do enough research for the other videos, and now I’m at a point where I desperately need time to study. Therefore, if there’s no video next week, or it’s just a short one, you’ll know why. Stalingrad will be the week after that though regardless.
And my new editor is coming along, but isn’t up to speed yet. They’re still creating more work for me at the moment, not less. There will be an inflection point but that hasn’t happened yet. Them struggling to learn the animation process in Blender has made me realize that I have more skills than I originally thought.
Your standard of excellence is what makes you rise above the rest. Take as much time as you need. To be honest even if i watch every episode the moment of release i will still go back and watch the long form videos.
"Stalingrad in killing me" -TIK... (And the German military before him...) 😉
Only around 10 minutes in but I think you have started with an erroneous assumption about definitions. The dictionary is not meant to be a comprehensive definition for each word but a few sentences. Theres also a problem with defining what it means for the state to have comprehensive control over the economy.
Can I translate your videos?
Make more economics videos, they're so much more entertaining and interesting IMO.
People who have berated me for "not knowing what socialism is" consistently refuse to define socialism except to say how wonderful it is.
Yep, 'caring for the community' or some nebulous term s like that usually turn up.
@@macoooos9204 "Democratize" the means of production
It’s because they’re either mental midgets, thirteen years old, or were people whose parents failed to educate that Santa Claus isn’t real. I’ve know respectable socialists that have been willing to admit that National Socialism was socialism but with the asterisk that is wasn’t the socialism *they* were seeking to bring about.
@@macoooos9204 it’s funny because a lot of them hate charity because “it perpetuates the Capitalist system”
Even if they define it they will make it as broad or as narrow as needed. Exp... Arent public roads just another form of socialism to society as a whole is a socialist grouping by nature.
Its the same old arguement.
When I used to be a socialist, I thought it was pretty obvious that it was state ownership... Statelessness would be anarchism... Which is why I always got really confused that the anarchists used to align to some extent with the socialists... It's like an oxymoron, like a fox hanging around with the hounds.
Probably because both want a violent revolution. If the revolution occurred, then they would be at each others throats.
That's because 1) They are lying or 2) They are confused because they believe that the State "dissolves" when socialism/communism is achieved, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I do have an alternate interpretation of "the state dissolves" and it's less "the state ceases to exist" and more "the state becomes so totalitarian that it can no longer be distinguished from any one individual".
Because Communism requires all humans to lose individuality and become part of the collective in body and mind then the State cannot be separated from them.
And so, much like how dissolving sugar in tea does not mean the sugar ceases to exist, dissolving the state trough communism does not mean the state dissapears, it just becomes indistinguishable.
That means the "stateless utopia" of socialism is less actual Anarchism and more Borg Collective.
No one has ever accused anarchists of having a coherent worldview.
Bro is literally Mussolini 🤣
@@smtandearthboundsuck8400
Both have roots in Marxism, so yeah.
I actually subscribed to your channel because you use sources and have in depth explanations of these issues. I was generally frustrated by the gross oversimplification of so many of these things and don't have a ton of time to find and read every book you have. The information is greatly appreciated (and the book list)
"its not .. when two girls share one cup" Tik you came close to owing me a new keyboard with that one.
Then that would have been evidence of the private control of the means of communication.
I was looking for that comment. xD
edgy TIK is A+ tier level lol.
I need you to go outside, down to the road, and pull your mind out of the gutter.
The only way I'd get "Socialist" with those two is if a LOOOOOOOOOT of toothpaste and mouthwash was involved.
i always wondered why schools and parks were called public. It's not because anyone can go, it's because it's owned by the government
This remark reminds me of the story about the company, "Public Storage". These guys got together, bought property, erected buildings with individual units (say, 10'x10', 10'x6') and proclaimed "Public Storage is open for business!!!"
Underwhelming response. No one was renting, few transactions. Finally, a guy walks in and asks, "Hey, it's great that you do storage for the 'public'. But where do individuals go, that need to rent 'private' storage...you know, for the non-public??
???!!! ??? !!!!!
A massive perception problem, by use of the term "Public" in the company name. Advertising all recalled and recast: "You, the individual who needs to store his privately-owned stuff somewhere...come to Public Storage, where individuals can rent a storage unit!! "
In LatAm we have a joke about an exchange university profesor from some european country (say Germany).
He saw that people in LatAm wash their cars on the streets, and the run off makes puddles and damages the pavement.
He asked; hey, why do you wash the cars on the street?
The LatAm reply was: the street is public, it's for everybody, so we *CAN* do that.
The profesor goes back to Germany and asks his neighbor; Would you wash your car on the street?
The german answer was: No. The street is public. It's for everyone to use. We *CAN'T* do that!
same word, "public". Two very different understandings of what it means.
respectfully
"Owned by" isn't exactly correct but not incorrect. A public park is one that is paid for, by the people and administered by the government - that is where the thought of "owned by" is correct-ish. Technically, it is owned by the people because it is paid for, by the people through taxes. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. are private companies - they have share holders, etc. But, they work in both the private and public sectors, as they create things for the use of the people (e.g., airliners) and things paid for by the people and administered by the people's government (e.g., military equipment). The distinction comes from the administration and the source, of the funding.
@@jasontrauger8515 The government pays for these services not the general populace. The government took money from the populace and then the government spent it on the park. The government then turned around to the populace and said "look at this nice park you paid for". This is a deflection designed to instill pride in the nice park "you" paid for but in fact you had no control over the purchasing of the park and the deed is in the government's name.
OH NO!!! now we cant extort students of their money and enslave them with debt
The main thing is using consistent definitions and clearly starting what they are.
I think public discourse would be a lot better if people let other people know they are willing to change their mind, and that those listening don't find this to be an inherently bad thing. It's a big cultural thing that I dislike, people use their anger to make the other people angry, which results in entrenching ideas, which means less and less correction, and more and more mistakes, whatever the field is.
There is a small sect of intellectuals out there, who are primarily professors and journalists, that organize social trends by using language incorrectly. They do this on purpose - claiming that their definition is more "academic", and then tricking the public into being in-favor of something they normally wouldn't be in-favor of. Because they don't know the meaning of the words being used.
For instance: "Social Justice".
The implication of this term implies that there is social injustice in society.
But by social, they mean societal.
By justice, they mean equity.
And by equity, they specifically mean that every single group of people with specific characteristics must be evenly split, perfectly - in all walks of like.
There needs to be 50/50 women/male CEOs, there needs to be a black person in every movie, add, or video game you see, there needs to be gay romance in every piece of media you view, there needs to be more trans people in political office, etc...
The list can go on forever because the definitions are so vague, that it can only be assumed that this is all being done to justify political power grabs and entryism.
The average public would never go for social justice if they realized what it meant in application. Its simply a fairy tale that could never be done, unless humanity is turned into the borg. And yet vast swathes of the public scream and fight for social justice because they think that its JUST about police brutality. Its JUST about protecting trans/gay people from being assaulted. The academics know there's more to it than that, but they duck under the harmless definition when criticized and they whip out the satanic definition when no one is paying attention. Such as in 1000 paged senate bills that no one reads.
These are the exact tactics that were used in Maoist China and are leading down the same path that they went down.
@@rewerstfd struggle sessions belong on the struggle bus.
i use swear words which are accurate to wake people from their slumber and brainwashing - do you think it doesnt work ?
For example if you say an obvious inaccurate statement like communism killed 100 million people youre a either a brainwashed ignorant antisocialist who doesnt critically think (ie stupid) or a malevolent antisocialist trying to brainwash people by spreading misinformation
by the way TIK hasnt responded to any of my comments and questions no matter what words i use
I have to say that I subscribed to you primarily for your political and economic analysis. I know a lot of other RUclipsrs who cover battles, but you are the first one who provided a hollistic presentation involving politics, economics and military history.
"amateurs study battles, professionals study logistics and economics, and you cannot understand one without the input of the other."
@@PrinceOfDolAlmroth - What a wonderful quote! And, arguably, it works both ways: Amateurs study logistics and economics, professionals study battles (and economics and logistics)... or, a little more accurately, the application of the force of the state in battle (and against its own population, such as with tax collection at gunpoint or under the threat of jail) goes fist-in-glove with the economics and logistics sooner or later.
Or, at least that's the way it seems to me, as an amateur! :)
In any event, I also tune in here for the political and economic analysis - those add a depth to topics that would be sorely missed otherwise.
Exactly
Za dom
Yup. This
Just started the video, and I'm going to just say this.
TIK is rarely wrong. And he makes the effort not to be, and gives disclaimers when something is up for interpretation & debate.
Yeah, I really don't understand why my critics think I'm wrong on this particular issue. EVERY source says what Socialism and Capitalism are, but for some reason 'my' definitions are wrong. It makes no sense.
@@TheImperatorKnight Because its still a political debate happening today in some circles, so people get really defensive and red vs blue very quickly. That being said I found your definitions to be the most logically sound and least loaded amongst modern historians on the time period, so keep up the great work 👍
@@spaman7716 Yeah I understand that, but when I was a socialist, these were the definitions I used. It genuinely is the case that if I had said all this as a Socialist, the Left would have (largely) agreed with me. But because I converted from being a socialist to someone who actually understands economics, they've decided I must be wrong just because. It's insane.
@@TheImperatorKnight Don't worry Tik, for soon your critics will implement the Stalin method and remove those pesky definitions that are inconvenient to hear
@@TheImperatorKnight The problem is unfortunately. People are emotional as opposed to controlling their emotions and that causes a lot of clouded judgements and interpretations. People have become too emotionally attached to their beliefs.
It's sad that this is more common than intelligent and open debate mate.
I love how they criticise your definition without providing their own
Did it ever come across your miniscule mind that maybe there isn't a single definition of socialism, and what is about TIK's obsession with trying to define and oversimplify everything? Trying to define socialism is like trying to define 'working class' or 'feminism', it is even hard to define 'capitalism'. These definitions were never beholden to any single definition, and their meanings keep constantly changing. Even Bill Gates and Elon Musk define themselves as Socialists, does that mean these billionares actually are socialists??
@@krey3486 you can’t debate alternative definitions if none are offered you twit
Just saying someone definition is wrong without offering an alternative is the definition of being a screeching autistic kid
Also dumb arse you can’t say there are different definitions of a word then tell everyone who offers an alternative to yours that they are a wrong
I didn’t bother reading the rest of your speg out
If you want a simple the definition of Socialism, just flip the hierarchy pyramid upside down. It’s where the state is dictated to by the people. Academically, it’s when power is decentralized through worker owned means of production. Historically, socialism has never happened, although many people disingenuously use the platform of socialism to centralize power (which is antithetical to the heart of the ideology). To believe a party like the National Socialists were a socialist party is equivalent to believing the Democratic Republic of North Korea is actually a democratic republic. Tik knows this. I find it hard to believe he doesn’t.
@@dwizzi1724 you’re wrong an idiot you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about just stick to tanks
@@carpetsnake83 so define socialism. You whine like a woman but won’t define it yourself
How can your definitions not be wrong if idealogues change the definitions every few years to invalidate the utility of the words?
Quite, quite and... Quite...
Bingo.
That's always been the prime socialist tactic. Control the language, control the conversation, control the thinking.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.”
You simply can't make an abstract string of words connect with the true essence of socialism over all of history and the modern times. It is something always changing, always in motion.
If anything you are the one invalidating the utility of words seeing as you believe in this dogmatic use of definitions where every word is defined by another string words, in that case it becomes a never ending cycle, you effectively destroy any use of language because at its fundamental level it must be based in reality, not in just more words. It's based in a collective subconscious level where we fundamentally, when in good faith, understand what the other person is talking about. Sure, you can have an abstract, short description of a word, but it can only ever be used as a guide, not as some Big Other-like figure you never can stray away from.
Love these videos. The discourse is enlightening. And your ability to debate a point based on merit is enjoyable to listen to.
From personal experience, I can assure you that "they're an idiot" and "they don't know what they're talking about" (or similar phrases) are code words for "I disagree with their beliefs so strongly that I refuse to admit the possibility that they might be right."
When I have that thought, "What an idiot," it's usually because there's so much wrong with what they're saying I don't know where to begin and there's alot of work to do to get down to their underlying assumptions before getting back to the issue at hand.
Idioms such as this exist for a reason Tik, "there's none so deaf as those who will not hear".
I like your videos. I think you've been fairly clear on your definitions. Yeah the conflated definitions are exactly how they trick the workers. The Soviets started out with the workers trying to run the factories but it didn't take long for Lenin to get his party activists in charge of the Soviets instead. They put the state in charge of the means of production once they had control of the state.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. a class of bureaucrat-rulers, arose to manage the big pile of stuff from which everyone's needs were to be met.
But one problem is that he has changed the definition of "private enterprise" from the one that Murray Robinson quoted to his own, simply based on his (misguided IMO) view of what "public" and "private" mean, without regard to what the term means in traditional economic lingo.
thats not word definitions tricking the workers , thats just people in power not doing what they wanted to do and promised- to make that comment shows youre anti socialist and dont really want to understand the filings of socialism
all people in power lie to stay in power so im not sure what your point means - why dont you concentrate on todays current politicians
TIK, I have studied history and dealt with anthropology, sociology and the importance of concepts and I see that you are a really, really well read person. You made a very long video, with a lot of conceptual discussion, and I am afraid you were missing a mark: your critics do not realize the importance of proper grasping the concepts they use and the more you explain them, the less they will understand. Maybe have a proper video (series) dealing with the importance of concepts and using WW2 as a case study. I am rooting for you, though, because I like the way your videos make me raise questions on the topics you discuss, which is like you say, the essence of history - make you want to debate. Cheers!
Thanks for your comment. Can you be more specific in what concepts I should cover in a series? And why do you think the more I explain, the less they understand?
@@TheImperatorKnight can you please try to cover more about the new left please. Since most of democrat policies can be traced this way! Ty.
@TIKhistory I imagine that he thinks that. Because the more examples you give the more the more arguments you make, the more complexity people have to sift through. I think you might be able to make a thorough video on the topic by using a case study the frame of history. Like say track the history or socialism and how it's developed as an ideology and sub ideologies throughout its origins to now. Maybe even tackle the roots of communism and socialism pre Marx. I think it may also be effective to describe what the definitions of those words like state and capital meant throughout these periods as well.
@@scottmacadam6599 no he shouldnt - hes a biased anti socialist which is why often his information ie opinions are wrong -his video wouldnt be accurate just misleading
TIK, you support the definitions with substantial sources and professionalism. An admirable quality. Your scholarship and patience are commendable. Always enjoy your videos.
I am a huge fan of TIK and give him credit that he names the sources he uses, but he often neglects the caveat that there are other well-argued and established definitions that contradict his personal opinion. In other words, TIK presents opinion (albeit well-informed opinion) as fact. Brits tend to do this a lot.
@@dirremoire That's the job of the person arguing from the other side.
I'm not surprised you find that's in our British character, our legal system works this way also
@@dirremoire he is using the definitions that have historically always been used. These "new meanings" are marxist perversions intended to deceive. fuck that
@@dirremoire Whilst this "fact" isn't simple as gravity down, not up - assuming the normal trivial definition of up/down - the professional politician class (= the bosses) just use this as mental football i.e. the opium of the thinking classes... - the effort you have to make, the loyalty in thought and speech you have to give to rise up in the 'party' classes means there will ever be little change. Afterall Liz Truss - that "liberal" mole in the Tory party, won, but got caught early and may not have damaged the tories enough to sink both party and those Austrian economists... ...
@David Dirré-Moire. What's he ignoring? He is going over the best alternative arguments in these responses videos. He's not ignoring anything. He's logically laying out how those other definitions don't already stand up to logic and history
Ironically, I learned this at a very early age due to getting a hand me down, early 60's Funk & Wagnel Encyclopedia set. I remember having to show my sources to my teachers in elementary school because they had it all backwards. Thanks for explaining this TIC and everybody should check out an old Encyclopedia to see what's changed or 'evolved'. Most of the inconsistencies TIC points out in WWII are repeated in the US Civil War and usually due to 'Memoirs'.
“Ethnographies”
Just an observation as a capitalist: I'm not sure you can compare publicly traded companies with what socialists consider owning the means of production. More accurate to say that in capitalist systems, publicly traded companies are owned by public investors. If the workers of a particular publicly traded company can't afford to buy shares of said company, they certainly don't "own" any part of the company they work for. In a socialist system, the workers don't have to buy shares (of course, they don't actually own the company or its means of production, either - the State does).
I agree with you on private co but youre wrong on on socialism & socialism definition as most right wingers are. SOCIALISM is the common ownership of the means of production , its collective and international thats its defining features- state implies borders and nationalism
The biggest misconception of socialism is its state owned-- NO , NO NO its worker owned.
Some view market socialism and democratic socialism as having a state but that would be a country of co-ops where workers owned factories etc - The confusion arises when the capitalist state starts nationaliising certain industries but thats done to make capitalism work better not to advance socialism.
Fascism is much harder again to explain -but its primarily conservative social policy and govt and mix of eco policys only under NAZISM when Hitler changed the definition incorrectly calling his party national socialism but that was mostly govt org eco system of private companies .
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 The biggest mistake of socialists is assuming they will be allowed by the resulting state to own anything. No example of large scale socialism in practice has ever allowed it, by necessity. Oppressive central planning is always required to implement (force) socialism on the population, and worker ownership is never implemented. In other words, socialism my be the goal of the workers and the common revolutionaries, but oppressive, authoritarian communism is always what you get. So no, I didn't misspeak or misunderstand socialism - I'm simply observant of history and have a better understanding of human nature than you do. And how many times does Tik and others like him have to explain to you that the National Socialists were indeed socialists? I know it must pain you to have your movement associated with such a person as AH, but he is your bedfellow, like it or not.
The explanation of the term "corporation" I was taught by one of my history professors was that it came from "corpus" and had a legal purpose which was that a corporation is, legally speaking, a person, which is why a corporation can be sued in court for example. It was just the way the legal system developed to recognise that an organisation can own things instead of individuals. That's why when someone owns a tiny corporation they pay personal and corporate taxes as separate things. If the corporation goes bankrupt, the owner does not have to go bankrupt.
I think you’re confusing a company with a corporation at the end.
@@gilgamesh310 After some quick Googling, it seems like the modern terms might all have different legal meanings depending on the country. USA seems to have corporations and companies as separate but Britain doesn't seem to have a distinction. Very well could be wrong though, I'm no legal or business expert and only did
@@gilgamesh310 A company of shareholders come together to form a body corporate if you want to go back to 17th century coffee houses. The terms are synonymously used today.
@@KingRyanoles you may not be aware that compared to debt investors equity investors take more risk and have more skin in the game.
The concept of limited liability for passive investors (i.e. - that they can loose no more than their investment) is defensible on moral grounds (it is the directors' responsibility to manage the company and the shareholders are not to blame for any turpitude of the directors), though I accept reasonable people can disagree here. What is not in doubt is that the market economy would not function without limited liability protections for passive investors. Nobody would invest; money would not be freely allocated to big projects which involves more than a single individual's scope of personal oversight.
People would live a life of subsistence farming; a village life; the kind of life which the anarchic Kropotkin black army said it wanted, but then realised it couldn't have without contradicting itself and forming an organisation multiple orders of magnitude larger than any village collective.
Corporations are a group of people with the same job, basically. Or at least that's what it was in France. You'll have a corporation of bakers, butchers... With coat of arms and everything. As you said, it's primarily to serve as (what we call) a "moral person"(as oppose to physical person), in other word a figure that is liable and can enable legal procedures, but is an unreal entity that exist only in the legal world. These still exists, for example for medics : they decide if X respect the ethics or not and apply punishment, and are also responsible for other administrative work.
"If i agree with you you're right but if i don't agree then you're wrong" thats how the internet works
Hi TIK, I've been following your work for a few years and I've always had a lot of admiration. My question is, can I translate one or more of your videos? I would, of course, give you all the credit. I'm not very skilled with either video or audio, but I have friends with more experience who can help me and I'm keen to try to make it work. My mother tongue is Portuguese, I'm Brazilian, watching videos between 1 or 5 hours just by subtitles is very difficult for most people, the idea would be to "re-record" your videos by translating them. Tell me what you think of the idea. Thanks in advance
Lets get this dude some upvotes people
i hope he sees this because i was contemplating the same about german.
Theres a plethora of people here who lack the understanding in english but would otherwise be openminded to seeing the damage the Frankfurt School Grift has done to us as a people.
Labelling Hitler as "right wing extremist" is still not being challanged in the realm of german political debate.
I'm down for doing the Hebrew version
Hi mexican here, I and some mates were thinking to do something similar, for as you can imagine the entire of latin america its riddle with what I call left illiteracy, so if tik may agree I volunteer for the spanish version.
I could translate it for crazy volkz
I think when people say "privately owned", as in "most schools are publicly owned but some are privately owned", they use the term "private" to distinguish from state-owned. They aren't necessarily saying the entity isn't publicly traded.
In a business context if someone says a company is "privately held" they usually mean that it's not publicly traded, e.g. Twitter after Musk "took it private".
I think "publicly owned" means owned by the state (and therefore at least in theory, every individual has some ownership claim). But your claim to a publicly-owned asset can't be bought or sold, it's derived from your citizenship, unlike shares in publicly-traded private corporations.
wow, just stumbled upon this. As an Austrian economist, this put a smile on my face. Keep up the good work TIK.
just subscribed
Welcome aboard 👍
@@thenewbohemian5779 so - it is all your fault then, come on - confess.
@@thotslayer9914 I do not. Ive thought about it for. a while, but never got around to it. Perhaps one of these days, The New Bohemian will be a real Chanel.
@@thenewbohemian5779 An Austrian School economist, or economist of Austrian nationality?
Definitions and terminology are everything. Over the years I had endless debates (over the drink or two, of course) about all kinds of topics. Having few decades under my belt, now, first thing I do is making clear of terminology before starting a debate. And funny thing happens - debate never really starts, we always get stuck in a mud of the terminology. People use the same words, but they mean different things to us and that is why debates, especially those online, are mostly pointless.
Terminology first, debate second.
How I start nearly every debate these days. As you say, it seldom gets past that point as the other side argues in circles
I am willing to engage with someone else's definitions in order to understand their reasoning. Our modern world is governed by complex systems that are defined in vague ways, personally I think things have been intentionally obfuscated but thats besides the point. I don't fault anyone for getting definitions mixed up or having a different understanding of a topic. That being said I think its important to get beyond the weeds of terminology so that we can understand the larger picture.
Yep! You cannot have a logical discussion unless you start from a point of agreement.
Why debate with morons who insist 2+2 is five because 2+2=4 would hurt their fragile egos?
I think some of the problem is the debate between the prescriptivists and descriptivists. Unlike most other languages, the English language does not have a governing body that reviews the lexicon. (Strangely, Canada has one for French but not one for English.) There are merits and demerits to this.
Personally, I'm a prescriptivist with some nuance. I think a formal language with grammatical rules, correct spelling, precise lexicon, etc. should be taught and used in school and in government documents. Get everyone on the same page so that they may discuss things without bickering about meanings. The language of the street is perfectly fine for ordinary communication. People can move between both worlds.
The descriptivists see formalised language as the exercise of power by the ruling class over the oppressed. 'Words change meaning over time', they state. This is accurate. But why? Well, a long time ago few people were formally educated. Books were rare and precious things. No doubt in such an environment imprecision occurred and took hold. For example, nice originally meant silly or foolish. Today, if you say someone is nice, it's not an insult. But, the era of restricted knowledge is no longer. Peopled are schooled. They have plenty of books, perhaps even read some. They have near instantaneous access to dictionaries and encyclopaedias. There is a less justifiable reason to accept imprecision today than 500 years ago. Errors may be easily corrected. The descriptivists state that 'wrong' cannot be. To claim so is an abuse of power. Yet, errors usually happen because people are talking above their knowledge or because they are playing political games, wanting to change meaning to suit their purposes, derail discomfiting discussions, etc. Unfortunately, the descriptivists rule linguistics and this cascades to most other departments of the academy as well as into the schoolhouse and politics.
Hi, TIK. Thank you for yet another great video.
As far as publicly-traded corporations go, I think clarity of language is helpful. A corporation may sell shares of its equity on exchanges whose access is not limited to certain persons or institutions; that does not mean its ownership is “shared” amongst the general public, I.e. the society or the State. The ownership is limited to those who purchase the equity. You may choose to buy 100 shares of XYZ Corp, and I may buy 10 shares, and some other person may buy zero. We do not all together hold those shares in common: one person has no ownership at all, and you own more than I do. If/when dividends are disbursed, you will receive 10x more than I will, and the person with zero shares receives nothing.
Those shares you own are exclusive to you and under your control. That does sound an awful lot like private property to me.
If we say that publicly-traded companies are better described as being openly-traded multipartite ownership firms (which is an accurate way of describing these companies), the clarity is great. Very few businesses have only one owner. What is the difference between Steve’s Auto Parts (in which Steve owns 100 shares, Steve’s mom and dad both own 50, and Steve’s wife owns 100) and NAPA whose many shareholders exchange their equity openly? The only real difference is the forum where those shares are traded: one is big, one is small.
Being “publicly-traded” does not imply public ownership. Just like if a golf course describes itself as public, that simply means anyone has the opportunity to pay green fees and play a round. It doesn’t mean that random citizens can just choose to play for no cost.
You are confusing owning stock with owning the company... If you own all the stock you own the company and then it is private. If you own some stock and other people own other stock then you alone do not own the company, the public owns the company. You are also confusing "the public" with "everyone", the public is not everyone, the public is the group that owns the stock. A public golf course is public because you can pay money to be in the club and then you can play a round or many. You pay to be part of the public that runs the golf course and so you can use it. But you can't sell the golf course, you do not own it just because you paid to be in the club, much like you do not own a company just because you bought some stock. At last, the real difference between Steve's Auto Parts and NAPA is that you cannot buy into Steve's Auto Parts, not unless they go public.
@@supernus8684 1) Owning shares of the company is precisely the same thing as owning the company. Almost no businesses ever are limited to one equity shareholder. Owning one out of 10,000,000 shares might make you a small owner, but you still own that small sliver.
2) "The public" do NOT hold equity in a publicly-traded company: the shareholders do, and nobody else.
3) The difference between a privately-held company and a publicly-traded one is simply the forum in which ownership stakes are traded. The companies are entirely private to the shareholders in both cases - unless the State owns the shares.
4) The vast majority of "public" golf courses are privately owned. They simply do not restrict access to a particular membership group.
5) You are entirely incorrect about not being able to buy a stake in a non-publicly-traded company. Those transactions happen literally all the time. Ownership shares are not conceptually limited to those traded on public exchanges.
@@va3svd 1. Exactly, you do not own the company, you own a small sliver of the company, difference. 2. Exactly, the public are the shareholders. 3. No in the case of a publicly traded company anyone can buy shares making it public and not private. 4. No they are owned by the public that runs the golf course. 5. Yes you could buy shares if lets say you knew a share holder and he agreed to sell them to you, but anyone can not buy shares, so it is not public. Conclusion: once again you are confusing what public means. Lets call everyone in a society the "general public" for your leisure. The general public can buy stock into a public company to become part of the public that owns the company, it is not privately owned because it is owned by a public, you may own a small sliver of the company but you cannot decide by yourself how the company is run etc, you have to do that together with the public that runs the company. The public that runs the company is not the general public but as the general public you could purchase shares and become part of the public which controls the company. It is an hierarchy, see?
@@supernus8684 I really think you do not understand how equity share trading works. This is causing some of your many errors in this discussion. Also, you insist on misusing the definitions of "public", following TIK's initial error.
1) Companies may issue equity shares to raise cash. They sacrifice their share in the equity of the company to raise the cash they want. This is not revolutionary or new. Those shares may be issued to a public trading market or an exclusive one, but the idea is the same. Almost *no* businesses have only one equity shareholder (known as "sole proprietorships"). That means almost every business ownership arrangement is fractional. The mere existence of fractional ownership does not diminish the fact of ownership; it is solely a question of scale. Whether the fellow owners are mom, dad, and spouse, or 5 pension funds and 100,000 random individuals, the concept of ownership or fractional ownership is exactly the same. Your attempt at making different categories of ownership on that basis is simply wrong.
2) The public are NOT the shareholders; the shareholders are the shareholders. Period. You have to buy a share(s) to be a shareholder; the public does NOT participate in the ownership unless the State buys those shares.
3) The only difference there is the forum in which the equity shares are traded.
4) Golf courses calling themselves "public" are almost always NOT publicly owned. They are privately-owned. They are public only in the sense that access to the course is not exclusive to a paid membership. Publicly-owned ones are usually owned by a municipality and call themselves municipal golf courses. This is yet another example of you not parsing the varying meanings of the word "public" properly.
5) Your segment about the "general public" further confirms your confusion about what ownership consists of and how equity is traded on open markets. A business is not "private" or "public" based on how much directive power the majority shareholder has; that's silly.
@@va3svd 1. No it is not, the difference lies in who can buy shares. If the general public can not buy shares the company is not public. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 2. The public are the shareholders. In a public company the group referred to as the public are the shareholders. 3. In a private company the public do not hold the shares. In a public company the public do own the shares. 4. The word public means one thing, not many. 5. I never said it was. A company is private or public based on if the shares are traded privately or publicly. If you want to understand you HAVE TO understand the meaning of words first and the concepts second. Conclusion: you are still confusing the word public as meaning every person in a state which it doesn't. The word public means a group of unrelated people. There can be many different such public groups. One of these public groups is the general public which refers to every person in the state. Do you see? The word public can be used to describe the people in the state but this us not what the word means. You are confused as to the meaning of the word. Go read the dictionary. Im out.
Wouldn't it be a good way to separate the words "public" and "state" for the sake of clarification between a publicly traded corporation and a state? The state then would be defined as the highest institution that rules over a defined territorial area, while a publicly traded corporation can be anywhere within a state or outside. I think that would be more consistent and logical especially when we talk about modern times. After all "public" and "private" cant really be defined by the number of people that can or have to be involved.
And if u ever formed a Corporation you gotta file for charter from your national govt...here in US the States and Federal Gov both can charter corps. 🤓
God I love it when TIK makes these kinds of videos. His first private vs public changed my worldview for the better
So few people like him are out there that socialists went unmolested after 1991 and gained major ground in western politics.
Yeah it was insightful, but TIK misses the point sometimes, not every government who interferes with free market is socialist. Look at anti-cartel laws (even in the US) and such. In Germany we have social-market-economy since end of WW2. Few calls us socialist....at least since GDR is no more
@@rainerbandowski1999 few call you socialist, doesn't mean you aren't socialist
@@rainerbandowski1999 agreed, it's like when talking with some of my more liberal friends, they all automatically make this assumption that conservatives want there to be zero regs and absolutely no govt interaction...which is just fantasy. When talking regulation, it varies so damn much between industries that it's totally useless to make a blanket generalization like "I'm against any and all regulations." They also seem to have this strange impression that a more conservative view of the markets would mean that you are against breaking up monopolies, which I have absolutely no idea where that comes from. It's essential for a free market for there to actually be competition, something that's not often possible with monopolistic holds over industry. It's not impossible to look at regulations that hurt industry while providing very little benefit, while at the same time agreeing with some other regulations that actually DO have a measurable benefit. But this hardline black or white, my way or the highway, all or nothing type of shit is nothing but hugely detrimental to society. It's very screwed up that people living in the same country are starting to think they can't find common ground. Especially when they are closer to each other, as far as political leanings go, than they are people from anywhere else on the planet. I'm glad people are seemingly waking up to the nonsense, however. People who live on the same block but support different candidates are not enemies. Nor is one automatically better than the other simply because of who they chose to vote for. Shit is crazy nowadays.
@@rainerbandowski1999 he never said they were.
Your definition is what i knew to be the definition for a long time you just gave me more tools and information to win discussions more often.
Who on earth are you arguing with that this chaps bollox would be a help?
@@DaveSCameron you mad for being wrong bruh?, it seems like you were the little bitch who got owned by reason.
@@TheIsemgrim Excuse me, are you going to translate this or do I just move on?
@@DaveSCameron Play the ball and not the man. Substantiate your disagreement(s).
Fu*k i hope not - people that win arguments are not always right - TIK isnt right here and he hasnt won the argument - it appears most right wing commentators agree with him but that doesnt mean anything- Ben shapiro isnt right alot or most of the time- hes just the best debater /arguer
34:32 No they WILL have a CEO. And the CEO is not the "public representative of the public corporation". He is the employee of a private entity. That entity can hire or fire him without the input from anyone else. A corporation is not a state or some public actor. It is an piece of property conceived to make money. A State is not a financial enterprise, but serves a very different function.
Except the corporation is not owned by an individual or a small family like group and therefore not private
i think the ceos are hired and fired by the executive board of directors
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 And the membership of the board of directors is made up of share holders, i.e. the owners of the property. Ergo, the CEO is an employee of the owners.
You just cannot win with some people TIK
You cannot reason with the irrational
To this day, Tik's explanation and definitions of "Left" and "Right" are by far the best explanations of the terms I've heard. However, litterally every time I talk about this to someone, they say Im wrong - but never present any compelling arguments to back their assertion up. They always point to differences in the current left and right wing here in the US and say "See, this is the difference!". When, in reality, these are always just specific points of disagreement between the two specific groups in the US - not a definition of the root "left" and "right". For example, legal abortion isn't inherently left or right wing - but is pointed at as a difference between the two.
"Left" and "Right" have no meaning. They might as well be called "A" and "B" or "Red" and "Blue". They are just team names: you pick one to "identify" with and then you fight against the other. That is the only thing you can communicate with these words: tribal affiliation. You can't do any logic with them, because they have no definition. You can define them, sure, but why would you pick such abused strings of letters for your new word when there are countless other letter combinations available.
Left and right are just simple terms used to make it easy for someone like you to understand. It has no meaning at all. People agree with some policy on the right and some on the left. That’s just how human works. So Tik’s definition of left and right is just as meaningless as others.
However his definition of socialism is very flawed. Socialism isn’t a left/right issue. Socialism is how a country or society choice to organize its economy and means of production. Nazi Germany have some socialistic policies just like everyone, but it is not socialism because means of production aka factories, farm etc is not owned by The government. It is owned by private people, that’s called capitalism.
By this definition, the so called socialist European country are not socialism, they are still under capitalism. China calls itself under socialism but that’s only true from 1950-1979. After 1979 they are no longer a socialist country.
@@royhuang9715 but the "private" people still answer to the government, if they don't bow to the will of the government they will be removed forcibly. so it's kind of a stretch to call it capitalism when the government still controls the means of production just through a slightly longer channel.
left and right belong to european politics. lumping some hardcore liberterian in with nat socs makes as much sense as the alleged rightwing nat socs. its just a brush to smear the US commie fifth column's enemies.
Thank you for your work, sincerely and honestly. Thank you.
Thank you very much, TIK. I recently rewatched your “what is fascism” video by George Orwell and in away it applies here. People use the words socialism as if it’s a swear word without fully knowing what it truly means.
Second Thought’s video on why the Nazi’s were capitalists was a fascinating watch in seeing socialists pick and choose what is or is not socialist. Either you tick every box to be a socialist or your not. While of course he makes the claim socialism is more than just the state seizing the means of production. Now he uses coded language to mean the “people” when it’s really the state/ government.
I think Second Thought is a bad example, although (sadly) typical of many members of the radical left. He is a marxist and marxists almost always think that they have found THE definitive explanation of how the world works. Many of them a very dogmatic in my experience. I would consider myself to be a member of the left too, but not a marxist. It's funny, I tried to argue with both Second Thought and TIK and both rejected my definition attempt of the term socialism, but for opposite reasons. I thought for a long time that I was some sort of anarchists, but then "real" anarchists told me that my opinions were not radical enough. Kind of frustrating.
From what I've seen Hitler definitely didn't have any interest in directly controlling the means of production, but he did believe the state should regulate the economy and that companies shouldn't be allowed to violate the national interests, or the rights of workers simply for profit. He also had very big criticisms for capitalist states, calling them plutocracies that put the interests of capital above the will of the people (he wasn't referencing democray though, since he also didn't believe democracy conveyed the people's will, at least he didn't believe in multipartidarism). The best way to define Germany in that period, is that NS was Socialism, but with different principles from those of Marxism. Obviously these explanations will never convince Communists, Socialists, and modern Marxists in general because they are more afraid of being viewed remotely similar to Hitler's ideology than they are interested in truth, despite the fact that most of the modern world ended up adopting Hitler's economic theories in some capacity, that nobody cared about his economic policy to begin with, and that he himself wrote that economics was only a means to an end and not supposed to be a crystallized aspect of the state that you have to keep immutable forever.
@@untruelie2640 I've just double-checked our previous conversations via my comment search, and it went exactly like this: you said I was wrong. I said I was using the historical definitions. You said "there is also a wider definition of socialism; a more descriptive one that is often used in the discipline of political theory." So I said:
"Okay, despite the fact that the historical definition is clear, I'll bite. What is this "wider" definition you speak of?"
Your reply was: "I tried to explain it above. I don't think that ANY definition outside of natural science is really clear or agreed on by everyone. At least that was one of the things I learned when I studied philosophy."
In other words, your definition of socialism is "it depends and it's not agreed on". Well, it's no wonder I and Second Thought reject that definition because that's not a definition. You have failed to define socialism. In reply to other users you also said you reject "absolute definitions", and then proceeded to call anyone who defines things "dogmatic", whilst at the same time saying to them: "Claiming that YOUR personal conviction is the one and only absolute truth in the universe is not only unscientific but also rather narcisistic. That's simply the nature of a pluralistic world."
It's not "personal" or a conviction. EVERY socialist who can actually define socialism, every political thinker, every historian, the dictionary, numerous other sources, all point to the same definition. When socialism is attempted the results are unanimous - totalitarianism and state ownership or control of the means of production. We have a convergence of evidence on this matter conclusively proving what the definition is. But you selfishly reject this, and when asked to give a definition, you then proceed to write paragraphs of purple prose that doesn't actually define anything.
You have failed to define socialism because you either don't know what it is, or because your belief in the Hegelian religion (which you admit elsewhere) hinders your cognitive development. Like a typical dialectic materialist, you don't believe in definitions simply because defining what socialism is opens "The Idea" to criticism. Well, I don't believe in Cosmism, and I don't believe in Hegelian -logic- emotionalism, so I'll stick to the evidence which all points to the same conclusion. Socialism is state ownership or control of the means of production. If you disagree, you'll have to come up with a concrete definition for me to challenge you on. Failure to even do that is to admit that you're wrong, at which point this conversation is over. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who accuses me of being wrong but can't define the thing I'm supposedly wrong about. If you can't define it, you can't prove I'm wrong.
When was the last time you even did a tank video ? 😂
I've only ever done like three tank videos ever, and the last one I made (the one on the Maus) didn't perform well at all. People aren't here for the tank content!
Damn, AFGuides? I've watched some of your playthroughs, and I've seen you in a few comments sections here and there, but I wasn't expecting to find you scrolling through a TIK video.
Losing your faith is painful, and people will go through lengths to justify anything to keep it. Because humans are a social creature, and they understand fully that it will mean they become more alone outside of the in-group. That's why almost everyone will sacrifice themselves to the organization they claim their allegiance to, be it religion, politics, company, or any other kind of organization.
I understand this very well, having done this journey not only once, but twice. The most recent being actually from socialism to libertarianism. The journey itself is cleansing, but i fully understand the reasoning of those that refuse to do it. It's a common trait, and a logical fallacy at that. (sunk cost fallacy) They're too invested socialy to the particular group. I don't know how many people i know that hate their job, with a passion even. Yet they stay.
They really don't understand freedom, nor do they understand independence, economy, politics, or pretty much anything. It's a condition coming from conditioning.
I gotta hand it to Horatio. He's an example of how civil disagreement can be done well. I on the other hand, agree fully with you and am happy to learn more on economics because you have some of the best videos on economics and political ideology. I used to have a lot of miconceptions on economics (i'm bad at math) and you have inspired me to learn more about economics ever since you started "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments."
It was my first video of yours I watched, so after that I went backwards to Public vs Private.
I have used you as a source to educate people and it is difficult, but I think you are doing it rather understandable to anyone. If I had you as my history teacher when I was a kid, you'd have been my favorite history teacher. I believe a case of why people are so muddled an confused is because modern Marxists (the 'woke' kind who can't even define man and woman) have been artificially changing and subverting the definitions for decades.
Thank you for doing what you do, even if it's a exhausting endeavor. I get the same lies and misconceptions as you do, projected onto me on a much smaller scale, which is a reason why I respect you so much for sticking to the truth.
Edit: I have been seeing a lot of rhetoric about the Industrial Revolution being an utterly terrible thing from both the left and Christian traditionalist Conservative right. Since that is linked to Economics and these relevant ideologies. I'm wondering if that should be explored with real historical coverage.
People who argue against the Industrial Revolution are cringe
Was it Bill Gates? He does love his population control ideology. On a more serious note, terrible how? I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to seriously argue that.
@@alexgray2482 They're ideological, highly religious or ideologues. I don't want to the west to become a Christian Caliphate any more than a communist section of the world.
@@TheMattTrakker certain "traditionalist conservatives", libertarians, deep ecologists and anarchists often do argue that
@@TheMattTrakker they're mostly Christian 'Conservatives' who think Conservatives are all abut Religion.
They're becoming increasingly common on counterculture and commentary channels as well as political discussion sites. I feel like i'm in a Christian Caliphate or something lately because i'm a Conservative myself, but some say i'm a leftists because I'm not religious.
TIK is one of the guys that has proof that's not true.
On the other side of the political spectrum it's Climate Change fanatics, such as Chinese Communist Party puppet Prime Minister of Britain Rishi Sunak saying Brits need to pay 'climate reparations' to third world countries for the Industrial Revolution.
I like this. Breaking it all down and discussing it is enlightening. I find it worthwhile to look at the definitions and how we seem to say one thing and mean another while we think we were so clear. Great work again!
Do you know what circular reasoning is?
I think it is great that this definitions video was made. More You Tubers making videos on politics and economics should do this too, to see what their baselines are, and to see if they start from the correct place.
I find telling left wingers that Hitler was left wing an interesting discussion.
I think that 2 girls 1 cup joke slipped under the radar a bit there. Seriously, brilliant 🤣
Don't stick to tanks, definitely include economics. Without understanding economics, one can't fully grasp history, including military history.
You are doing a great job TIK, and the only people who disagree with you on economics have little understanding of it themselves. In fact, many have been taught false economics by people with a political agenda. FWIW, I do have a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from a highly regarded university.
And i have a diploma in business studies in accounting which includes economics, yet it was only taught capitalist economics - i used capitalist economics and accounting in a capitalist corporation then once i quit i met the socialists and learnt about socialist economics and marxism which has different views on capitalism and socialism and communism .
Professor Wolf a confessed marxist , said when he was at university no one taught marxism .
My point is which economics did you learn because in my experience its only capitalist economics the school system from high school to university teaches unless you know about others and can seek them out.
NB this was 30 yrs ago s cant say how its changed today.
Arguing with socialists about socialism is like arguing about astronomy with flat Earthers.
from that moronic statement youre either a moron or extremely dishonest malevolent anti socialist
Im not an astromer nor nuclear physist and wouldnt argue with either and pretend i now more and make that same idotic incorrect claim
In case your brain couldnt work that out making dishonest straw man arguments about socialism isnt good arguing and wont get accepted.
Theres plenty of good arguments and critiques against every system , socialism , capitalism , fascism and fuedalism because every system involve humans the problem is people like TIK dont make them.
This was fun, I am a repentant socialist, a repentant teenager communist, or anarcho-syndicalist romantic. We need balance in our world but ignorance is no answer to history.
Personally I loved this chat.
Today I learned a few reasons why I already do not like state control or too much socialism. On the other hand I learned in my life we need some state control of a justice system maybe, a police force and other things. May we all live long enough to experience democracy.
Thank you for sticking to history, and well done Tik
Something I've posted on your other videos, and I cannot reiterate it enough. When your channel is dedicated to World War II and a general study of it, its causes, and what led to it and how it was actually conducted (correct me if I'm wrong there, but I believe that to be true enough), you SIMPLY CANNOT decouple the economics from the military aspects of the war because the war was motivated and conducted for primarily economic reasons, for both the European Axis and the Japanese Empire. Having your terms correct is incredibly important, and you do this as well as Drachinifel does his homework on his Naval History Channel. Keep it up man; you produce objectively some of the best WWII history takes and explanations of anyone on RUclips and easily some of the best work even from an academic level.
the victors write history and this is a video on economics and politics not war - the victors of capitalism are the winners they have managed to socially construct what socialism and capitalism is and this does nothing to correct those false ideas.
Hey Tik. Hope all is well. Take the time you need. If you need to switch from Stalingrad to something else, I'd say go for it. It's best to switch to a different topic that is fresh and keep your enthusiam up rather than bog down in a project. You may find a fresh charge of energy when you return. Cheers for all your hard work from a subscriber across the pond.
Hey Vass, thank you. I do wonder if I should take a break from the Battlestorms for a bit to allow me to recover... but I don't know. How's things with you?
@@TheImperatorKnight No worries Tik. It's your call. I'm doing well. Got back from a WWI re-enactment actually. It was awesome.
Perhaps a simpler Battlestorm operation for a while would balance the attention of the tanks-oriented crowd with the time and resources involved with creating it? Stalingrad has so much going on, I imagine a smaller operation would help the new animator catch up more easily without that full burden during the learning process.
I mean, I'm perfectly happy with a pause on Battlestorm, just figured audience retention might be a concern there.
TIK, I really like your videos and it’s so great to hear well thought out opinions in detail.
So please know my critique is in the spirit of good debate.
I think publicly traded companies are distinct from state owned companies. To me it’s all about the shares themselves still being privately owned.
If I buy a share then I own that share privately; even though I purchased the share through the public exchange. It’s no different than going to a shop and calling that “going out in public”. Technically the store property is privately owned & the products are being transferred in private exchanges; yet we still call shops and restaurants public places. It’s more word confusion/creep but conceptually it’s distinct.
When I buy a share I don’t jointly own that share with the rest of society. Nor indeed is the company as a whole owned by the rest of society. The company is owned only by those individuals who bought in and only in proportion to the amount and timing of that purchase. Non-controlling shares of a company act identical to end products: acquired through free exchange , private ownership, private value. A Controlling share acts identical to private ownership of the means of production with full private decision making authority.
Hypothetically, every citizen in society could simultaneously purchase equal amounts of every company; such that everybody owns the means of production equally. And that would be mathematically similar to socialism. But it still would not be actually equivalent to socialism. People could still freely decide to sell or buy more. So that option would have to be removed. Yet even then it falls short because everyone purchased equally at the start. To reach socialism the government would have to take the assets of every citizen and use that to purchase all the shares and then evenly distribute the shares to everyone and then ban all sales/purchases following the distribution.
So basically it’s socialism anytime the government buys shares but not socialism if an individual privately owns shares
My first impressions when I listened to the original video was that your argument was semantics. Then I realized that of course any argument about definitions would necessarily be semantic in nature. That doesn't make it wrong. Good job TIK.
But this isn't just semantic. IMO, TIK is factually wrong about the idea that publicly-traded corporations are inherently socialist.
@@timacbluke7017 No, he's right about that.
The non-socialist version is known as a private limited company where the shares are not open to the entire public to buy
@@timacbluke7017 in your opinion he is factually wrong? That’s the largest brain take I’ve ever heard in my entire life
@@juliantheapostate8295 yeah like a coop lol
@@juliantheapostate8295there is NO state in the world were there are NOT EVEN SOME companies run/owned by the state (at a central or more local level). So we can say that there are NO capitalist country in the world, but only MORE or LESS socialist countries, according to this channel!!!
I think the confusion is because when we think of the private sector and corporations and private entities, we mean that ownership and participation in them is by private individuals and is VOLUNTARY. When we say "public sector" we're usually talking about government ownership, making our ownership of it and interactions with it by definition INVOLUNTARY. Maybe that's not the best technical use of the terms, but I think it's the common one.
I understand, but that doesn't work. If the State's Central Bank prints currency and throws it at the stock market, which is full of public corporations, the public corporations grow large and out-compete their competition, leading to many competitors shutting up shop. The banking sector also gets centralized, and everyone is forced to be in the system. The fiat currency we use as a means of exchange is heavily manipulated as a result of inflation and interest rates, both caused by the State's Central Bank. So I don't think corporations are voluntary in any way shape or form. I have to have a bank account (banks are corporations) in order to pay my taxes, for example.
@@TheImperatorKnight Your definitions are extremely wide though, especially the "publicly-owned company" part. In most cases, the overwhelming majority of shares are owned by a very limited amount of individuals or institutions (owned by, again, overwhelmingly by a few individuals). In practice, one can usually control a company even if they own significantly less than 50% of the shares, which is a very common occurrence, and many major corporations have bylaws that makes the influence of their small shareholders extremely limited- the workers definitely do not "control the means of production" in any practical sense.
@@FeherMate A very large portion of shares (actually the majority) are owned by mutual investment funds, divided up into the proportional share of individual investors. This is about as socialist as you can get, minus the mass murder and deliberate famine
Youre correct - TIK knows this as he stated in his video public has multiple meanings depending on context then dishonestly used it in one context claiming its the only correct one
Try and tell the government youre not a citizen of the state because youre a man not a person and dont consent and they will take you to court or worse using the police- They say you were born in (name state ) therefore youre a citizen of that state - its not voluntary . While the govt creates the register of companies these companies /corporations are listed voluntarily by the private individuals who register them. They are always registered as private companies as they are not for sale to wider group of individuals . Ergo the govt aka state created them . TIK sorta omitted this . This is another thing govt do to make capitalism work aside from stealing property and making it private and protecting it - dang better stop im getting into anti ancap arguments . now.
@@TheImperatorKnight your video arguments false -what you call public corporations are still private when we are describing capitalism- ive rebutted this multiple places in comments- they are private corporations with a larger group of private individual investors -we dont know how many you havent said and your claim is when a private group gets to big it becomes public . Youve also said private family groups in the medieval times comprised of thousands (my family history dates back to the war of the roses) so your claim at this stage is just a claim.
The only truely public corporation is the government as all citizens can vote in its elections.
Now for arguments sake lets say these private corporations traded on the stock exchange are public so were talking about the same thing , how does your statement above mean anything ? . What you speak of refers to both private and public companies so how does voluntary v forced separate private from public which was virgina hansens point .
Love your videos and the VERY CLEAR explanations therein.
Problem is that certain people hear, or not hear, what they want. Not what you say. And one can not argue with those who choose to misrepresent or even be deaf to what you explain.
And even when you use given definitions, the very same group you appear to adress will opt to rewrite said definitions....
Any definition of Socialism that makes Socialism not look like the flawless penultimate solution to everything, will be called a wrong definition by Socialists - who will then usually proceed to not give a definition of their own and just keep calling you wrong instead and leave, stomping their feet. That is so far my experience in this issue.
There is of course the rare moments where a Socialist then does try to give a definition, but it is stammered, pulled out of thin air, and tends to be incoherent and useless - or it is some quickly copy-pasted lines that were never thought about and are at best Socialism's advertisement claims about itself, and not what it in practice and truth is and does.
That's because to agree socialism is bad, is to admit they themselves are evil.
Cognitive dissonance.
The problem is that "socialism" is, like many other terms in political theory/history/philosophy a very unclear and ambiguous term. So many people have used so differently that it's hard to get a grip on it. So when someone doesn't have a clear definition it is not necessarily because of intellectual dishonesty, but because of the nature of the terminology. I could give you several dofferent definitions of "socialism", but none of them will cover every aspect of this complex phenomenon.
@@untruelie2640 Yeah, that's a perfect example of the response you get from socialists when you challenge them on socialism.
@@TheMattTrakker Ok, so you repeated your initial claim. And now? This isn't very convincing.
@@TheMattTrakker Let's try a different approach: How would you define the term socialism?
This discussion is timely. The term socialism has been used frequently in the debates and advertising related to the midterm elections here in the US. In my view you are being accurate when you say that there is little agreement as to what the word means. It's being used as a label, as a stick to beat others over the head in any discussion about politics. We are well served by discussions such as this which seek to define at least what the speaker means when they use the word, and what they don't mean. Better to have a dialog however this format does not support real time dialogue. Your timely thoughts on this are appreciated.
He’s not saying there is little agreement as to what the word socialism means. Quite the opposite.
25:50 -"is publicly traded shares not shared ownership"?. Earlier in the video TIK states that it is his personal opinion is that the state does not represent the people. That might help him here. People own publicly traded shares, not the state.
Thank you for all your well thought out arguments and researched subjects!
Another great video TIK. I have taught economics for 36 years and students always struggle with understanding what socialism actually is.
government who interferes with free market is common sense not socialism, if you havent heard of cartels you should probably stopped teaching 35,5 years ago
@@rainerbandowski1999 You seem to not understand my post. Students have a problem understanding socialism, not me.
@@rainerbandowski1999 Cartels use violence to enforce their power over other. It is by definition, anti free market and to some extent, I would even say anti-capitalist for what capitalism in the eyes of it's proponents and what they want it to achieve. The voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. Once you put violence as a tool in this, you obligatorily try to coerce and impose what is most beneficial to you at the detriment of others.
This is one of the reason why a umpire state should exist to be used by the population to protect themselves in case of such violent overthrow of the market. It is a measure to protect the free market and protect capitalism. To stop an infringement of the free market isn't anti free market.
But this does raise a point. If the Cartel trades in illegal products, than their sole reason for violence is because their market was born in a necessity for violence. Maybe the legalisation of those products would have prevented the necessity for violence but it is now too late for this to be corrected simply by legalisation.
@Rainer Bandowski. Oh boy. You already are strawmanning or misunderstanding. Yes. Correct. Safe interference(regulation) is NOT socialism. State OWNERSHIP and/or ultimate CONTROL over private business IS socialism. Which is exactly what TIK is saying.
@@thotslayer9914 Hahahaha...
Don't be distracted by self-important ones that want to inflict their opinions on everyone else. Keep up the good work TIK!
Love your work man. As a young libertarian who is fairly well versed in the ethos of Mesis and Rothbard, I found you to be incredible. You have been an absolute treasure trove of knowledge and wisdom. I doubt many humans disserve an intellectual like yourself. I was wondering who any of your inspirations might be, as well as your opinions on Ayn Rand. If you don't want to disclose this information, I get it. Thank you so much for your content. I can't wait to start employment again. First thing I'm going to do is join your patron.
I'm obviously not TIK but I'll chime in anyway
Rand is good for insisting on objective reality, reason (although she gives it pride of place instead of just an epistemological role) and capitalism (although she advocates it as a Platonic ideal society, not practical guidance for the individual)
Rand is pretty crazy in my mind for insisting on ethical self-interest where the "self" is a psychological or narrative projection instead of flesh and blood. She turns the survival imperative from "life" as in life and death to "Life" as in achievement and eudomania. A more logical extension IMO is genetic survival and reproduction, which is obviously necessary if the philosophy is supposed to be for living organisms. Rand seems to have very little grasp of sex and reproduction. For example she violently opposes "whim-worship" except in abortion where she says there is no moral dimension and "only the wish of the woman" is morally relevant.
Rand resolves the mind-body "dichotomy" by declaring the two to be united, but in practice she seems to view the mind as really fundamental and the body as a tool of the mind. In contrast I have been convinced by Rand's metaphysics and her arguments regarding the "stolen concept" fallacy that in fact mind does not exist, it is a behavior of the body.
@@anonymousAJ TBH I thought I knew a good bit about Rand. I feel like you just cucked me lol. This is going to be a great researching all of this.
@@reasonator9538 I think I've read everything she's ever written
Ayn Rand Lexicon is great for finding her material on different subjects (and there's a free hyperlinked version online)
@@anonymousAJ Appreciate it
@@reasonator9538 I think if you want a single guide to the philosophy the best is Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) by Leonard Piekoff. Piekoff was her protege near the end of her life and I believe OPAR enjoys some sort of approval from either Rand personally or at least the Institute
If you want to think for yourself about psychological vs genetic self-interest I would recommend Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene
It was perfectly clear the first time. Hopefully more will be enlightened and awakened.
Tik, love the video and your channel. The issue I’m having with your definition of publicly traded companies as socialist entities is that, theoretically, they aren’t controlled by state interests. Amazon is comprised of many individual owners making up the community of ownership. The state, at least here in America, technically doesn’t have the right to decide company policy, make executive decisions etc.
Now you may argue that massive corporations collude with the government a majority of the time to crush smaller business competition. Or that government regulation definitionally means that it’s not a private company if the government can regulate it.
I am sympathetic to those arguments. But that doesn’t change the core point which is, “publicly traded” is a colloquialism we use to say that the masses can buy a share of said company as opposed to a truly private company that is owned by the individual founders and shareholders. It does not however mean that the state controls the corporations actions as they do in true socialist states like USSR, Germany under the national socialists, China, Cuba etc. would love to hear your response to this.
In any event, love your work!
Another example of "state control" is state defined, mandated and enforced school curricula.
In most countries the state defines what is taught at schools, public or private. It also engages in unfair competition by providing "universal schooling" and repeating ad nauseaum that it is "free" (it is not, it is paid by taxes)
In some countries, private schools are outlawed, because state controlled schooling cannot allow competition.
If you attempt to home school or teach your *own children* outside of the state enforced system... you get violence and coercion
@@alphana7055 no the groomers would be the state enforced educators
@@alphana7055 If you're rich, intelligent and have time you can give your child a better education than it could ever receive from a school.
If you're rich you can just hire intelligent and educated people to come to your home to educate your child.
If you're intelligent, educated and have the time and resources then you can educate your child yourself.
Homeschooling is a better and more efficient way to give your child an extremely good education if you've all of the above.
As long as you let your kid outside to have normal and social interactions with other kids there will be nothing wrong with your child, it will just know more about everything that is taught in school than the others and much sooner too.
@@wtice4632 100%
@@alphana7055 strawman argument
Having your kids outside the statist forced indoctrination system is not "isolating" them from society.
If I send my kids to a private posh school. there is no isolation. If I create my own cooperative school with other like minded people, there is no isolation
Ad hominem
You are implying that I am some sort of pervert or mental patient
That is all you've got?
@@alphana7055 sounds a like youre projecting a bit groomer. Had public schools stuck to STEM and basic philosophy no one would have an issue. but theyre transing the kids now cause theyre groomers, like you.
Love these videos. Thanks to you, I learned about Fascism, National Socialism, Marxism, Capitalism, Democracy and Dictatorship that the traditional narrative never would teach me and I often quote the philosophers and politicians who believed in these Ideologies and I get called a liar, misquoting them or even trying to distort what they said/believed. Like me saying that Fascism, National Socialism and Marxism are pro democracy because Giovanni Gentile, Hitler and Marx said so. Your videos are amazing and keep them up, just don't listen to those trying to push the traditional narrative and distorting history by creating Pseudohistorical narratives.
I am mad at TIK. Because of his political videos I have ended up spending close to $2000 to get many/most of the books he referenced (and several others that he didn't but are worthwhile to get like Thomas Sowell, The Federalist papers etc.). It's going to take years to read them all (Game of Thrones, Tolkien, these are not).
In regards to the private-public divide and why a small family is considered "private" historically, I would theorize a lot of it has to do with the level of interpersonal relationships. Within a family, everyone has a particular relationship with everyone else. They all know each other. At a certain size, however, a group will no longer have particular relationships between all individuals. There is a reason that cities need laws, where as a household does not, at least not in the same way. Interactions between strangers are in a way transactional, they are not part of a larger rapport-building paradigm. Once a size is reached that formalized rules a required, you have moved from the private to the public.
Fantastic, very well researched videos. Thank you for your content.
Tik, you make my evil economic system sound evil. How dare you!
I think for a lot of people, it comes to down to ego. They learned something new by reading some thinker/theory, now they rushed on-top of the hill to tell everyone and having to admit they were wrong is the hardest thing to do, easier to just double-down.
I think the biggest issue is that people are solely defining "the state" as the government/country instead of an expanded view of the definition extending to any corporation. I think it's also a difficult concept because it doesn't seem that any country or country level government could actually be a fully capitalist one and would have to have some socialist aspects/components to it. People normally see a government/country as one or the other, not a % of each.
I think you're pretty spot on, for many anyways. Lots of people don't understand what fully constitutes a state. The fact that corporations are mixed up with capitalist ideals really says it all.
And yeah, to be FULLY capitalist (as far right as can be) would mean no state whatsoever. Pure anarchy. I think most people recognize that as being a bit much. Relatively speaking having a free market with private ownership of the means of production is enough to fulfill the definition of being capitalist.
@@MintyLime703 Indeed, but no country in the world fits that description, because of central banking
@@MintyLime703 I disagree that no state and anarchy are inherently the same thing. I have long said the Torah is written to establish a stateless society. It has laws, but they are immutable. There are no legislative or executive bodies. There is a hierarchy of judges, who apply the law to the case at hand according to their ability to do so, and nothing more. There are no taxes or bureaucracies created to support said judges; it is not a profession one can (legally) profit from. The people themselves bring cases and witnesses before said judges, and carry out the punishments decreed by the Torah after a guilty verdict. In other words, law enforcement is the responsibility of every person, rather than a public/state organization (the same is true for military defense, which relies on a militia system). There is also no compensation for their efforts either; it is simply a responsibility. One could argue the Levitical system/priesthood constitutes something of a state, since there is a pittance of a tax for temple services, but they are not granted the authority to govern the society at large, only apply highly specific religious judgments in the same objective manner as the secular judges do for day-to-day matters.
The most irreconcilable disconnect between that system and our current potential is that it has a process for petitioning a decision from God when the correct application of a law cannot be determined with certainty by even the most senior judges. In this way, the Creator of said law explains exactly how it is intended to be interpreted in the given circumstance, and a completely objective legal precedent is thus established. Without the ability to utilize such a mechanism, the only option left is to employ what effectively amounts to legislation (whether by passing a "law" or merely setting a precedent from the bench based on best judgment) in the hopes that the original intent has been faithfully interpreted. Still though, that process does not necessarily require a state apparatus if it is simply the existing judicial hierarchy making their best educated guess.
The reason I would not class that system as truly Anarcho-Capitalist is because there ARE the judges and the legal code, which extends, albeit very minimally, beyond merely the Non-Aggression Principle. It is entirely free market, though, because there are no economic regulations or taxes nor the possibility of creating any (there are outlawed behaviors like fraud, theft and prostitution, but in the form of absolute moral imperatives rather than adjustable economic regulations).
You've done a great job with this. Keep up the good work!
The only criticism I have of TIK is that he keeps telling me things I already know.
Excellent channel, marching forward, constantly getting better. Just excellent!
I sometimes watch ww2 videos from this channel that show up in my feed, but maybe once or twice a year it's some strange "Hitler was a socialist" PragerU tier nonsense. I respect your work and your dedication to sharing history, and some of your analyses are very important. But whatever case you're making here is not rooted in political theory, but a semantic game. What's the point? Best wishes :)
I appreciate the stimulating challenges to accepted historical "truths" which often raise a eyebrow shall we say but the main reason I like this channel is...no bloody stupid distracting and overly-loud "background music".!! Other history youtubers please take note.
I think there is a term definition that, like much of the language, is re-using of common words. A "Private Corporation" is a shorthand for "Privately Held Corporation" or one who's sales of stock is limited to being sold by private individuals to other private individuals (and may be one where the corporation is held by a limited - private - number of people. A "Public Corporation" is short for a "Publicly Held Corporation" one where the shares are traded on a public market (i.e. stock exchange). "Private Corporation" may be an oxymoron, but such is the nature of language. Usually, using Public/Private is to talk about the ownership structure of the company not the number of owners, although, by its nature a privately held company is more often held by fewer people than a public company, but like the "city / town" distinction, there are privately held companies with hundreds of owners. And you are incorrect at (36:40) not all corporations are publicly owned. An individual or small family may own a corporation and is therefore, by your definitions, not publicly owned.
And, similarly, the structure of the company has nothing to do with the "for profit" nature of a company. A company can be for profit, not for profit or non-profit. (Yes, not for profit and non-profit are different.) These distinctions are different than the ownership model and have to do with tax status. So you can have a not for profit privately held company that owns shares of a for profit publicly held company.
Lastly, technically, corporations are not charted by the state for monopoly purposes. They are chartered by individuals (or other corporations) within the rules and guidelines setup by the state (generally - meaning a corporation can exist outside of state rules). Technically, they are acknowledged as existing by the state, but not setup by the state. (US Law, not sure about how it is the UK.) You can, as an individual, setup a corporation and not register with the state. At its heart, a corporation is a legal contract between individuals and when shared with the public grants certain legal benefits to the corporation as an existing legal entity within the state.
aight got a question "they are chartered by individuals within the rules and guidelines setup by the state" that sounds pretty much like the state being in control of how they're set-up as it sure as hell sounds like for a corporation to be allowed to set up by the state they must follow those rules and guidelines and if not the state would take issue at that
Socialist: "Capitalism has created a vast market of jobs that are completely pointless, in that, the workers are merely exploited, without contributing to society as a whole."
Me: "Do you think it's vital that workers pay their taxes?"
Socialist: "Yes, absolutely!"
Me: "...I rest my case."
The transition from Private to public isn't a fixed number issue, it's more of an organizational structure issue. When you have a certain number of people the social structure they live under will have to be manually changed for efficacy and public good. That transitions is a conscious decision the group makes for it's continued prosperity. Some group resists this change as they don't want the negative effects of it (it's has pros and cons) anyways that's why you can't define it as a numbers issue, there's no number where the private group becomes a public group it's structural change that is encouraged by the increase in the size and number of people in the group.
Also love your videos TIK, keep up the good work
"Public vs Private" video is the best video on this channel.
It's the first video I saw on your channel.
And it is the video that made me donate on Pathreon for the last ~3yrs
ps.
That being said I can't wait to see this follow up :)
Honestly, I think it's one of the most important videos on RUclips
@@SepticFuddy I agree 100%
People struggle because we far too often fall back on the "everybody knows" version of events/definitions/concepts, etc. It takes *effort* dig down and look at things like definitions, specifics of evidence, contrary information, and, most importantly, being OK with the idea that not everything is cut and dry clear. That is, as you demonstrate in this video, definitions can be "confusing" because of how things are defined, depending on location and chronological time. Thus, those of us who are older might very well have different understandings of some of these concepts than those who are younger. Or if I tend to read older texts, I might very well have a different understanding of many of these issues.
As Denis Praeger says, "clarity over agreement." It seems to me that you are trying very hard for clarity - but that isn't really what the left tends to want. They instead tend to want, if not actually demand, conformity.
I think that's the biggest problem when it comes to these sorts of discussions: the discussions often hinge on people who carry different understandings regarding the basic terms/concepts using the same words without putting the effort in to clarify what those terms/concepts actually mean.
Which brings me to a couple questions: I think you might be wrong when it comes to corporations being owned publicly and thus socialist. That a block of *individuals* owns shares in a corporation does not *necessarily* mean it is "publicly owned" in the same sense that you've been talking about. It seems to me that "the public" being synonymous with "the state" is vastly different than "the public" ownership referenced in the Amazon example. Those *individuals* who own any numbers of shares may be *called* "the public" ownership block, but that doesn't mean they act in uniformity NOR, and I think this is key, is it the whole of "the public" which is what, it appears, you mean to be equivalent to "the state."
Nor does Marx calling for the "shared ownership of the means of production" prove that private individuals CHOOESING to own shares in SPECIFIC (sorry, I'd italicize or underline but, you know, youtube. I'm not "shouting") companies based on individual choice introduces just that: choice. Voluntary activity. I'd argue that such an element takes it far, far from Marxism. Wall Street loved Marxists because greater government control meant choking off small-time competition through regulation, not because Wall Street "fat cats" wanted to lose any and all ownership of any of the companies/stocks they invested in. After all, if "the public" (the state) actually "owns" the means of production, and they are consistent about it, then only the members of government actually make any money off of it. Everyone else just gets what the government (the state) doles out.
"Publicly owned" and "publicly traded" may be the same thing (to a certain extent. I mean, seriously, we can't rule out a certain level of laziness by most people when it comes to being precise definitions and distinguishing characteristics. You're one of the few people who puts forth such effort to do so), but that does not * necessarily* mean that it's the same thing as "the public" when understood as "the state." Instead, it seems to me that calling something "publicly traded/owned" in this circumstance is falling back on a different definition under the "everybody knows" umbrella of "knowledge," instead meaning that anyone in the general public, theoretically, could own a share.
Which brings me to this question (I hope you can clarify for me): it isn't also true that the idea behind "worker ownership" was the workers *in that corporation* or THAT particular field were the ones who had ownership? That is, they would "own the fruit of their own efforts." That isn't true for what we colloquially refer to as corporations these days. Again, anyone can theoretically own part of any corporation that is "publicly traded," not just the workers of that particular company or within that particular industry. Further, it still includes the vital element of voluntary involvement in ownership. I think we can't simply ignore the importance of free will involvement when it comes to distinguishing types of "public ownership."
I'm sorry, I'm rambling and I'm not so much arguing as asking questions, I guess. I appreciate ALL of your videos. Thank you so much for all that you!
You can _italicize_ text in RUclips comments by putting underscores on either side of it; similarly, using asterisks you can make text *bold.* Underlining? No idea.
@@boobah5643 I'm just a simple caveman . . .
@@boobah5643 _this is how you underline_
@@boobah5643 -this is how you underline-
nevermind you cant underline
I love listening to you. As a former socialist/communist I feel like you are a doing a fantastic job!
I admire your dedication to the community.
Wow, I had all this figured out in middle school. I completely understood exactly what you were talking about. Need to thank my father for explaining it in great detail. He hated socialism and would talk about its evils all the time.
L, you were indoctrinated
@@RUINOUSDOLL Says the person that follows Richard Wolff...... LMAO
@@redmonkeyass26 it's amazing that you say this considering that he's actually pretty moderate and liberal leaning
you're not beating the ideological fanaticism allegations
@@RUINOUSDOLL someone that claims that capitalism is slavery and that follows Marxism, a failed ideology that caused the death of millions of people is not a moderate in any measure..... but hey, being a Marxist while living in NY and not in Cuba is always easy.
@@RUINOUSDOLL Someone that defends the Cuban dictatorship is not a moderate or liberal leaning......
I just finished the Economics in one Lesson audio book you recommended. A good listen to, and to come to this brings a greater contexts. Though I agree with you and much within the book recommended. I do wonder what you'd think how dealing with extreme profit driven/greed of people could be dealt with. I know he stated unions can be good, and I think of Victorian times as to how bad business could be. There's a balance between things, but knowing how to strike an actual balance is key. Keep up the good work. Love it, as a major fan of history.
That is a right wing economics book that is kind of loony in my view. That is Liz Truss economics.
33:50 No. Corporations are *NOT* publicly owned. They are private entities, the ownership of which can be bought and sold by the public just like any other piece of property. Every year at the annual stockholders meeting attendance is limited to share holders. It is a private event closed to the general public.
You literally contradicted yourself in two sentences. You say "Corporations are NOT publicly owned," and then say "the ownership of which can be bought and sold by the public"
@@william_prescott_ii3277 Assuming you are an honest interlocutor; Think of it like a private country club. The club can restrict it's membership, yet be open to new members. That openness to new members does not change the fact it is a private club and can trespass any non-members who wander onto its property. Even if said trespasser could theoretically (at least) later become a member.
Members of the public can become members of the club by paying the fees or taking whatever steps the club requires for membership. That is part of the nature of them being private, they can restrict their membership and OWNERSHIP anyway they want.
It isn't open to the public, but individual members of the public can join, if they want and are allowed by the stake holders.
IMPORTANT - the right to determine _how_ you own a piece of property is essential to your right to the property. The club is property. And the owners of that property have the right to determine who is an owner and how their ownership is exercised. The club can determine that no new members can join, or that they will admit a certain number a year. They can rule that members canot sell their membership, or that membership is transferable but not inheritable, or it is, or anything else they choose without some outsiders input. Their ownership allows them to determine who and how ownership functions. Ownership of property is absolute in a capitalist system.
That's is what TIK (and I assume you) don't appreciate. TIK, just like the socialists he declaims, wants to infringe on property rights. He wants to limit how people can own things, and how their ownership is exercised. He's fine with what he terms "individual ownership" but if an individual owners wants to incorporate, which is his right as a property owner, then TIK has an issue.
TIK wastes huge time parsing out contorted definitions based on scraps of philosophy and speeches from Hitler. CAPITALism is about CAPITAL and ownership. TIK would be better served reading deeds and corporate minutes to understand how capital works. Frankly, and I say this with no sense of irony, Karl Marx had a vastly better grip on capital and property rights than does TIK.
I appreciate your definitions and the time you give to establish these words in historical context. I especially find it helpful to see publicly traded companies as states, though it makes science fiction stories like bladerunner and cyberpunk seem closer to life now, not merely futuristic.
Discovered your channel recently - awesome work :)
Actually, '2 girls 1 cup' is a good summary of socialism.
1. I love this channel, especially the historical content.
2. I think the debate about the economical and political content on this channel is polemic since months - from TIK and some commentators.
3. If you, TIK, have a "real" interest in understanding your "opponents" take their arguments and defend them (like in scholasticism).
4. I am a German native speaker. You, TIK, could - if you enjoy it :-) - start with basic definitions like the difference between "possession" and "ownership" some of your definitions lack of a differentiation of these two terms. Also it makes no sense to use words like "private", "public", "state-owned" in a not "common-sense" without defining more basic ideas of possession, ownership, "control" etc.. I could in - TIKs logic - argue that, if a country is reigned and owned (and all inhabitants are slaves and also owned by this king absolutisticly) it`s a perfect "capitalistic" state, ofc it is not...
5. Although I like your humor and irony, TIK: your definition of capitalism and socialism is - in a common sense - misleading. E.g. Amazon/ Google et al. are NOT owned OR possessed by the state (even not some minor amounts of shares as far as I know, maybe foreign state funds maybe exceptions?). If they are NOT owned OR possessed by the state, they are ex negativo "private". Even though there are 1000nds of shareholders. Any other definitions makes the differentiation between "private" and "state-owned/ public" senseless.
6. Wish for a future video: pick simples REAL LIFE examples. If I understood you correctly eg. British railroad company was once formerly state-owned (and therefore NOT a private company), later it was privatized (and therefore NOT owned/ possessed by the state) and in your (misleading) definition it is now also "public" and therefore NOT private, because it has 1000nds of shareholders - this doesn`t make any sense.
I think Amazon and Google have millions of shareholders. I’d be inclined to agree with you, though. His definition of the word ‘state’ is a bit too nebulous.
Right or wrong..with debate comes learning. He is NOT a fascist as far as I can tell. In my view he gives reasoned debate. WELL WORTH A WATCH if only to disagree..that is how we learn and progress not through agreement.
Fellow reformed socialist here - greatly appreciate you my friend. It may be too late for us here in Seattle but you give me hope the left can be saved
I really appreciate you. I’ve learned so much from your videos.
Firstly, I'd like to say this is a great video as always. Common TIK W.
As for why a corporation could be classified as a private entity despite the the shares aspect of it could be the fact that there is still more or less a singular owner for this corporation who has made voluntary contracts as to how the company shall be run with other people. For this reason it is still technically owned by one individual yet it was dealt with in a manner that makes it seem public.
I could be wrong and feel free to point out any mistakes but as always, thank you for your content.
25:53 "what's the point of a share of ownership"? So that shareholders can efficiently take risks in allocating their capital to publicly traded companies so that (the free market hypothesis). When a company starts up and wants investors to invest their shares, the willingness of investors to do so and the returns they would look for before investing are around 3-5 times higher in shares which are not publicly traded, becuase there is no clear exit route if the shareholder wants out.
"All zis doesn't matter, Mr. TIK. Ve are introducing public-private partnership, ze thousand-year stakeholder capitalism!
You vill ovn nothing and you vill be happy!"
From a purely linguistic perspective, you are right that characterizing large corporations as private fits poorly. But words are sometimes effective for conveying concepts in particular contexts even though the words do not fit well if interpreted literally. In the context of how the terms "private sector" and "public sector" are commonly used, it makes perfect sense to characterize at least most publicly traded corporations as being part of the private sector.
Corporations in their modern form were invented to provide a good way to scale up private enterprise to pursue larger projects than are generally practical for individual investors. People invest private capital in corporations and expect to receive private profit if the corporations succeed. The ability for individual people to invest private capital in pursuit of private profit is the central essential nature of capitalism. Thus, corporations clearly fit within the scope of a capitalist economic framework.
Corporations generally require some kind of governance mechanism that superficially resembles mechanisms for governing states. But the powers given to corporate governance mechanisms are far more limited and far less coercive in scope than the powers of states. The idea that because corporations share some characteristics with states, corporations are a kind of state, is just as nonsensical as the idea that because motorcycles have some of the same characteristics as buses, motorcycles are a kind of bus. In order to characterize buses and motorcycles as falling within the same category, it is necessary to use a category such as "motor vehicles" that is broad enough to encompass both. Similarly, in order to justify characterizing corporations and states as falling within the same category, it wold be necessary to use a category such as "organized cooperative endeavors" that is broad enough to encompass both. Any category that is broad enough to encompass both corporations and states is too broad to serve as a reasonable basis for trying to distinguish between socialism and capitalism.
Publicly traded corporations are public in a very limited sense that opportunities to invest are open to the general public rather than requiring prospective investors to go through some kind of special approval process. But at least as a general rule, publicly traded corporations are clearly not public in the socialist sense of being owned or controlled by the public as a whole.
The far left (especially) and far right often change the meaning or definitions of words to suit their agendas.
There's nothing leftist about communists.
@@samsonsoturian6013 How so?
@Undead38055. "That wasn't real socialism" "socialism has never been tried." Free market advocates renamed to "capitalists" by Karl Marx to paint them as greedy
Define far right. Its hard to think of a more nebulous term
@@wtice4632 Well interestingly I don't believe in far right or far left, I think a better scale is Totalitarianism on one side & Anarchy on the other.
"Two girls sharing one cup is not socialism". - TIK
thanks for making this video. You helped me clarify the concept. I got it wrong thought every society is socialism after watched the public private video.
On the idea of "private corporation". Would a business that offers public shares, but retains a voting majority of shares in the hands of one person (or a small "family" of individuals), fall into that idea?
I mean, while it would technically be owned by the "community", no amount of public shareholders could override the private decisions of the primary ownership.
Great content TIK, thank you for your dedication.
Losses and profits would still be divided, so there's still a difference.
The way I see it, the administration would still be private, but the ownership would be shared with the public.
The change is when the people who make the product earn the money only. So if a person makes a table, another markets it, and some one else does the accounts this is private/family. If they give their earnings to some one not involved in the process of the table and earns purely because of ownership it's public/state. Think why King John signed the magna carta to devolve the State into the king, the church, and the private ownership.
The definitions are all there in the Oxford English Dictionary - all very clearly explained. The problem comes when people, who should know better, start re-defining terms for their own aims. I gave up history when I was 16 because a lot of what we were we taught was clearly not true or only half truths at best. I like to use the scientific method when looking at historical events; it helps a lot!
Again, great break down of established definitions to support your stance. Many today fail to understand root definitions or where certain ideological terms originated from. As for the comment of "two girls and a cup", wow lol. Spicy, had me clapping hard while my car was parked at a stop light.
When a family enterprise becomes large enough to begin projecting controlling political or economic influence over the surrounding community, that would be a good indication that it's tending towards becoming public rather than remaining private.
That's a great point
Yeah but it could be owned by 1 person that is successful and is influencing the community. I get your point but I don't think that's it. It needs to be a number, 2 people, 5 people, 10, 50. How many co-owners until it's considered public?
For example, the sole business owner may campaign for lower taxes, a faster speed limit to speed up delivery, etc, I wouldn't then define it as public
@@Habdabi Do you have any examples of businesses with a large influence that meet the criteria of a one-man-show in a sense? I think haggling about the number of co-owners is the wrong thing to focus on and to rather focus on the political or economic power the enterprise is able to project.
@@ew6546 perhaps a local restaurant than wants speed limits increased for faster delivery? Just off the top of my head. I'm struggling with a good definition personally
@@Habdabi But every restaurant that does delivery would be able to use the new higher speed limit. The political or economic influence it wishes to project would have to in some way inhibit market competition.