Todays Rant - right wing bs - TIK

 The right wing especially in USA is notoriously famous for bullshitting about history and what things mean in an attempt to defend capitalism or demonise socialism.

Its a massive problem because it makes good debates harder. I intended to start with particularly bad USA american podcasts like Prager U or Daily Wire which i came across in research as they fundamentally misrepresent both socialism and capitalism thou both were defined by Karl Marx way back in the 1800s.

But i came across a more insidious anarcho capitalist podcaster TIK, he was a war historian and has transited to commenting on politics . Hes well spoken and quotes alot of sources .

He first produced a video in 2019  Public vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism & Capitalism Then with alot of criticism he arrogantly doubled down and produced this video in 2023  TIKs definitions are wrong which i will respond to here as its shorter.

Its extremely problematic because of the way he uses word meanings even thou he says hes using others definitions and he wants a clear understanding . His video muddies the waters further .

1) Public corporations

First he tries to say a privately listed profit corporation which is an individual person once shares are sold to a select group of individuals from the public that profit corporation/person becomes public.

His own quote of amazon shows 10% of the shares are privately owned inhouse, and 30% is held by "public ownership is held by individual investors" ie private investors per TIKs own description . It also shows/says that 30% private shares bought by select public have no say in the running of the corporation but may influence it . He omits the 60% owned by institutional investors of which equity firms like Blackrock etc make the biggest share and these have zero democracy by investors over black rock let alone Amazon. Meaning 70% of Amazon isnt even in individual public ownership. But there is a bigger fundamental problem with TIKs definitions.

As Chat gpt confirmed;

TIK’s argument that Amazon becomes "public" in a socialist sense once it lists shares on the stock exchange highlights a fundamental error and overlooks the key distinction between capitalist and socialist definitions of "public ownership." While Amazon is publicly traded, meaning shares are sold on the stock exchange, this does not equate to "public ownership" in the socialist sense, which defines socialism as the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange by society or workers.

In the case of Amazon, 10% of the shares are held by insiders, including founders and executives, and another 30% is held by large individual investors, leaving less than a third—approximately 30%—available for purchase by the general public. Moreover, 60% of Amazon’s shares are owned by institutional funds and equity firms, which have significant control over the company. This means that even though the public can buy shares, the company remains controlled by a small group of privileged insiders and large financial entities, who direct its operations to maximize profits, not benefit the wider public.

Socialism, by contrast, refers to the collective or common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the goal of democratizing control over resources and ensuring that profits are equitably distributed among all members of society. In this framework, the public ownership of a company would involve workers or society as a whole having direct control over its operations. In contrast, publicly traded companies like Amazon, despite being listed on stock exchanges, are privately controlled and remain governed by a small, wealthy elite, prioritizing profits over equitable distribution or worker control. Therefore, Amazon is not a socialist company but remains a private, capitalist entity that operates within the capitalist framework, serving the interests of its major shareholders for profit.

2) Word misrepresentation to misrepresent the capitalist economy and socialism

Later he makes another unfounded ridiculous claim by slight of word semantics .

TIK is wrong in his whole claim social =common=public = state= socialism.

Heres the question and answer i received from Chat GPT , unedited asking the question and quoting TIKs sources - i couldnt read the last 2 sources so they are added separately.

I believe TIK is incorrect in his private v public video about the definition of socialism . He says public = common = social = state = socialism. Thus misrepresenting the meaning of public ,state and socialism. by excluding govt from the state when state means with a govt and say socialism is the public or state ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange and that socialists say it is , when they dont . Im surprised Marx would say it as he defines state as the coercive apparatus /tool that helps capitalist class and harms the working class .

Where as I and true Socialists say the common ownership of the means of production etc. because they/we mean the workers or at least the public as a whole.

He cites the following sources Dilorenzo "the problem with socialism", kindle. Luxemberg "the national question " pg24 Marx , "the communist manifesto " pg 26 -27. Marx /Engels , "Das Kapital" volume 3 pg593 Mises, "socialism" pg11-12, pg16, pg45 von kushnell-leddin "letism" pg 39-40 Can you check these sources and confirm or deny the if i am right or tik is right ? ChatGPT said: ChatGPT

Let's clarify the disagreement regarding the meaning of "socialism" and the relationship between public, state, and socialism, as discussed by TIK, and examine the sources he cited. 1. TIK's Position: TIK seems to argue that public = common = social = state = socialism. Based on this, he concludes that socialism is essentially synonymous with state or public ownership, claiming that this is how socialists, including Marx, frame the concept. He equates public or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange with socialism, seemingly leaving out the government's role in the state, which contradicts some Marxist definitions. 2. Your Position: You argue that this is a misrepresentation. You define socialism as common ownership of the means of production, but by "common," you mean workers or the public as a whole, not necessarily state ownership. You also highlight that Marx and many socialists view the state as a coercive apparatus of the ruling class, particularly in capitalist societies, so equating state ownership with socialism is problematic. Marx distinguishes the state from socialism and does not advocate for state ownership as the ultimate goal but rather worker ownership (the abolition of class divisions and the state). Examining the Sources Cited by TIK: 1. Thomas DiLorenzo, "The Problem with Socialism" DiLorenzo is a critic of socialism from a libertarian perspective. His arguments are often ideological and challenge the notion of public or state ownership, viewing both as flawed attempts to regulate or replace free markets. He might be referencing socialism in terms of state ownership, but this reflects more of a critique rather than how Marx or most socialists understand it. It’s essential to remember that DiLorenzo is not a socialist thinker, so his definition might be biased toward equating socialism with state control. 2. Rosa Luxemburg, "The National Question," pg. 24 Luxemburg was critical of both nationalism and state control over the economy. She argued that socialism should involve worker control rather than mere state ownership. Luxemburg, like Marx, was wary of bureaucratic control and wanted true socialism to be democratic and worker-led. The page cited likely discusses her thoughts on centralization and its limitations, but Luxemburg did not equate socialism with state control in the way TIK suggests. 3. Marx, "The Communist Manifesto," pg. 26-27 In The Communist Manifesto, Marx does call for temporary state control during the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional stage toward socialism. However, the ultimate goal of socialism for Marx is the withering away of the state, as the working class gains control over the means of production. Marx does not envision socialism as perpetual state ownership. Instead, he sees state ownership as part of the transition to common ownership by the workers and eventually a stateless, classless society. 4. Marx, "Das Kapital" Volume 3, pg. 593 In Das Kapital, particularly Volume 3, Marx discusses capitalism’s contradictions and crises. The specific page reference (pg. 593) might discuss state intervention in capitalism, but it's unlikely that Marx advocates state ownership as the final form of socialism. Rather, he critiques capitalist production and points to common ownership by workers as the eventual resolution to these contradictions. 5. Ludwig von Mises, "Socialism," pg. 11-12, pg. 16, pg. 45 Von Mises was an Austrian economist and a staunch critic of socialism. His book Socialism is a critique of socialist planning and state control, particularly from a free-market perspective. He equates socialism with state ownership, but this is a critique rather than a neutral or socialist definition. Like DiLorenzo, Mises is not reflecting Marxist or socialist thought accurately but is framing socialism through the lens of state control to argue against it. 6. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "Leftism," pg. 39-40 Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is a conservative thinker who argues against leftist ideologies. His book Leftism critiques socialism and left-wing politics, including state control of the economy. However, this does not reflect Marxist definitions or socialist positions accurately, as it comes from a right-wing critique that equates socialism with authoritarian state control. Analysis: TIK’s interpretation of socialism as state or public ownership is flawed, particularly in Marxist theory. While some socialists do advocate for state control of industry (especially in transitional stages), true Marxist socialism seeks common ownership by the workers themselves, with the goal of eventually abolishing the state. Public ownership and state ownership are not necessarily the same thing. Public ownership could imply ownership by the entire community (e.g., worker co-ops or communes), while state ownership implies control by the government. Marxists argue that the state is a tool used by the ruling class (in capitalism, the bourgeoisie) to maintain control. Socialists aim to abolish class distinctions, leading to the eventual dissolution of the state, not its perpetual existence as a socialist entity. TIK’s sources appear to mostly represent critiques of socialism from non-socialist authors (like Mises, DiLorenzo, and Kuehnelt-Leddihn) rather than authoritative definitions from socialist theorists like Marx or Luxemburg. Marx himself, while acknowledging the role of the state during the transition to socialism, envisioned a society where the state would cease to exist once class divisions were abolished. Conclusion: You are correct in asserting that common ownership by the workers, rather than state ownership, is closer to the socialist definition of the means of production. Marx's ultimate goal was not a permanent state-run economy but a classless, stateless society. TIK’s sources mostly reflect libertarian and right-wing critiques of socialism, which may misrepresent the true socialist position. NB it should be noted chat gpt didnt explain properly but Marx transition stage when he says "dictatorship of the proletariat" he means the workers enforcing their will on economic decisions as in democracy - and that very few people will be left out , mothers for example would be considered workers but it specifically excludes capitalists because the goal is to end capitalism and profit corporations .

Once i was able to read the last to sources i asked chat gpt about those but you tube wouldnt let me add them so heres the answer separate

Let's continue the critique of TIK's interpretation of socialism with the additional sources he cited: The Oxford Dictionary of English (2010) and The American Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April 1911).

1. Oxford Dictionary of English, Third Edition, 2010 - "Socialism" The Oxford Dictionary of English provides standard definitions based on historical and academic use. In this context, socialism is generally defined as: A political and economic theory advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It is often contrasted with capitalism, which emphasizes private ownership. However, it's crucial to note that dictionaries provide broad and general definitions based on common usage and might not fully capture the nuances of specific political ideologies like Marxist socialism. The dictionary's definition focuses on collective or governmental control but does not imply that socialism inherently requires state control of everything indefinitely, which is a key part of Marxist thought. Marxist socialism calls for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and ultimately the dissolution of the state itself after the transition to socialism, which is absent from a dictionary definition. TIK seems to rely on the general dictionary definition to support his claim that socialism equals state control, but this overlooks the deeper Marxist critique of the state as a tool of capitalist control that must eventually be dissolved. Thus, the Oxford Dictionary definition may support TIK's assertion to a degree, but it lacks the complexity of Marxist theory and should not be taken as a comprehensive or definitive socialist doctrine. 2. The American Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April 1911), pg. 347-348 The 1911 edition of The American Economic Review is from a time when economic discussions about socialism were framed largely within the debates of the early 20th century. In these discussions: Socialism was often viewed in the context of increasing governmental control over industry, largely influenced by debates about state-led economic reforms in European countries. This source likely reflects the early socialist movements that advocated state ownership of industries such as railroads, utilities, and essential services—positions influenced by the Fabian socialists and early European social democrats. However, the economic literature of the time didn't necessarily equate state control with the final goal of socialism. For many Marxists, the state ownership of industries was seen as a temporary phase on the road to a classless, stateless society where the workers collectively manage production. Early democratic socialists were more open to using state institutions to achieve reforms, but this doesn't represent all socialist views. Critique of TIK’s Interpretation: State vs. Social Ownership: TIK’s argument that socialism = state control misrepresents the nuance in socialist theory. While state ownership can be part of a transitional phase, it is not the end goal in Marxist socialism. The state is seen as a tool of the ruling class under capitalism, and Marxism seeks to abolish this apparatus in favor of direct worker control. Collective or Public Ownership: Socialism, particularly in the Marxist sense, involves common ownership by workers or the public as a whole. The state may temporarily manage resources in a transitional socialist state (e.g., under Lenin’s Russia), but the ultimate goal is the abolition of class distinctions and the state apparatus itself. Context of Sources: Many of TIK's sources (e.g., The American Economic Review) reflect early 20th-century debates where state ownership was a prominent strategy to curb capitalist exploitation, but they do not necessarily represent the full Marxist vision of socialism. Using these sources to argue that socialism is simply state control omits the key Marxist ideas of worker ownership and the withering away of the state. Conclusion: TIK's reliance on a narrow definition of socialism, equating it directly with state control, overlooks key elements of Marxist socialism and other socialist traditions. The Oxford Dictionary and American Economic Review sources may reflect general or historical definitions that emphasize state ownership as a step toward socialism, but they don't account for the more sophisticated view that socialism involves common ownership by workers and the eventual dissolution of the state. Therefore, your critique is valid: socialism in the Marxist sense is not simply state ownership, but rather worker control and the eventual abolition of the capitalist state apparatus. NB Chat gpt didnt fully explain but democratic socialism is the period from late 1800s to WWI when socialists thought they could bring socialism through parliament and the vote and joined with workers and created political parties to achieve that ie as opposed to Marxists and anarchists who had advocated for revolution . The goal was the workers control with no or minimal state but certainly less than current capitalist states /countries have now.

Here's some other commentators that show slightly different rebutting views

@jasonlongton1876

1 year ago

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.

Heres a video that rebuts TIK, often using TIKS own sources properly, on his own level.

TIK History - Libertarianism, Socialism & Contradicting Your Own Sources