Capitalism has shown that it's war

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Capitalism has shown that it's war

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:53 am

Er, no, actually, it is essencial. Corporations speak and look as if it weren't, as if the state was a burden, brakes. They do this because they are funded by privates. And are sold as non-governmental, so that the government is not later seen as liable for mistakes. All corporate bigwigs are socialists. Look it up. Please do. There is no exception.

Now, a tru freedomist, what does he then do? If he complained about this and asked for corrective action, he would be a contemptible leftist. Asking for state.

A true freedomist looks at the picture and determines the foundational elements in corporatism that are NOT leftist, the private ingredient. The compromise that was struck. Then doesn't forget what he is about and uses these mechanisms that his predecessors were able to negotiate, to quite good results if you look at it, and does all those things that free men do.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Capitalism has shown that it's war

Postby Jakob » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:50 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Jakob wrote:Corporate power is a synthesis of private and government power.

This is lazy.

Any circumstantial similarities and common ground that corporations have, any correlations and acting according to mutual interests with government - none of which are at all necessary for corporations - do not make a synthesis.

Sure it does.
It does if you're not a Platonists.
The function is synthetic. That in name they're still different doesn't matter.

A corporation is nothing more than a bunch of capitalists being treated as one entity: the Latin corpus meaning body. This way, like cells in a body, the body can go on regardless of the particular cells that enter and exit.

Im aware. Etymology has no value in an argument.

I've heard it being argued that corporate power increases because of government aid, monetary and legal - as though corporations could only become bloated and overpowered private institutions through cooperation with government. Like I said: circumstantial and not necessary to the essence of a corporation. It is the singular aim of a sole trading capitalist as much as a body of capitalists to maximally profit, morally justified as a quantitative measure of and reward for their service to society - and this aim of dominance over the competition is by definition an aim to tend towards monopoly. Capitalists don't aim to be in equal symbiosis with other capitalists to tend towards perfect competition!!! If anything, that would signify a failure to grow and thereby be able to fund interest (the return on investment) to justify the "risk" of any contributing capitalist. Capitalism in harmony, whether regulated or not, is anti-growth and therefore anti-capitalist.

Symbiosis doesn't mean equality.
You can use the Hegelian dialectic as an example.

If government is ever complicit in the achievement of this singular capitalist goal,

Note that this is in no way related to any of my statements.
Ive not mentioned any capitalist goals or government complicity.
Ive just shown the intertwined functions.

it is not because of the essence of government, it is because government suffers a disadvantage from doing otherwise. "Ideally" government serves as a power greater than the private sector in order to keep them in check where intrinsic market failsafe mechanics inevitably fail - due to the necessary aforementioned sole goal of capitalists to make them fail. But in practice, governments that support private interest gain not only their campaign funding to get elected, but also more security that the capitalist/corporation of capitalists will remain based locally and contribute to their public purse rather than relocate abroad and get taxed by another country.

Yes, government therefore relies on Corporate lifeblood.
Here we agree.

So basically private ownership holds public government for ransom, and then blames government for bowing to the wishes of corporations and being complicit in their ascencion that was intended and inevitable all along.

Thats just a way of framing it in a moralistic statement. There is no disagreement between us here; Government can not escape corporate influence. Thus government is always going to be shady business. Thus it needs to be kept as small as humanly possible.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Capitalism has shown that it's war

Postby Silhouette » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:51 pm

Jakob wrote:
Jakob wrote:Corporate power is a synthesis of private and government power.

The function is synthetic. That in name they're still different doesn't matter.

I can see a synthetic reconciliation in the sense that both corporations and government consist of multiple individuals treated as an individual body, but this isn't enough for corporations to be a functional synthesis of the private and the governmental.

This is why I brought up the singular goal of private bodies, whether corporate or not, which is not a goal of public bodies - even though they are not mentioned in any of your statements, and because they were not mentioned by you. Different goals mean their respective functions diverge, but with the caveat that I made that government is held ransom by anything private that could otherwise fund a different government's campaign for power, or relocate to deny tax dollars from the local government in power that is funded via said privates. Given this caveat, government functions have an element of being forced to align with any anything private, whether corporate or individual - but it is only here where any functionality aligns, and in this case it is government aligning with all things private, not just corporations.

But it seems as though you want to focus on the bureaucratic nature necessary to hold together larger bodies, whether governmental, or private corporations. You can argue against the functionality of bureaucracy and its implicit centralisation, but your argument won't be any more against government than private corporations. Is that your position, then? Anti-bureaucracy, whether that's anti-capitalist bureaucracy or anti-government bureaucracy alike (or at least minimal bureaucracy if you accept any need for at least some?)

From your comment about "the basic leftist idea" that "corporatism is not leftist", there seems to be an implication that Leftism is synonymous with bureaucracy - whether public or private. The aim of Leftism isn't bureaucracy, that's an unfortunate side-effect of anything that needs to be big enough to require it, and the aim certainly isn't privatised bureaucracy from corporations. Leftism is just a lack of trust in what you condone as a "small state with little to no power to interfere in the lives of privates" to cater best for wider society, without a body (which does not have the singular goal of private bodies) big enough to keep privates in check.

Jakob wrote:The Corporation happens when the state has lost proportion. It is a symbiosis of public money and private interest that occurs in the swamp of bureaucracy and lobbying.

Corporations have nothing to do with "when the state has lost proportion", there is no public money in a corporation unless there is collusion, only private interest.

Jakob wrote:Yes, government therefore relies on Corporate lifeblood.
Here we agree.

Only when private power is too great, such as to be able to hold government ransom. Not because government necessarily relies on corporate or even non-corporate lifeblood. Taxation of privates, whether corporate or non-corporate, to fund government is only necessary at all because of the sole purpose of privates: to profit. Without that, prices are only set to cover costs, in which case government welfare would function the same as wages, but enough for everyone to get by as wealthily as any workers collectively put in to create said wealth. Pluralise this model to have multiple competing governments and the same function of private competition occurs, only with greater wealth as the reward for everyone and not just the guys with the most control and leverage over the wealth. In practice this would be no different from prohibiting profit in the private sector - government is no more or less shady than anything private if pluralised governments are the size of plural privates: remove profit, include competition, make the same size and private and public are equivalent.

You don't need to tell me that you don't like that idea for whatever indoctrinated reason, the point is that government doesn't rely on corporate or noncorporate lifeblood, corporatism isn't leftist unless you want to commit a fallacy of association that because both corporations and government can be big enough to need bureaucracy, "they are therefore the same" - they are not.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Capitalism has shown that it's war

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:32 pm

It's not capitalism that's evil, it's people that're selfish.
Both socialism, and yes even capitalism are forms of altruism, reciprocal altruism or at least consensual, uncoercive egoism, whereas what prevails today is coercive egoism, it's what's prevailed throughout most of human history, and will continue to prevail into the foreseeable future, under the guise of this, that or the other ideology.
It's human nature.
Coercive egoism is the rule, everything else, the exception.
It's just in civil society it's by and large covert, organized and top-down, conversely in barbarism it's overt, disorganized and grassroots.
We can become activists, we can vote for 3rd parties and independents...
These things are cyclical, we go through periods of greater or lesser corruption, let's hope we can turn things around some.
We need to find the right balance between freedom on the one hand, and regulations on the other purged of corruption and elitism rather than going to extremes.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Capitalism has shown that it's war

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:51 pm

Perhaps, but dynamics represent more of what Capitalism represents, as Socialism is more of a presentation of prefigured structural transference of power . The former equivicates power with the will as ego related , the other concerns grouping social distribution as theoretically retaining presumptive descriptions.

Which is preferable social justification by projection of 5 year planned failure blamed on the other side, or denying freedom of the will by making it less affordable to run with blinkers on?
Partial qualification by preferential treatment, choose your favorite.


Derivatives vs. Effects

Vested interests in Capital are much more connected to the sources of power, whereas social planning excercise more reductive breaks from theories of origin . Hobbs and Rousseau' s contradictory ontho genetic appeal, still left unresolved , has begun to be micro managed, and the short versus the long term effects are daily evaluated in terms of eq h other.

That is the anthithesis of the real war, and it has bearing on both epiphenimenologically , and that bearing on socially weighed self valuing.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Capitalism has shown that its war

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:36 pm

ShermanFefly wrote:I believe anarcho-capitalism is best, let the thugs we call a government go out of bussiness, let the free market take care of people, the busssinesses can take care of things musch better than the government can, this has been proven time and time again, government is nothing but slow and will only help its self, while companies need to help there customers in order to make money, government just takes it from you.
Then the companies become the government. Well, they already are, but at least they have to pretend to some degree they are not. And once the companies are the government, they don't need to help anyone.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2425
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users