Capitalism has shown that it's war

Here’s the thing Karpel, and why not? Let’s bring it to what Venezuelans call a “you to you.”

These positions you hold, while ostensibly being about forgetting the false dichotomy or whatever, are positions. They are for some things, against some others, all in the context of certain given facts.

While the positions you hold are supposed to be against the “left and right,” purport to be, they are in fact left. They are left in a very important way: they ar the very positions that are held, and support, and lead to the direction of ressources to, the very people you are ostensibly bashing right now: facebook, China, etc. The creeps. What they need most from a polity is that they hold the positions and opinions you hold. Below the facts that you mention, there is an assumption, a base line of things necessary for your position to hold up: amassment of wealth is biased, as a natural phenomenon, to the abuse and misstreatment and even theft of people who do not amass it. It’s not about whether it does in fact do this or not, but about the fact that it is naturally biased to act this way. That’s #1. So, for instance, barbarianhorde mentions how you have an awesome job doing something you love that allows you to live comfortably, all under the system you bash and that people without these privileges would kill, do kill, to have, and your underlying assumptions come up: it is not about th final results of a given system, but the natural biases towards evil.

For an example of evil, you point to the actions of facebook, for example. It doesn’t matter that it is anecdotal, it is even possible that most big collections of capital have acted similarly, because it is not about deducing a truth from reality but rather showing a real life example of a known truth: the evil bias of capital.

Since it is not evidence but example, you miss what the evidence actually points to: th consequnces of positions such as yours. For it is only in a political economy wherein positions like yours hold currency that companies like facebook are able to operate freely in the areas you discuss with fear and abhorrence, and even tend to form th justification for those actions.

This is the big distinction between leeft and right that I have been working on since i returned here to ilp. The right is about looking at reality and deducing truths from it. The left is about already knowing truth and seeking examples of it in reality.

But I said we were bringing it to a you to you.

I do ignor the points you are trying to make. Because I have no business thre, th way you form arguments and posistions, the very frameworks you use, are not the ones I operate in. I do not understand, cannot work with, argumnts that try to derive reality from morality. I can do the opposite, so for example the terrible consequences of ratcheting up tensions with Russia over moral opposition to th people that see working with Russia as morally beneficial within a very complicated geopolitical context, or Kissinger bombing the military supply routes of the communists that were illegaly stablished outside the legal warzone. it was ineffective because Kissinger waited too long because the political capital he would have needed was demo0lishd by the left, by people who wer simply against the US and did not care about the consequences of allowing th communists ther to prevail (the ensuing genocide).

Forgive my weird spelling. a molecule of dirt has lodged itself under the “e” in my keyboard. Fucking capitalists, or whatever.

And finally, here’s why I have become radically anti-commie:

There is an important reason commies cannot ever bring their arguments into the realm of reality, fully. Like it has happened to me here with a person of the advanced intellect, for example, of Mr Reasonable. If you press a lefty into reality deep enough, they will bail out and bring up some unrelated matter.

Because if they brought the arguments fully into reality, something would become apearant: the answer to the question “what do you want?”

For a capitalist it is quite clear: the good things in life. Then you can pick apart moral situations that arise and what to do about them, because you are clear in what you want.

For a communist, it is also clear but much darker: for nobody to succeed. It is weird and anti-natural, and the consequences of it if played out fully in reality would be absurd, so commies cannot allow themselves to fully encounter the driving desire.

In a nutshell.

Look at promethean: within 2 posts he first bashes a kid who sacrificed his life in a burst of bravery in the face of a life and death situation, and says he would grab a fat kid for cover as his life is more important. Never mind that the motivation for such bravery is for from necessarily to save others or save anyone, though it might well be, I think that part is irrelevant almost. That P made it about whose life is saved already says something. Then he says to me, in what seemed to me to be all honesty, is there anything good inside of you?

Commies do much better in abstract theoretical arguments, where hypothetical moral tenets are moved around and theoretical details of base frameworks of systems are hotly debated. When brought to the theater of the real, the primary emotion one encounters is indignation, being offended. It is perceived almost as unfair.

We republicans are much more blessed in that way. It is given to us to live and operate in the world of the real and what is actually happening. I think what socialists resent us most for is that evident freedom, along with the joy it brings. To live, as Christians might say, in God’s world.

The realy reals.

We all know now that capitalism doesn’t make the best products anymore. It’s evolved to planned obselecence. I can’t buy any T-Shirt on planet earth that doesn’t get destroyed within a few months anymore, but I’m still wearing T-Shirts from 24 years ago.

Capitalism as it used to exist, doesn’t exist anymore.

All of you defenders of capitalism are harkening back to a bygone era, the golden age of competition.

It doesn’t exist anymore.

Cue the unrelated matter:

Lol, am I good or am I good?

it’s only for the fact that you lack experience in matters that truly question one’s courage that i overlook this critical misunderstanding of what bravery is.

the fat kid was acting reflexively and hadn’t given a second of thought to the gravity of what he was about to do. something more akin to a dumb animal instinctively defending its young than, say, a soldier dedicating his life to military service or a missionary serial killer on a campaign to kill cops. and while these two examples are far more exemplary of acts of bravery and courage, they’re still not necessarily intelligent. the reasons why each of these types dedicate their lives to these things could be utterly confused and when more closely examined, the mark of a naive and infantile mind that overestimates the importance of the cause they are dedicated to and/or the results that would follow the success of their deed. a soldier might be fighting for a country of ungrateful idiot citizens run by a corrupt and incompetent government… and killing a few cops could very well have the opposite effect the missionary serial killer desires; now cops are armed even more and given more authority, etc.

still the elemental difference is there; to be truly brave one must have thought long and hard about what they are doing, must be aware of big sacrifices that will be made, must be required to make big sacrifices (some are too mundane and ordinary to have anything great to sacrifice), must engage in an internal argument with themselves about the merits of their deed, must experience great moments of doubt which are then overcome by a lust and love for doing what they believe is right.

these things are not expressed in a snap decision at some unexpected time to tackle a guy with a gun.

would it be entirely unwarranted if instead, the fat kid thought ‘hey, i’ve decided that my life is more important to me than my classmate’s… and i’m not convinced i’d be able to disarm the shooter, anyway.’

would we call him a coward if he thought that? no. we might agree with his sound reasoning, understand him, and while we’d still see the event as a tragedy, we’d not have any hard feelings toward him for not trying to be a hero.

i wonder if this constant media coverage of not-so-heroic acts in the news is purposely depreciating the meaning and value of courage for the purpose of making ordinary people feel special when they jump in a pool and save a drowning dog or something. just saw a TEN MINUTE news clip honoring some guy who saved a drowning dog. now of course this was a good deed, but was it deserving of a full ten minutes? i dunno, maybe the network had ten minutes to fill for lack of better stories.

lol… now what would be hilarious is if the parents of the fat kid were interviewed, and instead of showing childhood pictures and talking about how he was such a great kid with a pet hamster and a wonderful sense of humor that everybody loved who always helped his handicapped aunt go grocery shopping whenever she needed it, they went on a five minute rant about how stupid he was for doing what he did and getting himself killed.

where are those news stories?

nah… it’d never happen. usually relatives of ‘heroes’ like this love to bask in the attention and solicit sympathy from everyone to feel sorry for them so that they can gain a privileged advantage over other ordinary people who’s kids didn’t get killed for doing some asinine thing. i guess the next best thing to being a dead ‘hero’ is being related to a dead ‘hero’. you can sometimes manage to take a little credit for the heroism, ya know? hey, i was his mom… he got his hero genes from me. camera flashes and reporters storm the front porch

fuck outta here with your ‘hero’ shit. you wouldn’t know a hero if he came up and… and, did something heroic and stuff.

Alright there big guy…

“Its just absurd for people to sit around being offended by their own meaninglessness, so that they have to force everything else to come into the hole with them, and die drying.” - Bob Dylan, Dylan on Dylan

You can try to have a child and then humiliate him like that if you want.

Just as long as you don’t say we’re yes men. This debate is far older than capitalism.

Glad you acknowledge that.

I appreciate this because it is getting tot he core. This is exactly what I think is happening. I present certain problems I see with capitalism as it is. I present no solution - taxes only on corporations of a certain size, a al barbarian horde, - but do point out, for example that conservatives actually have past precendents in the original intentions of the corporate charters to keep certain kinds of corporate crimes in check. And these are crimes. You or I commit crimes our business or ‘business’ can be stopped within the law. Corporations can shatter the constitution, break all sorts of laws and continue in business and very rarely will even individual corporate leaders go to prison. I don’t see this as a right left issue.

If I bring up the problems, I hit slippery slope reactions that are often not stated. Hence my appreciation for you stating them. By pointing out these problems I am heading us toward communism. I hate communism.

And this slippery slope emotional reaction means that those on the right never have to deal with the problems. They can merely tell themselves that to acknowledge the problem (if they ever get so far as noticing this themselves that it exists) would lead to gulags, so it is right and noble to hold the line.

Right, that is what you think, and again I am grateful because you are saying all the assumptions rather than just insulting me. And I truly appreciate it. I have no problem with the accumulation of wealth. You work your ass off, come up with great ideas and apply them, more power to you.

There are several facets of the current system I hate and none of them have to do with accumulation of wealth pe se. I hate fiat banking because it creates wealth not through creativity, not through effort, but through, well, lol, fiat. I hate the elmination of democracy via corporate control. And I hate that companies can break the law, shatter the constitution and continue because they control things and have the legal teams pr machines to get around this. So yes facebook. There is a portion of the right wing and it is growing that hates these thigns too.

In other forums I have discussions with them and do not meet this judgment that I am pulling us toward the gulag or that I think we should all have the same amount of money. Because that portion of the right notices that corporations are more or less small states and for precisely the reasons they are concerned about state power, they are concered about corporate power, and frankly, they get it that these are not two different things.

You just making shit up. I chose those examples because those specific corporations are nationally and internally criminal, violate the constitution, are using the best cognitive science to manipulate people, which by the way huge swathes of the right wing complain about also, and because they are going to create a Stasi state. Read about a smart city and imagine what that means. Precisely the kinds of things the right once would have been concerned about and fortunately many on the right are concerned about. A minority, but a growing one. The truth is I get more shit from the left, since I get called a conspiracy theorist…

and you know what slippery slope I get accused of then. I get assumed to be racist, for example.

Right now most of the positive response and interesting discussion I get on these issues is from people on the right. But some of you can only see or imagine team colors, so knee jerk reactions come to the fore.

oh, come on. Many organizations both left and right and neither have tried to get these organizations to actually fall under the laws of the US or internationally. I have no position that aided these companies. What aided them is that money frees one from being beholden to the law. One could have a capitalism where this was not the case. Or at least where is was much better. In fact enforcing some of the already existing legislation some going back to early days when the founders, in their wariness of both private and public power, set things up to have limits on corporate power (not the wealth any person might earn) and undue influence over democracy, etc., could be a start.

[/quote]
Snore.

Categories. You see categories.

To be fair my posts came in this thread. And that context can make them seem a certain way they are not. But all I see is you categorizing me, putting me in a batch, attributing positions to me as part of the batch, hallucinating them I mean, then dismissing the whole
and
not
once
dealing
with the issue I raised.

Just dealing with the hate of some system you assume acknowledging it was a problem would lead to. So ignore the problem
focus on me.

Which is exactly what the people in power want us to do.

“I appreciate this because it is getting tot he core. This is exactly what I think is happening. I present certain problems I see with capitalism as it is. I present no solution”

“I didn’t kill him. The bullets and the fall killed him.”

I’m not saying we should kill all Jews. I’m just saying they are subhuman and are out to destroy us.

This is not new.

The attack on you, Karpel Tunnel, is not about accuracy. It is about responsibility.

Like prometheus75 says. Balls before intellect.

Karpel is a valuable case though. Completely atypical as a leftist, still holds to the basic leftist idea, which is almost like a hardwired a priori intuition in many, that corporatism is not leftist.

Ill try to keep this short so it can be read and understood.

Corporate power is a synthesis of private and government power.
It can only exist inside of a large bureaucracy.

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.

Hence, I am for a small state with little to no power to interfere in the lives of privates. Big states inevitably cultivate bureaucracy. And a state bureaucracy means this: the state pays people to wield power over other people.

And, finally, this is what inevitably leads to bad things. Because what kind of people is it that goes for the jobs that require no special accomplishments of courage and yet allow power over others?

Any formulation of that answer would be an obscenity.
So there you have it, the fundamental reason why a big state must and always will fail, and most often also fall.
What happens if they don’t fall? China, North Korea, Iran. Places where no one would ever want to live, but where many millions of people are being forced to live regardless. Prisoncamp states.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Im aware. Etymology has no value in an argument.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.