Friendly Warning: This Is Socialism.

[barbarianhorde]

https://9gag.com/gag/a83Xr31
Chinese facial recognition in action,

not saying it isn't capitalistic, as everything is capitalistic, but within capitalism there is this sort of stuff what also Facebook are doing against strictly right wing oriented accounts as well as twitter and Amazon, and the rest of the Masters of the Universe

STATISM is the issue here.

We are against STATISM
the state must never get so powerful that it can really control people.
And with the tech we have today, that is really very difficult to prevent.

Bottom line is that the Socialist doctrine wishes for the state and the people arbitrarily in that power, control the ethics of all non-state members. China has its reward system where people get automatically banished from public provisions if they make wrong purchases or even look unhappy, because unhappy looks are predictors of suboptimal performance in the state economy.

[surreptitious75]

We are against STATISM
the state must never get so powerful that it can really control people

But at the same time everyone wants a state powerful enough to protect them - which is the first priority of any state [ certainly in the West ]

In America socialism is a dirty word because of the false dichotomy between socialism and National Socialism
But it still has many socialist ideals itself even if its citizens may not think of them as such and so for example

The armed forces and emergency services are socialist ideals
A strong economy and universal education are socialist ideals
Community and patriotism and nationhood are socialist ideals

[promethean75]

When the state devises, upholds and defends property rights through the enforcement of law... the capitalist praises the state. When the state threatens to undermine and/or regulate property rights by reducing the effectiveness of private business to generate profit, the capitalist abhores the state.

So as I've explained before, anti-statism is a form of propaganda designed to keep the exploited working classes suspicious of government... so that they don't empower it to interfere with property rights.

Most capitalists wouldn't make it a week in a true anarcho-capitalism. They absolutely need a nanny state, and invisible hand, to guarantee their survival. Without these artificial mechanisms in place to protect them (which were designed by conservative, ruling class theorists), they would have been abolished long ago.

You can't imagine the effort made to stall the natural development of the antithesis of Capitalism from being realized. Even though all ideology is under the control of this paradigm, socialism is such a natural, intuitive conclusion that it takes the greatest of effort to sabotage it. It's the kind of thing capitalists must continuously keep down because the power of its reason and rationale is extraordinary.

[Karpel Tunnel]

https://9gag.com/gag/a83Xr31
Chinese facial recognition in action,

not saying it isn't capitalistic, as everything is capitalistic, but within capitalism there is this sort of stuff what also Facebook are doing against strictly right wing oriented accounts as well as twitter and Amazon, and the rest of the Masters of the Universe

And facebook and Google and all the smart products companies and the cities that are heading towards being smart cities are doing this and the companies doing this are doing this in the interest of profit. And they already sell this information to other companies and will give it to the government if asked - if the NSA, for example, doesn't already have backdoors into this stuff.

This is fbs and Googles main business. They sell data on us. That is their main business. And they are both moving into products that will gather more data. Smart cars, smart houses, smart clothing, smart toys, smart devices, smart thermostats, smart ovens. And these are already here, already sucking up information and not just on the people who buy these products but on anyone who comes near those products. They will be in stores on city streets and more.

And these companies are telling their clients that they can not just passively gather information - from which they know your personality, politics, relations, psychology to very high degrees of accuracy -

but behavior modify

and

enforce contracts or expectations.

This is already happening, because it makes money.

This does not mean we need to throw out capitalism. But it does mean we need to look at a necessary consequence of capitalism and fix it.

The technocrat religion is one I wish both the right and the left were better able to look at.

If what the OP says is socialism, is socialism, well capitalism is creating the same shit, and they are selling it to the Chinese by the way. Capitalist companies rush over there for conventions to sell their smart products AI data collection shit and voice and face rec shit.

[Jakob]

Genius ways of missing the point here.

Lol

I should stop caring.

But... ehhhh im so tired of repeating this...
Socialism is STATISM.

AND STATISM IS always under the excuses of SOCIALISM.

Because STATISM IS FASCISM
THE US CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE POWERS OF THE STATE.

Get this into your goddamn skulls and try to THINK for ONE SECOND MMMKAYY?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Genius ways of missing the point here.

Lol

I should stop caring.

But... ehhhh im so tired of repeating this...
Socialism is STATISM.

AND STATISM IS always under the excuses of SOCIALISM.

Because STATISM IS FASCISM
THE US CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE POWERS OF THE STATE.

Get this into your goddamn skulls and try to THINK for ONE SECOND MMMKAYY?

It would really help if instead of simply stating things, you interacted with the posts you are disagreeing with and showed how what yhou are saying refutes what is said there. This was not, on your part, in any way a response to what I wrote. Perhaps it wasn't intended to be.

The US revolution was not just against England but also against its corporations. The founders were extremelyh skeptical of corporate accumulations of capital nad power. Corporate charters were time and scope limited and could be rescinced if laws were broken or the charter was violated. They were precisely concerned about the kinds of power weilded by corporations today because of their experiences with things like the East India Company. And the state had this power over corporations and did use it. Maybe that's wrong, maybe it isn't. But what we have now is regions of socialism in the form of corporations. They are antidemocratic in a variety of ways and that they would have the power to influence elections, control the flow of knowledge, influence elected officials, etc. goes against founder interests precisely because they knew what that was like with British corporations.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”

Me personally, I don't care what the giant organization trying to control me is - a state or a corporation. And since the corporations now use the state to try to control me, the difference is moot.

[Jakob]

I get aggravated because the point is overlooked that the socialist state is a corporation, which has (sedated and perverse) human beings as its resource and product.

I don't see how this isn't obvious.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I get aggravated because the point is overlooked that the socialist state is a corporation, which has (sedated and perverse) human beings as its resource and product.

I don't see how this isn't obvious.

I agree, but then we still have the problem of what is happening in the so called capitalist world. I am extremely wary of and skeptical about state power. I am also extremely wary of and skeptical about corporate power. The government as imaged by the founders and laid out in the constitution is no longer present. It is precisely controlled by an oligarchy.

If I say we have a problem with what is happening in capitalism, saying that there would be a problem with a socialist government is not a response.

1) it assumes we should not notice problems with the current system because what we assume is the only other possible system would be worse + that any measures taken to solve the problems would necessarily lead to the other system, so it is better to not notice and not do anything. Just treat any criticism as coming from freedom hating sheep slaves, when it is not.
2) it is skipping even a minimal acknowledgement - sure, facebook and google have these powers and do sell their shit to China and undermine democracy in the US and otherwise in the West and do modify behavior, etc. etc., but I don't care because.....or the opposite Nah, fb and google will not be using their tools to do what you are saying because.....IOW you don't even take a stand on whether there is a problem or not and show why you believe this. You leap to 'socialism is terrible'. I agree that states are like corporations and I would also say that corporations are like states. They certainly are directly for employees and any areas they control in their countries of origins and in other countries. They are also like states since they determine the leaders of those states.
Now what do we do?

For example, if we agreed that there is a problem with some of the capitalist organizations, it does not mean that we must turn over all ownership of production to the state.

But that is how I notice people responding.

They find no need to agree or disagree about what corporations are doing. They jump to

Socialism is terrible and you socialists are ......(whatever the insults are).

It's like living on a street with the russian mob and the italian mob fucking with me and my neighbors. If I am critical of the Russian mob, people tell me how terrible the Italian mob is. And vice versa. That is skipping so many steps in the conversation.

And it's facile.

Any criticism of capitalism, just say that socialists are assholes and socialism is a dystopia.

It like a religious belief.

It's also a false dilemma.

It's not looking at what is.

I have to live in what is and watch what power is doing. I do not have the solution, but that does not mean I won't point out problems.

If pointing out problems is taken to mean that I am for gulags, state socialism a la USSR, I can see how this makes the conversation really easy for people who treat capitalism like the Pope. But shit I wish both sides could actually get into some practical problem solving. Cause right now the capitalists are now in some key cases monopolists

and their intentions are to lead us to what you will call socialism

and what leftists will call fascism or totalitarianism

And that's great, I guess, because as we go down, we can all keep our hates of 'the other side' even after it doesn't matter.

And someone will be laughing about this.

Perhaps their planned panopticon, behavior modification complete tracking of all your activities and even emotions and thoughts, plus offers both governments and business information about you and further enforcement options - like shutting your car or house off when you do something some organization that is their client does not like what you are doing - doesn't matter to you.

But it does to me.

And while they try to keep their goals secret from mass understanding it is part of public record. Smart cities are starting up. TVs and vaccum cleaners are sending information aobut what you say, own, do to hundreds of third parties. Employers are getting tools to do total monitoring of employees. It's unfolding right now. And whenver governments try to stop them, they find a way to keep doing it. And i would gues that governments, at least facets of them, like all this shit, because they will be privy to all that information. All of it.

You wayr of state power, well the capitalists are handing them the keys to everything. Your fucking toaster and phone are going to be monitoring your emotional states. And you go off the grid, great. Live in the woods, but fuck, you could have done that in the USSR too.

[Jakob]

This is hopeless.

You keep accusing me of being in favour of what I see unequivocally as Socialism.

No corporation could sell any user data to the government if the government didn't want it, i.e. if it wasn't socialist. A real American government is built on the premise of minimal interference from that government. So it would have no reason to buy from Facebook, and hence Facebook would not have the power to exist, as virtually all its income comes from governments buying user data.

[Jakob]

If I hadn't stopped expecting reason on this site it would be painful how you fail to see that everything I say and do is against monopolists and suppression of the individual. And I do offer tremendous solutions. But Ive long learned that people only pretend to want solutions, and prefer to ignore them when they're offered. As solutions actually cost a lot of effort to implement.

Before you indignantly ask what Ive offered, just spend some time reading through some of my OPs with a calm heart. Ive been on this site since 2006 fighting for freedom. Ive often changed political positions as reality twas changing. But Ive never stepped away from my priority, which is freedom for the individual.

What has become very tedious to me the past years is that people automatically discard my posts because they know I like Trump. They simply imagine that Im a fascistic monopolists capitalist because thats, I assume, what they read in their books and newspapers about people who aren't socialist.

[Jakob]

I honestly think Im the only one on this site to have actually offered working solutions that various parties have taken and implemented. Well, and James S Saint. He and I were much in agreement and later on heavily at odds, but he was smart.

My solutions all derive from my own logic, value ontology. A whole religion has been bred in 2013-2014 to stand in opposition to it. Obviously, because it works to compel people to act in sane ways, and that is really not nice for the slothful and the resentful.

You should be a person who is capable of looking a it without sloth or resentment.
You can search this site for it, Ive written thousands of posts on it.

[Jakob]

And I would add to this: even you.

You're one hell of a sane person. But even you fall in the trap of overlooking the powerful and focusing on the feeling of danger.

Ive given tools. Real working, hard working, powerful tools.
Since Ive devised them the whole media landscape has shifted to a focus on values over protocol.

Now you, philosophers, must pick up the thread. You are as you value.

[barbarianhorde]

The problem arose when the state in its ambitions to regulate the human condition became such a big client to private businesses that the economy turned corporate.

[barbarianhorde]

The cost of government is extremely high. I once read the general federal financing cost is estimated to be eight to sixty (!) times of what private businesses can afford to spend on operations. Bureaucracy does that. This all comes down as a burden on the citizen. At that rate healthcare and such can never be guaranteed, because government is just consuming up all the tax money for its own 1000% too many employees and bribe deals and what not. This idiocy has gone on forever but now government is probably as lavish upon itself as it ever was. Except Trump, who doesn't even take a salary.