Capitalism has shown that it's war

[barbarianhorde]

Way to ignore the very argument of your own life, not to mention everything I said.

Where would you be under Socialism? Considering how unhappy you are with an existence that, to anyone living in Socialism would be absolute paradise, you would likely have long killed yourself.

[barbarianhorde]

For your information about my own situation - not everyone who disagrees with your ideology does so out of unhappiness. You'll be hard pressed to find a happier man than me, if we're not looking at contentedness but deeper. I like my struggle.

Its rather my happiness which prompts me to look down with a bit of amusement on your lack of gratitude for your privilege, a privilege of seeing ones own valued efforts valued by society. Thats a most beautiful gift to have. Capitalism at work.

I know what Socialism is, I grew up in it. I know what Capitalism is, Ive found freedom in it. Its good not to have to work for the state. Its good to not be on welfare. Its good that the government doesn't control the value of my efforts. I am grateful.

[Karpel Tunnel]

To the corporate monopoly question:

Make more money than them with less evil products. Daunting, I know, but doable. It would not be doable in, say, feudalism or communism, where what you could do about it is tremble in fear and thank God for your limbs.

Is this your plan? How's it going? Me personally, I do work very hard, and right now in a creative area I get paid for. Doesn't put me up in Google's gnp.

Got any workable solutions.

And the internet of things is coming and they will know every single gesture you make. They will know about how you take care of yourself, where you stop to get a snack. And everyone will be hooked in from an early age.

The capitalists are right now heading us for a smily dystopia the Stasi could only have dreamt of.

Again, I recommend The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.

You aksed.

Don't bitch and moan at me if you don't like the answer.

I was critical of the response, not bitching and moaning.

I could have responded to your other post by saying 'Don't go all hysterical....' but that would be just making shit up. This isn't just personalities and putdowns.

I was critical of your response. It did not make clear you even understood the issues. So I repeated them. I have some sense of your beliefs. I can't imagine you want facebook to have more power than it already has.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yeah, I knew I was gonna hit a nerve.

You're a person deeply privileged by your capitalist environment. But you want to feel like a victim.

Where have I said I am a victim? I mentioned my job precisely because it meant I was doing well, I don't reach even the middle class, but I am doing something I like. I would likely be doing it under a monarchy also and certainly in most of what the right calls socialist countries also. IOW this is precisely not me complaining about my personal situation. I find your response off topic and silly, point this out and I am playing victim. What are you 5? You usually don't waste my time. I generally like the way you post, but you see the word capitalists, assume you know me, and just support other people drivel and come with no substance yourself.

Did you actually read his ridiculous response? Nah.

You're a team player. So my post triggers you into thinking I am on the other team, since you think there are only two. So you attack me personally, instead of seeing if his post made the slightest sense. Because he's on your team.

You assume later you know my ideology. You don't. I don't fit in the easy boxed and am pissed at the two sides I am told I am supposed to pick from.

The self-congratulate thing with you hitting a nerve is just snore positioning garbage.

Your comment made no sense. I pointed this out. You can show how what I said was wrong or you can keep focus on me and not deal with substance.

I could frame your posts as victim, and call it all whining about socialists, and virtue signalers and how terrible you think everything is. Who cares? I see a lot of focusing on me and not a lot of response to the issues I raised.

And whatever the faults of socialists and there are many this does not mean capitalism is OK.

It's like I have two terrible neighbors and when I tell one not to drive his car at the kids on the block he tells me the guy across the street is giving them drugs.

My response to both is, yeah, great, the other side you think is the only possible other side is fucked up. Great, that doesn't mean your favorite team doesn't have problems.

It's funny, you're still just happy with the idea that since I have a creative job, I think I am a victim if I am critical of the advances in power of certain monopolies towards totalitarian control, even while conservatives whine about fb - though they seem ignorant in general about the power of google.

Again, read The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism, get back to me.

You have no idea what is already happening. Of if you do, you perhaps out of misguided team loyalty don't want to say anything about it.

I hear the right complain about facebook, well guess what, they are aiming for power way beyond what they have now and nothing is getting in the way. Smart cities are coming, so even if you can keep your house clean and your phone safely not a smart one, they gonna know all about everything you and your kids and your peers do. But they'll never be an issue cause they're a corporation, only governments with their taxes and pc laws are a danger.

Since you can't even bother to make a post with substance that's the idiocy on your part I'm left with.

Team zombies meet team zombies. Where's SErendipper when you need him? I could leave you to play with each other, like you are in the public realm, the two bears dominance posing to the mirror image.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Talk about triggered. The capitalists attack me and do not respond to points made.

They would be absolutely right that the left would respond the same way if I talked about immigration or the EU or Brexit.

Suddenly they would get personal and triggered and label me racist and fascist. And not get into substance.

Both groups seem to act very much the same right now.

Enjoy the debates with your mirror images everyone, the boxes are working well for you.

[barbarianhorde]

You are a good poster, I voted you one of the best, but this is stoopit K. Don't you dare to look at your blessings?

[barbarianhorde]

I want you to dig into the LOGIC of it all. Of value. Not waste your mind on observing that the world isn't perfectly accommodating any feelings of righteousness a person may have.

Can't you see the arguments for capitalism as allowing people to exist without the blessing of their bureaucratic superiors?

Let's pretend we can all do more than judge, and focus on the logic of value creation and freedom.

Yes, nature is hard. Excuse me if socialism fails to impress me as a way to refine it.

[barbarianhorde]

The typical argument against capitalism, yours included, is always akin to the absurd statement life is hard therefore we should hack it to pieces.

And Pedros argument wasn't ridiculous or contemptible, it was, more so than your efforts, an actual attempt at a constructive point on how to tackle the problem of monopoly.

What do you think is gained by the observation that there are problems? Does this make for any value, this statement?
No. So you have no ground to look down on Pedros statement.

It is, in fact, the only solution. Make better products. That is how nature overcomes monopolies, and we are hardly in the position of considering ourselves above and beyond nature. Nature doesn't have a government that curbs evolution because it isn't fair. If it did, it wouldn't really be very fertile.

Thats what happens with all states where government is valued above the citizens; impotence, barrenness.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I just read a pm from one of the people I have jousted with here and I appreciated it. Before this I had a few days to mull over this thread and found a few interesting anomalies, or what I wish were anomalies but which I see common both the right and the left when it comes to these issues:
1) Barabarianhorde, because I have creative work, labels me privileged and therefore should shut up. IOW since I have decent work, I have no right to complain about capitalism, since I am its beneficiary. He further says I was playing victim. Before I unpack the assumptions in this ludicrous act of his, let me point out the irony.
• One of the things the left often does is tell people to shut up because they are privileged. A white guy like me, doing adequately economically and not even gay, needs to shut up since I am privileged. Now I can expect this argument from the right also.
• Assumption 1 – if I am the doing well in a system that is semi-capitalist, then I cannot complain about how current capitalism is carried out and what it is leading to. This strikes me as not just confused but dangerous. The people who are scrabbling to survive in any system – under communism, fascism, oligarchies like ours, whatever - have less time an energy to notice what is going on, analyze what is going on, articulate that analysis. If the ‘priviledged’ should shut the fuck up, you are cutting off one of ways we can get good feedback about what is happening. It’s also the kind of thing I expect from the left. If I am in category X, then I should shut up.
• Assumption 2 – the only thing I should be concerned about is my paycheck. If there is a totalitarian coup, but they still want the products of my creative work, well, If I complain, I am a privileged person playing victim. (And frankly there is a good chance I would do alright under a totalitarian regime, at least economically. Again, not that I make much, but I get by on work I actually care about) But the implication that I am doing fine, so I should not be concerned about the rise of the panopticon, the already begun systematic behavior modification by social media, and their plans to control us, or really let their clients control us using the mass data collection, illegal data collection, and already used modification tech. that is happening right now. No, if my paycheck is fine, I should just shut up.
• Assumption 3 – it doesn’t matter if I am right. IOW at least in their first round of responses, I was the issue. It doesn’t matter if something is happening that would be problematic to them. The only issue is to get me shut up. I can get this from the Left if I point out the problems of transpersons with male bodies beating all the born as women in sporting events, when they will say I am racist, white and privileged. Or if I talk about Brexit and the problems with centralizing power in the EU. The actual problems, don’t matter. It is making clear who gets to speak and making clear that we never have to look at any problems with ‘our’ system. Shut the fuck up. Go ad hom. Shut them down. I can also get this from religious conservatives if anything challenges their religions
• Assumption 4 – pedro’s response was that I should amass enough material wealth to stop the monopolies. Note the jump. It does not matter if what I am saying is a problem. He would not care or it doesn’t even matter if he would, he doesn’t even bother to look at that. Jakob seemed to be bothered by some of fb’s actions, but it is non-issue for Pedro. The answer to any problem with modern capitalism in real life is amassing wealth and then using this wealth to control the policies of supposedly democratic nations. That is the way we control things. Become right, control society. A tacit acceptance of oligarchies. I am sure he is rooting for the oligarchy to intervene openly, like with ground troops in his beloved Venezuela. To bring back capitalism. He might want to look at the last 6 or 7 counties the US intervened openly in, those in northern Africa, to see how well that goes down for the people. Because those in power do not care about countries or people. They used to give a shit about the citizens in their own counties, but they don’t have countries anymore. FB and Google are happy to help communist regimes with their massive data collection. They are also happy to turn their info over to 'our' governments. If you think the capitalists as a rule are for capitalism or freedom or against communism, you're missing what is going on. Maybe the invisible hand should have prevented this, but it didn't and it's not going to.

Right now these people are making products that take in sound and images from your homes. They are making smart cities, so even if you keep your homes clear, they will have enough data to know your personality, politics, likely whereabouts at any time. They have machines now, that will be working on doing behavior modification on you, that you will not consciously register. They do not care who else has this information. It will go to government, other corporations and will also get hacked and spread because they do not care about your security, privacy, rights, identity.

Me, I don't see that as a right vs. left issue. I do see it as a product of capitalisms concentrations of power in a few hands, and conservatives should be concerned about 1) how this goes against the constitution 2) has already reduced, even more, democracy 3) goes against the views of corporations that originally were in place 4) might as well be communist

It is not better if there is huge power in the hands of corporations rather than governments, because they are just the new governments. This doesn't mean I want to have the state control the means of production or send dissenters to gulags.

Everything is so binary, very few people seem able to think outside of binary boxes.

I see religious ideologues on the right and left.
Upon meeting a new person, they quickly determine their categories. Once you know the categories, classify them as on my team or not on my team.
From that moment forward try to shut them down.
If we are going to get anywhere, we need to be able to deal with cognitive dissonance. We need to be able to look at what is actually happening in the name of or even directly because of beliefs we hold dear. That’s true on the right and the left.
If we react simply as I am on TEAM A, that seems to be an attack on TEAM A, smash the attack by all means
Well,
The people with real power will be laughing at us.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Cue the unrelated matter:

Lol, am I good or am I good?

[promethean75]

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

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Alright there big guy...

[Jakob]

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.

"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

[Jakob]

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.

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

[Pedro I Rengel]

Alright there big guy...

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

Glad you acknowledge that.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[/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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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

Like prometheus75 says. Balls before intellect.

[Jakob]

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.

[Silhouette]

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.

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.