5 ms·

>> This alleged criminality is the result of a deliberate government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the s

>> This alleged criminality is the result of a deliberate government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo. [...] it is not simply the case that the police and security services are just being used by the government. In fact, the police and security services are becoming emboldened to take a more independent role as direct agencies of the ruling elite, overriding other bodies. No comments needed.

ue_ 9y ago
>government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo If anyone needed more evidence that we are living in a bourgeois democracy rather than a people's democracy, look no further than this government policy enforced by their thugs.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Oligarchy is the word you are looking for.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  Given how easy a group can be swayed and controlled given our current centralization of media/culture, our technology, and our understanding of psychology, is it possible for there to ever again be a people's democracy? Giving the vote to the people seems to be inherently giving the vote to those who control the information being fed to the people, be that an oligarchy or the government.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist, in favour of decentralised planning or to a lesser extent market Socialism. I'm not sure what to do about giving the vote to people; arguably democracy is very good, but I would rather have per-commune direct democracy (with instantly recallable delegates or without) rather than a representative democracy. In short, I want to do away with voting for masters, as it will be unjustified authority no matter which way it's taken. Edit: can people please explain why they are downvoting? It would be nice to know so I can improve the quality of my posts in future.
    - snowpanda 9y ago
      > This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist You believe in an oxymoron?
      - washadjeffmad 9y ago
        "Ideologically, Republicans are as liberal as they come, outside of the Libertarians." This statement is true in the same way 'Anarcho-Communist' is. Care to guess how?
      - ue_ 9y ago
        Anarcho-Communism is not an oxymoron; Communism is by definition a stateless and indeed classless society, as described by Marx and Engels.
        BearGoesChirp 9y ago
        While I feel this is deviating from the topic at hand, I have always had some questions about how a society could be classless. Even a kindergarten was made into a class society based solely on eye color after the teacher mentioned that eye colors meant certain things about a person. In a communist society, even if wealth were equal, there are many inherent factors that differ between people due to their unique genetics and life histories. Consider just charisma and attractiveness. Someone who was rich in both would still be in a vastly superior position compared to someone who lacked both, and would be able to secure themselves an overall better life (at least on average). The only way I could see full equality of outcomes would be with some power in charge directing it, and even then the one heading that power would still be superior. Consider something else, reproduction. While not all people want to have children, it is a major desire of many people. How do we ensure equal opportunity of reproduction to all who wish to have children?
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        Well, this is the basic problem. Marx and Engels had a vision of society governed by the better angels of our nature, not to mention a relatively simple economic understanding of the world due to the technological limitations of their day. Karl Marx died in 1883 so while he was probably able to make guesses about how steam engines would be deployed in the future he never lived to see an actual automobile. Adam Smith's economic insights were likewise somewhat limited by the technology of his day; one has to be careful not to attribute knowledge that we only enjoy with hindsight to economic theorists of earlier eras.
  - balthamael 9y ago
    The only viable forms of government i see now is a benevolent enlightened dictator or a scientocracy. The only way to remove manipulation is to remove emotion from politics. So you either need someone who knows what needs to be done and can't be influenced otherwise, or a system that is not easy to influence, like one based on facts and evidence. Enlightened dictator is a high risk high reward type of deal though, even if he is awesome then there are no guarantees afterwards. Basically rolling dice. Of course you need to do other things too, like restricting the influence of money in politics, but even with decent politicians the masses are vulnerable to manipulation by various interests. That really is the Achilles heel of democracy. So the system needs to be transparent and based on the scientific method. It really is the only way to remain impartial and objective. We have a long way to get there however, so I think a short term solution is to invest in education. I know it's kind of a platitude and also imperfect, but history and research has shown that education really is the defining factor between the good and the bad. A democracy needs an educated populace, monarchy was fine and natural for certain times because it pretty much the only thing that could have worked when 95% of the populace was illiterate and relatively stupid. Sudden democracy in the Middle Ages would have been a disaster. Unfortunately there seems to be a trend of anti-intellectualism recently is certain places like the UK and US. Make no mistake, whether it is deliberate or not, it is exactly what many interests want. Dumb people are much easier to manipulate.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > The only way to remove manipulation is to remove emotion from politics. I don't think that's the only way. At least, I think there's a few things to try first. If information dissemination is being exploited due to new technology, first we should try to fix that in various ways. There are various other problems that might or might not have full or partial solutions as well. When you have a hole in the henhouse that lets a fox in, the first step is to try to close the hole and possibly trap or kill the fox, not to stop raising chickens. Even if new holes are occasionally dug, as long as it's still worth it to grow chickens, you don't just give up.
      - balthamael 9y ago
retube 9y ago
> No comments needed Except that, you know, not sure how impartial the World Socialist Web Site is likely to be!!
- rhizome 9y ago
  Do you have any specific criticisms of the partiality of the story, or are you just throwing bombs? Who is your favorite "impartial" reporter? Publication?
  - kbenson 9y ago
    It's entirely acceptable to raise the question of the quality of the source if it's unknown. I, for one, know nothing about the World Socialist Web Site, or whether they have a habit of pushing stories with glaring omissions, unfounded additions or in the worst case, plain falsehoods. I do know to some degree about a fair number of larger news organizations, and while none are perfect, I trust a number of them to not completely violate the faith many people have in them (as that would be counterproductive to their business). If the WSWS is respectable, presumably it will have a history of handling stories responsibly, and someone here can vouch for that. If nobody here knows, then it is useful to note that so people can investigate before assuming truth.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      I'd vouch for them, they've been around for a really long time and while I don't subscribe to their politics I've never come across blatant lies or propaganda* in >10 years of occasional reading, which is more than I can say for a lot of agenda-driven news sites. By propaganda I mean stories whose only purpose is engender attitudinal change, eg gleefully reporting on sex scandals but only if they happen to your political enemies. Obviously they have a pretty orthodox Marxist/communist agenda but since they're completely open about that I don't consider it manipulative of their readership.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance.

ue_ 9y ago

>government policy of using the police and security services to [...] protect company profits and the status quo If anyone needed more evidence that we are living in a bourgeois democracy rather than a people's democracy, look no further than this government policy enforced by their thugs.

sametmax 9y ago
Oligarchy is the word you are looking for.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
Given how easy a group can be swayed and controlled given our current centralization of media/culture, our technology, and our understanding of psychology, is it possible for there to ever again be a people's democracy? Giving the vote to the people seems to be inherently giving the vote to those who control the information being fed to the people, be that an oligarchy or the government.
- ue_ 9y ago
  This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist, in favour of decentralised planning or to a lesser extent market Socialism. I'm not sure what to do about giving the vote to people; arguably democracy is very good, but I would rather have per-commune direct democracy (with instantly recallable delegates or without) rather than a representative democracy. In short, I want to do away with voting for masters, as it will be unjustified authority no matter which way it's taken. Edit: can people please explain why they are downvoting? It would be nice to know so I can improve the quality of my posts in future.
  - snowpanda 9y ago
    > This is partly why I am an anarcho-Communist You believe in an oxymoron?
    - washadjeffmad 9y ago
      "Ideologically, Republicans are as liberal as they come, outside of the Libertarians." This statement is true in the same way 'Anarcho-Communist' is. Care to guess how?
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Anarcho-Communism is not an oxymoron; Communism is by definition a stateless and indeed classless society, as described by Marx and Engels.
      - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
        While I feel this is deviating from the topic at hand, I have always had some questions about how a society could be classless. Even a kindergarten was made into a class society based solely on eye color after the teacher mentioned that eye colors meant certain things about a person. In a communist society, even if wealth were equal, there are many inherent factors that differ between people due to their unique genetics and life histories. Consider just charisma and attractiveness. Someone who was rich in both would still be in a vastly superior position compared to someone who lacked both, and would be able to secure themselves an overall better life (at least on average). The only way I could see full equality of outcomes would be with some power in charge directing it, and even then the one heading that power would still be superior. Consider something else, reproduction. While not all people want to have children, it is a major desire of many people. How do we ensure equal opportunity of reproduction to all who wish to have children?
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        Well, this is the basic problem. Marx and Engels had a vision of society governed by the better angels of our nature, not to mention a relatively simple economic understanding of the world due to the technological limitations of their day. Karl Marx died in 1883 so while he was probably able to make guesses about how steam engines would be deployed in the future he never lived to see an actual automobile. Adam Smith's economic insights were likewise somewhat limited by the technology of his day; one has to be careful not to attribute knowledge that we only enjoy with hindsight to economic theorists of earlier eras.
- balthamael 9y ago
  The only viable forms of government i see now is a benevolent enlightened dictator or a scientocracy. The only way to remove manipulation is to remove emotion from politics. So you either need someone who knows what needs to be done and can't be influenced otherwise, or a system that is not easy to influence, like one based on facts and evidence. Enlightened dictator is a high risk high reward type of deal though, even if he is awesome then there are no guarantees afterwards. Basically rolling dice. Of course you need to do other things too, like restricting the influence of money in politics, but even with decent politicians the masses are vulnerable to manipulation by various interests. That really is the Achilles heel of democracy. So the system needs to be transparent and based on the scientific method. It really is the only way to remain impartial and objective. We have a long way to get there however, so I think a short term solution is to invest in education. I know it's kind of a platitude and also imperfect, but history and research has shown that education really is the defining factor between the good and the bad. A democracy needs an educated populace, monarchy was fine and natural for certain times because it pretty much the only thing that could have worked when 95% of the populace was illiterate and relatively stupid. Sudden democracy in the Middle Ages would have been a disaster. Unfortunately there seems to be a trend of anti-intellectualism recently is certain places like the UK and US. Make no mistake, whether it is deliberate or not, it is exactly what many interests want. Dumb people are much easier to manipulate.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > The only way to remove manipulation is to remove emotion from politics. I don't think that's the only way. At least, I think there's a few things to try first. If information dissemination is being exploited due to new technology, first we should try to fix that in various ways. There are various other problems that might or might not have full or partial solutions as well. When you have a hole in the henhouse that lets a fox in, the first step is to try to close the hole and possibly trap or kill the fox, not to stop raising chickens. Even if new holes are occasionally dug, as long as it's still worth it to grow chickens, you don't just give up.
    - balthamael 9y ago

retube 9y ago

> No comments needed Except that, you know, not sure how impartial the World Socialist Web Site is likely to be!!

rhizome 9y ago
Do you have any specific criticisms of the partiality of the story, or are you just throwing bombs? Who is your favorite "impartial" reporter? Publication?
- kbenson 9y ago
  It's entirely acceptable to raise the question of the quality of the source if it's unknown. I, for one, know nothing about the World Socialist Web Site, or whether they have a habit of pushing stories with glaring omissions, unfounded additions or in the worst case, plain falsehoods. I do know to some degree about a fair number of larger news organizations, and while none are perfect, I trust a number of them to not completely violate the faith many people have in them (as that would be counterproductive to their business). If the WSWS is respectable, presumably it will have a history of handling stories responsibly, and someone here can vouch for that. If nobody here knows, then it is useful to note that so people can investigate before assuming truth.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I'd vouch for them, they've been around for a really long time and while I don't subscribe to their politics I've never come across blatant lies or propaganda* in >10 years of occasional reading, which is more than I can say for a lot of agenda-driven news sites. By propaganda I mean stories whose only purpose is engender attitudinal change, eg gleefully reporting on sex scandals but only if they happen to your political enemies. Obviously they have a pretty orthodox Marxist/communist agenda but since they're completely open about that I don't consider it manipulative of their readership.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance.