5 ms·

> That raises the question of what are the "dividends" for those parties, regardless of the financial success of Twitter. My guess is that they see twitter as

> That raises the question of what are the "dividends" for those parties, regardless of the financial success of Twitter. My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology, which is also correlated with marginalized identity politics. If the bankers could nip that growing movement in the bud before it fully coalesces into something with real political power, then that would seem to be well worth $44B (which of course they wouldn't actually lose because they'd write off their losses against their taxes).

recuter 4y ago
Exactly! Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything!
- blitzar 4y ago
  You don't even know what a write-off is.
  - nvln 4y ago
    Do you?
    - blitzar 4y ago
      No, I dont
danans 4y ago
> My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology Then joke is on them because the far right is also anti-capitalist, but in the form of ethnonationalist socialist authoritarianism (Yes, there are many shorter names for that). Or perhaps they're actually on board with that approach since they have found that an increasingly pluralistic democracy does not serve their interests. But in the end, it's probably just that owning an tool of chaos is itself a form of power.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > Then joke is on them because the far right is also anti-capitalist It might look like anti-capitalism, but time and time again, the far right's "problem" with capitalism is actually a problem with the results of liberal democracy in capitalist societies. They very much want capitalism, but not a corrupted form of it. They feel that capitalist liberal democracy rewards the wrong people, like allowing what were once subservient minorities to succeed and accumulate wealth, sometimes surpassing the success of the majority, or allowing non-traditional people, art, cultures, etc to flourish if there was a market for it. For example, Nazis were very much about the Social Darwinist aspects of naked capitalism, and the word privatization was coined to describe Nazi economic policy[1]. However, they were very much against the results that capitalist liberalism allowed to flourish, which were the basis for their rhetoric around "degeneracy" and campaigns against what they saw as degeneration of traditional (and ultimately mythical, given the Aryan supremacy mythos) culture. They saw capitalism as corrupted by Jewish and foreign cabals that pulled the strings to keep the Volk down. What they ended up doing is seizing capital from Jewish people and gave it to German capitalists[2], which I wouldn't describe as anti-capitalist at all: > Business owners benefitted as much as private individuals. Companies like Neckermann, which sold mail-order goods and vacation packages, and Evonik, a manufacturing group formerly known as Degussa, bought businesses formerly owned by Jewish people. The ability to consolidate power made them leaders of their industries, and implicit partners with the Nazi government. Each of these transactions were legal, and many were meticulously recorded. While far right rhetoric seems on its face like it's anti-capitalist, because if you squint it can kind of look similar to the rhetoric from the left, that's a folly. Fascism and its ilk are reactions to liberal capitalism, and coincidentally, socialists have a lot to say about capitalism, but the similarities end there. It's a mistake to take such rhetoric as being inherently anti-capitalist and not, instead, anti-liberal society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization#Etymology [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-jews-register-their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-...
  - danans 4y ago
    > They very much want capitalism, but not a corrupted form of it. Let me clarify and demonstrate that we basically agree. The difference is inclusivity vs exclusivity. They want exclusive socialism - as in guaranteed high base living standards - for an ethnic elite, built on the labor and deprivation of an subservient ethnic underclass working natural resources that the ethnic elite hold own over. There will still be those who own more capital and less, but importantly they will be limited to the ethnic elite. There are plenty of historical examples of this: slave economies in the Americas, extractive colonialism, apartheid, Jim Crow and so many other examples. I would agree that liberal capitalist democracy runs counter to all of those goals, because it is (at least in-theory) inclusive.

recuter 4y ago

Exactly! Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything!

blitzar 4y ago
You don't even know what a write-off is.
- nvln 4y ago
  Do you?
  - blitzar 4y ago
    No, I dont

danans 4y ago

> My guess is that they see twitter as the central online hub of anti-capitalist ideology Then joke is on them because the far right is also anti-capitalist, but in the form of ethnonationalist socialist authoritarianism (Yes, there are many shorter names for that). Or perhaps they're actually on board with that approach since they have found that an increasingly pluralistic democracy does not serve their interests. But in the end, it's probably just that owning an tool of chaos is itself a form of power.

heavyset_go 4y ago
> Then joke is on them because the far right is also anti-capitalist It might look like anti-capitalism, but time and time again, the far right's "problem" with capitalism is actually a problem with the results of liberal democracy in capitalist societies. They very much want capitalism, but not a corrupted form of it. They feel that capitalist liberal democracy rewards the wrong people, like allowing what were once subservient minorities to succeed and accumulate wealth, sometimes surpassing the success of the majority, or allowing non-traditional people, art, cultures, etc to flourish if there was a market for it. For example, Nazis were very much about the Social Darwinist aspects of naked capitalism, and the word privatization was coined to describe Nazi economic policy[1]. However, they were very much against the results that capitalist liberalism allowed to flourish, which were the basis for their rhetoric around "degeneracy" and campaigns against what they saw as degeneration of traditional (and ultimately mythical, given the Aryan supremacy mythos) culture. They saw capitalism as corrupted by Jewish and foreign cabals that pulled the strings to keep the Volk down. What they ended up doing is seizing capital from Jewish people and gave it to German capitalists[2], which I wouldn't describe as anti-capitalist at all: > Business owners benefitted as much as private individuals. Companies like Neckermann, which sold mail-order goods and vacation packages, and Evonik, a manufacturing group formerly known as Degussa, bought businesses formerly owned by Jewish people. The ability to consolidate power made them leaders of their industries, and implicit partners with the Nazi government. Each of these transactions were legal, and many were meticulously recorded. While far right rhetoric seems on its face like it's anti-capitalist, because if you squint it can kind of look similar to the rhetoric from the left, that's a folly. Fascism and its ilk are reactions to liberal capitalism, and coincidentally, socialists have a lot to say about capitalism, but the similarities end there. It's a mistake to take such rhetoric as being inherently anti-capitalist and not, instead, anti-liberal society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization#Etymology [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-jews-register-their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-...
- danans 4y ago
  > They very much want capitalism, but not a corrupted form of it. Let me clarify and demonstrate that we basically agree. The difference is inclusivity vs exclusivity. They want exclusive socialism - as in guaranteed high base living standards - for an ethnic elite, built on the labor and deprivation of an subservient ethnic underclass working natural resources that the ethnic elite hold own over. There will still be those who own more capital and less, but importantly they will be limited to the ethnic elite. There are plenty of historical examples of this: slave economies in the Americas, extractive colonialism, apartheid, Jim Crow and so many other examples. I would agree that liberal capitalist democracy runs counter to all of those goals, because it is (at least in-theory) inclusive.