5 ms·

They ARE the authoritarian regime. This myth that capitalist perpetuate that the rich are not the government is the best lie out there. The rich are the gover

by Atlas667 11mo ago

They ARE the authoritarian regime. This myth that capitalist perpetuate that the rich are not the government is the best lie out there. The rich are the government. They are the national interests, countries' industries' is their property.

Wolfenstein98k 11mo ago
[flagged]
- dontlaugh 11mo ago
  It’s merely a perspective you’re not used to seeing. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
  - teiferer 11mo ago
    Though illustrative of the difference between arguments and mere statements of opinion.
  - Wolfenstein98k 11mo ago
    Yeah, I didn't say it was wrong. But it's not new to me, I've seen hundreds of comments just like it. It just stood out to me because it doesn't appeal to any facts, or anything you would expect in this commentariat - just a bunch of pretty low resolution, low-brow opinions.
- Atlas667 11mo ago
  Maybe I'm too sleepy for rhetoric. But a country needs material resources to exist, right? Some of these are food, shelter, energy, health, entertainment and security. These are all private enterprises in a capitalist state. For example, the energy sector is a group of capitalist enterprises. The energy sector is also at the same time something the population needs. Therefore it is also crucial to the nation, its a national security. They country would go to war in order to secure resources for the energy industry because it is a part of national security. Another: walmart is americas veins and its a group of peoples property. Walmart is national security. The fact that some of these are publicly traded does not change their relationship to ownership.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    The mistake is in regarding different organizations as fundamentally different creatures when they're not. The theory of markets is that anyone can compete. That keeps people from abusing customers because they would go to someone else. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules inhibiting rather than facilitating competition, and the market consolidates and that stops working. The theory of the government is that everyone gets a vote. That keeps people from abusing citizens because they would vote the bums out. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules that create a two party system so people have fewer choices, centralize rule-making power in the areas that were supposed to have local control so people can't vote with their feet and then that stops working. It's not fundamentally different problems, it's the same one. Consolidation of power, also known as centralization. People find ways to corrupt the system to take away your alternatives. One of the ways they've found is to put half the people on Team Government and the other half on Team Markets and get them to fight each other when they should both instead be working together to fight the autocrats and create systems more resistant to them.
- vasco 11mo ago
  So in your mind megacorps and their owner billionnaires have how much of a say in government? If you had to rate their influence in government policy from zero to a hundred what would that be?
  - komali2 11mo ago
    Governments should represent the needs and desires of humans. Corporations are algorithms designed to make their value go up - if not restricted by governments, they will crab-bucket eachother by any means necessary, including slavery. See: factory towns. Therefore, corporations should have exactly 0 influence in governments, and billionaires should have the same influence as any citizen: one vote, and whatever influence they can peddle from a soapbox in a park. This is obviously impossible because billionaires can buy TV spots. This is why governments under capitalism almost inevitably become extensions of corporations, which is what the OP comment means. In a system where capital = power, then, accumulation of capital means accumulation of power. You accumulate power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power... and so on. I'm skeptical there's any solution to this within capitalism - I don't think highly socialized capitalism will work long term since the profit generating algorithms (corporations) will play within the rules to accumulate just enough of an edge to wedge their foot into government enough to get a smidge of influence, which they will leverage to weaken restrictions on corporations, which will allow them to get more influence, which will lead to them weakening restrictions further, and so on. So long as capital can be converted into any power at all, I think the system will inevitably trend towards late stage capitalism / corpotocracy / plutocracy. Do you believe billionaires should have more say in government policy than you do? Why? Why wouldn't a billionaire use more say to help themselves even more at your expense? They clearly love hoarding wealth and power, so, would it not be fair to say they'd like to do more of that?
  - Wolfenstein98k 11mo ago
    As I clearly stated in the comment you read, it's not "in my mind" and it's not my opinion. It was an intentionally bananas statement. As I clearly stated.
- amake 11mo ago
  Your analogy is infinitely more baffling to me than OP's comment.
- rootlocus 11mo ago
  I fail to see the point you're trying to make or the argumentative process by which you're trying to make it. Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs. Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. And this is just the blatant tip of the iceberg the current administration is brazen enough to show publicly. > absolutely baffling to you and which probably makes a hundred obvious counter-arguments pop up in your head. I can probably find a hundred obvious examples of conflict of interests, quid-pro-quos, or otherwise pro-corporation anti-consumer for any administration in history. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the government is issuing gold cards with the president's face on them for multi-millionaires to bring their business. I'd be glad to hear a few of those hundred obvious counter-arguments.
  - jimmydorry 11mo ago
    I don't particularly subscribe to any ideology that puts companies above people, but it isn't hard to see things from GP's point of view. Before shooting the messenger, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. >Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied: this current administration (aka. Trump) or the businesses that grew large enough to buy a seat at the table or can afford to steer policy via "gifts"? >Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. Is a person sitting in congress fully cognizant of what is happening in all facets of the economy and have an understanding of what needs to be implemented today to pave the way for the next 10 years and beyond? Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation? >The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer Yet this is a golden age by every measure. Zoom out on your timescale and there has never been a more prosperous and peaceful time to be alive. Quality of life has tremendously improved and the possibility of striking out on your own and making it big has never been more attainable. Yes, there will always be people sitting at the top with massive power and wealth, but the average person isn't doing too bad.
AdamN 11mo ago
Yeah there was this great cartoon many years back where a guy is on his computer and the FBI is looking over his shoulder at his screen. A character named 'Facebook' is pushing him aside and says "Let me show you how to do it". When you look at the cartoon for a minute or so you see in the shadow in the back of the room this robot labeled 'Google' and he's just quietly observing.
- nrhrjrjrjtntbt 11mo ago
  Is this from Edward Snowden times
  - couscouspie 11mo ago
    wdym? We are in Edward Snowden times. The timeline where Edward Snowden gave up on an awesome life to inform us, the global public, of the greatest scandal of all times and nothing happened, to be precise.
chongli 11mo ago
They are until they aren’t. Look at the Russian regime. Even billionaires could find themselves on the outs. All that money and to live in fear of open windows.
potato3732842 11mo ago
Both opinions are so lacking in nuance as to be effectively useless. The rich and their interests are in some contexts the the government, in other contexts they're competing with it. Look at how Bill Gates relationship with government changes by the year and by the subject for a great example.
- Atlas667 11mo ago
  The only difference is that the government cant cater totally to Bill Gates, they got a couple thousand other capitalists to take care of in order to keep the country afloat. The government is the ORGANIZED rich. It's not "everything Bill says goes". You and me tho, the rest of us millions? We trust strangers that market themselves well, vote and then, just hope they do good by us.
  - andriesm 11mo ago
    Not all rich guys are part of the ORGANIZED RICH. Some are, many/most aren't. For some rich guys whole point of being rich is to be maximally independent. Some billionaires are all kinds of weird flavor of Anarcho Capitalist (completely anti government), libertarian (small government), objectivist (suspicious of government and against overbearing regulations and mob control). Not all, but many. I think there is an important distinction between independent minded successful people and crapitalists, the ones who collude with the government and enforce their fortunes via regulatory capture. Not every rich person is obsessed with controlling the world and other people. Many just want to live their own lives, and want as little as possible interaction with the government.
    - Atlas667 11mo ago
      I'm not talking about a small capitalist with a nice house and a nice car. I'm talking about the super rich. Thr super rich have to be the government to be super rich and the little capitalists just ride the wakes made by the big guys. These ideologies you mention are just political stances made by the rich in order to promote their measures amongst the poor. Objectivism was made by Ayn Rand and it was promoted so much because it defended capitalism. They disseminate these ideas in order to promote their stances. Libertarianism and ancapism are inconsistent because it pretends that large capitalists wouldnt immediately organize themselves into another large state power. A state is necessary to not have all out war between the powerful. Ask any political science major and they dont take these ideas at face value because these ideologies cant exist as such. They are more like life style politics than real political frameworks. I suspect the reason they are even espoused is because they represent an immediate weakening of government regulation that can increase profits. The capitalists want people to think it can exist so they can have more power. But a true libertarian or ancap reality is a pipe dream. Its true purpose is to create less oversight and thus more profits. Your average Joe, like you or me, has about 0 benefit from this.
nottorp 11mo ago
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Can we have an “AI” post a reminder of this every time someone mentions secret world governments?
- Atlas667 11mo ago
  Well its not a secret world government. A lot of it is done out in the open. Do you really think you control the government? That it is democratic?

Wolfenstein98k 11mo ago

[flagged]

dontlaugh 11mo ago
It’s merely a perspective you’re not used to seeing. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
- teiferer 11mo ago
  Though illustrative of the difference between arguments and mere statements of opinion.
- Wolfenstein98k 11mo ago
  Yeah, I didn't say it was wrong. But it's not new to me, I've seen hundreds of comments just like it. It just stood out to me because it doesn't appeal to any facts, or anything you would expect in this commentariat - just a bunch of pretty low resolution, low-brow opinions.
Atlas667 11mo ago
Maybe I'm too sleepy for rhetoric. But a country needs material resources to exist, right? Some of these are food, shelter, energy, health, entertainment and security. These are all private enterprises in a capitalist state. For example, the energy sector is a group of capitalist enterprises. The energy sector is also at the same time something the population needs. Therefore it is also crucial to the nation, its a national security. They country would go to war in order to secure resources for the energy industry because it is a part of national security. Another: walmart is americas veins and its a group of peoples property. Walmart is national security. The fact that some of these are publicly traded does not change their relationship to ownership.
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  The mistake is in regarding different organizations as fundamentally different creatures when they're not. The theory of markets is that anyone can compete. That keeps people from abusing customers because they would go to someone else. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules inhibiting rather than facilitating competition, and the market consolidates and that stops working. The theory of the government is that everyone gets a vote. That keeps people from abusing citizens because they would vote the bums out. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules that create a two party system so people have fewer choices, centralize rule-making power in the areas that were supposed to have local control so people can't vote with their feet and then that stops working. It's not fundamentally different problems, it's the same one. Consolidation of power, also known as centralization. People find ways to corrupt the system to take away your alternatives. One of the ways they've found is to put half the people on Team Government and the other half on Team Markets and get them to fight each other when they should both instead be working together to fight the autocrats and create systems more resistant to them.
vasco 11mo ago
So in your mind megacorps and their owner billionnaires have how much of a say in government? If you had to rate their influence in government policy from zero to a hundred what would that be?
- komali2 11mo ago
  Governments should represent the needs and desires of humans. Corporations are algorithms designed to make their value go up - if not restricted by governments, they will crab-bucket eachother by any means necessary, including slavery. See: factory towns. Therefore, corporations should have exactly 0 influence in governments, and billionaires should have the same influence as any citizen: one vote, and whatever influence they can peddle from a soapbox in a park. This is obviously impossible because billionaires can buy TV spots. This is why governments under capitalism almost inevitably become extensions of corporations, which is what the OP comment means. In a system where capital = power, then, accumulation of capital means accumulation of power. You accumulate power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power... and so on. I'm skeptical there's any solution to this within capitalism - I don't think highly socialized capitalism will work long term since the profit generating algorithms (corporations) will play within the rules to accumulate just enough of an edge to wedge their foot into government enough to get a smidge of influence, which they will leverage to weaken restrictions on corporations, which will allow them to get more influence, which will lead to them weakening restrictions further, and so on. So long as capital can be converted into any power at all, I think the system will inevitably trend towards late stage capitalism / corpotocracy / plutocracy. Do you believe billionaires should have more say in government policy than you do? Why? Why wouldn't a billionaire use more say to help themselves even more at your expense? They clearly love hoarding wealth and power, so, would it not be fair to say they'd like to do more of that?
- Wolfenstein98k 11mo ago
  As I clearly stated in the comment you read, it's not "in my mind" and it's not my opinion. It was an intentionally bananas statement. As I clearly stated.
amake 11mo ago
Your analogy is infinitely more baffling to me than OP's comment.
rootlocus 11mo ago
I fail to see the point you're trying to make or the argumentative process by which you're trying to make it. Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs. Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. And this is just the blatant tip of the iceberg the current administration is brazen enough to show publicly. > absolutely baffling to you and which probably makes a hundred obvious counter-arguments pop up in your head. I can probably find a hundred obvious examples of conflict of interests, quid-pro-quos, or otherwise pro-corporation anti-consumer for any administration in history. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the government is issuing gold cards with the president's face on them for multi-millionaires to bring their business. I'd be glad to hear a few of those hundred obvious counter-arguments.
- jimmydorry 11mo ago
  I don't particularly subscribe to any ideology that puts companies above people, but it isn't hard to see things from GP's point of view. Before shooting the messenger, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. >Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied: this current administration (aka. Trump) or the businesses that grew large enough to buy a seat at the table or can afford to steer policy via "gifts"? >Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. Is a person sitting in congress fully cognizant of what is happening in all facets of the economy and have an understanding of what needs to be implemented today to pave the way for the next 10 years and beyond? Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation? >The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer Yet this is a golden age by every measure. Zoom out on your timescale and there has never been a more prosperous and peaceful time to be alive. Quality of life has tremendously improved and the possibility of striking out on your own and making it big has never been more attainable. Yes, there will always be people sitting at the top with massive power and wealth, but the average person isn't doing too bad.

AdamN 11mo ago

Yeah there was this great cartoon many years back where a guy is on his computer and the FBI is looking over his shoulder at his screen. A character named 'Facebook' is pushing him aside and says "Let me show you how to do it". When you look at the cartoon for a minute or so you see in the shadow in the back of the room this robot labeled 'Google' and he's just quietly observing.

nrhrjrjrjtntbt 11mo ago
Is this from Edward Snowden times
- couscouspie 11mo ago
  wdym? We are in Edward Snowden times. The timeline where Edward Snowden gave up on an awesome life to inform us, the global public, of the greatest scandal of all times and nothing happened, to be precise.

chongli 11mo ago

They are until they aren’t. Look at the Russian regime. Even billionaires could find themselves on the outs. All that money and to live in fear of open windows.

potato3732842 11mo ago

Both opinions are so lacking in nuance as to be effectively useless. The rich and their interests are in some contexts the the government, in other contexts they're competing with it. Look at how Bill Gates relationship with government changes by the year and by the subject for a great example.

Atlas667 11mo ago
The only difference is that the government cant cater totally to Bill Gates, they got a couple thousand other capitalists to take care of in order to keep the country afloat. The government is the ORGANIZED rich. It's not "everything Bill says goes". You and me tho, the rest of us millions? We trust strangers that market themselves well, vote and then, just hope they do good by us.
- andriesm 11mo ago
  Not all rich guys are part of the ORGANIZED RICH. Some are, many/most aren't. For some rich guys whole point of being rich is to be maximally independent. Some billionaires are all kinds of weird flavor of Anarcho Capitalist (completely anti government), libertarian (small government), objectivist (suspicious of government and against overbearing regulations and mob control). Not all, but many. I think there is an important distinction between independent minded successful people and crapitalists, the ones who collude with the government and enforce their fortunes via regulatory capture. Not every rich person is obsessed with controlling the world and other people. Many just want to live their own lives, and want as little as possible interaction with the government.
  - Atlas667 11mo ago
    I'm not talking about a small capitalist with a nice house and a nice car. I'm talking about the super rich. Thr super rich have to be the government to be super rich and the little capitalists just ride the wakes made by the big guys. These ideologies you mention are just political stances made by the rich in order to promote their measures amongst the poor. Objectivism was made by Ayn Rand and it was promoted so much because it defended capitalism. They disseminate these ideas in order to promote their stances. Libertarianism and ancapism are inconsistent because it pretends that large capitalists wouldnt immediately organize themselves into another large state power. A state is necessary to not have all out war between the powerful. Ask any political science major and they dont take these ideas at face value because these ideologies cant exist as such. They are more like life style politics than real political frameworks. I suspect the reason they are even espoused is because they represent an immediate weakening of government regulation that can increase profits. The capitalists want people to think it can exist so they can have more power. But a true libertarian or ancap reality is a pipe dream. Its true purpose is to create less oversight and thus more profits. Your average Joe, like you or me, has about 0 benefit from this.

nottorp 11mo ago

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Can we have an “AI” post a reminder of this every time someone mentions secret world governments?

Atlas667 11mo ago
Well its not a secret world government. A lot of it is done out in the open. Do you really think you control the government? That it is democratic?