This is completely irrelevant. It's also anecdotal.
— Xtrix
Hardly. Price fixing simply doesn't work. What else is central planning that replaces the market mechanism? — ssu

Simply repeating "market mechanism" ad nauseam means absolutely nothing.

Lots of things replace the "market mechanism," as I've stated several times, if by "market mechanism" we essentially mean free markets. The Federal Reserve is the most "central planning" you can get. What they do effects the entire economy in extreme ways. What China does is also "central planning" -- massive involvement in the economy.

Mixed economies is what we have. No free market fantasies.

If you assume that having rules and legislation is "inteference", then I guess your idea that governments interfere all the time on every level is true. — ssu

It's not simply regulations, laws, or rules. Although that's significant enough. It's subsidies, tax incentives, tax breaks, government contracts, and bailouts. It's also, of course, monetary policy -- of which the "central" bank is in charge. Where is this elusive "free market" system in this scenario?

Yet how typically people understand government interference — ssu

"How typically people understand"? Well then typically people are completely misunderstanding.

Communism hasn't simply not worked. Marxism-Leninism didn't work. Maoism didn't work. Juche-ideology still doesn't work. — ssu

Capitalism hasn't simply not worked. Neoliberalism doesn't work. Keynesianism hasn't worked. Etc.
(And to emphasize this air-tight argument, I can point to slavery, frequent economic crashes -- some devastating, income inequality, monopoly, the government bailouts, too big to fail, financialization, outsourcing, worker layoffs, shutting down plants, union busting, hundreds of legal violations and criminal convictions, ...and on and on -- all while ignoring the good that's come of a mixed economic system. Not a great way to argue, but I'll simply continue to mirror what you're doing until you come to understand its absurdity.)

Besides, when you disregard the most successful and most popular branch of leftist thought (which is SO typical nowdays), then this is quite irrefutable. — ssu

It's so typical these days that people ignore the most successful/popular branch of leftist thought -- which is what, exactly? By ignoring this leftist thought, it makes the statement "Communism has never worked" irrefutable?

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

"Nicest" outcome would be just hotter summers and colder winters. — ssu

Yeah, I guess we can all believe what we want to believe. Personally I'd rather listen to the people who know what they're talking about. But that's me.

Take your housing example. The government doesn't "usually" interfere? What's "usually"? Of course they do -- nearly all the time. How?
— Xtrix
There is a perfect example of this from my own country — ssu

The government brought in price controls in the 1970's which basically crushed the rental market — ssu

Then the government deregulated the market. — ssu

And this is what many don't understand at all from the importance of a market mechanism. — ssu

This is completely irrelevant. It's also anecdotal.

So I'll repeat: government interferes all the time, on every level. There's no denying this. Whether this interference works out well or not is another question.

The "market mechanism" you refer to is more free market fantasy. So while you attribute the so-called successes of deregulation on the housing market, you apparently ignore another rather better example of deregulation: the crash of 2008. Deregulation caused the crash (small government), and then the companies that caused the crisis were bailed out (by big government). That's exactly the point, too. An excellent example of the results of neoliberal policies -- and the false consciousness of those who promote them.

Furthermore, there are some instances of "free markets" throughout the world and throughout history. Maybe Egypt or Greece? Even there it's dubious.
— Xtrix
Actually, modern Egypt — ssu

Given the reference to "throughout history," it should be fairly obvious I'm referring to antiquity. Modern Egypt and modern Greece are a different story.

is the perfect example why people are poor and stay poor in Third World countries: when a normal working family cannot get a loan to buy a house, no wealth is created when they have rent all their life a home. And once when people are poor and stay poor, there isn't that important domestic demand that would create jobs and growth. — ssu

Yes, and ask why they're poor in the first place, when they were a very wealthy country around the turn of 20th. Because textbook "capitalist" principles were forced upon them. So it's funny you should bring that up.

Or we could start with slavery in the US.
— Xtrix
And the US got rid of it in the 19th Century. Obviously not an inherent part of capitalism. — ssu

And China is no longer in famine, and are currently dominating us in growth. Obviously not inherently part of communism.

What is common to all is the implementation of socialist central planning that really didn't work. — ssu

It's as much attributable to socialism as it is to capitalism, if one is so inclined to define things that way. China and Russia also had very significant successes, which you will undoubtably ignore -- or will attribute to "capitalism," I suppose.

I'm not interested in defending the policies of China -- but I'm also not inclined to ignore the facts: they have a communist government that controls the market on levels even greater than the United States, and they're dominating us. So much for "communism" leading to nothing but famine and disaster. So then you try to either minimize these facts or else attempt to attribute them to "capitalism" -- which is completely absurd, on every level, even if you don't mean "free market capitalism" (which doesn't exist).

If China is beating us in growth -- shouldn't that mean they're MORE capitalist? Would anyone argue this? Quite a neat trick to pull.

As far as economic growth, China beats us by far in GDP.
— Xtrix
When you start from far poorer state, naturally growth is far more rapid. — ssu

China is not poor. They're the second biggest economy in the world. Their growth of 6% a year is more than the 2-3% for the US.

But I see where this is going with you: whatever happens that's good is capitalism, whatever happens that's negative is communism. Or else highlight the failures of the latter while ignoring the successes. So there's no reason in pretending to have a rational discussion. Stick with your dogma.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

The big IPCC report— pretty sobering.

Looks like warming is already locked in and there’s no time to waste to prevent even worse effects.

We’re not alarmed nearly enough.

You have apparently discovered the secret to longevity. — Hanover

Being ignored for mindlessness.

There are no bad students, only bad teachers. So the saying goes.

People who believe weird things are all over the place. The efficient market hypothesis is a good example.

So to perhaps finish up this thread, I’d like to defend the claim that the most powerful force is dogma.

Whether the corporate sector or the state, there are human beings making decisions. These decisions happen against the background of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions — which are shaped by culture, but especially the educational and media systems.

Behind all of this, and the basis for religion and culture, are answers (tacit or otherwise) to universal human questions, but especially the question of questions— which defines philosophy: the question of being.

What is a human being? Human nature? Is greed the most important human characteristic? Are we simply self-interested entities trying to accumulate wealth? Are we creatures of God? The rational animal? Spirits? Minds?

What is good? What is happiness?

What *is*?

The government doesn't interfere all the time and everywhere. — ssu

That's like saying the law doesn't interfere all the time and everywhere. That doesn't mean we're lawless. Likewise, if one can point to instances where markets are somehow not influenced by government, that doesn't mean we have "free markets."

Housing prices, the prices of taxi cabs and many other prices are usually left alone. — ssu

Sure, and we're "left alone" sometimes too. When driving, and there's no police around -- for example.

Furthermore, there are some instances of "free markets" throughout the world and throughout history. Maybe Egypt or Greece? Even there it's dubious.

When it comes to countries and their governments, however, the state is always involved -- on every level. I can't think of a time in modern history where that isn't true. If you know of one, I'll be happy to look at it.

Take your housing example. The government doesn't "usually" interfere? What's "usually"? Of course they do -- nearly all the time. How? Through the control of interest rates and money supply. Whether and how banks are regulated matters a great deal. Look no further than 2008, not that long ago. Yes, the corporate world -- specifically the financial sector -- had a big responsibility themselves (perhaps a taste a "free markets"?). But it wouldn't have happened without government essentially allowing it.

Regardless, whether housing prices are up or down is very much a matter of fiscal and monetary policy.

The vast majority of companies and corporations are privately owned. The Western Mixed-Capitalism model is really different from China. — ssu

Different, not "really different." There's massive state influence here, there's massive state influence there. Both can be "capitalist" or "socialist," depending on what you want to believe.

Actually they worked just fine, by many metrics. They also had plenty of problems -- major ones. The United States has plenty of problems, too.
— Xtrix
Let's start with the famines in the US. How many have there been thanks to US economic policy been inflicted to the American people? — ssu

Or we could start with slavery in the US. As capitalist as it gets. Or the huge income inequality. Millions of Americans are in poverty, homeless, hungry or food-insecure (around 35 million). As far as economic growth, China beats us by far in GDP.

It's convenient to highlight the flaws, mistakes, and failures of other countries and ignore our own. To attribute the great Chinese famine to "socialism," but not slavery to capitalism, is an interesting trick -- but not worth taking too seriously.

There's massive state intervention in all "capitalist" societies, and nothing like the free market fantasies that ideologues have dreamt up. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, usually, but is unique in its employer-employee relationship -- which is a better definition of it. Socialism, likewise, can mean state ownership of production. That's one strand, and one definition. A better one, in my view, is simply democracy at the workplace, where there's no employer-employee dynamic, and where the employees own and run the company democratically, as many co-op models demonstrate. Neither China nor the US has a system which is predominantly socialist, then. What actually exists is state-capitalism -- which is really just capitalists (employers, owners, especially organized in the form of the multinational corporation) more or less controlling the state. In China, one could argue the state has more power than the corporate sector, but the influences are there as well. They're just as capitalist as America, in this respect -- the difference being that the state runs things rather than the multinationals.

Hardly socialism. Or "pure" laissez faire capitalism.

https://media2.zuza.com/c/c/ccefe190-e407-42cc-99da-6d20340d415d/femalefitnessAsset_02.png

Interesting…

what do they stand for,
— Xtrix

Freedom — hope

:rofl:

The standard line of most people still stuck in capitalist propaganda. So it has to mean that. Why? Because socialism "never works." End of discussion.

They are ruled by the communist party. But magically, the gains they've achieved is "capitalism"?
— Xtrix
The official line is that they have 21st Century Marxism and it works just well as they aren't fixated to dogmatic principles or take Marxism as a religion. Others would say that it is government controlled capitalism as they do use the market mechanism and there is private property. — ssu

"Government controlled capitalism." That's state-capitalism, which is the only capitalism that exists. It's what exists in the United States as well. Government direction and interference on every level. No "free market" fantasies. So to attribute China's gains to "capitalism," despite their government being communist, is saying exactly nothing.

Yes, marxism-leninism, stalinism or maoism didn't work so well. — ssu

Actually they worked just fine, by many metrics. They also had plenty of problems -- major ones. The United States has plenty of problems, too.

The most vicious, most brutal, and most lethal of all, of course -- if this is the game we're going to play -- has to be capitalism, by far. So perhaps include that on your list of things that "haven't worked so well."

They really genuinely sucked. — ssu

I agree. Capitalism really, genuinely sucks too -- and in many ways is far worse.

You have even two countries with similar culture, heritage and history that were divided with one part being capitalist and the other socialist. These examples leave nothing in doubt. — ssu

They leave plenty to doubt -- about your depth of analysis.

Again, way not just point to "Venezuela"? Nice and easy, and no need to think. Throwing around terms like "capitalism" and "socialism," when you have no idea what they mean, is pointless. All that has existed is state capitalism, and there are many measures of what's considered successful or not, and many reasons for the successes or failures. If pointing to East/West Germany, calling one capitalist and the other socialist, really settles it for you -- then you're welcome to that.

So the fact that China's kicking our ass in growth means what exactly?
— Xtrix
It means that they changed their socialism to controlled capitalism — ssu

The standard line of most people still stuck in capitalist propaganda. So it has to mean that. Why? Because socialism "never works." End of discussion.

They are ruled by the communist party. But magically, the gains they've achieved is "capitalism"?

China, like the United States -- but more so -- directs and intervenes in their economy. Without state intervention, there would be no "capitalism."

There’s plenty of literature on the true history of development: Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, many others. The fact that from England, to the US, to Europe and Japan and the recent Asian “tigers,” large-scale state intervention and radical interference with markets has been a leading factor in economic development. In the US it’s so extreme that it’s laughable.

Socialist central planning is literally doing away with the market mechanism. — ssu

China massively interferes with markets. As does the United States. The former has a communist government, the latter a republican government. China is outpacing the US in GDP, by far -- so that must be capitalism. Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

As I'll say a thousand times: free markets are fantasies. They don't exist. You're simply doing what all capitalist apologists do: when something succeeds, call it capitalism. When it fails, call it socialism. No matter the context or details or history.

What next? Pointing to Venezuela as an example of a "socialist nightmare"? I can hear the same thing on Fox News.

Capitalism has made few far more richer than others, but it also has improved our prosperity far more than central planning of socialism ever did. — ssu

So the fact that China's kicking our ass in growth means what exactly? That's not central planning? Or is that not socialism? We don't have "central planning" in the US? On the contrary, there is massive state intervention and direction in the economy, at all levels -- from the Fed on down.

Give me a break.

There is no alternative to present.
— NOS4A2

Build your own road and use that. — Isaac

Or go back to the Articles of Confederation. Clearly the idea is that being taxed is "confiscation of property," an old idea. In an ideal world, we would, as a community, pool our resources voluntarily to do things we cannot do individually. Wonderful. But this, like "free market capitalism" -- is a compete fantasy. It's never existed.

So why do people continue to hold to it? Because it's an easy slogan to remember, keeps things simple. Pure abstraction. But no connection to the real world of state-capitalism, and no understanding of history.

Again, you're dealing with a person who voted for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump. This is the level of intellect here. So don't be disappointed if you get exactly no where.

It’s true; I am operating on the assumption that a slave is chattel — NOS4A2

the conditions of slavery are not the same as the conditions of wage labor — NOS4A2

This admittedly common sense view of slavery, not as penetrating as your own no doubt, suffices for me to distinguish slavery from wage labor, and why I refuse to consider wage labor as wage slavery. As far as pejoratives go, it’s a weak and boring one. — NOS4A2

It's not a pejorative, it's a description of fact. Working for a wage is renting yourself -- your brains and muscles, time and effort -- for money. So simple even you can understand it. The rest is semantics. If you want to restrict "slavery" for chattel slavery, fine. The Republican party of the 1800s would disagree with you.

I don’t think it can be argued that slavery was voluntary or consensual, or that slaves should be blamed for their conditions, so we’ll just leave that one aside. — NOS4A2

They had the option to leave, just as the factory girl has the option to leave. There are repercussions for both. Since we're ignoring the latter, let's ignore the former as well. In which case: both are voluntary. In your world.

It’s true that leaving a job can lead to financial hardship, but then again it can prove beneficial. — NOS4A2

True, as can leaving a plantation.

surplus value is not equal to profits and wages are often paid in advance of revenue. That and the collapse of the labor theory of value renders the theory pretty useless. — NOS4A2

I never claimed "surplus value" is equal to profits. Whatever the worker is paid, it cannot possibly be more than what his or her production is worth. In that case, there'd be no business. There'd be deficits and bankruptcy. If that's too difficult for you, that's your problem.

The profits made by a company are generated by the workers of that company. The workers, in turn, have zero say in how those profits are distributed -- in a capitalist system, anyway. I'm against that, because I'm against illegitimate hierarchy and I'm in favor of democracy. You've now shown repeatedly you're not in favor of democracy. In which case, I'd say: go live in another country.

Your so-called “say in what the state does with taxes” is false. I wager you have not followed a single dollar of your taxes to any final destination. If you cannot know where it goes, you cannot have a say in where it goes. All you’ve done is hinged your servile hopes on the promises of politicians and bureaucrats, pretending that selecting from a rogues gallery of state careerists amounts to having a say in government. — NOS4A2

I realize, of course, that you're too silly to understand this, but I'll continue on:

We have a "say" in the state in a number of ways. One of those ways is voting, but there are others as well. The higher up the chain you get, the harder it is to have an influence. When it comes to what is done with taxes, we should vote in people who want to spend that money on programs we advocate for. I never said I could track my tax dollars. There's plenty to criticize the government for -- nearly all politicians are bought by the corporate sector, they're basically unresponsive to the needs of the majority of the population, etc. There should be more parties, and so on. We could go on about it. It should be more democratic, less influenced by special interests....

All of this is obvious. It's not about worshiping the state. The state should represent the people, and it really doesn't. That should change.

Now compare the state -- the government -- to the corporation, to capitalism. Is there democracy there? No. Is there any say in the decisions? No. Any expectation that they represent the "people" or their workers? No. Any worker vote for who make the decisions? No. Any say in what happens to the profits we all generate? No. Do you have free speech within a corporation? No. Democracy, your rights (voting, speech), etc., all out the window once you enter the workplace.

And yet, your religion says: the latter is the ideal. Government bad, capitalism good.

Why is this so? Who decided the female form was more alluring than the male? — Maximum7

It fluctuates in time. No one decides. It's cultural and historical. But I also sense that the female body has always been more alluring to males by the "design" of evolution. I don't know how true that is, but it seems pretty obvious.

The less abstract response: women are just more beautiful.

Can't argue with any of that. They bring their voters with them in their media, then when the voters get too insane, they're left with a dilemma: either be insane ourselves, or pretend to be so we can stay in power. They've mostly chosen the latter. And why? For what end? Simple: to gain even more power for the class they represent -- the corporate class. The Republicans are much more loyal to business than the Democrats are, and even the Democrats are loyal. The Dems also aren't being bought off by the worst type of scum in history: the fossil fuel industry. Worse than tobacco companies, by far.

So bring down the country -- kill people by denying pandemics, masks and vaccines; get people unnecessarily riled up and divided against the "liberal elites" as "Anti-American" or "Communists" or "Destroyers of America"; destroy the environment by acerbating climate change. All for more power.

It's incredible. Chomsky is right: "The Republican party is the most dangerous in human history."

I think that sounds a bit exaggerated. Yes, taxes do seem excessive but the state provides services in return. Without those services you would have to pay private companies to police your neighborhood, to collect refuse, to repair roads, etc., and I'm not sure that would come out much cheaper. — Apollodorus

In fact we know it doesn't. The quickest way to destroy anything is to privatize it. We know that from our healthcare system. The pattern is always the same for the people who want to profit off of what should be basic social programs, like healthcare or education: defund it. Defund it, then it fails. When it fails, you can swoop in with claims about how great it will be -- once we start treating it like a business, subjecting it all to those magical "market forces." Of course, it ends up a giant disaster, the state has to step in and clean it all up, and we repeat.

Older people like NOS and others are stuck in the cold war era of propaganda. where fear of communism was beaten into their heads, and capitalism was worshiped as nearly synonymous with "freedom," being the "American" system. Then came the "government is the problem" neoliberal program, which has been a complete disaster -- privatize everything, deregulate, cut taxes, etc. We're living with the results of all of this, and the prior generations who were taken in by it all. Milton Friedman, Sowell, Hayek, Ayn Rand, etc. -- these are the people they believe in, to this day.

Worth reminding yourself, too: this person voted for Donald Trump. These are the kinds of decisions that come out of this picture of the world. Sad.

I’m well aware of the concept of wage slavery. — NOS4A2

I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever.

Voluntarily working for a wage does not rise to the level of slavery, chattel or otherwise. — NOS4A2

I say it is. I guess that evens out.

Declaring it isn't so isn't an argument.

The relationship between master and slave, and employer and employee, are different.

This "voluntary" defense is so tired and so embarrassing it's barely worth responding to. Needless to say, one could make an equal argument that slaves were voluntary, too. They didn't have to be slaves, after all. They could have killed themselves, or tried to run away, or rose up in rebellion (all of which often happened, of course). True, those alternatives don't seem so great, but they were there.

Similarly, though less extreme, one makes the argument about renting yourself. "Well, you can quit if you want to." True, and face eviction, homelessness, starvation, humiliation, debt, poverty, stigma, etc.

Or you're forced to go to another job that perhaps treats you better. Wonderful. Many slaveowners were very decent people, too. Treated them well, housed them, had relationships with them, etc.

Is either of these facts an argument in favor of slavery as a system? Of course not -- although many did make such arguments. Fitzhugh is a good example. You seem to fit in well with someone like him. You're simply defending wage slavery instead of chattel slavery. It's that simple.

I have never subscribed to the theory of exploitation — NOS4A2

You're paid less than what you produce. That's not hard to understand. That's inherent in this system. That's exploitation. If people were paid the equivalent to what they produce, there would be no profit. There's nothing to "subscribe" to.

There is no valid reason beyond pure greed that an employee should own the company he works for by virtue of him working there alone. — NOS4A2

Yes, in your inverted world of alternative facts, it's the workers who are the "greedy" ones. How quaint.

"There is no valid reason, beyond pure greed, that a citizen of this country should get to vote by virtue of his living here alone."

So you're not in favor of democracy. Got it. No wonder you didn't answer that question.

The state, on the other hand, subsists entirely on exploitation in a way that is morally equivalent to forced labor: through taxation. — NOS4A2

So taxes are exploitation, but paying someone less than what they're worth -- isn't.

All capitalists are in favor of a very large welfare state. They couldn't survive a second without it. You cannot have defense, roads, or anything else without money, and you can't raise money without taxation. The rich want the following: pay as little as possible in taxes, let the working and middle class pick up most of the check. Then make sure that money goes to subsidies, bailouts, research they can then privatize, and infrastructure they can use. The state is absolutely essential for them.

I'll say it a thousand times: there are no "free markets." Certainly not in the United States. Your small government, free-market/ laissez-faire capitalism indoctrination was thrust upon you at some point in your life, and you should outgrow it. It's completely wrong. Which is partly why people on the forum (and probably elsewhere), including me, think you're mostly an imbecile. Doesn't have to be that way, though. Just takes listening and a willingness to learn.

By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor. As far as exploitive practices and greed is concerned, the robber baron pales in comparison to the state. — NOS4A2

Not at all. But even if it were true in absolute amounts, we have some say in what the state does with the taxes. 600 billion goes to defense, and I don't like. But billions goes to medicare and social security, which I do like. Billions goes to education and infrastructure, which is also good -- and I think far too little. We should have far more influence over where that money goes.

Now compare to a corporation. Take WalMart or Amazon. Billions of dollars of profits. How much say do the workers have in where those profits go? Zero. But importantly, they don't even have a say in who gets to make that decision for the company they all work for. The owners do.

If I employ you and another person, and I'm the holder of a piece of paper that says I'm the owner of the company, and all three of us generates $10,000 in profits, and I decide that I'm going to give it all to myself...if you're OK with that scenario, good for you. You make a good wage slave. In prior times, a good "house negro." But that's your issue.

religions are epistemic authorities and states are deontic authorities, but what are corporations? — Pfhorrest

There’s a bit of epistemic and deontic elements in both the state and in religions. I’d argue that capitalism is a religion, in many respects. Nationalism and statism too.

Corporations are legal creations, really. But they represent the current organization of an ideology— the worldview— of the merchants. The bourgeois. This is basically capitalism, but also at heart materialism.

That’s what I alluded to in the OP. This is why I argue that it’s dogma (ideology) that truly rules the world today. I associate dogma with the church, so the answer to my own question is “the church.” If I were forced to pick. That’s an unconventional definition, though, so I don’t hold it against anyone for missing my point. The Church of Materialism (in the form of money or capital) has ruled the day. To me, materialism is basically nihilism.

The real culprit is philosophy. Or I wanted to get around to making that point eventually anyway. By philosophy I mean Greek answers to basic questions, including the question of questions (seinsfrage).

The media, perhaps? Should they be a fourth option in the OP’s question? — Pfhorrest

Sure. Education is another. Both play very important roles. I’m rolling in both as either in service of the state or corporate sector, however, in my OP. But they certainly are important enough to warrant separate attention.

but I’ve had too many jobs to believe in a concept like wage slavery, and I would never expect ownership of a company I did not create. That’s just me. — NOS4A2

Again, because you don’t listen — either consciously refusing or unconsciously. Given your age, it’s likely unconscious. But who knows.

“Wage slavery” isn’t a radical concept. It was prevalent in the Republican Party during Lincoln’s day, in fact. The idea of renting yourself was seen by many at the time to be degrading and dehumanizing — for example, the factory girls of Lowell and Lawrence MA (close to where I live) in the 19th century. I agree with them.

I said absolutely nothing about a “whip”. You continue to pretend as if I don’t distinguish very clearly between chattel slavery and wage slavery. As I’ve said many times, and which you refuse to understand: they’re not the same thing; they’re very different in how they function.

As for ownership — why should the fact that you’ve filed for articles of incorporation entitle you forever after to exploit your workers for profit while giving them no say in where to allocate those profits? Workers “create” a company just as much as investors, founders, legal “owners,” board members, or anyone else. There would be no company without them. Unless you can run everything yourself, which is possible and we often see in small family businesses— sole proprietorships — the workers should have say. Otherwise it’s what Dewey called “industrial feudalism.”

The fact that you defend the worst aspects of capitalism is telling.

Workers who run the companies should control the companies. Just try applying all your criticism about “big government” to “big business.” You won’t find a less free place than within the confines of a corporate job. Why decry one and not the other, if “freedom” is a value?

There are millions of American slaves grinding for wages in your precious state machinery right now, all so people like you can beg them to pick up the slack wherever you refuse to. Where’s the foam at your mouth now? — NOS4A2

:yawn:

Anyway— yes, any job that exchanges your life and labor for an hourly wage is wage slavery. Whether government or private business.

You’re again not listening. The government is a partially Democratic institution, and we demand it be more so— or profess to. Are you in favor of democracy or not? You’re too intellectually immature to know for certain, but I would assume you are in favor of it, in principle.

Given that assumption, we should criticize the government for failing to be democratic. We should push to make it more Democratic.

We should do the same in the workplace. If we believe in democracy.

That doesn’t even mean abolishing “capitalism” necessarily.

Once you've won power there's no point having that power unless you put your principles into practice, or use it for your own benefit, depending on your character. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The problem is that those in power believe they are putting principles into action, but really serving themselves and their constituents.

Corbyn was a decent guy, but not a fighter. Even if he pushed through, the issue then becomes one of enacting the policies. Reminds me of Bernie. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do much without the Congress, the appellate courts and Supreme Court, or the state legislatures — almost all of which are completely dominated by far right Republicans and moderate Republicans (Democrats). Not to mention the huge media attack on both sides.

It’s an uphill battle.

Xtra s — Trey

:sweat: Just call me Mike.

Is it just only short-sighted protection of their interests, without much consideration for anything else? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes.

I mean, how do you justify something like that to yourself? — ChatteringMonkey

In many ways. First and foremost: “I’m just following orders.” They’re doing what comes “naturally” within a capitalist system: make profits, raise stock prices, post huge quarterly earnings, repeat. Or you’re out. All else is an externality, including climate change.

“It’s a job for Congress.” That’s another one. Knowing full well Congress is dysfunctional, and that they will lobby against any changes.

No slavery I know has at-will employment, — NOS4A2

Wage slavery. I’m not talking about chattel slavery.

Selling yourself and renting yourself. That’s the difference.

It’s weird to me to expect democracy from a corporation — NOS4A2

Because you’re a heavily indoctrinated neoliberal with no imagination and an incapacity (or unwillingness) to learn anything new.

More than that, running a company is also work, and owners are workers. They accept more risk, acquire the means of production, the property, pay the overhead, build the clientele, and employ human beings. He runs it because it’s his project, his property, the fruits of his own labor. Without him there is no opportunity to participate in it. — NOS4A2

More Ayn Rand bourgeois ass licking, as usual.

The fruits of the workers’ labor, not the owners. Wal Mart could easily be run without the Waltons pocketing the profits from their Yachts. In fact that’s exactly what happens, except thanks to gifts from the state (which is supposed to be “small”?) only a handful of people decide what to do with the profits that the WORKERS produce— by law.

You make a great apologist for chattel slavery. “The slave owner runs things his way because it’s his property— he takes on more risk, pays the overhead, etc.”

Old, tired ways of thinking. Neoliberalism through and through.

Anyone can start a company and run it as he chooses — NOS4A2

In your fantasy world. In reality, almost no one in the world runs a corporation. The owners— the major shareholders — are extremely rare. Maybe a basis point of the population.

Yeah, that’s “equal opportunity.” More bullshit slogans.

The question is, to those who lament the corporation and business men, why won’t you do that? fundamentally changing the system? — NOS4A2

Hmmm…well I suppose if I inherited 400 million dollars and 1.5 billion shares of a company my great grandfather started on the back of slave labor, I may do just that.

But for those without their heads up their asses: co ops exist all over the place. Some very successful. All worker owned. Mondragon is often used as an example, but plenty of others. Ocean Spray is one close to home for me. So it’s done quite often, and is not simply an abstraction. One simply has to see through the years of indoctrination which make it too “weird” to understand.

Abolishing the slave system was “weird” for many people too. Especially for the slaveowners. But in many cases (as in yours) even the slaves. You’d have made a great Uncle Tom.

So sad to see working/middle class people so utterly brainwashed that they’ll defend such a sick system, and a class that both loathes and shits on them. They’ll go to their graves with this sad perspective.

They can’t go quickly enough.

You are probably right there. I think what tends to happen in so-called "liberal democracies" is that politicians come to power on certain promises that they make to win elections. In some cases they may even be serious about the promised policies. — Apollodorus

Yes -- check out Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson. Lays it out nicely.

Even if all political careerists vying for positions of state power had the right principles, the motives of the state, it’s machinery, and its functions remain: the exploitation of the people, the confiscation of their wealth and power, and the regulation of their activity. To its core, the state is little more than a grand scheme of forced labor. — NOS4A2

It's as if you don't realize you're describing CORPORATIONS, not "states." This is the structure of corporations. They're the great system of exploitation in the world -- by design.

The state doesn't hold a candle to the corporation, at least in a democracy. If you're against tyranny, turn your attention to the institution in which most people have to work most of their lives -- taken orders and having zero vote. Plenty to criticize the government about, but come on.

I can see you back in the 1800s arguing about how awful the government is as your fellow citizens are working 16 hour workdays in the mills for private companies.

Capitalism and business is never the problem, according to the propaganda/dogma you abide by. It's always the state. Like a good little parrot of corporate-sponsored ideology.

Corporations are largely private enterprises. You or I could start one and direct it to do good, but no statist seems interested in even trying. — NOS4A2

There are far more people in government that act to serve the population than there are CEOs and board chairs that do. By far. Why? Because the state is still somewhat democratic, and so the population can have some say -- less so as you get higher in rank, but still some.

Corporations are not democratic -- at all. No democracy whatsoever. They're private tyrannies. A few people at the top call all the shots, the people in the middle and bottom take the orders. It's the newest and fully legal (state-supported) system of slavery. The people at the top decide what to do with the profits that the entire company produces. That's how it works, by design. Some are nice people, some aren't. Some treat their employees well, some don't. But that's not the point. The point is that they're private tyrannies designed to make a profit, and have zero democracy.

So you can't even fault corporatists for "not even trying," since that's not the name of the game. The name of the game is to make money at any cost. You have no responsibility to the community or country in which you're based, nor to the employees, and the employees have no vote anyway. You do what makes the company the most money, or you're out.

You berate one more so than the other, and as usual have it completely inverted. Let go of the "government is the problem" propaganda and trickle-down economics you were fed when you were younger, for Christ's sake.

Obviously, the state's main desire is to keep itself in power. But this is precisely why it must take other groups' desires into consideration. So, the question is, which group's desires and to what extent? — Apollodorus

The bourgeois, in Marx’s language. The 1% in ours. This is who the state represents. This is why when people choose business (corporations) I think they’re absolutely correct.

Studies have shown that the 0.1% get nearly everything they want, and the population’s desires have almost no effect on policy. That tells you all you need to know.

I’ve only ever seen communists coerce, imprison, and kill members of their community — NOS4A2

No those are called capitalists. They’re also destroying the prospects for human life. But keep worshiping them by all means.

Given the above, it's with some reluctance that I would argue that it's the church, in the sense of dogma, that is the most powerful of forces in today's world.
— Xtrix

You have to be kidding. Or perhaps you've never visited Australia. The Church has about as much influence here as, I don't know, the Boy Scouts — Wayfarer

Perhaps try reading what you quoted. Apparently you missed the “in the sense of dogma” part. I’m not referring to the Catholic church or Christianity generally.

https://grist.org/cities/tampa-wanted-renewable-energy-resolution-florida-lawmakers-made-sure-it-couldnt-gas-ban-preemption/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon

Always great to see the Republican Party trying their best to not only destroy the planet, but preventing even minor efforts to save it. That’s commitment— they take death pacts seriously.

If states did not grant companies patent rights, property rights, bailouts, international law defense mechanisms and so on, these very companies could not do what they do. — Manuel

True, but this is the current state of affairs. The bourgeois have won, and have brought with this win their worldview.

The state has the ultimate choice in controlling anything. They can choose to be guided by the corporations, — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, they can’t. That’s like saying the Pope can choose not to be Catholic. It’s possible, I suppose — but the point is that he wouldn’t be Pope if that were the case.

The government consists of people who make decisions. They’re almost all capitalists themselves. They wouldn’t be where they are without first internalizing certain beliefs. It’s no longer a choice. Maybe at some point you have the choice to believe what you’re taught, but it’s simply not so easy— any more than choosing a different religion.

Yes. But liberalism is based on a Darwinian outlook, not a religious one. I mean Jesus was very anti-rich-people. — frank

Liberalism pre-dates Darwin, but regardless: I’d argue social Darwinism is a dogma.

Probably the one with the access to the nuclear codes and military — Maw

Reasonable. Power isn’t only brute force, though.

In my ideal world we’d help members of our community instead of delegating that responsibility to the state. — NOS4A2

Never figured you for a communist. Good to see you’ve had a change in heart.

What if there is no better alternative? What if you have no education or qualifications for anything other than a retail job? — ToothyMaw

Tough shit. Then you have the freedom to starve to death. That’s NOS’s ideal world, anyway. Government is the problem, free markets are the solution. It’s done wonders the last 40 years— especially the Friedman Doctrine.

If you weaken the church, the void gets filled up by corporations — ChatteringMonkey

An important point. The void gets filled with varying sects of the church of nihilism: capitalism, scientism, etc. Nietzsche is good on this.

Put another way: what do the corporations fill the void with? What is their underlying belief system?

Oh sweet Jesus - don't tell me you think forcing doctors to care for people who don't have money is slavery. — ToothyMaw

You’re dealing with someone who voted for and continues to defend Donald Trump, and whose economic beliefs come straight out of Friedman and Ayn Rand. I wouldn’t waste too much time trying to figure anything out.

Isn't the state based on an ideology as much as the church? — frank

Yes, but I’m using “church” as basically a synonym for ideology — or dogma, in any case.

But even if we use religion (say represented by Catholicism), it’s still far more about belief than about creating laws or making money. In that respect, as I’ll argue, it is ultimately the basis for political and corporate decisions.

I guess Wall St has the most power. — frank

:up: