Capitalists To Be First People Lined Up Against The Wall And Shot In Revolution Tweet Ex Twitter CEO

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: burntheships

If you believe in profit above all, then you are against his statement, if you believe capitalism as a way of building capital to better a society you are in favor of that statement.

Put another way, on one side you have global capitalists and global investors that look at countries as vassals to be exploited.
The Constitution and Nationalism to these types of Capitalists is a roadblock not an assett.

If America filled out with shanty towns and tin shacks just so they can get richer, it is of little consequence to them.

a reply to: jacobe001

Hard to deny it you make some really great points jacobe!!

They will do their best, but it is hard when you find temporary allies among groups like that it would be easier to continue pursuing our noble goal of absolute blind equality under the law without the communists/socialists constantly trying (and mostly failing) to subvert our work

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: strongfp

But, you still won't exploit your workforce, or destroy your competition with violence right?

Define "exploit." If I hire someone, yes, I want to get the most service for the least cost to me. So do you, if you are honest. Is that "exploitation"?

Not sure what violence you are referring to. The only real violence I see are by those who are anti-capitalism.

TheRedneck

Capitalism involves buyers and sellers with no force or coercion used between any parties.
Fair enough?

Workers that sell their skilled labor to a company at a negotiated wage are part of the capitalism circle.
Workers are also free to band together for better wages as in unions.
Companies band together under organizations for government policies beneficial to them.
All part of freedom under capitalism.

There have been many violators of that in this country.
Buying from diamond mines where forced labor is used.
Using labor in slave labor countries where workers are not allowed to organize for better pay.
The citizens are not allowed to push for environmental changes to clean up their rivers and air.


What the USA and many other countries have today is not Capitalism but Corporate Fascism where the heads of Corporations and politicians work together to enrich themselves while punishing everyone else.

When the bail outs come out every time, the financial sector and favored corporations are the very first to get the hand out.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: strongfp

Wages are a marketplace. Open market is the basis of our system. I do not see any offerings of a better idea. Only threats of violence when bad ideas are rejected.

Wages should be determined by free market capitalism but they are not.
They are determined by corporate and banking lobbyists and politicians.

Bringing in 500,000 H1Bs from India every year for coding depresses wages and increases housing costs for Americans here in the USA. it also enriches the cockroaches in upper management and investors on wall street. This is just one example.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I think part of the problem is that there are no labels that accurately define what has been called "liberal," "progressive," " leftist," or "far-left." It's too far off the spectrum of reason. So we have a hard time even identifying the enemy without accidentally including the actual liberals.

A good example. I was a liberal back in my youth (and my positions have not changed) and a part of that was supporting equality in justice. We do have a problem with police brutality, not from all police by any means, but by enough police to be problematic. However, supporting a fairer application of justice is NOT the same as supporting defunding the police! I was on board with the protests about the killing of George Floyd, but I could go no farther... not to looting, not to attacking police in general, not to riots, and not to defunding.

Another good example: abortion. I recognize the need for safe abortion early in pregnancy; mistakes happen and we should not punish people for a lifetime because they made a single mistake, especially when medical solutions exist. However, when it comes to extending abortion into the third trimester and certainly to moments before birth, I draw the line... and since a life is at stake, that is a very hard line! So hard in fact, I have moved considerably right on abortion just to try and counter the arguments that, to me, sound almost like infanticide.

Gun control: there I'm a strict Constitutionalist. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." I am also all in support of police carefully watching anyone who is suspected of being potentially problematic with firearms... watch, observe, but do not interfere until an actual problem arises.

Those are liberal ideals, not conservative ones... at least they were. But today, despite holding those liberal ideals of yesteryear to heart, I am a die-hard conservative. If the liberals become conservatives, what does that make those who become liberals?



Capitalism isn't what most people think it is. It is simply an economic system based on private ownership of goods. I agree that what people seem to be talking about today is not actually communism (public ownership of all goods) either... neither is it socialism (technically worker ownership of goods, but the modern version seems to be more government supply of basic needs). It is rather a disavowance of the most basic and most limiting rule of any economic system: all resources are finite. Those advocating for change seem to believe that all goods are infinite and there are enough for everyone... there isn't. There never will be.

The only difference between capitalism, socialism, and communism is how goods are allocated. Under capitalism, people work for other people to receive goods, creating a natural tendency to improve those goods to attract more customers. Under socialism, people are supplied goods by the government through forced contribution to a general pool. Under communism, the government distributes what it feels the people need. Capitalism is the only system that does not directly involve government interference with the economy. Socialism and communism both depend on government assistance and both discourage innovation and technical progress.

Socialism can co-exist with capitalism in a thriving economy, but socialism tends to act like communism lite when it comes to negative effects on the economy. It decreases the incentive for improvement and slows the flow of money outside the socialist policies. Thus, it grows like a cancer until it collapses the capitalistic system which fed it, and then fails miserably. Socialism, while it has many benefits for the disadvantaged under capitalism, must be kept in check, lest it become unsustainable. I support some socialism... we need to and can afford to have a social safety net that helps the disadvantaged; we do not need a safety hammock that works for only those of a particular political bent.

What we cannot have, what we will rue the day of ever trying to have, is the kind of socialism that is being pushed today. As I said, resources are limited. When everyone has a right to resources, there are less resources for everyone because there is no incentive to gather more. No one will have the latest Apple phone under this system; everyone will have a landline that malfunctions frequently. At least, they might have one until the people revolt over their utopia not being utopia after all.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: strongfp

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's not a 'free market'. That's the fun part.

Then why are you always trashing on "CAPITALISM" if that's not what you're claiming the current system is? The fact is the US is a plutocracy/oligarchy/corporatocracy and is extremely corrupt, and LACKS free markets. If you haven't noticed, the government has been bailing out some of the biggest corporations and wasting billions on PPP loans to fraudsters (and their buddies). By "picking" winners and losers, the government is not letting the markets properly correct to natural valuations, which is also what happened in '08 when AIG got bailed out and the government nationalized mortgages via Freddie & Fannie

Currently the claim is that the wealth disparity & root of all socioeconomic problems is capitalism, while we are just hanging on to any semblance of capitalism while the leftists want the Fed & Treasury to continue printing trillions to "hand away" to every person, including illegal aliens & criminals while taking money away from law enforcement and allowing small businesses and innocent citizens to get burnt & pillaged.

My point is that it is the EXPANSION of the state and government which has decreased the standard of living of everyone else, and socialists like yourself are asking for MORE government. The state is already bursting at the seams with inefficiencies, lack of incentive, absent of accountability and ripe with FRAUD, CORRUPTION, WASTE and ABUSE.

But you want more state and less entrepreneurship/independent freedom? Like a previous poster said, the whole victim mentality & modern day radical left movement is pathetic and hypocritical to its core

Great Post
I agree with most of what you said except for one difference.

It is the corrupt private sector meddling in our government to enrich themselves, rather than the government meddling in the private sector.


The solution is to boot the lobbyists out of the government and limit campaign donations to $100 per person.
We have a corrupted pay to play system where the rich control everything to enrich themselves while the rest of the country gets punished.

a reply to: jacobe001

You seem to be a bit confused. On one hand you mention that businesses and workers can band together, but on the other hand you condemn corporations.

A corporation is a banding together of investors to create a business to provide goods or services that no one can accomplish themselves. It is not some evil plot by evil spirits to take over and enslave people.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: strongfp

Nobody has done more harm to socialism in the west than wealthy, upper class champagne "socialists".

As far as i am concerned they deliberately destroyed any worker-based movement. It is clear as day when "socialists" are no longer working class and "socialism" is not for the working man, but an identity-based victimhood popularity contest.

The irony in his statement if his dream did come true, he would be amongst the first against the wall.

Nobody has helped prove Marx's criticisms of capitalism correct more than America's tech corporations, the depths of the corruption & avarice in their executive levels is far beyond any factory owner of Marx's time.

America had the lowest wealth gap and the highest standard of living for most Americans when Corporate and Banking Lobbyists were almost nonexistent in Washington DC and Union Membership was at an all time high.

The lobbyists went on a major campaign to kill the unions in this country, (something Hitler, and Communist Countries have in common) and to open up trade to slave labor Communist Countries where workers had no rights or freedoms.


The rest is history.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jacobe001

You seem to be a bit confused. On one hand you mention that businesses and workers can band together, but on the other hand you condemn corporations.

A corporation is a banding together of investors to create a business to provide goods or services that no one can accomplish themselves. It is not some evil plot by evil spirits to take over and enslave people.

TheRedneck

Thats because the game has been stacked against the working class where the corporation now all own the politicians.
Both parties kiss the corporation and banks ass. The unions and any power the working class had is almost all but gone.

It is no coincidence that average wages for most Americans have been stagnate for years while CEO and shareholder pay has gone through the roof. It is exactly what one would expect if the market is controlled by the investor and corporate class.

Money is power as they say.
For every dollar unions give, corporations give a million dollars.
That is no longer capitalism when the power is no longer balanced between all parties.
It is Fascism.

a reply to: burntheships

People in the socialist, former democrat, party won't believe this even when such aholes in the left have done this many times in many nations. When these aholes give threats like this, believe them and be prepared to fight back. This is part of the reason these aholes want a United States disarmed. So we can't fight back against the socialist, communist or even fascist dictatorship they want to implement.

a reply to: jacobe001

Thats because the game has been stacked against the working class where the corporation now all own the politicians.
Both parties kiss the corporation and banks ass. The unions and any power the working class had is almost all but gone.

You are still trying to shoehorn the word "corporation" into something it is not. I owned a corporation once... and I didn't lobby anyone. Nor was I in any way beholden to any other corporation.

The working class has plenty of power, but has forgotten how to use it. Unions are today no different than the corporations they bargain with... in many ways, they are almost like a government to themselves. They tax their workers (dues, in many cases even taken from non-union workers), they require citizenship (membership) to receive anything, and they do lobby government... but not always on the side of the workers.

Today's union bears little to no resemblance to the unions of old which did help workers receive a fair shake. Most of the advances those unions made were codified into labor laws even.

I believe you are simply trying to identify an issue by looking at only one side. Businesses are not the enemy of the worker; they are the only reason there are workers to begin with. They exist to make a profit (like the modern unions), and if they cannot make a profit, they will close. That's not something that can be negotiated. No one is going to keep the doors open if it costs them to do so. Most businesses already operate on such a slim margin they are already in danger of closing.

Do you have any idea what it costs to hire someone? Here, in a right-to-work state, I had to pay not just the salary... that wasn't an issue. I had to pay taxes on that salary, provide a place to work, tools to work with, office support, health insurance, vacation time, and then had to worry that in the middle of a push to meet a deadline someone would call in sick or decide that now was the perfect time to have a family emergency.

That probably sounds cruel to you, dismissing sickness or a family emergency. Well, how about me? I was the one who wound up staying up all night working my butt off to meet that deadline. Is that not cruel to me?

Really, it never bothered me much... things come up, and I was the boss. That's just how it works. But then to see those same people badmouth me because they want more? I cannot imagine opening a business in a union state. I don't see how others do it. I'd kick the union out the doors, and at the first sign of complaint, lock those doors tight and go the hell home. Maybe get me a union job where I could pretend I was the sole pinnacle of value.

That's what I hear from you... gimme, gimme, gimme, it should all be mine, none for you, damn boss, you can starve in return for giving me a job! I'm the important one here! How dare you think providing me with a job is worth anything except my disgust?

Well... I don't employ people any more, so all I can do now is give you a piece of advice: be careful what you ask for; you might just get it. Beware biting the hand that feeds you; it might stop feeding you at all.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

People think the government supplies it all or should. The only way that can happen is if the government owns all the means to produce which, by default, means a socialized or communist style system in the end.

The only other way would be a fascist system where the government controls the means of production so tightly that it can manage the pricing of those goods and services it provides. Otherwise, there will always be an upward bending of the cost curve as the private owners and producers of the goods the government provides price themselves into the government pocket, and government, thanks to taxes (legalized theft), will always be able to provide the price demanded until everyone is poor and the mega wealthy are so stinking wealthy that it defies belief.

In other words, without a collapse into a communist/socialist style system, the idiots railing against income inequality are creating exactly what they claim to hate so much by demanding more and more government provided goods and services.

a reply to: TheRedneck

None of "ye olde labels" really seem to apply, do they? I mean, they are still technically accurate, by and large, but their social/cultural use is way, way off.

My perspective has always been that capitalism is the least worst economic system weve got. And, its better than the rest by a good margin.

So, if we are actually going to try something else, itd be wise to take such things into account. We would need to really come up with something novel to yield actual beneficial change.

Yet, most seem to want to rehash systems that the world has very much been there & done that. Communism, specifically, is the worst system the world has ever known (imo, of course).

The current issue I see is large corporations gaining enough power to reliably sway nations as well as bypass things like the Constitution. I believe the corporate information arm, the media, is one of the most dangerous entities in existence.

This might be a somewhat natural outgrowth from capitalism. I dont believe for one second that that means we throw it all out though. That seems absurdly reductionist, ignorant, and naive to me.

Similarly, I see a path forward that technically puts "the means of production into the workers hands." But.. Is that really what it means to have fully decentralized food, energy, and manufacturing? Im not so sure its the same thing at all..

These nuances have largely been eliminated from most discussion, and I think thats a problem.

Resource distribution seems like a discussion that can only take place after we have truly capitalized on waste products. The vast majority of plastics that are thrown away can be pelletized and extruded to make filament for 3d printers. A decentralized food supply makes it substantially easier to distribute waste without much (if any) transport. Real world options for real world problems, rather than FeelGood marketing and perpetual funding machines.

The Constitution is the framework that was established at the founding of the nation. I dont view people in authority as somehow being more responsible or morally superior to the general public, which seems to be the premise for attempts to eliminate/infringe the 2nd.

We have vast, vast amounts of work that can be done in that framework to build a better nation. I dont foresee any benefit whatsoever even debating it. If something cant be done in that framework, or attempts to disengenuously bypass it (like corporations are doing), then it should be discarded or prevented in totality. We arent in a position as a culture or society to truly improve on any of it right now, and even if we were, there are substantially bigger priorities.

Id say my biggest concern, and one that changes the situation dramatically, is absolute centralization under a corporate-political banner. This not only instills a sense of urgency, it also means there might very well be a point of no return. Where a corporate-political technocracy controls everything, including thoughts. Very profitable, which would technically be a capitalistic drive.. But it also reduces the health & strength of the overall system while also stalling progress, innovation, and invention.

That might be my biggest concern.. Weve got plenty of folks that seem to be working towards a horrific dystopia because of marketing and weaponized ideals. This single aspect changes everything, in my opinion.

This whole "its not perfect, so tear it all down!" coming from some of these folks is.. idiotic. Useful idiots that are willing to throw out millions of babies with a drop of bathwater. All because they have bought into the marketing.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I think China is an example to some extent although the state is still the strongarm partner, but this examination of California might illustrate what you fear. California sounds like it's very close to what you worry about, and they are trying to do this across the country.

a reply to: ketsuko

I believe that the CCP, and places like California, are where this corporate-political apparatus has made the most progress. With regards to the CCP.. this enables that apparatus to bring the power of a large nation to bear in their global plans. California is similarly influential, particularly to the US.

Regions like Singapore (Im glad that article mentioned it) are also regions to be observed. Instead of working on the world stage or local footholds though, they seem to serve as contained testing grounds for measures that wouldnt fly anywhere else. Yet.

At this point, I believe there are two viable courses of action: 1) the dismantling of media and re-establishment of legitimate press or 2) the deployment and rapid construction of a competing system to the centralized technocracy.

Trying to address it piece-by-piece seems to be a fools errand; Its just too widespread & pervasive. I also am not convinced that "voting red across the board" will actually solve anything. I do believe it is likely to buy time though.

As it stands though, we have a meaningful portion of the population wanting to dismantle capitalism (and all systems).. in order to give absolute power to corporations.. under the banner of communism & justice. There are so many levels of "wrong" with that train of thought, and the cognitive dissonance can only be sustained with relentless marketing and information control.

People were convinced that instead of looking at real world results without myopism, the only solution to our woes is to give absolute control and authority to the corporate-political system. All under the notion of dismantling capitalism & systems of oppression. Completely ridiculous, but modern marketing complemented with real time data mining is a terrifying force to be reckoned with.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Dammit, I just lost a long, detailed post... I'll reply in a little while. Frustration does not fully describe what I am feeling right now.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You bring up a very salient point, it is these same people
who want to do away with the second amendment freedoms.

They would have us defenseless when they march in with
their firing squad. And honestly, I doubt at that point they
would pull back even if all bend the knee.

They are unhinged, deranged psychopaths.

Sorry, just got to jump in and say this; how anyone can align the interests, intentions and agendas of 'major corporations' and the people who run and control these institutions with 'communism' is quite frankly beyond me and shows a complete lack of understanding of the ideologies that influence both.

a reply to: Freeborn

In reply, I would like to nicely point out that the actual
topic is not about "large corporations". It is about
business that will not bend the knee to a demand
to bring "woke" politics into the workplace, to the
point of forcing it on the employees too.

Yes, there are many pages in the thread that
delve into corporatism, which is fine. But
that is really an aside argument.

a reply to: burntheships

Yeah, I get that....but other people were linking corporatism with communism.....I was just trying to point out the absurdity of that.