1%er Explains What All Intelligent People Already Knew

[frigidweirdo]

Oh God, I got to 49 seconds in and he's blaming Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, but not Capitalism, as if Corporatism isn't Capitalism.

Corporatism isn't capitalism. Corporatism is corporate control over the state, and capitalism means zero state control over trade. First off, the state not controlling trade is not synonymous with the state being under the control of corporations. I know this concept can be hard to see through all the social justice fuzz in our popular culture, but everything in the world doesn't necessarily break down into an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. If I'm not in charge of you, that doesn't inherently mean that you are in charge of me.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, corporatism isn't capitalism because, in practice, corporatism tends to exclude capitalism. You have to do some intense mental gymnastics to convince yourself that, if an organization designed specifically to benefit the financial self-interests of its owners takes control of a state, the resulting economic system will be one of zero regulation and voluntary transactions. Beyond the mental gymnastics, if that's what you think of corporatism, you haven't been paying attention to the criticisms of corporatism. The entire problem with corporatist policies is that they fuck people over in order to afford unfair advantages to the corporation(s) in charge. Since you can't legislate advantages into existence where there are none, the only way for a government to afford advantages to a corporation is by enforcing regulations on competitors that they don't place on the corporation(s) who are in charge.

Simply put, capitalism is a lack of state regulation of trade, while corporatism's tendency is ever greater state control over trade. Not only are they not synonymous, they're not even compatible in practice.

The thing is that corporatism and capitalism often go hand in hand.

Do corporations control the state? Yes, especially under Bush's term when Halliburton was essentially running the White House. But the amount of money in the system shows you that money rules.

I understand what you're saying, however you have to realize that all I'm saying is that corporatism and capitalism are so similar that to criticize one and promote the other at the same time is showing a massive lack of understanding of the US.

I don't know about hand in hand, but corporatism seems to be a pretty easy thing for capitalism to slide into, given the human tendency for self interested corruption. Unfortunately, every system has a high probability of becoming something terrible and authoritarian, because governments are designed and made up of human beings, and human beings often enjoy wealth and power more than they enjoy the fruits of integrity.

Sure, but make a system which doesn't become this is something achievable. Right now everyone is for status quo, a month ago they were talking change... go figure.

I'm not sure a system that's immune to corruption -is- achievable, unless some completely dispassionate, completely fair minded super-scientist builds us a disinterested artificial intelligence to rule us, and even then, countdown to the machine being hacked.

Possibly not, but you can achieve better levels. Having the goal of eliminating corruption might get you to a point which is far better than at present.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Corporatism isn't capitalism. Corporatism is corporate control over the state, and capitalism means zero state control over trade. First off, the state not controlling trade is not synonymous with the state being under the control of corporations. I know this concept can be hard to see through all the social justice fuzz in our popular culture, but everything in the world doesn't necessarily break down into an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. If I'm not in charge of you, that doesn't inherently mean that you are in charge of me.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, corporatism isn't capitalism because, in practice, corporatism tends to exclude capitalism. You have to do some intense mental gymnastics to convince yourself that, if an organization designed specifically to benefit the financial self-interests of its owners takes control of a state, the resulting economic system will be one of zero regulation and voluntary transactions. Beyond the mental gymnastics, if that's what you think of corporatism, you haven't been paying attention to the criticisms of corporatism. The entire problem with corporatist policies is that they fuck people over in order to afford unfair advantages to the corporation(s) in charge. Since you can't legislate advantages into existence where there are none, the only way for a government to afford advantages to a corporation is by enforcing regulations on competitors that they don't place on the corporation(s) who are in charge.

Simply put, capitalism is a lack of state regulation of trade, while corporatism's tendency is ever greater state control over trade. Not only are they not synonymous, they're not even compatible in practice.

The thing is that corporatism and capitalism often go hand in hand.

Do corporations control the state? Yes, especially under Bush's term when Halliburton was essentially running the White House. But the amount of money in the system shows you that money rules.

I understand what you're saying, however you have to realize that all I'm saying is that corporatism and capitalism are so similar that to criticize one and promote the other at the same time is showing a massive lack of understanding of the US.

I don't know about hand in hand, but corporatism seems to be a pretty easy thing for capitalism to slide into, given the human tendency for self interested corruption. Unfortunately, every system has a high probability of becoming something terrible and authoritarian, because governments are designed and made up of human beings, and human beings often enjoy wealth and power more than they enjoy the fruits of integrity.

Sure, but make a system which doesn't become this is something achievable. Right now everyone is for status quo, a month ago they were talking change... go figure.

I'm not sure a system that's immune to corruption -is- achievable, unless some completely dispassionate, completely fair minded super-scientist builds us a disinterested artificial intelligence to rule us, and even then, countdown to the machine being hacked.

Possibly not, but you can achieve better levels. Having the goal of eliminating corruption might get you to a point which is far better than at present.

Agreed. That's where I think the general philosophy the founders displayed in the design of our system was pretty productive, and why I lean libertarian. The best way to keep people from misusing their power is by not allowing too much power to any one person or organization. Every bit of power that is granted to any government will eventually be misused, so by my reckoning, the best thing to do is to make sure that no official has enough power to fuck everybody's lives up too badly.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I do know history. States fail all the time, Socialist or not. I'm no Socialist, however to suggest that many of these are actually Socialist, as opposed to a fake kind of Socialism shows a lack of understanding of Socialism.

North Korea isn't Socialist. Also, it hasn't failed. North Korea is a dictatorship which owns everything in the country as far as I can tell. Socialism is when "the people" own things, Kim Jong Fat Boy is not the people, the people don't own and control everything.

Social ownership is a key component of Socialism, and Social ownership encompasses Government ownership. The fact that you don't know that disqualifies you from lecturing me. You're probably one of those Fopdoodles that thinks the Russians were Communist.

The same was said for the Warsaw Pact countries, for example.

North Vietnam didn't fail.

Somalia hasn't been Socialist. It has a Socialist Party run things, but it was Communist.

I think your copy and paste from a website you haven't quoted isn't going to get you very far.

Oh, you ARE one of those Fopdoodles that thinks the USSR were Communist. Allow me to educate you.

Communism is defined in the Communist Manifesto as a system where every citizen is equal. There's no currency, no government, and no Social classes, which is why it was named the way it was, meaning "Of or for the Community". Failed Socialist nations were referred to as "Communist" in an effort by Socialists to distance themselves from their obvious failures. You know, aside from their ideology in general.

Yes it is. But what is "Social ownership"?

If you have a dictator in charge, and the dictator treats the country as his own personal fiefdom, and owns all the business, is this Socialism? No, it isn't.
Socialism is when "the people" own the production. How do "the people" own the production? Well they have to be the ones in charge. In the Warsaw Pact countries, they could do whatever they liked as long as the USSR agreed with it. That's not being in charge of your country.

You make the assumption that I don't know what Socialism is. You're wrong. I know what it is and I know the difference between Socialism and Fascism. Do you?

No, I don't think the Russians were Communists or Socialists. So your "education" isn't necessary. Seeing as you claim to be a 15 year old (which looks less and less likely every minute), how would you know what all this is?

Social ownership is just ownership if the collective. I encompasses Public, employee, and cooperative ownership. The government owning everything falls under "Public ownership".

It falls under Social Ownership, by definition. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

I'm correct, you have no idea. Fascism MAY not be the same, but in the biggest examples we have of Fascist Nations, Germany and Russia, their systems were Socialist.

You would be right that they weren't Communist, Communism has never been practiced in the history of the world, and it never will be, it's inherently impossible.

I'll take that as a compliment, as I do try to be mature and informed.