Discussion:
chris hedges quote, relevant to what the UK singular MSM is doing to Corbyn today
(too old to reply)
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 01:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"the left has been destroyed, especially the radical left, quite
consciously in the whole name of anti-communism", and "we have allowed
ourselves to embrace an ideology which, at its core, states that all
governance is about maximizing corporate profit at the expense of the
citizenry. For what do we have structures of government, for what do we
have institutions of state, if not to hold up all the citizenry, and
especially the most vulnerable?"."
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-08 10:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 2:45:59 AM UTC+1, waste-of-time wrote:
> "the left has been destroyed, especially the radical left, quite
> consciously in the whole name of anti-communism", and "we have allowed
> ourselves to embrace an ideology which, at its core, states that all
> governance is about maximizing corporate profit at the expense of the
> citizenry. For what do we have structures of government, for what do we
> have institutions of state, if not to hold up all the citizenry, and
> especially the most vulnerable?"."

Perhaps Hedges elsewhere explained how an ideology disadvantageous to the bulk of population can nonetheless become so firmly established within our way of life.

Indeed he could explain further how capitalism survives at all. Capitalism follows a philosophy based upon the interchangeability of the economic resources of capital, land and labour. Marxism criticises this this model on the grounds that it leads to alienation of workers from the fruits of their labour (product)

This is where Marxism falls short and is itself vulnerable. The competing ideology depends for its success on mass markets and the bigger these markets the better and more successful capitalism is.

It is therefore illogical to suggest that a system that impoverishes the masses who provide the mass market it needs can nonetheless flourish.

The history of the socialist experiment is repetitive. Wherever socialism has taken hold if it has taken hold at all, it in not in the developed industrial societies that Marx painted in his theses. Rather it has been most successful in agrarian peasant societies where the productivity of labour is already low.

The success of socialism is measured in terms of the extent to which the productivity of labour is increased. However, this demands capitalism with the combined tools of usury and the saving of surplus production. Marx and Lenin would not recognise today's Russia. Mao Tse-tung would not recognise today's China.

Cuba, Venezuela, and Cambodia will go the same way.

Socialism is finished and the reason it is finished is that is contains the seeds of its own destruction.
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 10:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
there's a difference between free market capitalism and todays
'corporatism'
abelard
2018-04-08 10:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 10:39:37 -0000 (UTC), waste-of-time
<***@asassas.org> wrote:

>there's a difference between free market capitalism and todays
>'corporatism'

the biggest and most corrupt corporations are run by governments


--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2018-04-08 11:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:56:44 +0200
abelard <***@abelard.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 10:39:37 -0000 (UTC), waste-of-time
> <***@asassas.org> wrote:
>
> >there's a difference between free market capitalism and todays
> >'corporatism'
>
> the biggest and most corrupt corporations are run by governments
>
>

Or vice versa...

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and
from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was
which."

--
Joe
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-08 10:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 11:39:38 AM UTC+1, waste-of-time wrote:
> there's a difference between free market capitalism and todays
> 'corporatism'

Would you care to enlighten us as to what that is?
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 11:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
... monopolistic practices

swatting out innovation, in the case of microsoft

anything showed it's head up, anything decent, in software

was bought up, extinguished, or "embraced, extended, extinguished", by
microsoft

hence, nothing improved, in the world --- corporations/monopolies stifle
innovation / progress

it is in their nature

look @ the state of the NHS computer systems.. what was highlighted last
year, during the simple security issues such systems encountered

what was highlighted, was that nothing has moved on since the 90s

they are the same systems, with the same problems, that existed in the 90s

there is no will to progress systems, to innovate, to ensure that
innovations are maintained, are invested in, stay in place

That is because the lazy consumer, the customer, whether that be theresa
may, or public sector bodies, is irresponsible she/they can turn around
when there are any problems and say "I'm just the customer", "nothing is
my fault". Corporations, they think they can use as a form of insurance,
Re. the 90s mantra "nobody got fired for implementing microsoft". With
PFI, administration, governance was shelved, the practices dissolved,
departments with skilled people dissolved, all responsibility, management
moved to corporate 'service centers' & there has been a subsequent
decline in control, attention, diligence (re: hospital windows aren't
cleaned, windows in jails remain broken, because there are no janitors;
managers/employees can validly state "that is not my job"). Meanwhile the
corporations minize costs as much as they can, spread "service" thinly.
They are not interested in individual situations, there is no "care" in a
corporate call center, there are no engaged humans in the interface. That
is the world, the abrogation of government/responsibility which Theresa
may has extented. The extension of "commercial interests" above all else,
above the citizen. Corporations of the US are interested in only one
thing -- those being an extension of a militiaristic state, that is the
annihilation of populations, for instance the latest generation of US
companies awarded social servides contracts, includes 'Maximus'. "Maximus"
the invention of a US general who cut his teeth developing techniques for
carpet bombing. Their regime of filtering their attrition, the cull of th
e disabled using CIA techniques. The UK government has instigated a war
of attrition now, against it's own citizens. Corporate annihilation,
which is now subject to serious UN attention/enquiry. That is not
competition, that is not any sort of development. That is not healthy,
competitive "free market". Nobody who works for these corporations gets
to innovate/create/ benefit human progress. They are owned; their
intellectual property is owned. They are an extension of military
dictatorship.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-04-08 12:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:00:06 PM UTC+1, waste-of-time wrote:
> ... monopolistic practices

I asked for the difference between a corporate and free market capitalism not your version of their shortcomings.

The answer to put you out of your misery is simple. There is no difference.

> swatting out innovation, in the case of microsoft

Microsoft, Google, Apple-Mac, Adobe all of these are software companies and there are probably a few smaller fry.

So none of these are monopolies in the classical sense.

Look at the word corp / oration. Latin root corpus meaning body. A body consists of a number or parts though in this case not in any biological or physiological sense of course. These parts are commonly known as shares. Ownership of any corporation is divided up into shares.

Mark saw this as the alienation of capitalists from their capital.

That is all it means.

The term is most favoured in the US and many US enterprises carry the abbreviation 'Inc' (incorporated) behind its title. In other words the ownership of this enterprise is divided into shares.

In the UK the term Corporation has just about fallen into disuse. The closest equivalent is Plc (Public Limited Company) as opposed to Ltd (Limited) The difference between the two is that ownership of a Ltd (private) company is restricted to certain qualified individuals (e.g. members of a certain family) and nobody else can own them. Plc companies OTOH have unrestricted ownership. To make up the set, The term Group is often used as an appendage to company titles. Groups can be Plcs or private companies and the term simply alludes to the fact that the company is made up of a number of separate companies under common ownership often by virtue of take overs or mergers. Often these separate companies are termed divisions.

In short all of these terms relate to the managerial structure of firms and nothing else.
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 16:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
i'm not reading your right wing drivel until you learn to post correctly,
idiot
johnny-knowall
2018-04-08 16:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8 Apr 2018, waste-of-time wrote
(in article <padelv$36t$***@dont-email.me>):

> i'm not reading your right wing drivel until you learn to post correctly,
> idiot

He will not learn to post correctly, because his whole world is correct.

He has “corrected” his wife.

He has “corrected” his kids.

He has “corrected” his closest friends and relatives.

His problem is that he expects us to be corrected as well, which is where he
falls down.
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 16:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 17:26:44 +0100, johnny-knowall wrote:

> On 8 Apr 2018, waste-of-time wrote (in article
> <padelv$36t$***@dont-email.me>):
>
>> i'm not reading your right wing drivel until you learn to post
>> correctly,
>> idiot
>
> He will not learn to post correctly, because his whole world is correct.
>
> He has “corrected” his wife.
>
> He has “corrected” his kids.
>
> He has “corrected” his closest friends and relatives.
>
> His problem is that he expects us to be corrected as well, which is
> where he falls down.

also he's using textbooks

every single response with bibliography, so he will always be "correct2

he hasn't produced anything unique in his life, ever

and he is designed to make subjects/education as unattractive as possible

"elite"

people like him should be eradicated

he's the problem

he's a snob -- his useage of 'latin', there, is there to belittle

he's a piece of shit

he serves no purpose in the modern age
Joe
2018-04-08 16:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 16:06:23 -0000 (UTC)
waste-of-time <***@asassas.org> wrote:

> i'm not reading your right wing drivel until you learn to post
> correctly, idiot

What, quotation, attribution, punctuation, that sort of thing, do you
mean?

--
Joe
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 16:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 17:50:07 +0100, Joe wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 16:06:23 -0000 (UTC)
> waste-of-time <***@asassas.org> wrote:
>
>> i'm not reading your right wing drivel until you learn to post
>> correctly, idiot
>
> What, quotation, attribution, punctuation, that sort of thing, do you
> mean?

his posts are all 1 continuous line

he refuses to follow newsgroup/client posting standards
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 16:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
my point was that at street level, not corporate product level,
monopolies, which corporations happen to be (have you seen the
diagram of 'just about every supermarket food' tracking back to nestle),
for instance, benefit nobody because nobody is required to innovate.

They stifle competence because when theresa may decided to 'outsource'
as close to government as possible (what next, as I said, she is probably
tendering for her PR operations, which appear to be all her government is
about currently, it being too dangerous for her to try to legisate).

Every time she "outsources", skills/competence are lost. All you have are
sets of call center workers, computer operatives. Corporations have is so
that any employee can do any job, directed by systems.
waste-of-time
2018-04-08 11:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
meant 'they are intellectual property'

i'm not interested in responding to this lazy poster (mrowing)
/thread
johnny-knowall
2018-04-08 11:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8 Apr 2018, waste-of-time wrote
(in article <pacste$f4u$***@dont-email.me>):

> meant 'they are intellectual property'
>
> i'm not interested in responding to this lazy poster (mrowing)
> /thread

You should be interested, because if you argue an opinion which doesn’t
agree with his, he will kf you and you needn’t respond forever.

Bliss....

I don’t understand the folk who only want to communicate with people who
share the same views already. What is the point of only preaching to the
converted?

Is it some kind of inferiority complex, or just a general lack of self
confidence with these people?
Loading...