Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Traditionally, Socialists have presented Socialism as the means to advocate for the needs of ordinary people. It's "for the workers." It's "democratic." It's "the people's interests" that the Party is supposed to represent, and what they call "capitalism" is positioned as the enemy. That's all yesterday's news, of course.

However, in recent days, something has happened to Socialism. Ambitious, monopoly-aspiring corporation interests have discovered that Socialism has a use for them, too. With a single government controlling the means of production, large "capitalistic" interests can leverage favour with the ruling party for various purposes of their own. "The people" are deprived of their personal assets, their ability to protest, their freedom, their independence, and their right to choose, so that they become a manageable resource for the corporation. Small businesses, rival companies, independent farmers, rival supply chains, resource companies, entrepreneurs and so forth can be shut out of the market by government fiat, or can be so limited by regulation that they cannot compete and can be bought out cheap. The corporation can obtain its monopoly through Socialist favouritism.

Socialism also renders the masses manageable. Denied basic rights, deprived of any means to speak, deprived of alternatives, they have to become obedient markets for for the corporation. Through the Socialist government, corporations can "engineer" the people in any way they like, manufacturing consumers tailored to the corporate objectives: they will "own nothing" but be told they are "happy". The people -- the real people, not "the People's Party" -- becomes an obedient and docile cow to be milked at the corporation's leisure.

And then there's the big media. The media have also discovered that supporting the ruling party is more profitable than criticizing it. By offering itself as a propaganda organ for the government's Socialist cause, it can obtain what it has always also wanted -- a monopoly on truth, on the public ear, on the version of things that the average person is able to think and believe.

That is, provided the scheme can succeed -- which means a Socialist, centralized, big government with no effective opposition must be installed, and then the major corporations and media interests can run their game unimpeded. The only loser will be the masses, the workers, the people...the same ones whose interests Socialism formerly pretended to represent.

So I'm curious: do the ardent Socialists among us see the danger at all? Do they recognize the emergence of this unholy trinity: big government, big media, and big corporations, all working against the interests of the working class and of ordinary citizens? Or is their addiction to the Socialist ideology so complete that they cannot imagine that Socialism is so infinitely co-optable to the uses of the "capitalist interests" they used to claim to hate?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[iambiguous]

So I'm curious: do the ardent Socialists among us see the danger at all? Do they recognize the emergence of this unholy trinity: big government, big media, and big corporations, all working against the interests of the working class and of ordinary citizens? Or is their addiction to the Socialist ideology so complete that they cannot imagine that Socialism is so infinitely co-optable to the uses of the "capitalist interests" they used to claim to hate?

Where to even begin, right?

How about here?

https://www.google.com/search?q=was+jes ... s-wiz-serp

Some will insist that JC was indeed a socialist Himself back then.

AI assessed it thusly:

"In the Bible, Jesus Christ drove out the money changers and other merchants from the temple in Jerusalem by overturning their tables and stands:

Matthew 21:12-13
Jesus entered the temple and drove out the merchants, overturning the money changers' tables and the stands of those selling doves. He told them, "My dwelling place will be known as a house of prayer, but you have made it into a hangout for thieves!".

John 2:15-17
Jesus made a whip from cords and forced the sheep and cattle to leave the temple. He turned over the tables of the money changers and scattered their money. He told those selling pigeons to leave, saying, "Don't make my Father's house a place for buying and selling!".

Jesus's actions were a response to the money changers' exploitation of the devout. Money changers would exchange foreign coins for Jewish money at a high profit, and they would also take advantage of the poor and foreigners.

The other gospels place the story of Jesus driving out the merchants at the end of his ministry, just before his death. John's gospel places the event at the beginning of the gospel to show that Jesus's zeal for the Father would consume him throughout his ministry.

On the other hand, sure, maybe Jesus Himself was not a True Christian.

The part where, for all practical purposes, Christianity turns itself inside out and makes peace with the capitalists. The Protestant Reformation, in other words. Render unto Caesar, in other words. Then any number of Christians who have come to embrace "prosperity gospel". Or are they themselves not True Christians?

Then back to AI:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" is a metaphor from the Bible that appears in Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25. The phrase is used to describe how difficult it is for a rich person to enter heaven.

Jesus used this metaphor to challenge the idea that wealth was a sign of God's approval and that rich people were most likely to go to heaven. He was trying to convey that salvation comes from God's grace, mercy, and faith, not from anything a person does. Jesus also said that the poor in spirit inherit the kingdom of God.

The phrase 'eye of a needle] is a metaphor for a very narrow opening. It appears in the Talmud and the Qur'an as well.

Maybe we should run this by William Lane Craig.

[Immanuel Can]

Some will insist that JC was indeed a socialist Himself back then.

Those "some" are the ideologically possessed, and the people who are incapable of reading.

[Impenitent]

Jesus said if you have, give to those who need

he did not say if you have, form a collective government that takes from everyone and redistribute it selectively along color lines (while keeping a maintenance fee)

-Imp

[iambiguous]

But i repeat myself:

Where to even begin, right?

How about here?

https://www.google.com/search?q=was+jes ... s-wiz-serp

Some will insist that JC was indeed a socialist Himself back then.

AI assessed it thusly:

"In the Bible, Jesus Christ drove out the money changers and other merchants from the temple in Jerusalem by overturning their tables and stands:

Matthew 21:12-13
Jesus entered the temple and drove out the merchants, overturning the money changers' tables and the stands of those selling doves. He told them, "My dwelling place will be known as a house of prayer, but you have made it into a hangout for thieves!".

John 2:15-17
Jesus made a whip from cords and forced the sheep and cattle to leave the temple. He turned over the tables of the money changers and scattered their money. He told those selling pigeons to leave, saying, "Don't make my Father's house a place for buying and selling!".

Jesus's actions were a response to the money changers' exploitation of the devout. Money changers would exchange foreign coins for Jewish money at a high profit, and they would also take advantage of the poor and foreigners.

The other gospels place the story of Jesus driving out the merchants at the end of his ministry, just before his death. John's gospel places the event at the beginning of the gospel to show that Jesus's zeal for the Father would consume him throughout his ministry.

On the other hand, sure, maybe Jesus Himself was not a True Christian.

The part where, for all practical purposes, Christianity turns itself inside out and makes peace with the capitalists. The Protestant Reformation, in other words. Render unto Caesar, in other words. Then any number of Christians who have come to embrace "prosperity gospel". Or are they themselves not True Christians?

Then back to AI:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" is a metaphor from the Bible that appears in Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25. The phrase is used to describe how difficult it is for a rich person to enter heaven.

Jesus used this metaphor to challenge the idea that wealth was a sign of God's approval and that rich people were most likely to go to heaven. He was trying to convey that salvation comes from God's grace, mercy, and faith, not from anything a person does. Jesus also said that the poor in spirit inherit the kingdom of God.

The phrase 'eye of a needle] is a metaphor for a very narrow opening. It appears in the Talmud and the Qur'an as well.

Maybe we should run this by William Lane Craig. You know, for all of the historical and scientific evidence he can provide to back IC up.

Those "some" are the ideologically possessed, and the people who are incapable of reading.

Of course, we can always count on IC to come through with truly in-depth and incisive assessments of what we post here.


Just out of curiosity, are there any "prosperity gospel" folks here willing to defend the prosperity part.

[FlashDangerpants]

So I'm curious: do the ardent Socialists among us see the danger at all? Do they recognize the emergence of this unholy trinity: big government, big media, and big corporations, all working against the interests of the working class and of ordinary citizens? Or is their addiction to the Socialist ideology so complete that they cannot imagine that Socialism is so infinitely co-optable to the uses of the "capitalist interests" they used to claim to hate?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Starting to sound like the Unabomber mister Can. Are we quite certain you aren't this guy?

[FrankGSterleJr]

As for their election loss, the DNC (via candidate Kamala) did rely too much on her promises to ‘protect democracy’ and constitutionally enshrine abortion rights nationwide motivating enough voters to her side.

This, while there’s a very large and likely still growing electorate who, due to their formidable unaffordability difficulties, don’t have the luxury to make democracy and/or abortion their primary vote-determining concern(s). That many people are financially struggling that much. ... And, of course, the bad optics and damage resulting from the Biden/Harris administration's essentially-open-borders migration policy only exacerbated political matters. (Quite frankly, one could get the impression that the Democrats and Kamala, etcetera, felt entitled to win; thus, their immense election-loss shock.)

Therefore, unless such unaffordability significantly improves, it may no longer be sufficient for a campaigning candidate to focus on non-fiscal social issues, which, besides abortion, mostly consist of race, sexuality and gender. ... Then again, according to ‘Calamity’ Jane Bodine in the film ‘Our Brand Is Crisis’: “If voting changed anything [in favor of the weak/poor/disenfranchised] they’d have made it illegal.”

[FrankGSterleJr]

Americans collectively want and deserve better than just either the usual establishment callous conservative or neoliberal candidate thus president.
One almost gets the impression that the Republican and Democratic parties are still unaware of the non-corporately-commissioned polls showing that a majority of Americans favor the governmental implementation of some public programs, especially universal health care.

One would think the Democrats would finally support thus implement the latter, so why is the DNC refusing to allow it — if only by disallowing the genuinely fiscally progressive Senator Bernie Sanders to run as its presidential nominee, however many Democrat-voters want him? I mean, other than the DNC being afraid of crossing the corporate lobbyists, especially those hired to represent the healthcare industry’s unlimited-profit interests, who make some of the largest donations to the party election coffers.

(Every county in West Virginia voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, yet the DNC declared them as wins for Hillary Clinton. The voters there wanted Sanders, but the DNC overruled them. That's not democratic; that’s complacency and arrogance. And the 'Democratic' party needs to change that, otherwise such great election defeats can/will reoccur.)

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, we can always count on IC to come through with truly in-depth and incisive assessments of what we post here.

You don't have anything to say. If you did, I'd bother with it.

[iambiguous]

Of course, we can always count on IC to come through with truly in-depth and incisive assessments of what we post here.

You don't have anything to say. If you did, I'd bother with it.

What if you actually do believe this?!

Okay, one last time:


https://www.google.com/search?q=was+jes ... s-wiz-serp

Some will insist that JC was indeed a socialist Himself back then.

AI assessed it thusly:

"In the Bible, Jesus Christ drove out the money changers and other merchants from the temple in Jerusalem by overturning their tables and stands:

Matthew 21:12-13
Jesus entered the temple and drove out the merchants, overturning the money changers' tables and the stands of those selling doves. He told them, "My dwelling place will be known as a house of prayer, but you have made it into a hangout for thieves!".

John 2:15-17
Jesus made a whip from cords and forced the sheep and cattle to leave the temple. He turned over the tables of the money changers and scattered their money. He told those selling pigeons to leave, saying, "Don't make my Father's house a place for buying and selling!".

Jesus's actions were a response to the money changers' exploitation of the devout. Money changers would exchange foreign coins for Jewish money at a high profit, and they would also take advantage of the poor and foreigners.

The other gospels place the story of Jesus driving out the merchants at the end of his ministry, just before his death. John's gospel places the event at the beginning of the gospel to show that Jesus's zeal for the Father would consume him throughout his ministry.

On the other hand, sure, maybe Jesus Himself was not a True Christian.

The part where, for all practical purposes, Christianity turns itself inside out and makes peace with the capitalists. The Protestant Reformation, in other words. Render unto Caesar, in other words. Then any number of Christians who have come to embrace "prosperity gospel". Or are they themselves not True Christians?

Then back to AI:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" is a metaphor from the Bible that appears in Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25. The phrase is used to describe how difficult it is for a rich person to enter heaven.

Jesus used this metaphor to challenge the idea that wealth was a sign of God's approval and that rich people were most likely to go to heaven. He was trying to convey that salvation comes from God's grace, mercy, and faith, not from anything a person does. Jesus also said that the poor in spirit inherit the kingdom of God.

The phrase 'eye of a needle] is a metaphor for a very narrow opening. It appears in the Talmud and the Qur'an as well.

Actually, respond to the points being raised above. If not mine, then AI.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, we can always count on IC to come through with truly in-depth and incisive assessments of what we post here.

You don't have anything to say. If you did, I'd bother with it.

What if you actually do believe this?!

If they can read and think, they do.

No way I'm bothering with something you copy from AI, which is presently so messed up it can't even get the sex or "race" of people right. It's an absurd hub of half-baked information, at present...and that you rely on it tells everybody everything they need to know about your cranial capacity.

Worship the new technology on your own time. I can't be bothered with it.

[iambiguous]

You don't have anything to say. If you did, I'd bother with it.

What if you actually do believe this?!

If they can read and think, they do.

On the other hand, lots and lots of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are adament in fiercily insisting that only their own God is the One True God. Not yours, in other words. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have the equivalent of this --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idDoRft ... SjDNeMaRoX

...to back up their own Divine pie-in-the sky comforter "because it says so in our Holy Book". You are certainly intelligent enough to recognize the profound limitations of a "leap of faith" or a "wager" here. There's just got to be more, right? There's got to be a way for Christians to accumulate enough "historical and scientific" evidence to convince themselves that, just as they can demonstrate the existence of the Pope in Rome, they can demonstrate the existence of God in Heaven
.
In other words, other than up in the spiritual clouds and/or in animated YouTube videos.

Why? Because of the enormity of all that is at stake on both sides of the grave if there is a Christian God...and you're an atheist or a Pagan, or a Hindu or a sociopath or a Buddhist?

Burn, baby, burn?

[Immanuel Can]

You don't have anything to say. If you did, I'd bother with it.

What if you actually do believe this?!

If they can read and think, they do.

On the other hand, lots and lots of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are adament in fiercily insisting that only their own God is the One True God.

And at one time, everybody in the world believed the world was flat. And every last one of them was wrong. So no matter how many people are wrong about a thing, it doesn't even remotely imply there's no right answer.

This is what I mean, when I was saying you don't have anything to say. The most rudimentary sort of fallacious arguments impress you. No wonder you're so star-struck by wikis and AI.

IQ isn't working.

[iambiguous]

If they can read and think, they do.

On the other hand, lots and lots of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are adamant in fiercely insisting that only their own God is the One True God. Again, just ask them what the consequences will be for you if you don't come around to their own denomination.

And at one time, everybody in the world believed the world was flat. And every last one of them was wrong. So no matter how many people are wrong about a thing, it doesn't even remotely imply there's no right answer..

No, really, think about that. Believing the world is flat is one thing, believing the Christian God exists another thing altogether.

And only a complete fool, in my opinion, would not be able to explain why. Go ahead, give it a try yourself.

Either Earth is flat or it's round. Either there's a way to determine which one it is or there isn't. In many important respects, it's not like God at all. Indeed, you tell me what the equivalent is

After all, how would/could one not be intrigued if someone told them that the existence of God in Heaven could, in fact, be demonstrated?

It's just that you won't go there yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

If they can read and think, they do.

On the other hand, lots and lots of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are adamant in fiercely insisting that only their own God is the One True God.

Again...it matters not a stitch. If you could do basic logic, you'd know that yourself.

Why am I wasting time... Pointing out logic to you is like trying to drill a hole in water.