Corporation Socialism

[Belinda]

How many of you have a real reason to be anti-government? What's the worst thing a government ever did to you?

And how many of the roughest and toughest rebels among you would even be able to survive without a government protecting you?

That is a stupid ad hominem . I hope you understand why it is ad hominem.

[Belinda]

Back in the feudalism days, folks thought mecantilism and capitalism were fairy tales. See how that turned out?

If you check, you'll find that "Capitalism" was a word and concept entirely invented about the time of Marx...not, so far as we can tell, by Marx himself, but quickly adopted by him. Before that, people just called it "trade," or "commerce," or "buying stuff" or "having a market."

So no, they had no opinion of "Capitalism" at all, since it didn't exist.

It's interesting to contrast this with Marxism. Marxism has a founder we can identify (Marx), a source for his ideas (Hegelian dialectics), a manifesto (The Communist Manifesto, and also Das Kapital), an anthropology (man as self-actualizing through praxis), a fake history (including not only "capitalism" but a cartoony view of history as only about "class struggle"), a teleology (the triumph of the proletariat), a political program (Socialism), an economics (theory of surplus value), a whole set of ethics and demands (such as equalization and state ownership), a Satan (the bourgeoisie)...it's a total worldview, a package that's supposed to framework the entirety of live and explain its particular meaning. It has its own orthodoxy. It's an indoctrination, pure and simple.

And it's one that history between the 19th and 21st Centuries has demonstrated was actually quite wrongheaded, of course, as we can all see. Even Neo-Marxists have had to dump old Marx, because he was just so off-base. Nothing of what he said was coming about, and he had his anthropology, economics, and the whole dynamics of history wrong.

But "Capitalism"? It never existed before Marx's day, and hasn't existed since. It has no manifesto, no originator, no anthropological theory, no particular historical narrative, no ethics, no teleology, no particular political program, no demands...in other words words, it's nothing like a counterpart of Marxism, and isn't really a belief at all. The most you could say is that it's a collective term coined by a certain kind of Left-leaning brain, one that attempts to catch together in a collective noun a loose set of pragmatic decisions, made by different people with different values and objectives, the only commonality being the generating of some profit from labour, perhaps. And I'm not even sure that description would stick: even that seems too specific to be defensible.

Beyond that, there's not much to say for "Capitalism."

Did you ever read William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience?

[Immanuel Can]

Back in the feudalism days, folks thought mecantilism and capitalism were fairy tales. See how that turned out?

If you check, you'll find that "Capitalism" was a word and concept entirely invented about the time of Marx...not, so far as we can tell, by Marx himself, but quickly adopted by him. Before that, people just called it "trade," or "commerce," or "buying stuff" or "having a market."

So no, they had no opinion of "Capitalism" at all, since it didn't exist.

It's interesting to contrast this with Marxism. Marxism has a founder we can identify (Marx), a source for his ideas (Hegelian dialectics), a manifesto (The Communist Manifesto, and also Das Kapital), an anthropology (man as self-actualizing through praxis), a fake history (including not only "capitalism" but a cartoony view of history as only about "class struggle"), a teleology (the triumph of the proletariat), a political program (Socialism), an economics (theory of surplus value), a whole set of ethics and demands (such as equalization and state ownership), a Satan (the bourgeoisie)...it's a total worldview, a package that's supposed to framework the entirety of live and explain its particular meaning. It has its own orthodoxy. It's an indoctrination, pure and simple.

And it's one that history between the 19th and 21st Centuries has demonstrated was actually quite wrongheaded, of course, as we can all see. Even Neo-Marxists have had to dump old Marx, because he was just so off-base. Nothing of what he said was coming about, and he had his anthropology, economics, and the whole dynamics of history wrong.

But "Capitalism"? It never existed before Marx's day, and hasn't existed since. It has no manifesto, no originator, no anthropological theory, no particular historical narrative, no ethics, no teleology, no particular political program, no demands...in other words words, it's nothing like a counterpart of Marxism, and isn't really a belief at all. The most you could say is that it's a collective term coined by a certain kind of Left-leaning brain, one that attempts to catch together in a collective noun a loose set of pragmatic decisions, made by different people with different values and objectives, the only commonality being the generating of some profit from labour, perhaps. And I'm not even sure that description would stick: even that seems too specific to be defensible.

Beyond that, there's not much to say for "Capitalism."

Did you ever read William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience?

Indeed so.

[promethean75]

"That is a stupid ad hominem . I hope you understand why it is ad hominem."

Calm your horses and stay your calvary guard, madam. Shirley you must know that in order to commit the ad hominem, an argument must be presented against someone else's argument in which the conclusion of their argument is claimed to be false not on the merits of the argument itself but because the arguer a) doesn't have a degree and is therefore not an authority, b) is balding and overweight, c) is a republican, d) is just an asshole, e) is a godless communist bastard or f) is a platonist.

The ad hom works both ways you'll note. Both in giving and taking away an argument's credit based on some circumstances not pertaining to the argument but to the nature of the arguer.

In fact, my post contained nothing but questions. There couldn't be any ad hom there I'm afraid.

I beseech you. Do you wish to contest this matter, madam?

[Immanuel Can]

Shirley you must know...

I thought her name was "Belinda"...who's "Shirley"?

[promethean75]

Shirley you can't be serious.

[Immanuel Can]

Shirley you can't be serious.

Airplane.

[promethean75]

My god i have no words. All you had to do was say "i am serious, and don't call me Shirley" and you blew even that, IC.

Of course we know what movie it is. You're supposed to say the damn line... not name the movie!

[Immanuel Can]

My god i have no words. All you had to do was say "i am serious, and don't call me Shirley" and you blew even that, IC.

Of course we know what movie it is. You're supposed to say the damn line... not name the movie!

Just checking to see if we were on the same page, actually.

[Belinda]

If you check, you'll find that "Capitalism" was a word and concept entirely invented about the time of Marx...not, so far as we can tell, by Marx himself, but quickly adopted by him. Before that, people just called it "trade," or "commerce," or "buying stuff" or "having a market."

So no, they had no opinion of "Capitalism" at all, since it didn't exist.

It's interesting to contrast this with Marxism. Marxism has a founder we can identify (Marx), a source for his ideas (Hegelian dialectics), a manifesto (The Communist Manifesto, and also Das Kapital), an anthropology (man as self-actualizing through praxis), a fake history (including not only "capitalism" but a cartoony view of history as only about "class struggle"), a teleology (the triumph of the proletariat), a political program (Socialism), an economics (theory of surplus value), a whole set of ethics and demands (such as equalization and state ownership), a Satan (the bourgeoisie)...it's a total worldview, a package that's supposed to framework the entirety of live and explain its particular meaning. It has its own orthodoxy. It's an indoctrination, pure and simple.

And it's one that history between the 19th and 21st Centuries has demonstrated was actually quite wrongheaded, of course, as we can all see. Even Neo-Marxists have had to dump old Marx, because he was just so off-base. Nothing of what he said was coming about, and he had his anthropology, economics, and the whole dynamics of history wrong.

But "Capitalism"? It never existed before Marx's day, and hasn't existed since. It has no manifesto, no originator, no anthropological theory, no particular historical narrative, no ethics, no teleology, no particular political program, no demands...in other words words, it's nothing like a counterpart of Marxism, and isn't really a belief at all. The most you could say is that it's a collective term coined by a certain kind of Left-leaning brain, one that attempts to catch together in a collective noun a loose set of pragmatic decisions, made by different people with different values and objectives, the only commonality being the generating of some profit from labour, perhaps. And I'm not even sure that description would stick: even that seems too specific to be defensible.

Beyond that, there's not much to say for "Capitalism."

Did you ever read William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience?

Indeed so.

Then you will have read the poem "London". Modern capitalism is a direct result of rapid and uncontrolled industrialisation.
You must have been emotionally affected by this deeply pessimistic poem?

[Immanuel Can]

Did you ever read William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience?

Indeed so.

Then you will have read the poem "London". Modern capitalism is a direct result of rapid and uncontrolled industrialisation.

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. It's not an ideology. All the features of a dogma, such as a manifesto, a founder, an ethics, a teleology...all the things that Marxism has, "capital" does not. Marx was simply dead wrong. There are, of course, such things as markets, or economics, or factories, or the Industrial Revolution. And yes, the "dark, Satanic mills" which the Swedenborgian Blake opined, also existed. But there never was, and most likely never will be, some ideology called "Capitalism." That's just a bogeyman invented by Marx.

Marx was a stupid man. And his legacy has been nothing but failure, economic disaster and murder. Don't admire Marx. And don't believe his codswallop about some sinister belief system called "Capitalism."

You must have been emotionally affected by this deeply pessimistic poem?

Well, Blake didn't like the Industrial Revolution: and rightly so. It was a nasty period of time. It's actually a phase of human development through which places like both China and India continue to go right now. On the flip side, it's also responsible for all the technological advancements that make your life pleasant, including the computer you're typing on. So you'll have to estimate whether or not you think it's worth it. I would argue that nothing excuses the poorhouses and orphanages, the rivers of sewage in the streets, the plagues, the pollution, and all the injustice the IR created. But we are where we are. Marxism decidedly did not produce better, but much, much worse.

[Belinda]

Indeed so.

Then you will have read the poem "London". Modern capitalism is a direct result of rapid and uncontrolled industrialisation.

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. It's not an ideology. All the features of a dogma, such as a manifesto, a founder, an ethics, a teleology...all the things that Marxism has, "capital" does not. Marx was simply dead wrong. There are, of course, such things as markets, or economics, or factories, or the Industrial Revolution. And yes, the "dark, Satanic mills" which the Swedenborgian Blake opined, also existed. But there never was, and most likely never will be, some ideology called "Capitalism." That's just a bogeyman invented by Marx.

Marx was a stupid man. And his legacy has been nothing but failure, economic disaster and murder. Don't admire Marx. And don't believe his codswallop about some sinister belief system called "Capitalism."

You must have been emotionally affected by this deeply pessimistic poem?

Well, Blake didn't like the Industrial Revolution: and rightly so. It was a nasty period of time. It's actually a phase of human development through which places like both China and India continue to go right now. On the flip side, it's also responsible for all the technological advancements that make your life pleasant, including the computer you're typing on. So you'll have to estimate whether or not you think it's worth it. I would argue that nothing excuses the poorhouses and orphanages, the rivers of sewage in the streets, the plagues, the pollution, and all the injustice the IR created. But we are where we are. Marxism decidedly did not produce better, but much, much worse.

Socialism is not communism. Please see the Labour government of Attlee 1945. The path to a just regime was combined with post war recovery. I really do not see how you can be a Xian and not realise Jesus was what we now call 'socialist'.

[Immanuel Can]

Then you will have read the poem "London". Modern capitalism is a direct result of rapid and uncontrolled industrialisation.

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. It's not an ideology. All the features of a dogma, such as a manifesto, a founder, an ethics, a teleology...all the things that Marxism has, "capital" does not. Marx was simply dead wrong. There are, of course, such things as markets, or economics, or factories, or the Industrial Revolution. And yes, the "dark, Satanic mills" which the Swedenborgian Blake opined, also existed. But there never was, and most likely never will be, some ideology called "Capitalism." That's just a bogeyman invented by Marx.

Marx was a stupid man. And his legacy has been nothing but failure, economic disaster and murder. Don't admire Marx. And don't believe his codswallop about some sinister belief system called "Capitalism."

You must have been emotionally affected by this deeply pessimistic poem?

Well, Blake didn't like the Industrial Revolution: and rightly so. It was a nasty period of time. It's actually a phase of human development through which places like both China and India continue to go right now. On the flip side, it's also responsible for all the technological advancements that make your life pleasant, including the computer you're typing on. So you'll have to estimate whether or not you think it's worth it. I would argue that nothing excuses the poorhouses and orphanages, the rivers of sewage in the streets, the plagues, the pollution, and all the injustice the IR created. But we are where we are. Marxism decidedly did not produce better, but much, much worse.

Socialism is not communism.

But Communism is Socialism. And Marxism is death.

Jesus was what we now call 'socialist'.

Not even a bit. Sorry. That boat won't float, if you know anything at all about Him.

[Belinda]

"Capitalism" doesn't exist. It's not an ideology. All the features of a dogma, such as a manifesto, a founder, an ethics, a teleology...all the things that Marxism has, "capital" does not. Marx was simply dead wrong. There are, of course, such things as markets, or economics, or factories, or the Industrial Revolution. And yes, the "dark, Satanic mills" which the Swedenborgian Blake opined, also existed. But there never was, and most likely never will be, some ideology called "Capitalism." That's just a bogeyman invented by Marx.

Marx was a stupid man. And his legacy has been nothing but failure, economic disaster and murder. Don't admire Marx. And don't believe his codswallop about some sinister belief system called "Capitalism."

Well, Blake didn't like the Industrial Revolution: and rightly so. It was a nasty period of time. It's actually a phase of human development through which places like both China and India continue to go right now. On the flip side, it's also responsible for all the technological advancements that make your life pleasant, including the computer you're typing on. So you'll have to estimate whether or not you think it's worth it. I would argue that nothing excuses the poorhouses and orphanages, the rivers of sewage in the streets, the plagues, the pollution, and all the injustice the IR created. But we are where we are. Marxism decidedly did not produce better, but much, much worse.

Socialism is not communism.

But Communism is Socialism. And Marxism is death.

Jesus was what we now call 'socialist'.

Not even a bit. Sorry. That boat won't float, if you know anything at all about Him.

Communism is indeed a species of socialism: socialism is a larger category than communism

But Jesus of Nazareth was on the side of the poor, the despised, and the rejected to such a perfect extent that he died rather than abandon his support for them, Welfare socialism is compatible with capitalism and communism only insofar as excesses of capitalism and communism ,such as slavery ,and such as tyranny, are made illegal.

The industrial revolution was hard for the labouring class. I'd choose to have lived in the New Jerusalem instead of enjoying benefits of Britain's slave owning past as I do. Your optimism , Immanuel, concerning enduring effects of the industrial revolution is typical of the Right Wing view of history. Your effort to make Jesus of Nazareth a spiritual progenitor of Right Wing capitalism is abominable. Here is where the sheep and the goats are divided----you can't serve God and Mammon(Matthew 6.24).

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism is not communism.

But Communism is Socialism. And Marxism is death.

Jesus was what we now call 'socialist'.

Not even a bit. Sorry. That boat won't float, if you know anything at all about Him.

Communism is indeed a species of socialism: socialism is a larger category than communism

But not any better. There isn't a single case of a Socialist state ever working, or of what Marx said coming true. It was hokey from the get-go. But worse than that: it gave birth to what has proved to be the most homicidal set of creeds in human history.

But Jesus of Nazareth was on the side of the poor, the despised, and the rejected...

Absolutely. And that's yet another way He was no Socialist: they sometimes talk that game, but they never deliver it.

But Jesus was totally apolitical. He did not teach revolution, or a dialectical view of conflict or history, or class struggle, or Materialism...and He taught divine justice, not "social justice." No wonder, then, that Marx identified "religion" (he knew only Judaism and Christianity) as the necessary subject of the first critique. He knew, if you didn't, that Socialism and Christianity are opposites. One teaches revolution in this world, and the other teaches moral obedience to the coming Kingdom of God. Marx couldn't live with that. So much the worse for Marx.

Your optimism , Immanuel, concerning enduring effects of the industrial revolution is typical of the Right Wing view of history.

On the contrary: that you are the beneficiary of the IR an obvious fact. It's far more obvious than any debt you think you retain to slavery. Look around you: everything within the world you're living is a product of the IR. What, within your range of view at this moment, was not produced by the division of labour, capital profits, or industrial machinery? You'll have a hard time finding anything.

But you're wrong to assume me an "optimist" about the IR. I think the truth is that we're increasing our power without increasing our wisdom. And that's eventually going to bring the human race to tragedy.