Corporation Socialism

[iambiguous]

No, seriously...

click...dasein.

Pick one:

1] absolutely shameless in a free will world
2[ absolutely blameless in a wholly determined world

I'm working on henry to peruse the videos in the hopes he'll spot that crucial evidence, save his own soul and, because it's the Christian thing to do, attempt to save my soul as well.

[Immanuel Can]

No, seriously...

click...dasein.

Pick one:

click...dasein.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, if you are going to cite videos, it would be helpful if you could pick out the parts, either by quoting or giving time references, ideally both, that you believe support your argument.

I'm sorry...does your mother still chew your food for you?

I thought is was rather a compliment to assume you had the wherewithal to process your own view from the material.

Which I did. I came to a different conclusion to you and explained why, with references to the video. In case you missed it, here it is again:

From 6.48 Zitelmann explains how he perceives the difference between a free market economy, and a planned economy. He gives the example of the current German government legislating to outlaw the registration of combustion engined cars from 2035. His point being that in a free market, private companies decide what to produce, and whether they stand or fall depends on consumer choice. That the current German government has limited the economic viability for combustion engined cars in Germany post 2035 is what Zitelmann calls at 8.14 "The modern form of socialism" It is this "modern form of socialism" that Zitelmann attributes to the Nazis. The difference is that there are opportunities, between now and 2035, for the German electorate to democratically choose a government that will not impose the ban. This 'modern socialism' operates in a democratic framework and is a very different beast to the one you describe here:

But the words "Socialist" and "democrat" simply contradict each other. No such thing is even possible. To be a "democrat" one cannot seize all the means of production (which Socialism demands you do), and cannot allow rival political parties (which Socialism makes absolutely indispensible)...

You just throwing out a video and suggesting that by watching it I will

...arrive at the obvious conclusion.

is an appeal to authority - a sign of philosophical incompetence. Quite frankly, to describe anything as "obvious" betrays a total lack of any philosophical initiative.

But you see it as an insult or a defect of some kind, that I treat you as capable?

No, I see it as a sign of your academic incompetence that you don't know how to reference. If you want to pretend to have some real philosophical chops, at least learn the basics.

[Will Bouwman]

Wow.

The Socialists just did it again.

In a private collaboration with the highly corrupt Conservative party in England, they conspired to shut down a whole series of county elections, denying millions of people in Britain the chance to vote. This seems to be a product of fear of the popularity of Farage's Reform Party, which is targeted by the suspension of normal electoral procedures in ridings in which Reform is showing particularly well.

Did I not point out that Socialists CANNOT suffer there to be any rival party or different agenda on offer to the public? That sooner or later, they must subvert democracy itself? Where now is this vaunted "democratic Socialism"? Not very "democratic," is it?

Anyone interested in the actual story can read about it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgrg989j9jo

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you are going to cite videos, it would be helpful if you could pick out the parts, either by quoting or giving time references, ideally both, that you believe support your argument.

I'm sorry...does your mother still chew your food for you?

I thought is was rather a compliment to assume you had the wherewithal to process your own view from the material.

Which I did. I came to a different conclusion to you and explained why, with references to the video. In case you missed it, here it is again:

No, I didn't miss it. It's the sort of evasive stuff I was expecting to get in reply. I just thought it wasn't worthy of comment.

You just throwing out a video and suggesting that by watching it I will

...arrive at the obvious conclusion.

is an appeal to authority...

Not at all. I never invoked any "authority" from anybody at all. I just showed you an intelligent, well-informed expert speaking on a topic. It was a vote of confidence in your ability to hear facts and see reason.

And if it was excessive to suppose that, I suppose I can retract that supposition.

[Immanuel Can]

Wow.

The Socialists just did it again.

In a private collaboration with the highly corrupt Conservative party in England, they conspired to shut down a whole series of county elections, denying millions of people in Britain the chance to vote. This seems to be a product of fear of the popularity of Farage's Reform Party, which is targeted by the suspension of normal electoral procedures in ridings in which Reform is showing particularly well.

Did I not point out that Socialists CANNOT suffer there to be any rival party or different agenda on offer to the public? That sooner or later, they must subvert democracy itself? Where now is this vaunted "democratic Socialism"? Not very "democratic," is it?

Anyone interested in the actual story can read about it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgrg989j9jo

Did you just go to State-funded media to get "the actual story"?

Really? Let's see how good your critical thinking skills are: what exactly might be the problem with that?

I wonder what else we could find out: how about...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_hWVwS-BNA

[Will Bouwman]

I'm sorry...does your mother still chew your food for you?

I thought is was rather a compliment to assume you had the wherewithal to process your own view from the material.

Which I did. I came to a different conclusion to you and explained why, with references to the video. In case you missed it, here it is again:

No, I didn't miss it. It's the sort of evasive stuff I was expecting to get in reply. I just thought it wasn't worthy of comment.

Well, given that it confronts how you have interpreted the video with quotes from it, what are your grounds for calling my response evasive?

You just throwing out a video and suggesting that by watching it I will

...arrive at the obvious conclusion.

is an appeal to authority...

Not at all. I never invoked any "authority" from anybody at all.

Wait for it:

I just showed you an intelligent, well-informed expert speaking on a topic.

Pretty much a definitive appeal to authority.

It was a vote of confidence in your ability to hear facts and see reason.

Why then were you expecting "evasive stuff"?

And if it was excessive to suppose that, I suppose I can retract that supposition.

I can only assume you include that because it is the sort of thing you might care about.
Nothing you have written in your response has any philosophical merit. I have to disagree with mickthinks though; as one of the useless cranks tolerated by Philosophy Now, there is space for you here.

[Immanuel Can]

is an appeal to authority...

Not at all. I never invoked any "authority" from anybody at all.

Wait for it:

I just showed you an intelligent, well-informed expert speaking on a topic.

Pretty much a definitive appeal to authority.

Then you don't understand what an "appeal to authority fallacy" is.

It's only a fallacy if we say, "Believe him, because he's an authority." And I haven't said that, at all. Rather, I've pointed you to a genuine expert and asked you to evaluate the quality of his argument...not to accept him on the basis of authority.

Of course, if, as you claim to think, we are not allowed to refer to anybody intelligent, well-informed or expert on a topic, then there's no such thing as legitimate knowledge at all. You would have to be thinking that ignorant people know more than the informed, dilettantes know more than experts, and the stupid know more than the intelligent...which is as anti-educational a position as one could possibly take.

But I don't think you thought any of those things. I just think you wanted to evade the challenge of his erudite analysis, and to find a way to dismiss it wholesale. For that, an errant allegation of "appeal to authority" would be serviceable.

His argument is nuanced, two-sided, specific, informed, and well-stated, I think you'll find. So feel free to dismiss all his credentials, and just look entirely at what he says. It's what I wanted you to do in the first place, anyway.

It was a vote of confidence in your ability to hear facts and see reason.

Why then were you expecting "evasive stuff"?

Principle of charity. I do happen to think you're fairly intelligent. Some of your earlier writing seems to assure me so. But this makes it all the more evident when you're being evasive: because instead of engaging the argument, as I believe you are capable, you simply deflect to something like "appeal to authority" allegations.

I don't think you're unable to fathom the point, or assess the evidence. So the obvious conclusion is that you're simply fighting hard to avoid the necessary conclusion...that Fascism is nothing more than Communism's kissing cousin, another form of Socialism. And that the reason the two competed was more like fighting brothers than true enemies. Both were seeking to be the totalitarian system that would replace classical liberalism, democracy and free markets or "capitalism," as they called it. They hated each other because both wanted essentially the same thing. They just wanted to have it on different terms: one, on a basis that served a particular national mythology, and the other on a basis that served a totalitarian globalist ideology.

[Gary Childress]

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.

A political cartoonist for the Washington Post drew a cartoon of Jeff Bezos and several others sucking up to Trump. Publication seems to have been cancelled by the editors, perhaps because Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk et al. seem to be buddying up to Trump now and Trump seems to be welcoming them. They control a lot of media and power out there. Should we all be worried?

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/04/nx-s1-52 ... ingtonpost

[Immanuel Can]

They control a lot of media and power out there. Should we all be worried?

Of course. We should all have been worried long ago. We should have been very concerned when the Biden laptop scandal was suppressed, just before an election. We should now be very concerned about the lies perpetrated on us concerning the Fauci-ouchies, masking and lockdowns that tormented us so badly for so long. We should be alert when media-moguls congregate in Davos to plot the narrative they'll sell to the public...all of that.

We should have considered that the legacy media is controlled by financial self-interest, and that their finances are controlled by particular persons, each with his or her own ideological agenda.

But we all grew up rather naively trusting of the legacy media. So we find the impression of their "impartiality" hard to shake, and fearful to consider. And rightly so: it's a fearful thing. For any person to have singular control of the narrative the public believes is exceedingly dangerous.

[Gary Childress]

They control a lot of media and power out there. Should we all be worried?

Of course. We should all have been worried long ago. We should have been very concerned when the Biden laptop scandal was suppressed, just before an election. We should now be very concerned about the lies perpetrated on us concerning the Fauci-ouchies, masking and lockdowns that tormented us so badly for so long. We should be alert when media-moguls congregate in Davos to plot the narrative they'll sell to the public...all of that.

We should have considered that the legacy media is controlled by financial self-interest, and that their finances are controlled by particular persons, each with his or her own ideological agenda.

But we all grew up rather naively trusting of the legacy media. So we find the impression of their "impartiality" hard to shake, and fearful to consider. And rightly so: it's a fearful thing. For any person to have singular control of the narrative the public believes is exceedingly dangerous.

Well, it seems like many of us were worried about Trump. We expressed that often. Many of us knew the media was controlled by oligarchs. Many of us have been complaining about it and still do, have you missed our complaints?

[Alexis Jacobi]

“While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares?
Propaganda, all is phony”

It’s Alright Ma

Lyrics

[Immanuel Can]

They control a lot of media and power out there. Should we all be worried?

Of course. We should all have been worried long ago. We should have been very concerned when the Biden laptop scandal was suppressed, just before an election. We should now be very concerned about the lies perpetrated on us concerning the Fauci-ouchies, masking and lockdowns that tormented us so badly for so long. We should be alert when media-moguls congregate in Davos to plot the narrative they'll sell to the public...all of that.

We should have considered that the legacy media is controlled by financial self-interest, and that their finances are controlled by particular persons, each with his or her own ideological agenda.

But we all grew up rather naively trusting of the legacy media. So we find the impression of their "impartiality" hard to shake, and fearful to consider. And rightly so: it's a fearful thing. For any person to have singular control of the narrative the public believes is exceedingly dangerous.

Well, it seems like many of us were worried about Trump.

But trusting of Biden?

But who taught you Trump was Hitler? Who told you riots were "social justice"? Who glossed over the coronation of Kamala Harris, and told you Biden was never senile? Who told you the fires in LA were only because of climate change? Who told you about "Russia Collusion"? Who told you the laptop wasn't possible to verify? Where did you get all those ideas, except from the very media about which you've become suddenly worried?

The same media moguls who lied so lavishly about the Bidens, about COVID, about transism, and about Gaza owned those companies before Trump, and they own those companies now. In that sense, the arrival of Trump changed nothing. Control now is in exactly the same hands it was then.

It was always time to be concerned. It never isn't, when the media power is concentrated in a few hands.

[Gary Childress]

Of course. We should all have been worried long ago. We should have been very concerned when the Biden laptop scandal was suppressed, just before an election. We should now be very concerned about the lies perpetrated on us concerning the Fauci-ouchies, masking and lockdowns that tormented us so badly for so long. We should be alert when media-moguls congregate in Davos to plot the narrative they'll sell to the public...all of that.

We should have considered that the legacy media is controlled by financial self-interest, and that their finances are controlled by particular persons, each with his or her own ideological agenda.

But we all grew up rather naively trusting of the legacy media. So we find the impression of their "impartiality" hard to shake, and fearful to consider. And rightly so: it's a fearful thing. For any person to have singular control of the narrative the public believes is exceedingly dangerous.

Well, it seems like many of us were worried about Trump.

But trusting of Biden?

But who taught you Trump was Hitler? Who told you riots were "social justice"? Who glossed over the coronation of Kamala Harris, and told you Biden was never senile? Who told you the fires in LA were only because of climate change? Who told you about "Russia Collusion"? Who told you the laptop wasn't possible to verify? Where did you get all those ideas, except from the very media about which you've become suddenly worried?

The same media moguls who lied so lavishly about the Bidens, about COVID, about transism, and about Gaza owned those companies before Trump, and they own those companies now. In that sense, the arrival of Trump changed nothing. Control now is in exactly the same hands it was then.

It was always time to be concerned. It never isn't, when the media power is concentrated in a few hands.

Do you see why many of us preferred Harris over Trump as the lesser of two evils? Or does that not resonate yet?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it seems like many of us were worried about Trump.

But trusting of Biden?

But who taught you Trump was Hitler? Who told you riots were "social justice"? Who glossed over the coronation of Kamala Harris, and told you Biden was never senile? Who told you the fires in LA were only because of climate change? Who told you about "Russia Collusion"? Who told you the laptop wasn't possible to verify? Where did you get all those ideas, except from the very media about which you've become suddenly worried?

The same media moguls who lied so lavishly about the Bidens, about COVID, about transism, and about Gaza owned those companies before Trump, and they own those companies now. In that sense, the arrival of Trump changed nothing. Control now is in exactly the same hands it was then.

It was always time to be concerned. It never isn't, when the media power is concentrated in a few hands.

Do you see why many of us preferred Harris over Trump as the lesser of two evils? Or does that not resonate yet?

Harris? Seriously?

Even the Dems didn't want her, at first. She got no votes in the primary. She wasn't elected by anybody, but had to be nominated by a senile Biden, and later appointed to run without a primary, by a cabal. She couldn't do a coherent speech, and was a brainless Marxist. I don't know if you could not possibly find a worse candidate...maybe in Canada...but she was certainly bottom-of-the-barrel, even by her own party's actions.

She's actually a really good illustration of Corporation Socialism...a political appointee, with no democratic credentials, intended to merely serve as a puppet for the continued rule of the corporations.