Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Good luck in your endeavor to set everyone straight on this.

I 'm not trying that: I don't imagine I'll be able to cleanse the world of oblivious people, or dishonest people, or ideological Socialists. People have a right to be wrong, if they want to be.

But you and I should know.

Hmm. So, Chomsky has been wrong all this time about the evils of capitalism. And/or there's no viable alternative to capitalism. Is that correct?

Have you seen what I've pointed out about "capitalism," Gary? It's true, you know: the word wasn't even invented until about the time of Marx, and Marx was its popularizer. Before that, nobody talked as if "capital" could be some kind of ideology. They had free markets, of course, and other things like profit margins, businesses (small and large), industries and financial tools...but there was no nonsense about "capitalism."

Marx was projecting. Because he was a petulant ideologue himself, and because his project was designing an ideology -- really, a pseudo-religion -- he also designed an bogeyman, an opposing "religion" to convince people his way was better. And, of course, he attributed all the evils of the world to this other, dark pseudo-religion Marx himself had designed. And fools have followed him, never questioning whether or not Marx might have lied. But he did.

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." So there are MANY alternatives to "Capitalism," because there is no such thing. You can have freedom in the markets to one degree or another, social programs to one degree or another, governments of one size and configuration or another, transactions of one kind or another, industries and businesses of all kinds...Marx was a binary idiot. And his follies have impoverished the imagination of generations of people, so that they suppose that there are only two alternatives: lovely, lovely, gentle, humane Socialism, or nasty, nasty, evil "Capitalism." And it is chiefly the vituperation against the latter that has blinded people to the complete disasters produced by the former. Over and over, they've repeated the folly of trying to make Socialism work, so as to escape the bogeyman...and time after time, Socialism has crashed economies and piled up the corpses...and still, people can't seem to see beyond the Marxist deception.

This impoverished imagination that asks, "which should we choose," and thinks of only two options, IS the problem. It makes us imagine that anything different from Socialism is bound to be bad, or heartless, or selfish, or cruel, or inhumane...and that's just arrant nonsense. We have many options.

The whole thing is a problem constructed artificially by Marx -- who is probably the worst propagandist and most evil man to ever live, if we judge the tree by its fruits.

[Gary Childress]

I 'm not trying that: I don't imagine I'll be able to cleanse the world of oblivious people, or dishonest people, or ideological Socialists. People have a right to be wrong, if they want to be.

But you and I should know.

Hmm. So, Chomsky has been wrong all this time about the evils of capitalism. And/or there's no viable alternative to capitalism. Is that correct?

Have you seen what I've pointed out about "capitalism," Gary? It's true, you know: the word wasn't even invented until about the time of Marx, and Marx was its popularizer. Before that, nobody talked as if "capital" could be some kind of ideology. They had free markets, of course, and other things like profit margins, businesses (small and large), industries and financial tools...but there was no nonsense about "capitalism."

Marx was projecting. Because he was a petulant ideologue himself, and because his project was designing an ideology -- really, a pseudo-religion -- he also designed an bogeyman, an opposing "religion" to convince people his way was better. And, of course, he attributed all the evils of the world to this other, dark pseudo-religion Marx himself had designed. And fools have followed him, never questioning whether or not Marx might have lied. But he did.

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." So there are MANY alternatives to "Capitalism," because there is no such thing. You can have freedom in the markets to one degree or another, social programs to one degree or another, governments of one size and configuration or another, transactions of one kind or another, industries and businesses of all kinds...Marx was a binary idiot. And his follies have impoverished the imagination of generations of people, so that they suppose that there are only two alternatives: lovely, lovely, gentle, humane Socialism, or nasty, nasty, evil "Capitalism." And it is chiefly the vituperation against the latter that has blinded people to the complete disasters produced by the former. Over and over, they've repeated the folly of trying to make Socialism work, so as to escape the bogeyman...and time after time, Socialism has crashed economies and piled up the corpses...and still, people can't seem to see beyond the Marxist deception.

This impoverished imagination that asks, "which should we choose," and thinks of only two options, IS the problem. It makes us imagine that anything different from Socialism is bound to be bad, or heartless, or selfish, or cruel, or inhumane...and that's just arrant nonsense. We have many options.

The whole thing is a problem constructed artificially by Marx -- who is probably the worst propagandist and most evil man to ever live, if we judge the tree by its fruits.

OK. To be honest, that sounds like it might be a pretty fair assessment.

[Immanuel Can]

Hmm. So, Chomsky has been wrong all this time about the evils of capitalism. And/or there's no viable alternative to capitalism. Is that correct?

Have you seen what I've pointed out about "capitalism," Gary? It's true, you know: the word wasn't even invented until about the time of Marx, and Marx was its popularizer. Before that, nobody talked as if "capital" could be some kind of ideology. They had free markets, of course, and other things like profit margins, businesses (small and large), industries and financial tools...but there was no nonsense about "capitalism."

Marx was projecting. Because he was a petulant ideologue himself, and because his project was designing an ideology -- really, a pseudo-religion -- he also designed an bogeyman, an opposing "religion" to convince people his way was better. And, of course, he attributed all the evils of the world to this other, dark pseudo-religion Marx himself had designed. And fools have followed him, never questioning whether or not Marx might have lied. But he did.

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." So there are MANY alternatives to "Capitalism," because there is no such thing. You can have freedom in the markets to one degree or another, social programs to one degree or another, governments of one size and configuration or another, transactions of one kind or another, industries and businesses of all kinds...Marx was a binary idiot. And his follies have impoverished the imagination of generations of people, so that they suppose that there are only two alternatives: lovely, lovely, gentle, humane Socialism, or nasty, nasty, evil "Capitalism." And it is chiefly the vituperation against the latter that has blinded people to the complete disasters produced by the former. Over and over, they've repeated the folly of trying to make Socialism work, so as to escape the bogeyman...and time after time, Socialism has crashed economies and piled up the corpses...and still, people can't seem to see beyond the Marxist deception.

This impoverished imagination that asks, "which should we choose," and thinks of only two options, IS the problem. It makes us imagine that anything different from Socialism is bound to be bad, or heartless, or selfish, or cruel, or inhumane...and that's just arrant nonsense. We have many options.

The whole thing is a problem constructed artificially by Marx -- who is probably the worst propagandist and most evil man to ever live, if we judge the tree by its fruits.

OK. To be honest, that sounds like it might be a pretty fair assessment.

You can check it out for yourself, if you want, Gary. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes on that.

[Gary Childress]

Have you seen what I've pointed out about "capitalism," Gary? It's true, you know: the word wasn't even invented until about the time of Marx, and Marx was its popularizer. Before that, nobody talked as if "capital" could be some kind of ideology. They had free markets, of course, and other things like profit margins, businesses (small and large), industries and financial tools...but there was no nonsense about "capitalism."

Marx was projecting. Because he was a petulant ideologue himself, and because his project was designing an ideology -- really, a pseudo-religion -- he also designed an bogeyman, an opposing "religion" to convince people his way was better. And, of course, he attributed all the evils of the world to this other, dark pseudo-religion Marx himself had designed. And fools have followed him, never questioning whether or not Marx might have lied. But he did.

There's no such thing as "Capitalism." So there are MANY alternatives to "Capitalism," because there is no such thing. You can have freedom in the markets to one degree or another, social programs to one degree or another, governments of one size and configuration or another, transactions of one kind or another, industries and businesses of all kinds...Marx was a binary idiot. And his follies have impoverished the imagination of generations of people, so that they suppose that there are only two alternatives: lovely, lovely, gentle, humane Socialism, or nasty, nasty, evil "Capitalism." And it is chiefly the vituperation against the latter that has blinded people to the complete disasters produced by the former. Over and over, they've repeated the folly of trying to make Socialism work, so as to escape the bogeyman...and time after time, Socialism has crashed economies and piled up the corpses...and still, people can't seem to see beyond the Marxist deception.

This impoverished imagination that asks, "which should we choose," and thinks of only two options, IS the problem. It makes us imagine that anything different from Socialism is bound to be bad, or heartless, or selfish, or cruel, or inhumane...and that's just arrant nonsense. We have many options.

The whole thing is a problem constructed artificially by Marx -- who is probably the worst propagandist and most evil man to ever live, if we judge the tree by its fruits.

OK. To be honest, that sounds like it might be a pretty fair assessment.

You can check it out for yourself, if you want, Gary. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes on that.

I've read some and know some of the history surrounding Marx. Your interpretation seems like fair game. I've heard that Marx was a very angry and imposing man. Perhaps that got translated into his philosophy as a need to destroy the "bad guys". The problem seems to be that "the bad guys" can be any of us sometimes. And perhaps that is good reason to distrust "socialism". In the end we're all individuals and anyone claiming to represent "society" is perhaps mistaken or deluded.

[Immanuel Can]

I've read some and know some of the history surrounding Marx. Your interpretation seems like fair game. I've heard that Marx was a very angry and imposing man.

Super nasty. It's actually unbelievable.

The guy wrote hate poetry against the human race. He sponged off his family, then his admirers, and then abused both whenever they didn't pay his bills. He raped his housekeeper, then disowned his bastard son. He refused to wash, and so was covered with boils. His own children killed themselves in despair. He was a total racist, and abused his own son-in-law. If you made up a cartoon villain, you couldn't make a portrait as savage as the reality of Karl Marx, or it would never be believed.

Now, if his philosophy had been wise and good, and had brought humanity and decency into the world, we might even have a reason to dismiss all that as merely ad hominem: but the fruit off that rotten tree has been even worse than the man himself, being literally the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude. So it's hard to imagine he's also one of the most celebrated and worshipped characters in history...but of course, as we know, he is.

Perhaps that got translated into his philosophy as a need to destroy the "bad guys". The problem seems to be that "the bad guys" can be any of us sometimes.

He was such a simplistic thinker. Even today's Neo-Marxists have found it necessary to be very dismissive of his analysis and his prophesies, for almost nothing he predicted has turned out to be true at all.

And perhaps that is good reason to distrust "socialism". In the end we're all individuals and anyone claiming to represent "society" is perhaps mistaken or deluded.

Gary, you've hit the nail on the head. You're absolutely right. But you should maybe also add "possibly malevolent or manipulative," as well. One reasons for a leader or philosopher to claim to "speak for society" is simply to marshall the masses behind him, so as to use their power and authority for his own ends. Think Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. In retrospect, would we say they were trying to make the world a better place through adding social welfare measures to society? Or would we now say, with perfect hindsight, they were wicked opportunists who found sponsoring Socialism serviceable to their desires for power? Isn't the answer obvious?

So in a sense, Corporation Socialism is nothing new. It's the old game of sponsoring Socialism for the masses, in order to render them obedient and dependent on a central authority: only this time, the central authority is the fusion of avaricious Big Business interests, corrupt Big Government and unethical Big Media. So we shouldn't be surprised to see all three trying to convince us that, once again, our problems will all be taken care of for us, so long as we capitulate to their new offering of Socialism.

It's the way the game has always been played.

[promethean75]

That's because Karl was the second coming of Job. What happened was, the first time around, Job stayed true to god, satan lost the bet, and Job was rewarded with an afterlife for his suffering.

Once in heaven, Job became affected by a kind of ennui after being there a while. He had acclimatized to how wonderful it was in heaven, a perfect place where everyone walks laps around an air-conditioned shopping mall and nods happily, sincerely, at each other whenever passing. Where everyday spent is like a scene in a Jardiance commercial. Meanwhile back on erf, countless more millions are being put through hellacious suffering every day as they are tested... but for what? To end up here? This. This is what they get for not going insane from their absurd insufferable lives and either killing themselves or someone else. An air-conditioned two floor mall with a fantastic food pavilion where we talk about the glory of god over our chinese food and huge single slices of pizza.

Well, Job being unimpressed snuck out of heaven and was born again into the world as Karl... this time to rally against god and his conservatism. In the gospel of St. Balbaderos it is said that "you will know of Job's return by his afflictions, and he will defy god to seal the rift between worlds and create heaven on erf".

If you knew all this, Mannie, you wouldn't sound like such an ignorant communist hating sadistic god worshipping evil person. Wait until you get to heaven and experience what Job is talking about. It's not at all what you think it is. Certainly not something great enough to justify this horribly brutal and senseless world.

[Immanuel Can]

If you knew all this, Mannie, you wouldn't sound like such an ignorant communist hating sadistic god worshipping evil person.

Ignorant?

I've said nothing but the facts, and you can look them up. You can look them up in any biography of the old loon. The favourable ones will gloss over some of it in his favour of course -- such as saying, "Yes, his daughters killed themselves, but it totally coincidental that Karl wrote suicide poems," or "Yes, he had a sexual liason with his handicapped housekeeper, but boys will be boys," and "Yes, he disowned his bastard son, but that's what people did."

But what they don't do is deny what happened. They can't.

Inform yourself, if you care to know.

[promethean75]

Well, you see, by reading Marx and about Marx, i take possession of the idea and make it mine, i assimilate it and no longer pay attention to its originator except for sentimental references and giving credit to authors if I'm using quotes.

Unfortunately for you guys, those ideas Marx had are so great the guy could have been a mass murderer and that wouldn't detract from the impetus and veracity of the ideas there.

It's sux, but just when you wanna play the ad hom to diss a thinker, and maybe even rightly so if the guy was a slob, the ideas he had are so timeless and immortal that it doesn't even matter if you do. It's not even a dent.

One can be heard to mutter about Karl in some crude Cockney accent, "Bit of a wanker, that guy... have you read Das Kapital and the Manifesto though? Bloody brilliant historical hermeneutics it is, mate. Rightly on to something sharpish that bloke was."

[Immanuel Can]

...those ideas Marx had are so great...

Which of his ideas was "great"?

[Belinda]

...those ideas Marx had are so great...

Which of his ideas was "great"?

Immanuel, do you or do you not believe class struggle exists? Please provide evidence and argument if you will.

[Impenitent]

class "struggle"

envy is a beautiful thing

-Imp

[Will Bouwman]

That's like "I am a homicidal humanitarian." Sorry...just doesn't work.

What is your conception of a democracy that is not social?

Not "social." "Socialist." There's a world of difference. You need to start with the right terminology.

I don't accept your characterisation of socialism.

You were saying, "Democratic Socialism."

Well, having done a search, it turns out that I used that phrase once, and then specifically in reference to

...the democratic socialism of, for example, Clement Attlee.

So no, I wasn't saying "Democratic Socialism", precisely because I wouldn't mean what you understand by the term. On the one occasion I did use that phrase, it was illustrative of exactly what I mean. Whatever you may think of Clement Attlee, he was no Stalin, Hitler or Mao. Talking of whom:

Think Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. In retrospect, would we say they were trying to make the world a better place through adding social welfare measures to society? Or would we now say, with perfect hindsight, they were wicked opportunists who found sponsoring Socialism serviceable to their desires for power? Isn't the answer obvious?

Well, despite my philosophical reticence to call anything obvious, on this occasion I would say yes. Far from sponsoring socialism to service his desire for power, Attlee, not uniquely, really was "trying to make the world a better place through adding social welfare measures to society." There is nothing contradictory about having that objective and the aspiration to persuade the majority of an electorate that adding social welfare measures to society will, in fact, make the world a better place. Hey presto, democratic socialism.

[Gary Childress]

...those ideas Marx had are so great...

Which of his ideas was "great"?

Immanuel, do you or do you not believe class struggle exists? Please provide evidence and argument if you will.

This is a good question that Belinda asks. I'm interested in its answer.

[Immanuel Can]

...those ideas Marx had are so great...

Which of his ideas was "great"?

Immanuel, do you or do you not believe class struggle exists? Please provide evidence and argument if you will.

"Class struggle," which was supposed to be Marx's total explanation for history, has turned out to be a complete bust. Look at your own country: why did the "class struggles" (like the Luddites and Peterloo) last such a short time, with such small results? And how did the "working class" disappear into the middle class? Marx foresaw none of that. His simplistic good-class-bad-class thinking had no way of accounting for it.

Or look at Russia. Marx said any polity would have to pass through industrialization before revolution would happen...but Russia essentially went from feudalism and aristocracy to full-on Communism, and then started to industrialize afterward...so he was wrong about that country, too. Likewise China: from agrarian peasantry to more miserable agrarian peasantry, to totalitarian misery and industrial irrelevance, and then to Red Capitalism and sudden world relevance...Marx never imagined any such thing.

When it comes to his view of history, Marx had everything wrong. Class is not the key to anything. And now, the Neo-Marxists have hugely muted or even avoided "class" a category of analysis, and opted to stir up things like racism and other cultural issues to fill their place. This wild attempt to save Marxism from utter irrelevance is certainly also an abandonment of classical Marxist analysis.

[Immanuel Can]

What is your conception of a democracy that is not social?

Not "social." "Socialist." There's a world of difference. You need to start with the right terminology.

I don't accept your characterisation of socialism.

Well it's from Marx. So take issue with him. It was he who said it means "state ownership of the means of production."

Whatever you may think of Clement Attlee, he was no Stalin, Hitler or Mao.

Nor was he able to make Socialism the dominant form of governance in England, nor to take over all the means of production in the way Hitler, Stalin and Mao did. So we can say that, if he ever intended to do so, then he was an impotent Socialist. Otherwise, a democrat, not a Socialist.