Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism does not begin with Marx. And it was a sarcasm, inclosure act is not socialism but the beginning of capitalism.
And it begins in 1604.

The idea of "capitalism" was actually invented out of nothing by a contemporary of Karl Marx. No such thing even existed in 1604, and no such thing has actually existed since, either, since there is no "ideology of capital," which is what it would mean. It was a Marxist invention, not a reality. Marx needed an enemy to hate, a yin to his Socialist yang, so he made one up.

I am talking about your thread, Corporation Socialism, what does that mean. What does it describe in reality ?

Corporation Socialism is the fusion of Socialist ideology with the goals and interests of Big Business and Big Media. I just wondered if any Socialists here were self-aware enough to know their "revolution" has been sold to the Amazons, WEF's and Blackrocks of the world. It seems they're not.

It's confusing. I thought socialism was for you a formal description of state ownership. It is now an ideology linked to the interests of private companies.

If you read Marx, you'll become unconfused about that. Marx's minimal definition for Socialism was that the State must own and control all the means of production. But he didn't stop there. He really created a perverse kind of pseudoreligion based on that strategy.

At least Marx with his concepts described a real, observable thing.

Marx has proved to be wrong about practically everything he said, actually. Even today's Neo-Marxists are reluctant to back him, and refer to him as "crude Marxism," and to themselves as the more "sophisticated" Marxism. He's really just an embarassment...and the guy whose ideas have unquestionably killed more people than anything else in history, by orders of magnitude.

What's yours with Corporation Socialism ?

I was pointing that out, actually. It's not hard to find examples today of big corporations like Amazon or Blackrock, or the uber-wealthy like the WEF or Soros backing Socialism for the masses. For example, on my desk here, I have a copy of the WEF manifesto: and it's totally on board with global Socialism. Read it, if you doubt.

And a really, really good question is, "What do these big business types realize about Socialism that the average Joe doesn't understand?" Because these guys are not famous for not realizing what's in their own best interests. Somehow, they've found that Socialism serves their turn. The question we all need to be asking ourselves is, "What do they know, that we, or ordinary Socialists from the former 'working classes' have yet to figure out?"

[Dr Faustus]

The idea of "capitalism" was actually invented out of nothing by a contemporary of Karl Marx. No such thing even existed in 1604, and no such thing has actually existed since, either, since there is no "ideology of capital," which is what it would mean. It was a Marxist invention, not a reality. Marx needed an enemy to hate, a yin to his Socialist yang, so he made one up.


Corporation Socialism is the fusion of Socialist ideology with the goals and interests of Big Business and Big Media. I just wondered if any Socialists here were self-aware enough to know their "revolution" has been sold to the Amazons, WEF's and Blackrocks of the world. It seems they're not.

It's confusing. I thought socialism was for you a formal description of state ownership. It is now an ideology linked to the interests of private companies.

If you read Marx, you'll become unconfused about that. Marx's minimal definition for Socialism was that the State must own and control all the means of production. But he didn't stop there. He really created a perverse kind of pseudoreligion based on that strategy.

At least Marx with his concepts described a real, observable thing.

Marx has proved to be wrong about practically everything he said, actually. Even today's Neo-Marxists are reluctant to back him, and refer to him as "crude Marxism," and to themselves as the more "sophisticated" Marxism. He's really just an embarassment...and the guy whose ideas have unquestionably killed more people than anything else in history, by orders of magnitude.

What's yours with Corporation Socialism ?

I was pointing that out, actually. It's not hard to find examples today of big corporations like Amazon or Blackrock, or the uber-wealthy like the WEF or Soros backing Socialism for the masses. For example, on my desk here, I have a copy of the WEF manifesto: and it's totally on board with global Socialism. Read it, if you doubt.

And a really, really good question is, "What do these big business types realize about Socialism that the average Joe doesn't understand?" Because these guys are not famous for not realizing what's in their own best interests. Somehow, they've found that Socialism serves their turn. The question we all need to be asking ourselves is, "What do they know, that we, or ordinary Socialists from the former 'working classes' have yet to figure out?"

There is not a clear definition of socialism in Marx's books. If you find one please give it to me.

So for you, WEF and Soros, is socialist ideology ? I confirm, that's really confusing.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/12 ... apitalism/

[Immanuel Can]

It's confusing. I thought socialism was for you a formal description of state ownership. It is now an ideology linked to the interests of private companies.

If you read Marx, you'll become unconfused about that. Marx's minimal definition for Socialism was that the State must own and control all the means of production. But he didn't stop there. He really created a perverse kind of pseudoreligion based on that strategy.

At least Marx with his concepts described a real, observable thing.

Marx has proved to be wrong about practically everything he said, actually. Even today's Neo-Marxists are reluctant to back him, and refer to him as "crude Marxism," and to themselves as the more "sophisticated" Marxism. He's really just an embarassment...and the guy whose ideas have unquestionably killed more people than anything else in history, by orders of magnitude.

What's yours with Corporation Socialism ?

I was pointing that out, actually. It's not hard to find examples today of big corporations like Amazon or Blackrock, or the uber-wealthy like the WEF or Soros backing Socialism for the masses. For example, on my desk here, I have a copy of the WEF manifesto: and it's totally on board with global Socialism. Read it, if you doubt.

And a really, really good question is, "What do these big business types realize about Socialism that the average Joe doesn't understand?" Because these guys are not famous for not realizing what's in their own best interests. Somehow, they've found that Socialism serves their turn. The question we all need to be asking ourselves is, "What do they know, that we, or ordinary Socialists from the former 'working classes' have yet to figure out?"

There is not a clear definition of socialism in Marx's books. If you find one please give it to me.

I've quoted it twice, most recently in the above message.

So for you, WEF and Soros, is socialist ideology ? I confirm, that's really confusing.

They're not confused about it. They know exactly what they're doing. What they mean by "a better kind of capitalism" is using the gains of what they call "capitalism" to fund Socialism. That's all.

Don't expect these people to speak clearly. They don't want you to know what they really want to do. You wouldn't like it. They made a major blunder like that when they once announced, "You'll own nothing, and be happy." Yes, that's what they actually tried to sell...but not for very long. Nobody's stupid enough to believe that.

[Dr Faustus]

If you read Marx, you'll become unconfused about that. Marx's minimal definition for Socialism was that the State must own and control all the means of production. But he didn't stop there. He really created a perverse kind of pseudoreligion based on that strategy.
Marx has proved to be wrong about practically everything he said, actually. Even today's Neo-Marxists are reluctant to back him, and refer to him as "crude Marxism," and to themselves as the more "sophisticated" Marxism. He's really just an embarassment...and the guy whose ideas have unquestionably killed more people than anything else in history, by orders of magnitude.


I was pointing that out, actually. It's not hard to find examples today of big corporations like Amazon or Blackrock, or the uber-wealthy like the WEF or Soros backing Socialism for the masses. For example, on my desk here, I have a copy of the WEF manifesto: and it's totally on board with global Socialism. Read it, if you doubt.

And a really, really good question is, "What do these big business types realize about Socialism that the average Joe doesn't understand?" Because these guys are not famous for not realizing what's in their own best interests. Somehow, they've found that Socialism serves their turn. The question we all need to be asking ourselves is, "What do they know, that we, or ordinary Socialists from the former 'working classes' have yet to figure out?"

There is not a clear definition of socialism in Marx's books. If you find one please give it to me.

I've quoted it twice, most recently in the above message.

So for you, WEF and Soros, is socialist ideology ? I confirm, that's really confusing.

They're not confused about it. They know exactly what they're doing. What they mean by "a better kind of capitalism" is using the gains of what they call "capitalism" to fund Socialism. That's all.

Don't expect these people to speak clearly. They don't want you to know what they really want to do. You wouldn't like it. They made a major blunder like that when they once announced, "You'll own nothing, and be happy." Yes, that's what they actually tried to sell...but not for very long. Nobody's stupid enough to believe that.

Didn't find it.

So when they say capitalism, they say socialism. That's what i thought. All of this is the fruit of your imagination, directly pluged by the trash of best conspiracy websites.

we come close to the history of the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, but which does not say its name with Soros as a symbol.

[Age]

If you read Marx, you'll become unconfused about that. Marx's minimal definition for Socialism was that the State must own and control all the means of production. But he didn't stop there. He really created a perverse kind of pseudoreligion based on that strategy.
Marx has proved to be wrong about practically everything he said, actually. Even today's Neo-Marxists are reluctant to back him, and refer to him as "crude Marxism," and to themselves as the more "sophisticated" Marxism. He's really just an embarassment...and the guy whose ideas have unquestionably killed more people than anything else in history, by orders of magnitude.


I was pointing that out, actually. It's not hard to find examples today of big corporations like Amazon or Blackrock, or the uber-wealthy like the WEF or Soros backing Socialism for the masses. For example, on my desk here, I have a copy of the WEF manifesto: and it's totally on board with global Socialism. Read it, if you doubt.

And a really, really good question is, "What do these big business types realize about Socialism that the average Joe doesn't understand?" Because these guys are not famous for not realizing what's in their own best interests. Somehow, they've found that Socialism serves their turn. The question we all need to be asking ourselves is, "What do they know, that we, or ordinary Socialists from the former 'working classes' have yet to figure out?"

There is not a clear definition of socialism in Marx's books. If you find one please give it to me.

I've quoted it twice, most recently in the above message.

So for you, WEF and Soros, is socialist ideology ? I confirm, that's really confusing.

They're not confused about it. They know exactly what they're doing. What they mean by "a better kind of capitalism" is using the gains of what they call "capitalism" to fund Socialism. That's all.

Don't expect these people to speak clearly. They don't want you to know what they really want to do. You wouldn't like it. They made a major blunder like that when they once announced, "You'll own nothing, and be happy." Yes, that's what they actually tried to sell...but not for very long. Nobody's stupid enough to believe that.

"immanuel can" has been so indoctrinated by the 'consumerism society' that it actually believes that it can be and only is 'happy' when it, what it calls, 'owns some thing'.

[Immanuel Can]

There is not a clear definition of socialism in Marx's books. If you find one please give it to me.

I've quoted it twice, most recently in the above message.

So for you, WEF and Soros, is socialist ideology ? I confirm, that's really confusing.

They're not confused about it. They know exactly what they're doing. What they mean by "a better kind of capitalism" is using the gains of what they call "capitalism" to fund Socialism. That's all.

Don't expect these people to speak clearly. They don't want you to know what they really want to do. You wouldn't like it. They made a major blunder like that when they once announced, "You'll own nothing, and be happy." Yes, that's what they actually tried to sell...but not for very long. Nobody's stupid enough to believe that.

Didn't find it.

Then you really didn't try.

Here's Wiki:

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" (alternatively "You'll own nothing and be happy") is a phrase from 2018 predictions for 2030 published by the World Economic Forum (WEF),[1] cited as being based on input from members of the World Economic Forum Global Futures Councils, likely in turn based on a 2016 article in which Danish Social Democrat Ida Auken outlines her vision of the future.[2] The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property."

So when they say capitalism, they say socialism.

No, they call it "stakeholder capitalism" or "compassionate capitalism," by which all they mean is taking the surplus value out of enterprise and free markets, and redistributing it...which is Socialism in drag. But they have no plan for making more money...they just want yours. And they get it by putting you on dependency on them -- on the largesse of the State...Socialism again.

[Gary Childress]

I've quoted it twice, most recently in the above message.

They're not confused about it. They know exactly what they're doing. What they mean by "a better kind of capitalism" is using the gains of what they call "capitalism" to fund Socialism. That's all.

Don't expect these people to speak clearly. They don't want you to know what they really want to do. You wouldn't like it. They made a major blunder like that when they once announced, "You'll own nothing, and be happy." Yes, that's what they actually tried to sell...but not for very long. Nobody's stupid enough to believe that.

Didn't find it.

Then you really didn't try.

Here's Wiki:

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" (alternatively "You'll own nothing and be happy") is a phrase from 2018 predictions for 2030 published by the World Economic Forum (WEF),[1] cited as being based on input from members of the World Economic Forum Global Futures Councils, likely in turn based on a 2016 article in which Danish Social Democrat Ida Auken outlines her vision of the future.[2] The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property."

So when they say capitalism, they say socialism.

No, they call it "stakeholder capitalism" or "compassionate capitalism," by which all they mean is taking the surplus value out of enterprise and free markets, and redistributing it...which is Socialism in drag. But they have no plan for making more money...they just want yours. And they get it by putting you on dependency on them -- on the largesse of the State...Socialism again.

So as far as you are aware, is the only serious problem with the World Economic Forum that they have been discussing socialist policies such as wealth redistribution and government intervention in economic policy? Is that correct? If the forum simply was a club of the wealthiest Capitalists in the world who believed in Free Markets and meritocracy, would your views of the WEF change in any way. I take it right now you are critical of the WEF. Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Didn't find it.

Then you really didn't try.

Here's Wiki:

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" (alternatively "You'll own nothing and be happy") is a phrase from 2018 predictions for 2030 published by the World Economic Forum (WEF),[1] cited as being based on input from members of the World Economic Forum Global Futures Councils, likely in turn based on a 2016 article in which Danish Social Democrat Ida Auken outlines her vision of the future.[2] The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property."

So when they say capitalism, they say socialism.

No, they call it "stakeholder capitalism" or "compassionate capitalism," by which all they mean is taking the surplus value out of enterprise and free markets, and redistributing it...which is Socialism in drag. But they have no plan for making more money...they just want yours. And they get it by putting you on dependency on them -- on the largesse of the State...Socialism again.

So as far as you are aware, is the only serious problem with the World Economic Forum that they have been discussing socialist policies such as wealth redistribution and government intervention in economic policy? Is that correct?

"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

[Gary Childress]

Then you really didn't try.

Here's Wiki:

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" (alternatively "You'll own nothing and be happy") is a phrase from 2018 predictions for 2030 published by the World Economic Forum (WEF),[1] cited as being based on input from members of the World Economic Forum Global Futures Councils, likely in turn based on a 2016 article in which Danish Social Democrat Ida Auken outlines her vision of the future.[2] The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property."

No, they call it "stakeholder capitalism" or "compassionate capitalism," by which all they mean is taking the surplus value out of enterprise and free markets, and redistributing it...which is Socialism in drag. But they have no plan for making more money...they just want yours. And they get it by putting you on dependency on them -- on the largesse of the State...Socialism again.

So as far as you are aware, is the only serious problem with the World Economic Forum that they have been discussing socialist policies such as wealth redistribution and government intervention in economic policy? Is that correct?

"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

What do their manifestos say they want? Other than apparently that no one will own anything and everyone will be "happy"?

[Gary Childress]

Then you really didn't try.

Here's Wiki:

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" (alternatively "You'll own nothing and be happy") is a phrase from 2018 predictions for 2030 published by the World Economic Forum (WEF),[1] cited as being based on input from members of the World Economic Forum Global Futures Councils, likely in turn based on a 2016 article in which Danish Social Democrat Ida Auken outlines her vision of the future.[2] The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property."

No, they call it "stakeholder capitalism" or "compassionate capitalism," by which all they mean is taking the surplus value out of enterprise and free markets, and redistributing it...which is Socialism in drag. But they have no plan for making more money...they just want yours. And they get it by putting you on dependency on them -- on the largesse of the State...Socialism again.

So as far as you are aware, is the only serious problem with the World Economic Forum that they have been discussing socialist policies such as wealth redistribution and government intervention in economic policy? Is that correct?

"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

And, as I asked, would you be more approving of them if they only advocated for free market Capitalism?

[Immanuel Can]

So as far as you are aware, is the only serious problem with the World Economic Forum that they have been discussing socialist policies such as wealth redistribution and government intervention in economic policy? Is that correct?

"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

What do their manifestos say they want? Other than apparently that no one will own anything and everyone will be "happy"?

You want me to summarize all their nonsense? You can check it our yourself, if you're curious. There's too much of it to go over here.

Suffice it to say, they're in the back pocket of companies like Blackrock...the biggest of the big financial giants...and not in any way interested in the welfare of workers, whom they regard with complete disdain. They're elitists to the core, and you can see they are, if you just look at the guest list at places like Davos.

[Immanuel Can]

So as far as you are aware, is the only serious problem with the World Economic Forum that they have been discussing socialist policies such as wealth redistribution and government intervention in economic policy? Is that correct?

"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

And, as I asked, would you be more approving of them if they only advocated for free market Capitalism?

They don't, and they wouldn't. Their thing is control. "Free" is not anything in which they have any interest.

[Gary Childress]

"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

What do their manifestos say they want? Other than apparently that no one will own anything and everyone will be "happy"?

You want me to summarize all their nonsense? You can check it our yourself, if you're curious. There's too much of it to go over here.

Suffice it to say, they're in the back pocket of companies like Blackrock...the biggest of the big financial giants...and not in any way interested in the welfare of workers, whom they regard with complete disdain. They're elitists to the core, and you can see they are, if you just look at the guest list at places like Davos.

OK. I believe you. So would you also disapprove of them if they only advocated for free market capitalism?

[Gary Childress]

"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

And, as I asked, would you be more approving of them if they only advocated for free market Capitalism?

They don't, and they wouldn't. Their thing is control. "Free" is not anything in which they have any interest.

OK. Well, that's pretty much what every private business owner wants. They want to control their business and they want it to be profitable. So how does that make them different from any other wealthy business person?

[Immanuel Can]

And, as I asked, would you be more approving of them if they only advocated for free market Capitalism?

They don't, and they wouldn't. Their thing is control. "Free" is not anything in which they have any interest.

OK. Well, that's pretty much what every private business owner wants. They want to control their business and they want it to be profitable. So how does that make them different from any other wealthy business person?

Private business owners aren't out to control you. They're just running their businesses, and it's your choice to patronize their establishment or not. The Davos group wants you literally to own nothing, and them to own you. They want complete control of you...some of them, like Yuval Harari are actually transhumanists, and want to mess with you at the biological level, even. They're "social engineers," in their minds. And their ambitions are total reconstruction of what it means to be human. Read their stuff. You'll see.

Yep, they're nuts. No question. But global Socialism is the way they hope to do it.