Corporation Socialism

[iambiguous]

I need more substantive evidence.

Tell me exactly what you would accept.

Over and over again I've made it clear that a leap of faith or a wager or "the Bible is true because it's the word of God" simply ignores the fact that any number of these folks...

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

...have their very own liturgies for saving souls. Yours for example. And what could possibly be more important than that?

Then this part:

I can't even get you to note the evidence that, in fact, convinced you the Christian God resides in Heaven.

From the Craig videos.

Oh, and if Jesus Christ ever does return, how hard could it be for an omniscient/omnipotent Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to demonstrate that they are, in fact, the real deal?

[Dr Faustus]

Where did you find this definition in Marx's book? What is the book, page, chapter?

You'll find it frequently and thoughout both Marx and Engels.

Just Google "production" plus Marx/Engels quotations.

What kind of redistribution is there in their manifesto? It's not very clear.

Nothing the WEF says is clear. That's intentional. They don't want you to know what they're doing. Expect non-clarity. Expect to have to read carefully, and "between the lines." They're a pack of deceivers.

And you can tell, because they always say one thing, but do the opposite. Look at their mansions, jets, and bank accounts.

"Stakeholder capitalism" is ALREADY a sneaky form of redistribution. It "redistributes" the right to capital to people who have no actual entitlement to any of it. It's already a theft of private property, and the transferring of it to the general public. As Investopedia puts it:

"Stakeholder capitalism proposes that corporations should serve the interests of all their stakeholders, and not just shareholders. Stakeholders can include investors, owners, employees, vendors, customers, and the general public at large."

Didn't find any mention of socialism as a state property with Marx.
i found mention of State property with Engels, but not to designate socialism.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital.

Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Chapter 3

Stakeholder capitalism is just a way to speak about fair trade in a concentrated market. In a concentrated market, firms have a great market power, so fair trade can't be made by the law of competition. Actually, this vision is very liberal. More exactly, this is neoliberalism. They want to correct market imperfections to make a perfect market. This has nothing to do with socialism.
And of course, this doesn't work.
They don't make redistribution to the actors. There is no fair trade for farmers with Massey Ferguson, Monsanto and Wal Mart. All of this is bullshit. But the biggest bullshit is to think that this is socialism.

[Immanuel Can]

I need more substantive evidence.

Tell me exactly what you would accept.

Over and over again I've made it clear...

Just answer the question. Exactly what would you accept? Exactly. No generalizations. Specify it. What would, for you, count as incontrovertible evidence of the Christian God?

If you can't answer that question, don't expect any further discussion, because proving anything to you is, by evidence of your own failure to specify any standard, impossible.

Make it possible, and we'll see what can be done.

[Immanuel Can]

Where did you find this definition in Marx's book? What is the book, page, chapter?

You'll find it frequently and thoughout both Marx and Engels.

Just Google "production" plus Marx/Engels quotations.

What kind of redistribution is there in their manifesto? It's not very clear.

Nothing the WEF says is clear. That's intentional. They don't want you to know what they're doing. Expect non-clarity. Expect to have to read carefully, and "between the lines." They're a pack of deceivers.

And you can tell, because they always say one thing, but do the opposite. Look at their mansions, jets, and bank accounts.

"Stakeholder capitalism" is ALREADY a sneaky form of redistribution. It "redistributes" the right to capital to people who have no actual entitlement to any of it. It's already a theft of private property, and the transferring of it to the general public. As Investopedia puts it:

"Stakeholder capitalism proposes that corporations should serve the interests of all their stakeholders, and not just shareholders. Stakeholders can include investors, owners, employees, vendors, customers, and the general public at large."

Didn't find any mention of socialism as a state property with Marx.

Impossible. Clearly, you're not reading, or not trying. If you can't even use Google, I don't know what to tell you...and if you can't read, I can't read and understand what's being implied, I can't do it for you.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces.

That's because Socialism can't produce any value. It's not "productive." It's anti-productive. All it does is drain whatever advances have come from the free market. It's a parasite.

Socialism takes any value that exists, redistributes the value it has not produced, and drains it to the lowest common level, then drains the lowest common level down. It never adds value to the world. It just takes. This is because a) governments are inevitably inefficient and corrupt, and big, singular governments are the very worst at this, and b) people who can't see the surplus value of their labour cease to work. This is yet another thing Marx got wrong.

[Dr Faustus]

You'll find it frequently and thoughout both Marx and Engels.

Just Google "production" plus Marx/Engels quotations.

Nothing the WEF says is clear. That's intentional. They don't want you to know what they're doing. Expect non-clarity. Expect to have to read carefully, and "between the lines." They're a pack of deceivers.

And you can tell, because they always say one thing, but do the opposite. Look at their mansions, jets, and bank accounts.

"Stakeholder capitalism" is ALREADY a sneaky form of redistribution. It "redistributes" the right to capital to people who have no actual entitlement to any of it. It's already a theft of private property, and the transferring of it to the general public. As Investopedia puts it:

"Stakeholder capitalism proposes that corporations should serve the interests of all their stakeholders, and not just shareholders. Stakeholders can include investors, owners, employees, vendors, customers, and the general public at large."

Didn't find any mention of socialism as a state property with Marx.

Impossible. Clearly, you're not reading, or not trying. If you can't even use Google, I don't know what to tell you...and if you can't read, I can't read and understand what's being implied, I can't do it for you.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces.

That's because Socialism can't produce any value. It's not "productive." It's anti-productive. All it does is drain whatever advances have come from the free market. It's a parasite.

Socialism takes any value that exists, redistributes the value it has not produced, and drains it to the lowest common level, then drains the lowest common level down. It never adds value to the world. It just takes. This is because a) governments are inevitably inefficient and corrupt, and big, singular governments are the very worst at this, and b) people who can't see the surplus value of their labour cease to work. This is yet another thing Marx got wrong.

It's now clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You talk about Marx and Engels but you never read a word of them. It's the same with socialism. Read and cultivate yourself, if you do not wish to simply propagate the words of your puppeteers.

[Belinda]

Didn't find any mention of socialism as a state property with Marx.

Impossible. Clearly, you're not reading, or not trying. If you can't even use Google, I don't know what to tell you...and if you can't read, I can't read and understand what's being implied, I can't do it for you.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces.

That's because Socialism can't produce any value. It's not "productive." It's anti-productive. All it does is drain whatever advances have come from the free market. It's a parasite.

Socialism takes any value that exists, redistributes the value it has not produced, and drains it to the lowest common level, then drains the lowest common level down. It never adds value to the world. It just takes. This is because a) governments are inevitably inefficient and corrupt, and big, singular governments are the very worst at this, and b) people who can't see the surplus value of their labour cease to work. This is yet another thing Marx got wrong.

It's now clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You talk about Marx and Engels but you never read a word of them. It's the same with socialism. Read and cultivate yourself, if you do not wish to simply propagate the words of your puppeteers.

[Belinda]

Impossible. Clearly, you're not reading, or not trying. If you can't even use Google, I don't know what to tell you...and if you can't read, I can't read and understand what's being implied, I can't do it for you.

That's because Socialism can't produce any value. It's not "productive." It's anti-productive. All it does is drain whatever advances have come from the free market. It's a parasite.

Socialism takes any value that exists, redistributes the value it has not produced, and drains it to the lowest common level, then drains the lowest common level down. It never adds value to the world. It just takes. This is because a) governments are inevitably inefficient and corrupt, and big, singular governments are the very worst at this, and b) people who can't see the surplus value of their labour cease to work. This is yet another thing Marx got wrong.

It's now clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You talk about Marx and Engels but you never read a word of them. It's the same with socialism. Read and cultivate yourself, if you do not wish to simply propagate the words of your puppeteers.

Workers' cooperatives are to this day efficient profitable capitalist enterprises .
The Rochdale Principles include no state control, and voluntary membership. Cooperatives are therefore both capitalist and socialist.

[Immanuel Can]

Didn't find any mention of socialism as a state property with Marx.

Impossible. Clearly, you're not reading, or not trying. If you can't even use Google, I don't know what to tell you...and if you can't read, I can't read and understand what's being implied, I can't do it for you.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces.

That's because Socialism can't produce any value. It's not "productive." It's anti-productive. All it does is drain whatever advances have come from the free market. It's a parasite.

Socialism takes any value that exists, redistributes the value it has not produced, and drains it to the lowest common level, then drains the lowest common level down. It never adds value to the world. It just takes. This is because a) governments are inevitably inefficient and corrupt, and big, singular governments are the very worst at this, and b) people who can't see the surplus value of their labour cease to work. This is yet another thing Marx got wrong.

It's now clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You talk about Marx and Engels but you never read a word of them.

In point of fact, I have both The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital right here, on my desk. Want to discuss what they say? Go ahead. Make my day.

Somebody doesn't know what he's talking about...but it isn't me.

[Dr Faustus]

What is impressive about this era, probably more than before, is how quickly stupidity and ignorance can spread. The cultural industry, through lackeys or idiots, manages to produce completely erroneous messages, which would require the least evolved generation of men to look into the issue for 2 minutes to reveal their stupidity. But by the industrial volume it produces, these 2 minutes turn into 2 decades. Bullshit triumphs for the pleasure of idiots and lackeys who cheerfully serve their masters. Nonetheless, it's a paradoxical pleasure because the idiots and the puppets are often the first victims. There are psychological mechanisms there that I don't completely understand.

[Gary Childress]

I don't get it. We have "drill baby drill" Trump who is maybe going to destroy life on Earth with that policy as the "hero of the people" and the WEF, which has at least recognized what we're doing to our habitat and that we need to stop environmentally unsustainable practices--are the villains. I'm not saying that the WEF are remotely angels of any kind but I'm just not seeing how Trump is offering a better alternative to the current situation the world is in. In fact, as far as I can tell, Trump seems to be doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing to save our environment. That makes no sense to me.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't get it. We have "drill baby drill" Trump who is maybe going to destroy life on Earth with that policy as the "hero of the people" and the WEF, which has at least recognized what we're doing to our habitat and that we need to stop environmentally unsustainable practices--are the villains. I'm not saying that the WEF are remotely angels of any kind but I'm just not seeing how Trump is offering a better alternative to the current situation the world is in. In fact, as far as I can tell, Trump is doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing to save our environment. That makes no sense to me.

Well, it's not "WEF or Trump," Gary. And if you believe Trump is evil, his being evil won't make the WEF good. The WEF must stand or fall on the strength of what IT proposes, not on some derived glory from "not being Trump."

The WEF is a totalitarian cabal of the very people that Socialists, traditionally, are supposed to hate and revolt against...the "Captalist Bourgeoisie." These are not poor people and factory workers, you know...they're the owners of lear jets and mansions. And they're the kinds of people who sang like happy canaries when COVID broke out, and while you were suffering, called it "an unparalleled opportunity for a Great Reset" by way of their own social engineering program. Read it in their own material...don't trust me, on that. They're nasty, nasty boys and girls.

How do they save the environment by flying their personal jets to Davos, and staying in luxury hotels? How do they promote "fairness," or "justice" or "sharing" when they retain their own vast fortunes? These are hypocrites with a surreptitious totalitarian agenda, not humanitarians. And actually, it's not all that surreptitious, since they spell it out in their own promotional materials. They're just evil opportunists.

As Socialism-promoting elitists inevitably are.

[Gary Childress]

I don't get it. We have "drill baby drill" Trump who is maybe going to destroy life on Earth with that policy as the "hero of the people" and the WEF, which has at least recognized what we're doing to our habitat and that we need to stop environmentally unsustainable practices--are the villains. I'm not saying that the WEF are remotely angels of any kind but I'm just not seeing how Trump is offering a better alternative to the current situation the world is in. In fact, as far as I can tell, Trump is doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing to save our environment. That makes no sense to me.

Well, it's not "WEF or Trump," Gary. And if you believe Trump is evil, his being evil won't make the WEF good. The WEF must stand or fall on the strength of what IT proposes, not on some derived glory from "not being Trump."

The WEF is a totalitarian cabal of the very people that Socialists, traditionally, are supposed to hate and revolt against...the "Captalist Bourgeoisie." These are not poor people and factory workers, you know...they're the owners of lear jets and mansions. And they're the kinds of people who sang like happy canaries when COVID broke out, and while you were suffering, called it "an unparalleled opportunity for a Great Reset" by way of their own social engineering program. Read it in their own material...don't trust me, on that. They're nasty, nasty boys and girls.

How do they save the environment by flying their personal jets to Davos, and staying in luxury hotels? How do they promote "fairness," or "justice" or "sharing" when they retain their own vast fortunes? These are hypocrites with a surreptitious totalitarian agenda, not humanitarians. And actually, it's not all that surreptitious, since they spell it out in their own promotional materials. They're just evil opportunists.

As Socialism-promoting elitists inevitably are.

What about socialism promoting ordinary people, are they wrong or misguided? I mean those who aren't buying the WEF's rhetoric but still believe that socialism (democratic socialism) is the better path for humanity. Do you hold any such distinction or are all socialists misguided and perhaps evil?

[iambiguous]

Tell me exactly what you would accept.

Over and over again I've made it clear that a leap of faith or a wager or "the Bible is true because it's the word of God" simply ignores the fact that any number of these folks...

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

...have their very own liturgies for saving souls. Yours for example. And what could possibly be more important than that?

Then this part:

I can't even get you to note the evidence that, in fact, convinced you the Christian God resides in Heaven.

From the Craig videos.

Just answer the question. Exactly what would you accept? Exactly.

At least admit to yourself that any answer any of us gives here will be the wrong answer if it is not the answer you demand of everyone...that they agree to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or their soul will be damned for all of eternity.

So, naturally, for some who want to be born again, who want their soul to be saved, they will be interested -- considerably interested -- in someone who tells them that beyond leaps of faith and wagers and Scripture, there is actual scientific and historical evidence able to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God...the Christian God residing in Heaven.

No generalizations. Specify it. What would, for you, count as incontrovertible evidence of the Christian God?

I've answered this before as well. What would work for me specifically is waking up in the morning and learning that not one single child anywhere in the entire world was suffering. I mean, come on, who else but a God, the God could accomplish that?

Or how about out of the blue, all of these ghastly "acts of God"...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...became a thing of the past? That would grab my attention.

If you can't answer that question, don't expect any further discussion, because proving anything to you is, by evidence of your own failure to specify any standard, impossible.

I know what to expect from you, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

As Socialism-promoting elitists inevitably are.

What about socialism promoting ordinary people, are they wrong or misguided?

Yes. They might be wrong, they might be misguided...but they sure ain't right, because all Socialism has ever done is ruin economies and kill people.

I mean those who aren't buying the WEF's rhetoric but still believe that socialism (democratic socialism) is the better path for humanity...

Well, one thing for sure: they're not going by history. Socialism's failure rate is 100%. And they're not going by logic, because the amount of genuine democracy there is in any place is inversely proportional to the amount of Socialism: so the expression "democratic Socialism" is as nonsensical as "healthy disease." You can't have both at the same time.

How can economic collapse and piles of corpses be "better for humanity"?

[Immanuel Can]

At least admit to yourself that any answer any of us gives here will be the wrong answer if it is not the answer you demand of everyone...that they agree to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or their soul will be damned for all of eternity.

That was not my question. My question was about what evidence YOU would accept. So stop trying to skate, stop wasting time, and answer the question...if you can.

And if you can't, then don't be suprised if you aren't ever convinced. You've made it impossible, yourself.