Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Do you understand that it is a fact that the EU Commission is accountable to the democratically elected European Parliament?

Do you understand that that same commission obeys European interests, as Brussels may construe them to be, and thus has absolutely zero necessity of concern for Bob in Newcastle, who has no voice at all to the commission that is making all the decisions that affect him?

Whether you understand it or not, those are the facts.

[Will Bouwman]

Do you understand that it is a fact that the EU Commission is accountable to the democratically elected European Parliament?

Do you understand that that same commission obeys European interests, as Brussels may construe them to be, and thus has absolutely zero necessity of concern for Bob in Newcastle, who has no voice at all to the commission that is making all the decisions that affect him?

Ah, so you don't understand that the EU Commission is accountable to the democratically elected European Parliament.

[Belinda]

Immanuel C ,you never have named the word for your preferred alternative to democracy .

[Immanuel Can]

Do you understand that it is a fact that the EU Commission is accountable to the democratically elected European Parliament?

Do you understand that that same commission obeys European interests, as Brussels may construe them to be, and thus has absolutely zero necessity of concern for Bob in Newcastle, who has no voice at all to the commission that is making all the decisions that affect him?

Ah, so you don't understand that the EU Commission is accountable to the democratically elected European Parliament.

You're not paying attention. You're so focussed on "trolling" for what you perceive, I suppose, to be some kind of "win" that you're not paying attention to the facts.

I'm convinced you're smart enough to understand the point. That leaves me with but one possible conclusion: you're deliberately acting oblivious, in the hope of producing a reaction. But arguing with somebody who's just trolling is terribly boring. So I'm not going to bother.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel C ,you never have named the word for your preferred alternative to democracy .

I'm advocating democracy, B. It's Will that's plugging for an "alternative." So you'd maybe better ask him what kind of "democracy" can exist when Bob has no vote that can even potentially affect the people who are deciding what happens to him. Maybe he has a name for that. I would just call it "totalitarianism."

[Will Bouwman]

You're not paying attention. You're so focussed on "trolling" for what you perceive, I suppose, to be some kind of "win"...

That boat has sailed. Your assertion that the EU Commission is unaccountable is demonstrably not true.

I'm convinced you're smart enough to understand the point.

Just as I am certain you understand that the EU Commission is chosen by democratically elected Heads of State and is accountable to democratically elected Members of the European Parliament. I do wonder though, about your ability to understand that Bob's democratic power to vote for people he wished to represent his interests, was exactly the same as every other eligible voter in the EU.

[Immanuel Can]

You're not paying attention. You're so focussed on "trolling" for what you perceive, I suppose, to be some kind of "win"...

That boat has sailed. Your assertion that the EU Commission is unaccountable is demonstrably not true.

You're being very, very silly again. I never said "unaccountable." I said "undemocratic," which it demonstrably is.

Boring.

[promethean75]

Boooor-iiing. Christianity and socialism are for the weak and ayn rand, adam smith, and the capitalist ubermench are for the strong.

I believe history has spoken, gentlemen. Human's may be incapable of arranging their modes of production and distribution differently or of ever realizing any major changes in the traditional concepts and practices of property rights. It may just be a case of "it is what it is" in a hegelian sense, a 'most rational' way, given all circumstances, for an economy of social beings to work. I dunno.

You might say "but marxism has never been tried, so how do you know it wouldn't work?" and this is indeed a legitimate question. What I think is that by now, if a marxism hasn't developed in at least one major superpower and begun to spread internationally, it prolly ain't happening.

If a violent revolution broke out and spread across countries everywhere, i believe military forces would manage the riots, and no major change in government structure would occur as a result. That's to say no more October revolutions or castro Cubas. No antigovernment militia, mass of armed working class, or otherwise paramilitary group will ever achieve a genuine coup in the U.S. The army would just be called in to restablish order.

We must, therefore, abandon our aspirations for revolution, comrade marxists, and post-left anarchists alike, and instead set our ambitions to achieve only the Novatorean insurrectionary movement of the spirit. We no longer have faith that the overturning of one order would not lead simply to the establishing of another... we no longer believe we can be ourselves without the state, in one wretched form or another, setting against us restrictions we can not accept as truly free men. Nay, we no longer believe men are capable of being either tyrants or slaves, and so we concern ourselves no more with the bourgeois and plebian factory values of the imperial state!

[mickthinks]

I never said "unaccountable."

You didn’t use the word “unaccountable”. You just contradicted the claim that the unaccountability was a myth

It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants.

Actually, it's a simple fact.

Tell us some more lies, Manny!

[Immanuel Can]

I never said "unaccountable."

You didn’t use the word “unaccountable”.

Then I'm obviously not "accountable" for the use of that word. He should use the wording I chose. It was appropriately selected.

It's always interesting to me when somebody feels the need to substitute in things I did not say for things I did. It signals that they can't deal with what I actually DID say, and have to invent their own wordings so as to create a fault that wasn't there, so they can find something to complain about. And that means that what I actually DID say was beyond their powers to object to.

The EU is not democratic. Whether or not we should call it "unaccountable" or "malfeasant" as well is somebody' else's argument to have. Plausibly, both could be justified...but it's not the case I'm making here.

[mickthinks]

It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants.

Actually, it's a simple fact.

When you said “It’s a simple fact” what did you intend “it” to refer back to, if not to what Will said was a myth?

Go on, entertain the people by digging yourself deeper, dude—you know you want to!

[Immanuel Can]

It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants.

Actually, it's a simple fact.

When you said “It’s a simple fact” what did you intend “it” to refer back to, if not to what Will said was a myth?

He chose the words. They were his. My chosen word was "undemocratic." But his wording might well be right, and I suspect we'll find it is; so I have no objection to him using it. I just don't intend to defend it for him. That's his job, not mine.

Here's the exchange to which you allude:
Will: Who of the ideologues of the EU do you consider insane?
Me: The globalists. All the unelected bureaucrats who staff the whole thing...
Will: It is a myth that EU policy is decided by unaccountable malfeasants.

I said "unelected bureaucrats," which is exactly what they are. Will tried to change that to "unaccountable malfeasants." Why did he do so? You can ask him, I guess. But I think it was because while "unelected bureaucrats" is perfectly descriptive, accurate and undeniable, "unaccountable malfeasants" would allow him to accuse me of alleging a specific kind of misdeed, which he knew would be difficult for me to defend, were I foolish enough not to notice the switch and to take on his wording.

Whether that was an honest move on his part, or a disingenuous one, I'll leave you to decide.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We must, therefore, abandon our aspirations for revolution, comrade marxists, and post-left anarchists alike, and instead set our ambitions to achieve only the Novatorean insurrectionary movement of the spirit …

Getting a girlfriend might be opportune at this juncture?

[mickthinks]

Actually, it's a simple fact.

When you said “It’s a simple fact” what did you intend “it” to refer back to, if not to what Will said was a myth?

He chose the words. They were his.

You chose the words “It’s a simple fact”. They were yours. When you chose the word “it” what did you intend it to refer back to, if not to what Will had said was a myth?

[Immanuel Can]

When you said “It’s a simple fact” what did you intend “it” to refer back to, if not to what Will said was a myth?

He chose the words. They were his.

You chose the words “It’s a simple fact”.

Nice try.