It’s not about politics

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
It's more comical that you think the free market means governments can't be customers - it means they can't create regulations that limit the market. Cronyism would only be stopped by legislation that limits the market.
Can you really tell me with a straight face that America isn't absolutely infested with corruption at the very top of the corporate level? That lobbyists aren't running rife buying every politician in DC? OK, cool we have nothing more to discuss then, I can't help this level of delusion.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Can you really tell me with a straight face that America isn't absolutely infested with corruption at the very top of the corporate level? That lobbyists aren't running rife buying every politician in DC? OK, cool we have nothing more to discuss then, I can't help this level of delusion.

Why do you think corruption isn't part of the free market?

The free market is exactly that - free to do whatever makes the most money.

If you want a level playing field then you need regulation & legislation to ensure that - you wouldn't be leaving the market to its own devices.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
Imagine being so braindead that you think Google, Amazon and Walmart are ushering in anything remotely resembling “socialism.”
ALL of the people who run these globalist corporations support and fund left-wing (socialist/fascist) organizations and causes.
Bill Gates.
Jeff Bezos.
Mark Zuckerberg
These people are socialists (fascists).
YOU are clearly brainwashed.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
Globalism is capitalism in its purest form.

"Fascist project of globalization" is literally contradiction in terms. Now, I'm not a nazi apologist or a Hitler fanboy but the Nazis WERE trying to prevent what is currently happening. They saw where things were going.

No. Globalization is an inversion of the free market. It requires intergovernmental organizations and agents (consisting of corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs) and manipulation by those intergovernmental organizations and agents.

The equitable re-distribution of wealth that has occurred as a result of globalization (USA to China, for example) is a socialist (fascist) project only thinly disguised as capitalistic in nature. Indeed, globalization has helped those who have instituted it to gain capital for themselves. The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have become very wealthy, while the average person has been totally ripped off. The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have carried this scheme out intentionally to benefit themselves and achieve their interests.

As bhops said, the system is totally corrupt by design. There is nothing free or organic about the market today. It has been rigged for decades, of course, but there was still a veil of pretence and relative opportunity until recently. In the past year, the corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have dropped any pretence. They are openly talking about "the Great Reset" and "the new normal" as they insist that family-run businesses are unsafe but Wal-Mart is totally safe. They have hastened an artificial destruction of the previous market and instituted in its place a far more centralized market.

The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs who support this globalist and socialist (fascist) world order are laughing at all of us. They are, however, laughing most heartily at the socialists who are begging for all of this because it is you woke socialist types who are the enablers, the useful idiots, the acolytes of our demise.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
No. Globalization is an inversion of the free market. It requires intergovernmental organizations and agents (consisting of corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs) and manipulation by those intergovernmental organizations and agents.

The equitable re-distribution of wealth that has occurred as a result of globalization (USA to China, for example) is a socialist (fascist) project only thinly disguised as capitalistic in nature. Indeed, globalization has helped those who have instituted it to gain capital for themselves. The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have become very wealthy, while the average person has been totally ripped off. The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have carried this scheme out intentionally to benefit themselves and achieve their interests.

As bhops said, the system is totally corrupt by design. There is nothing free or organic about the market today. It has been rigged for decades, of course, but there was still a veil of pretence and relative opportunity until recently. In the past year, the corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have dropped any pretence. They are openly talking about "the Great Reset" and "the new normal" as they insist that family-run businesses are unsafe but Wal-Mart is totally safe. They have hastened an artificial destruction of the previous market and instituted in its place a far more centralized market.

The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs who support this globalist and socialist (fascist) world order are laughing at all of us. They are, however, laughing most heartily at the socialists who are begging for all of this because it is you woke socialist types who are the enablers, the useful idiots, the acolytes of our demise.

Derek, that's bollocks. The free market needs the free movement of capital & labour. And tech has made is easy to create a global marketplace.

It doesn't have any collective plan. There's no fate, providence, karma or kismet, just business men doing what they can to get rich & not caring about any consequence that doesn't dent profits & their own self-image.
 

Verso

Well-Known Member
ALL of the people who run these globalist corporations support and fund left-wing (socialist/fascist) organizations and causes.
Bill Gates.
Jeff Bezos.
Mark Zuckerberg
These people are socialists (fascists).
YOU are clearly brainwashed.
You don’t know what socialism is, you dumb f***ing retard.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
You don’t know what socialism is, you dumb f***ing retard.
All you have is empty name-calling because you have already lost.

When Parler is removed to avoid it competing with Twitter, that is consistent with socialism. Socialists despise competition and can never allow it.

When people with viewpoints that oppose the approved narrative are censored, that is consistent with socialism. Socialists despise freedom of expression because they despise competition, and they know that their ideas could never win in a free and open marketplace.

Socialism depends on fascism to exist and spread, and socialism must become full-blown fascism if it is to continue to exist, spread, and dominate.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
Derek, that's bollocks. The free market needs the free movement of capital & labour. And tech has made is easy to create a global marketplace.

It doesn't have any collective plan. There's no fate, providence, karma or kismet, just business men doing what they can to get rich & not caring about any consequence that doesn't dent profits & their own self-image.
You genuinely think that Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are merely symptomatic of the free market? Absolutely not. I know that socialists need this to be true to support their narrative, but it is just simply wrong.

Amazon receives billions in taxpayer money. Why? What is their function?

Twitter and Facebook are approved social media platforms while others must be destroyed. Why? What is their function?

We are actually witnessing the suppression of any attempt at free market activity. Parler tries to compete with Twitter and gets trashed and removed. A small-business owner tries to open up to compete with Wal-Mart and gets shut down and fined. It is happening right in front of our eyes.

I understand that socialists love monopolistic entities even as they claim not to, but proponents of the free market do not like monopolistic entities at all. Socialists love what is happening with Twitter, with the lockdowns, with the whole new economic order. Proponents of the free market absolutely do not.
 

Verso

Well-Known Member
All you have is empty name-calling because you have already lost.

When Parler is removed to avoid it competing with Twitter, that is consistent with socialism. Socialists despise competition and can never allow it.

When people with viewpoints that oppose the approved narrative are censored, that is consistent with socialism. Socialists despise freedom of expression because they despise competition, and they know that their ideas could never win in a free and open marketplace.

Socialism depends on fascism to exist and spread, and socialism must become full-blown fascism if it is to continue to exist, spread, and dominate.
I'm calling you a retard because you're saying retarded things. I know today must be hard for you with Trump delivering his farewell address and the entire QAnon grift being vaporized before your very eyes, but spare us from your relentless stupidity. If you think that the grotesque empires built by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos represent anything remotely resembling socialism, then I don't think you understand what socialism is.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
You genuinely think that Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are merely symptomatic of the free market? Absolutely not. I know that socialists need this to be true to support their narrative, but it is just simply wrong.

Amazon receives billions in taxpayer money. Why? What is their function?

Twitter and Facebook are approved social media platforms while others must be destroyed. Why? What is their function?

We are actually witnessing the suppression of any attempt at free market activity. Parler tries to compete with Twitter and gets trashed and removed. A small-business owner tries to open up to compete with Wal-Mart and gets shut down and fined. It is happening right in front of our eyes.

I understand that socialists love monopolistic entities even as they claim not to, but proponents of the free market do not like monopolistic entities at all. Socialists love what is happening with Twitter, with the lockdowns, with the whole new economic order. Proponents of the free market absolutely do not.

You're not a proponent of the free market. You want fair trade. You want the government to help small businesses by stopping monopolies from using their money & connections to destroy their rivals.
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
I'm calling you a retard because you're saying retarded things. I know today must be hard for you with Trump delivering his farewell address and the entire QAnon grift being vaporized before your very eyes, but spare us from your relentless stupidity. If you think that the grotesque empires built by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos represent anything remotely resembling socialism, then I don't think you understand what socialism is.
Aren't you counting your chickens before they've hatched, so to speak?
 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
You're not a proponent of the free market. You want fair trade. You want the government to help small businesses by stopping monopolies from using their money & connections to destroy their rivals.
A totally centralized market and a totally unregulated market would face the same problems. If you want actual freedom, and this applies both to a market and to society generally, you need to have laws and regulations in place to guarantee said freedom. This is why I am a liberal rather than a libertarian.

The bottom line is, Twitter would not be banning thousands of its users, including one of its biggest cash cows, President Donald J. Trump, if its main goal were to make a profit. You cannot possibly argue that sabotaging itself by reducing its customer base and tanking its stock is somehow a capitalist ploy. It is an ideologically and politically motivated strategy, not a profit-making strategy.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
A totally centralized market and a totally unregulated market would face the same problems. If you want actual freedom, and this applies both to a market and to society generally, you need to have laws and regulations in place to guarantee said freedom. This is why I am a liberal rather than a libertarian.

The bottom line is, Twitter would not be banning thousands of its users, including one of its biggest cash cows, President Donald J. Trump, if its main goal were to make a profit. You cannot possibly argue that sabotaging itself by reducing its customer base and tanking its stock is somehow a capitalist ploy. It is an ideologically and politically motivated strategy, not a profit-making strategy.

Twitter is purging problematic accounts to protect its reputation & to mitigate accusations of enabling violence that could lead to regulation.

Yes, it is motivated by profit.

They're a dying brand trying to save themselves before they're My Space.

I'm glad you're a liberal though.
 
Last edited:

ForgotHowIGotMyName

Well-Known Member
It's confusing alright, apparently Karen thinks the govt bailing out wall Street in 2008 is the 'free market.'

Karen also thinks when the Pentagon awards contracts to arms manufacturers when former board members of said manufacturers are part of the decision making process is the 'free market.'

No. Globalization is an inversion of the free market. It requires intergovernmental organizations and agents (consisting of corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs) and manipulation by those intergovernmental organizations and agents.

The equitable re-distribution of wealth that has occurred as a result of globalization (USA to China, for example) is a socialist (fascist) project only thinly disguised as capitalistic in nature. Indeed, globalization has helped those who have instituted it to gain capital for themselves. The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have become very wealthy, while the average person has been totally ripped off. The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have carried this scheme out intentionally to benefit themselves and achieve their interests.

As bhops said, the system is totally corrupt by design. There is nothing free or organic about the market today. It has been rigged for decades, of course, but there was still a veil of pretence and relative opportunity until recently. In the past year, the corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs have dropped any pretence. They are openly talking about "the Great Reset" and "the new normal" as they insist that family-run businesses are unsafe but Wal-Mart is totally safe. They have hastened an artificial destruction of the previous market and instituted in its place a far more centralized market.

The corrupt politicians and unelected oligarchs who support this globalist and socialist (fascist) world order are laughing at all of us. They are, however, laughing most heartily at the socialists who are begging for all of this because it is you woke socialist types who are the enablers, the useful idiots, the acolytes of our demise.

Ya know, I sort of feel like this is the right-wing equivalent of “real communism has never been tried”.
Whenever you talk to a communist about the failures of communism in the Soviet Union or wherever and you're like "Well what about the famines? What about the massacres? What about X? What about Y" and they will say without fail “Oh, well that wasn’t REAL communism. REAL communism has never been tried!”

It’s like yeah, maybe it wasn’t. But every systems is going to incentivize certain behaviors that will ultimate undermine the “real version of X”.

And you see the stuff with libertarians when you try to get them to understand capitalism's flaws. If you're like "Well, what about this? What about that?" and they're always like "Oh, well that's 'corporatism'." or "That's 'CRONY capitalism'. That's not REAL capitalism. I'm not for those things."
I mean, sure. Maybe that's not pure Austrian economics. But the fact is that if you have capitalism AND democracy, you're gonna get some shenanigans. Human nature will ensure that some amount of crony capitalism is inevitable and you can't just brush it off by saying "Well, that's not REAL capitalism".

Look, capitalism is a flawed system. That doesn't mean it isn't better than communism. Maybe it's the best system that anyone has thought of so far. I'm not here to argue that. But you have to be realistic that it is not a perfect system and it is part of the problem. It's not the whole problem but it's a lot of it.
A truly free market has no mechanisms within it to prevent the emergence of monopolies. You have to have a strong state to prevent monopolies but then your market is not truly "free".

And you're wrong about several things.
-Capitalism is inherently globalists. Borders restrict the free flow of capital and labor. A truly free market knows no national boundaries.
-Not only what is happening not "socialism", it's not "fascism" either. "Fascism' is probably the most misused and misunderstood words in all of politics.

For one, America does not have the social cohesion to do real fascism.


Secondly, in fascism business is subordinate to the state. We are in a situation where the state is subordinate to business. If the leader of the civilian government is being banned from the internet by for-profit institutions, that's a pretty good sign that what is happening is not fascism.


Yeah, I post a lot of Keith Woods content. I disagree with him on a lot of things but when it comes to making a right-wing critiques of capitalism or explaining fascism, he is superb.

A lot of people use "fascism" when they mean "authoritarianism". When the police are mean to people, they call it "fascism" but it's not like fascists invented that. A democracy can be
You know who is fascist? Modern day China. People talk about China being communist but they could more accurately be described as fascist. Like, they have billionaires in China. You don't have billionaires in communism. In China, they allow billionaires but the billionaires have to operate in such a way that is to the benefit of the collective. THAT is fascism.

I have some sympathy for you because I used to be a libertarian. Probably 70% of the Alt Right were ex-libertarians. I disagree with it but it's one advantage is that it does help people break out of the Left-Right, Democratic-Republican binary paradigm. But you can't understand what is going on through the lenses of 20th century concepts of socialism, capitalism, fascism, communism, individualism vs collectivism. What we are dealing with is none of those things. There are bits and pieces of all of those things but ultimately, it's an entirely different animal.
 

ForgotHowIGotMyName

Well-Known Member
I'm quoted in this article.

This is a fairly accurate and mostly fair article on the state of the Dissident Right and how we got here from the Alt Right of yore.

 

The_Beginning

Well-Known Member
Ya know, I sort of feel like this is the right-wing equivalent of “real communism has never been tried”.
Whenever you talk to a communist about the failures of communism in the Soviet Union or wherever and you're like "Well what about the famines? What about the massacres? What about X? What about Y" and they will say without fail “Oh, well that wasn’t REAL communism. REAL communism has never been tried!”

It’s like yeah, maybe it wasn’t. But every systems is going to incentivize certain behaviors that will ultimate undermine the “real version of X”.

And you see the stuff with libertarians when you try to get them to understand capitalism's flaws. If you're like "Well, what about this? What about that?" and they're always like "Oh, well that's 'corporatism'." or "That's 'CRONY capitalism'. That's not REAL capitalism. I'm not for those things."
I mean, sure. Maybe that's not pure Austrian economics. But the fact is that if you have capitalism AND democracy, you're gonna get some shenanigans. Human nature will ensure that some amount of crony capitalism is inevitable and you can't just brush it off by saying "Well, that's not REAL capitalism".

Look, capitalism is a flawed system. That doesn't mean it isn't better than communism. Maybe it's the best system that anyone has thought of so far. I'm not here to argue that. But you have to be realistic that it is not a perfect system and it is part of the problem. It's not the whole problem but it's a lot of it.
A truly free market has no mechanisms within it to prevent the emergence of monopolies. You have to have a strong state to prevent monopolies but then your market is not truly "free".

And you're wrong about several things.
-Capitalism is inherently globalists. Borders restrict the free flow of capital and labor. A truly free market knows no national boundaries.
-Not only what is happening not "socialism", it's not "fascism" either. "Fascism' is probably the most misused and misunderstood words in all of politics.

For one, America does not have the social cohesion to do real fascism.


Secondly, in fascism business is subordinate to the state. We are in a situation where the state is subordinate to business. If the leader of the civilian government is being banned from the internet by for-profit institutions, that's a pretty good sign that what is happening is not fascism.


Yeah, I post a lot of Keith Woods content. I disagree with him on a lot of things but when it comes to making a right-wing critiques of capitalism or explaining fascism, he is superb.

A lot of people use "fascism" when they mean "authoritarianism". When the police are mean to people, they call it "fascism" but it's not like fascists invented that. A democracy can be
You know who is fascist? Modern day China. People talk about China being communist but they could more accurately be described as fascist. Like, they have billionaires in China. You don't have billionaires in communism. In China, they allow billionaires but the billionaires have to operate in such a way that is to the benefit of the collective. THAT is fascism.

I have some sympathy for you because I used to be a libertarian. Probably 70% of the Alt Right were ex-libertarians. I disagree with it but it's one advantage is that it does help people break out of the Left-Right, Democratic-Republican binary paradigm. But you can't understand what is going on through the lenses of 20th century concepts of socialism, capitalism, fascism, communism, individualism vs collectivism. What we are dealing with is none of those things. There are bits and pieces of all of those things but ultimately, it's an entirely different animal.
I'll start by saying that I can agree with you on many things here. However, I have to point out right away that I said that I am a liberal and not a libertarian in literally my post right before this one, so I guess you missed that.

I totally agree that the idea of a perfect free market is utopian in the same general sense that the utopian ideal of communism can never come to be. I think zero laws and regulations (anarchy) would have the potential to be better than communism, but that isn't saying much. It would basically be dependent on a "benevolent dictator" type of situation, which I am not at all interested in entertaining. As far as I can tell, libertarian and socialist ideals would almost certainly lead to tyranny in every case and inevitably worse outcomes than liberal values and systems.

I agree that liberal values and systems are not perfect, and that is the point: they are realistic. They are predicated on the fact that there is no utopia and humans are imperfect. They are the best we have come up with so far, but they do not offer a "heaven on Earth" promise, which is why people take them for granted and seem to get the idea that they are dispensable. We should be building on them instead of trying to replace them just because they are not perfect.

Here is where we disagree. There is nothing inherent about capitalism that requires globalization. Different nations can interact economically without relinquishing their sovereignty. Liberalism allows for this. The problem is, we have been moving away from liberal values and systems. Instead, we have been involved in the process of global internationalization that is consistent with socialist (fascist) ideals.

We had capitalism for decades and centuries without the globalization that exists today. Globalization has only come about in the last few decades, and it has not been an organic process. Globalization has come about intentionally as a result of policy decisions (trade deals, for example) by intergovernmental organizations and politicians. Intergovernmental organizations and politicians make the rules, not companies. Governments set the stage for companies who decide to outsource, and, of course, the companies then choose the more profitable option that governments have presented to them. I am in favour of laws and regulations, but not laws and regulations that incentivize the practice of globalization. Globalization has been incentivized by our "leaders" for their benefit and to the detriment of the working class. Governments could easily incentivize domestic capitalism instead and change this quite readily.

It is "leaders" on the left especially who promote globalization. Anyone who opposes globalization is some crazy, out-of-touch, far-right isolationist. Well, I wonder why? Could it be that globalization helps to push forward the process of global internationalization and the new economic order that socialists/fascists want?

We can agree, however, that China has effectively become a fascist country. China is the prime example for why socialism inevitably becomes fascism. Communism is a utopian ideal that can never really come to be and takes far too much constant authoritarian manipulation to even attempt, and the people at the top could never accept not profiting at the expense of the people that they rule. You always end up with some advanced form of socialism—fascism—instead.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
Ok so this made me laugh, might as well laugh right?

Funny.jpg
 
Top Bottom