What can be done about mega-corporations that are too big to fail?

[Elegiac]

No, because the items are not equivalent.

They are, the only difference is that the violence that comes about as a result of corporate authoritarianism tends to be of a more passive sort. It's still ontologically bad.

It is still a 19th century analysis of a 21st century problem, which has no chance of being implemented and is distracting from the real discussion.

Why are deliberately trying to de-rail conversations about potential actual changes that might be good (or might not be) with ideas that have zero chance of being implemented (apart from being bad in themselves).

No one's "derailing" anything, the better question is why you feel the need to police the scope of discussion.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Bailing out banks is about as diametically opposed to communism as it is possible to even conceive. Where the hell did you learn basic economics theory?

First off I never said it was communism I said it's hedging fucking close, I also didn't say the bank bailout wasn't because of capitalisms when I specifically implied it did, or more crony capitalisms.

A business IN THEORY should never have to be propped up by government bail outs like ever, however the fact is if we hadn't I am convinced the bottom would have dropped out for the most vulnerable.

That isn't to say I am still not uncertain about it, also I'm not saying those facts alone lead to this bail out or that it was in itself what was close to communism, it was the entire situation.

The idea if you make lending easier for idiots both buyers and fly by night sellers to basically give homes away to people who both know they can never afford it, that very much is communism. If you don't have collateral or you do not have he means to afford one you don't get a house.

If we want to fix that then raise peoples wages, force the prices of homes to come down, DO NOT subsidize loans for people who in no way have established credibility in the first fucking place.

The problem was Government, Big Business and Stupid people all round once again.

Again, that's not about capitalism. The best system for advancing individual merit is socialism. Capitalism isn't concerned one whit with "individual merit", short of the capacity for those currently in power to exploit that merit for their gain, at the expense of the individual whose merit is being exploited. That's the capitalist system, dude. Again; where did you learn this stuff? This is really basic shit.

Like High School? Or maybe La Costra Nostra? Are those examples of what your talking about, OR how about the fact that millions of people who support Trump also believe JFK and his son are going to come back from the fucking dead?

See no I don't believe in socialism in and of itself or on the face of some philosophy that society is better served because WE all elect to do some shit for everyone. I understand the difference between socialism and communism, and I am not poo pooing either, simply on their face of what they are.

I am talking about literal interpretations as they are applied in REAL LIFE. What you are in essence doing is very similar to me in that you apply what is or isn't based on theory vs practice.

My point my main point as it relates to the topic of Too Big to Fail is that I do NOT trust systems in general or in theory that don't have independently verified checks and balances PERIOD. Regardless to them being Capitalist, Communist or Socialist.

False. Wrong. That's '50s-era anti-soviet propaganda horseshit. Whoever taught you that was lying out their ass to you.

Socialism is any and all forms of collective ownership of the means of production. State ownership is one model (but I'll point out that state capitalism fits your description just as well, among others), but it isn't a particularly prevalent one, ideologically speaking. It isn't even how major socialist states operate or did operate; not the USSR, not modern China, etc.

You really need to read primary sources rather than propaganda pamphlets.

Well I did not study this as a discipline and I am no scholar either. I have lived long enough to remember the Soviet Union and other states besides Capitalism, and what you describe while likely correct is not the way I have ever seen any of what you describe applied to anyone anywhere. There are and where always details over looked.

Bottom line a bunch of Randoms owning everything can and is just as bad unelected vast corporations or governments calling the shots for everyone. Not don't get me wrong I don't believe in any utopia where everything is perfect.

But by that most if not all forms of economic ideology is at best perfect inside a vacuum accounting for nothing else such as external factors. For example The USSR was Communist, but everywhere outside was basically not, Venezuela is Socialist but everywhere outside of Venezuela is NOT, The U.S and most of the West is Capitalist but many countries outside of those are NOT.

Which has an effect on each environment. Now in 2022 I don't think it's possible for any nation to exist purely to any one economic ideology, even taken into account a dictatorship.

Now you're just openly calling for authoritarian dictatorships.

In essence yes, because everybody can't simply do whatever the hell they want.

[Elegiac]

First off I never said it was communism I said it's hedging fucking close

That isn't to say I am still not uncertain about it, also I'm not saying those facts alone lead to this bail out or that it was in itself what was close to communism, it was the entire situation.

These are still incorrect as they're based entirely on you having absorbed 20th century economic propaganda rather than what words actually mean.

The idea if you make lending easier for idiots both buyers and fly by night sellers to basically give homes away to people who both know they can never afford it, that very much is communism.

If we want to fix that then raise peoples wages, force the prices of homes to come down, DO NOT subsidize loans for people who in no way have established credibility in the first fucking place.

No, it's not. "Capitalism" "socialism" and "communism" are terms having to do with the relationships between labor and capital - making credit more available for prospective home buyers doesn't functionally change those relationships and didn't make the system any less capitalist or "more communist". It's an entirely unrelated subject from credit availability so throwing around terms like communism is just you trying to substitute red scare bullshit for an actual argument. As evidenced by this drivel:

For example The USSR was Communist, but everywhere outside was basically not, Venezuela is Socialist but everywhere outside of Venezuela is NOT, The U.S and most of the West is Capitalist but many countries outside of those are NOT.

The USSR and Venezuela were and are manifestly authoritarian state capitalist entities, my dude. The degree of separation between them and crony capitalist entities like the United States is exceedingly narrow.

[Endus]

No, because the items are not equivalent.

It is still a 19th century analysis of a 21st century problem, which has no chance of being implemented and is distracting from the real discussion.

Why are deliberately trying to de-rail conversations about potential actual changes that might be good (or might not be) with ideas that have zero chance of being implemented (apart from being bad in themselves).

This isn't an argument, and you don't have a basis for it. You're just insisting we stop talking about something.

If we move past worker-ownership for a moment to other forms of collective ownership, there are tons of highly successful publicly-owned companies. They don't produce profits, or at least, aren't required to as a matter of function, because profit is primarily a concern for capitalists. Profit motives aren't all that.

First off I never said it was communism I said it's hedging fucking close, I also didn't say the bank bailout wasn't because of capitalisms when I specifically implied it did, or more crony capitalisms.

But it isn't; it's about as far from communism as it's possible to get. How do you not understand basic terminology?

The bank bailout propped up and protected capitalists and their exploitation of both consumers and employees. How is that remotely "communist"?

The idea if you make lending easier for idiots both buyers and fly by night sellers to basically give homes away to people who both know they can never afford it, that very much is communism.

It very much isn't. Where the hell are you getting this nonsense?

In a communist system, you wouldn't be taking a loan to get a house in the first place.

You're still just describing late stage capitalism, dude.

Like High School? Or maybe La Costra Nostra? Are those examples of what your talking about, OR how about the fact that millions of people who support Trump also believe JFK and his son are going to come back from the fucking dead?

This is indecipherable. Stop being cryptic.

See no I don't believe in socialism in and of itself or on the face of some philosophy that society is better served because WE all elect to do some shit for everyone. I understand the difference between socialism and communism, and I am not poo pooing either, simply on their face of what they are.

I am talking about literal interpretations as they are applied in REAL LIFE. What you are in essence doing is very similar to me in that you apply what is or isn't based on theory vs practice.

My point my main point as it relates to the topic of Too Big to Fail is that I do NOT trust systems in general or in theory that don't have independently verified checks and balances PERIOD. Regardless to them being Capitalist, Communist or Socialist.

You have consistently and openly misused all these terms, so I don't believe you do understand the differences, or even what these ideological positions are, fundamentally.

Well I did not study this as a discipline and I am no scholar either. I have lived long enough to remember the Soviet Union and other states besides Capitalism, and what you describe while likely correct is not the way I have ever seen any of what you describe applied to anyone anywhere. There are and where always details over looked.

Bottom line a bunch of Randoms owning everything can and is just as bad unelected vast corporations or governments calling the shots for everyone. Not don't get me wrong I don't believe in any utopia where everything is perfect.

See, this is a false dilemma. Those aren't the only options. Which you'd understand, if you spent any time at all learning about the stuff you insist on posting about.

But by that most if not all forms of economic ideology is at best perfect inside a vacuum accounting for nothing else such as external factors. For example The USSR was Communist, but everywhere outside was basically not, Venezuela is Socialist but everywhere outside of Venezuela is NOT, The U.S and most of the West is Capitalist but many countries outside of those are NOT.

Again, no political historian would agree with those claims. You're making shit up, dude, rather than making an informed argument.

Take the USSR for a moment, since it's a really obvious and historical example. It was a very specific flavour of authoritarian communism. Stalin in particular actively rejected Marx and his teachings, this is why individuals like Trotsky ended up having to flee the country. The authoritarianism in the USSR was always primary, not the communism. There were private corporations in the USSR, as long as the owners were friends of the State and operated under their permission. The members of the Party and other favored groups enjoyed benefits and wealth that the average Soviet citizen did not, with a pretty vicious class divide, which isn't an idea that emerges from communist principles. Any of the villainous things the Soviets did, when you look at the motivations, those motivations are inevitably about authoritarian power and control, not communist economics.

Trying to boil any nation down to its economic system and blaming everything on that economic system is silly as hell.

[Milchshake]

Would a Communist China really look like this?!?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Several reasons - as long it's not a monopoly for a necessary product people can just chose a different product, most large companies are share-holding companies so it isn't one person controlling them, and mostly they operate in democracies and are bound by laws.

Irrelevant. The companies running themselves with a tiny board of directors are the problem. And just because "laws exist" doesn't mean those laws are in the interest of the consumer. More and more we're seeing laws that once protected consumers torn down, and pro-corporate-greed laws taking their place.

And when looking at these companies it is unwise to narrowly focus on the employees, when they have a larger number of consumers impacted by the decisions (obviously there are consumer owned companies as well - and similarly as employee-owned ones they are mostly in supermarkets and some specialized fields).
In comparison employee-owned companies seems fairly undemocratic - think of it: a grocery chain with 100,000 consumers and 5,000 employees and you think it is best to have the 5,000 decide?

Here's a thought for you: What are employees? They are consumers as well. The people who walk into the store and buy things. The people who want good customer service. Who want their concerns to be heard. Who want to not be pushed aside and given the middle finger because a massive corporate entity doesn't care that their warranty is two days out of date.

Who are CEOs and boards of directors? Rich assholes who know nothing about consumers nor do they care. Other people do their shopping for them. They are pampered and taken care of by their servants. It's foolish, stupid, idiotic, and out of touch to think that an employee run company also wouldn't treat the consumers FAR BETTER than giant corporate entities, because the employees ARE THE CONSUMERS. The most boards of directors know about consumerism is how far they can push treating their consumers like crap before it finally affects their bottom line. That's it. They'll try to get away with as much as they can because they don't care about the consumer or the employee.

The mere fact that you've separated employees and consumers in your head just shows how absolutely out of touch you are, bending yourself into knots trying to defend corporate garbage.

But apart from that if you start with a proposal that is dead in the waters you will not get anywhere, so why not look at the real problems instead? Why are deliberately trying to de-rail conversations about potential actual changes that might be good (or might not be) with ideas that have zero chance of being implemented (apart from being bad in themselves)

The mere fact that you see these concepts of employee owned businesses as "impossible" is a tacit admission that you realize corporations have a stranglehold on our government, which has set a dangerous precedent. We could enforce such things through law. But when the companies are literally the ones running the country behind the scenes, no such thing will happen.

This is a forum to discuss hypotheticals and possibilities. No economist is going to wander into these forums and say "Oh man that Forogil guy has proposed a really good solution" (I mean, nobody would say that anyway). It is a place for discussion and debate. This isn't the board room, kid.

- - - Updated - - -

But it isn't; it's about as far from communism as it's possible to get. How do you not understand basic terminology?

The bank bailout propped up and protected capitalists and their exploitation of both consumers and employees. How is that remotely "communist"?

Because anything "bad" is communist and anything "good" is capitalist in their minds.

That's it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This isn't an argument, and you don't have a basis for it. You're just insisting we stop talking about something.

Again I was explaining what I meant about the bail outs and the whole fiasco being as close to communism in my opinion meaning more than I like. However Capitalisms caused it and something close to communism bailed us out just my opinion not a strict definition or me redefining what communism is.

If we move past worker-ownership for a moment to other forms of collective ownership, there are tons of highly successful publicly-owned companies. They don't produce profits, or at least, aren't required to as a matter of function, because profit is primarily a concern for capitalists. Profit motives aren't all that.

Ok not going to argue this because I have no idea what circumstances you mean, I believe you, but I have never seen or experienced this first hand.

But it isn't; it's about as far from communism as it's possible to get. How do you not understand basic terminology?

The bank bailout propped up and protected capitalists and their exploitation of both consumers and employees. How is that remotely "communist"?

It's now as far from communism as you can get?

Well I think bailing business out to save people from hellish economic realities seems to be closer to communism or at least socialism. I wouldn't call the entire situation strictly any one economic ideology.

It very much isn't. Where the hell are you getting this nonsense?

In a communist system, you wouldn't be taking a loan to get a house in the first place.

You're still just describing late stage capitalism, dude.

Right in the strictest sense but in the strictest sense it wouldn't be capitalisms either. Lowering the threshold for home loans without economic reason is also not Capitalisms.

This is indecipherable. Stop being cryptic.

It's not my point is human beings in groups and individually are fucking stupid. Not simply ignorant, but stupid, people in groups will forgo progress or he best for all for the immediate. It goes to why I said I do not trust randoms or groups like Unions especially or Co-ops because everyone's interest are particularly better served nor are the outcomes always better in the examples I gave.

The Mob in Italy rose to power as a response to corrupt landlords and aristocrats who some felt were unfair and otherwise abusive. As a result the Mob swelled and eventually became the very institution themselves they were designed to fight.

Highschools and Pop Culture are another example of people, generally swayed by the opinion of whatever is most widely accepted among a few.

Trump Supporters are groups of people lead by those who knew and know better who believe in stolen elections and necromancy of dead Presidents.

I am giving you flat out examples of social dynamics and situations along with prime examples of the kinds of ideas while NOT also explicitly communisms, the are examples of on top of actual examples like the USSR of Communism NOT working and ultimately fucking collapsing.

Irrespective of where we are with Capitalisms and it's role in that as well. The Point is even if your hard to think what communism is and how it should be specifically applied in this conversation.


I am not boogie manning Communism anymore than Socialism or Capitalisms, my entire initial post you responded to was about too big to fail.


1. I don't think it through prudent laws we have to day be a problem or ever become a situation where they are a monopoly over an industry much less the entire economy

2. I am not in favor of breaking them up or putting that power in the hands of people FUCK THAT!

You have consistently and openly misused all these terms, so I don't believe you do understand the differences, or even what these ideological positions are, fundamentally.

I have only spoke about those economic systems in context and not by their strictest purist definition which you seem to be on about.

See, this is a false dilemma. Those aren't the only options. Which you'd understand, if you spent any time at all learning about the stuff you insist on posting about.

Well no I get why you're taking me to task to a point because of the rampant stupidity of people and to maybe take my arguments along with others out of context and use them to parade stupidity or misapply definition.

I get it, which is why I have ZERO problem explaining or breaking down what I have said.


But again I am not an Academic, I stated my opinion and I do know what I am talking about in context of everything I have said.

As far as deep dive or nuance and debate, you might have a point, but I am not doing any of that

Again, no political historian would agree with those claims. You're making shit up, dude, rather than making an informed argument.

It's called having an experience from a life lived and giving an opinion on my view of it.

Take the USSR for a moment, since it's a really obvious and historical example. It was a very specific flavour of authoritarian communism. Stalin in particular actively rejected Marx and his teachings, this is why individuals like Trotsky ended up having to flee the country. The authoritarianism in the USSR was always primary, not the communism. There were private corporations in the USSR, as long as the owners were friends of the State and operated under their permission. The members of the Party and other favored groups enjoyed benefits and wealth that the average Soviet citizen did not, with a pretty vicious class divide, which isn't an idea that emerges from communist principles. Any of the villainous things the Soviets did, when you look at the motivations, those motivations are inevitably about authoritarian power and control, not communist economics.

Trying to boil any nation down to its economic system and blaming everything on that economic system is silly as hell.

Fair enough, I didn't know the first part of your paragraph, but I agree with the meat of what you are saying here.


The Problem is YOU are speaking to specifics, I am speaking in generals and on the Topic of Too Big to fail as it relates. You want to intraduct different thoughts of YOUR OWN I'd be interested to hear it.


SO Far based on what you have said, I'm 100% sure I wouldn't agree with you, I am not a fan of Capitalisms at all, IT IS and Has always been a failure, it's BETTER for ME and where SOME people sit prospectively.

However Socialism is only something I embrace as it relates soundly to the needs and protection and safety of the people, I do however totally reject Communism.


Communism at worst is crutch for evil and best is no better than Capitalism.


NO COUNTRY or INSTANCE has Communism been anything but misery and totalitarian rule of few over all.

- - - Updated - - -

These are still incorrect as they're based entirely on you having absorbed 20th century economic propaganda rather than what words actually mean.

It's not Communism isn't come dog whistle for me, Clearly my application is not a strict definition again, but Capitalism does not and probably shouldn't consist of fixing regulation with no foresight to make homes more available, and then bail banks out when unchecked greed all around causes misery for everyone including those that had nothing to do with it.

No, it's not. "Capitalism" "socialism" and "communism" are terms having to do with the relationships between labor and capital - making credit more available for prospective home buyers doesn't functionally change those relationships and didn't make the system any less capitalist or "more communist". It's an entirely unrelated subject from credit availability so throwing around terms like communism is just you trying to substitute red scare bullshit for an actual argument. As evidenced by this drivel:

I don't agree, making homes available to those who can't pay for them, for the greater good, seems the same as bailing out banks when it all goes wrong.

The USSR and Venezuela were and are manifestly authoritarian state capitalist entities, my dude. The degree of separation between them and crony capitalist entities like the United States is exceedingly narrow.

I'm willing to entertain that but the USSR was also pretty xenophobic, not exactly the isolationist as say China for example, but the corruption you are talking about is exactly why I am 100% again Communism.

- - - Updated - - -

Would a Communist China really look like this?!?

LOL maybe, not in a vacuum. North Korea props up all kinds of bullshit to appear other than the way things are. Also is this a Map of Hong Kong?

Because I am guessing that might look a big different than say Beijing.

[Muzjhath]

LOL maybe, not in a vacuum. North Korea props up all kinds of bullshit to appear other than the way things are. Also is this a Map of Hong Kong?

Because I am guessing that might look a big different than say Beijing.

First of all I believe that is Shanghai, second of all this is Beijing:

[minteK917]

Are we really doing the communist china meme lol.

Theres no communist countries, never have been, probably never will be. Because its an unachievable utopia dumb min/max hell scape that no human could handle running or living under. You cant plan all human ever more complex consumptions of goods. Hence central planning is never gona be a thing. China is a one party government, thats all it is, that party decides whats in its market.

All endus is speaking about is giving the majority of the work force, the stake in its labors. Nothing wrong with that and yes there's situations where this does not work. Guess what its why society doesent emulate theories to the letter. And its why ideas that only work in perfect society like the hand of the free market or the commune central committee planning do not actually exist or work.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I mean, all of us (educated people) know that communism and capitalism are ultimately just economic systems that both have their own benefits and flaws. When both are left unchecked, wealth and power gathers at the top and ultimately leads to terrible things.

Anyone who claims either system is inherently better than the other is just utterly incompetently clueless. A combination of the two, along with a tight grip on the reins by the people, are what are required. But people are ultimately largely disinterested in taking part in running and managing the society they live in, so as long as their life isn't absolute shit, they're content to do nothing.

The people who think modern America (or the west in general) isn't in deep trouble have their heads in the sand. As wealth and power accumulate towards the top, so too will the quality of life for everyone go down.

I do have to laugh at the cognitive dissonance between people thinking Democracy is an ideal system of government, but dictatorships are ideal for companies.

But then again, I don't believe there's as much cognitive dissonance as at first glance. After all, the right said they wanted our country to be run like a business, with the idea being to eliminate the debt. In reality, what they probably meant is that they wanted a lunatic right wing dictator. The conservative support of Democracy in the west is starting to show signs that all is not as it appears. It is a veneer over the right's inherent desire for a strong man emperor.

[Forogil]

If we move past worker-ownership for a moment to other forms of collective ownership, there are tons of highly successful publicly-owned companies.

Not really, and especially not with that a simple pay structure.

Employee-owned companies can also be problematic employers - the biggest one in the US have been found guilty of sex discrimination; but I guess as long 50%+ of the employees are in favor it doesn't matter...

However, it is still bad 19th century thinking applied to 21st century problems. Others have moved with the times and try to find pragmatic solution.

As an example McDonald's is (even in China nowadays) often a franchising company, so even if you see McDonald's everywhere people it doesn't say that they are owned by McDonald's and may instead be state-owned through CITIC.

[Shadowferal]

Employee-owned companies can also be problematic employers - the biggest one in the US have been found guilty of sex discrimination; but I guess as long 50%+ of the employees are in favor it doesn't matter...

Sex discrimination is a problem no matter the ownership.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Not really, and especially not with that a simple pay structure.

Employee-owned companies can also be problematic employers - the biggest one in the US have been found guilty of sex discrimination; but I guess as long 50%+ of the employees are in favor it doesn't matter...

However, it is still bad 19th century thinking applied to 21st century problems. Others have moved with the times and try to find pragmatic solution.

As an example McDonald's is (even in China nowadays) often a franchising company, so even if you see McDonald's everywhere people it doesn't say that they are owned by McDonald's and may instead be state-owned through CITIC.

Another inherently dishonest take.

"Well, employee run companies are ALSO problematic because LOOK AT THIS ONE COMPANY THAT DID A SHITTY THING!"

Nobody in this thread said they were perfect. But employee run companies would treat its employees (duh) and customers better, because they'd all be the same thing.

You think employee run businesses is 19th century. Tell me, what do you think the biggest difference between the 19th and 21st century is?

Communication. Media. The ability to mass distribute media and communicate over large distances instantly has created a system whereby things CAN be run by a very few people. Employee ownership wasn't a 19th century thing because of the times (You've yet to actually provide an argument for WHY employee ownership is 19th century solution, you just say that it is with no supporting evidence or even an argument, you just make a nebulous claim expecting people should accept it at face value). Employee ownership was a thing because every company in the world back then was owned by the person or people who made it. Management and ownership were right there, on the ground, interacting with their employees, BEING employees.

And again, you have yet to explain why a bunch of rich assholes a thousand miles away can run a company better than the actual people working at the company. I repeat, employees are also consumers. Executives have all their shopping and jobs done for them by agents, representatives, legal counsel, etc. They don't know about consumer culture. They don't care. They do what they want and collect their dividends.

If the best form of government is small government, because local governments know local problems better than a faceless mega government thousands of miles away, why does the same not apply to business? It's an either inherently dishonest position to take, or one that requires fuck tons of cognitive dissonance.

[Draco-Onis]

Sex discrimination is a problem no matter the ownership.

Untrue I mean look at Activision Blizzard /s

[Forogil]

Another inherently dishonest take.

"Well, employee run companies are ALSO problematic because LOOK AT THIS ONE COMPANY THAT DID A SHITTY THING!"

The biggest one.

The claim were that employee run companies would avoid doing bad stuff. Since they still do it, making the employees the owner has been shown to not be the magic bullet.

Is it the only one? Let's start at an alphabetic list of US employee-owned companies:
Acadian Ambulance - guilty of overbilling, etc.

You think employee run businesses is 19th century.

Nope, the entire analysis - including the concept of the link between companies and employees is based in the 19th century, and the world has changed. (Although it was likely wrong back then as well).

[gondrin]

Again I was explaining what I meant about the bail outs and the whole fiasco being as close to communism in my opinion meaning more than I like. However Capitalisms caused it and something close to communism bailed us out just my opinion not a strict definition or me redefining what communism is.



Ok not going to argue this because I have no idea what circumstances you mean, I believe you, but I have never seen or experienced this first hand.




It's now as far from communism as you can get?

Well I think bailing business out to save people from hellish economic realities seems to be closer to communism or at least socialism. I wouldn't call the entire situation strictly any one economic ideology.




Right in the strictest sense but in the strictest sense it wouldn't be capitalisms either. Lowering the threshold for home loans without economic reason is also not Capitalisms.




It's not my point is human beings in groups and individually are fucking stupid. Not simply ignorant, but stupid, people in groups will forgo progress or he best for all for the immediate. It goes to why I said I do not trust randoms or groups like Unions especially or Co-ops because everyone's interest are particularly better served nor are the outcomes always better in the examples I gave.

The Mob in Italy rose to power as a response to corrupt landlords and aristocrats who some felt were unfair and otherwise abusive. As a result the Mob swelled and eventually became the very institution themselves they were designed to fight.

Highschools and Pop Culture are another example of people, generally swayed by the opinion of whatever is most widely accepted among a few.

Trump Supporters are groups of people lead by those who knew and know better who believe in stolen elections and necromancy of dead Presidents.

I am giving you flat out examples of social dynamics and situations along with prime examples of the kinds of ideas while NOT also explicitly communisms, the are examples of on top of actual examples like the USSR of Communism NOT working and ultimately fucking collapsing.

Irrespective of where we are with Capitalisms and it's role in that as well. The Point is even if your hard to think what communism is and how it should be specifically applied in this conversation.


I am not boogie manning Communism anymore than Socialism or Capitalisms, my entire initial post you responded to was about too big to fail.


1. I don't think it through prudent laws we have to day be a problem or ever become a situation where they are a monopoly over an industry much less the entire economy

2. I am not in favor of breaking them up or putting that power in the hands of people FUCK THAT!






I have only spoke about those economic systems in context and not by their strictest purist definition which you seem to be on about.




Well no I get why you're taking me to task to a point because of the rampant stupidity of people and to maybe take my arguments along with others out of context and use them to parade stupidity or misapply definition.

I get it, which is why I have ZERO problem explaining or breaking down what I have said.


But again I am not an Academic, I stated my opinion and I do know what I am talking about in context of everything I have said.

As far as deep dive or nuance and debate, you might have a point, but I am not doing any of that





It's called having an experience from a life lived and giving an opinion on my view of it.



Fair enough, I didn't know the first part of your paragraph, but I agree with the meat of what you are saying here.


The Problem is YOU are speaking to specifics, I am speaking in generals and on the Topic of Too Big to fail as it relates. You want to intraduct different thoughts of YOUR OWN I'd be interested to hear it.


SO Far based on what you have said, I'm 100% sure I wouldn't agree with you, I am not a fan of Capitalisms at all, IT IS and Has always been a failure, it's BETTER for ME and where SOME people sit prospectively.

However Socialism is only something I embrace as it relates soundly to the needs and protection and safety of the people, I do however totally reject Communism.


Communism at worst is crutch for evil and best is no better than Capitalism.


NO COUNTRY or INSTANCE has Communism been anything but misery and totalitarian rule of few over all.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not Communism isn't come dog whistle for me, Clearly my application is not a strict definition again, but Capitalism does not and probably shouldn't consist of fixing regulation with no foresight to make homes more available, and then bail banks out when unchecked greed all around causes misery for everyone including those that had nothing to do with it.





I don't agree, making homes available to those who can't pay for them, for the greater good, seems the same as bailing out banks when it all goes wrong.





I'm willing to entertain that but the USSR was also pretty xenophobic, not exactly the isolationist as say China for example, but the corruption you are talking about is exactly why I am 100% again Communism.

- - - Updated - - -



LOL maybe, not in a vacuum. North Korea props up all kinds of bullshit to appear other than the way things are. Also is this a Map of Hong Kong?

Because I am guessing that might look a big different than say Beijing.

Thing is, we haven't seen anything resembling pure communism as it would be a leaderless society where you don't own anything but are provided with what you need, not necessarily want. Closest thing that has ever been shown is Star Trek(and it has leaders but it gets the rest) or the second half of the short story Manna(link to said story). We have seen close to pure capitalism back in the 1800s with the Industrial Revolution where labor laws, environment laws, and the like did not exist so industry could pretty much do what they wanted including having indebted servitude.

Problem is, since we have limited resources and humans are generally greedy selfish people, communism will never exist in any form other than authoritarian. To have anything resembling pure communism, you would need things like near unlimited energy and replication units where you can create anything you would ever need.

Granted, I could be wrong on some of this or all of this but this is how I've come to view it.

[Forogil]

Thing is, we haven't seen anything resembling pure communism as it would be a leaderless society where you don't own anything but are provided with what you need, not necessarily want.

Blame Marx, Engels other communists "thinkers" for that; as one of their many faults is that they failed to provide any sensible road-map.

They should have known that a revolution could led to the Reign of Terror; and just ploughed ahead without carefully ensuring that it didn't happen - more focused on ensuring that everyone was forced to work. Remember that Soviet Russia did fairly accurately follow their 10-step program. People can argue that the Russia wasn't ready for the revolution and the revolution was bound to happen in other countries instead - just any day now...

[Endus]

Not really, and especially not with that a simple pay structure.

Why are you arguing it's a "simple pay structure"? Nobody brought up salaries.

Employee-owned companies can also be problematic employers - the biggest one in the US have been found guilty of sex discrimination; but I guess as long 50%+ of the employees are in favor it doesn't matter...

This has fuck-all to do with the ownership framework. Nobody said worker-owned companies were perfect.

However, it is still bad 19th century thinking applied to 21st century problems. Others have moved with the times and try to find pragmatic solution.

If you're calling socialist approaches "19th Century thinking", then you're gonna have to admit that capitalist approaches are 18th Century thinking.

Or you're applying intentionally dishonest double standards.

- - - Updated - - -

Blame Marx, Engels other communists "thinkers" for that; as one of their many faults is that they failed to provide any sensible road-map.

You realize that the lack of said road-map is largely because of their open acknowledgement that capitalists will resist any such reforms, and thus any route towards socialism requires either violent revolution that involves the death of most of the capitalist class, or opportunistic piecemeal advancement in a democratic system, which inherently can't be "mapped" because nobody knows where any of the "roads" are because we're not literally psychic?

Adam Smith didn't have a road map for Capitalism, either.

They should have known that a revolution could led to the Reign of Terror; and just ploughed ahead without carefully ensuring that it didn't happen - more focused on ensuring that everyone was forced to work. Remember that Soviet Russia did fairly accurately follow their 10-step program. People can argue that the Russia wasn't ready for the revolution and the revolution was bound to happen in other countries instead - just any day now...

Tell me you've never read anything beyond a quick glance over Marx without telling my you've never read anything beyond a quick glance over Marx.

[Forogil]

Without that personal gain, it becomes a lot harder to self-justify unethical acts; a decision made to earn an additional $20m, split 20,000 ways, only works out to about $1000 each

Why are you arguing it's a "simple pay structure"? Nobody brought up salaries.

You did, unless you argue that "it's not pay, it's capital gains that is totally different" (tax authorities often see through that and other similar tricks - but such tricks is one reason 'employee' is more nebulous nowadays).

I know that you don't read full read the texts you reply or reference, but can you at least try to read what you write yourself?

This has fuck-all to do with the ownership framework. Nobody said worker-owned companies were perfect.

You claimed that people didn't have incentives to engage in unethical behaviour, and yet they did that.

If you're calling socialist approaches "19th Century thinking", then you're gonna have to admit that capitalist approaches are 18th Century thinking.

Capitalism itself, yes. Since innovation is even more important today (in the ongoing industrial revolution) it's clear that something beyond 18th century thinking is needed - that's why I don't read Adam Smith to understand the world today; as newer thinkers bring something fresh.

You realize that the lack of said road-map is largely because of their open acknowledgement that capitalists will resist any such reforms, and thus any route towards socialism requires either violent revolution that involves the death of most of the capitalist class, or opportunistic piecemeal advancement in a democratic system, which inherently can't be "mapped" because nobody knows where any of the "roads" are because we're not literally psychic?

I talked about Marx and Engels, who were squarely in the violent revolution camp, as you should know; so knowing that a forcible overthrow of the social structure can lead to Reign of Terror - don't you think it would be prudent to set up guard-rails against that?

Adam Smith didn't have a road map for Capitalism, either.

It mostly existed in some form already, he just had to mock the stupid mercantilists. And many of the large companies of today were not really consistent with what he predicted.

Tell me you've never read anything beyond a quick glance over Marx without telling my you've never read anything beyond a quick glance over Marx.

Just empty words as usual, and obviously I've read Marx (and Engels), including 'Das Kapital' (including the really boring parts).
So, you didn't you recognize the item in the 10-point program?

[Endus]

You did, unless you argue that "it's not pay, it's capital gains that is totally different" (tax authorities often see through that and other similar tricks - but such tricks is one reason 'employee' is more nebulous nowadays).

Worker ownership doesn't mean you don't draw a salary for your work and get health insurance and other benefits, dude. This is a fantastically silly straw man. Nothing I said implied such, you attempting to quote me out of context doesn't change that.

You claimed that people didn't have incentives to engage in unethical behaviour, and yet they did that.

No, I said they have vastly reduced financial incentives to be unethical.

Being a misogynist isn't a financial incentive.

Capitalism itself, yes. Since innovation is even more important today (in the ongoing industrial revolution) it's clear that something beyond 18th century thinking is needed - that's why I don't read Adam Smith to understand the world today; as newer thinkers bring something fresh.

Then you're admitting your "19th Century thinking" is intentionally dishonest, not just a mistake. Socialist theory's not the province of the 19th Century, any more than Capitalism is the province of the 18th. That's the double standard you've just admitted to.

I talked about Marx and Engels, who were squarely in the violent revolution camp, as you should know; so knowing that a forcible overthrow of the social structure can lead to Reign of Terror - don't you think it would be prudent to set up guard-rails against that?

The Reign of Terror was the product of the French Revolution, a violent revolution based on the ideas of liberty, equality, anti-monarchism, and so on. The same motives behind the American Revolution. And nothing to do with socialist theory, really.

And If your understanding of socialist theory starts and ends with Marx and Engels, you don't understand socialist theory. Let me know when you get to thinkers like Bakunin or Proudhon, before we even get out of the 19th Century, or if you want more-modern takes, George Orwell, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Martin Luther King, leading up to the likes of Meszaros and Chomsky today.