I'm skeptical of you

Thanks for copying my words :)

I listen bro and know that there is alot of silent lurkers, the people arguing aginst clearly dont realize the enormous power the intelligence agencies of the evil NWO has and how far its tentacles reach the globalized world.

What's the lesson here?

That the CIA will infiltrate all movements, subvert them, and steer them towards a defense of liberalism, and those that are not successfully undermined are destroyed.

You mind defining what you mean by liberalism?

You're not the person I replied to, don't put words in his mouth, especially stupid ones.

OP is on the mark about conservatism. Think before running your mouth idiot

Dude you realize that if the conservatives got what they really wanted we would stand still for the rest of existence? Fuck off, the only change forward has ALWAYS been stalled by conservatives, our most effective method of distributing resources (capitalism) relies SOLELY on the constantly changing whims of the market, disrupting entire industries and creating new ones all the time. CHANGE AND FLUX are the only thing driving this fucking civilization forward.

R10, here's your warning.

Defense of capitalism with support of some government intervention to provide public goods, a la classical or a defense of capitalism with a support of a strong state that actively creates and manages markets, a la neo-liberalism.

Thank you.

Do you see both or either of those things as bad things for the state to do/be involved in, or?

I am certainly against the intelligence community actively suppressing and undermining political movement that challenge liberalism.

I don't have a problem with expanding state institutions in order to provide public goods or services in a context of a capitalist economy.

I do think that the state as an instrument to enforce markets and create them is 'bad', as in I am politically antagonistic towards that project.

The emphasis should be on the defending capitalism side of the equation, not the state side.

But feminism doesn't challenge liberalism, it is in fact only possible through it, so that makes no sense.

I agree that too much state oversight into markets does often lead to the opposite of the desired result, but we've also seen the effects of completely unregulated markets absolutely shitting on everything.

At the end of the day it's a balancing act, neither side will be happy with where the needle ends up at though, just by it's very nature.

But I completely agree with your last sentence, at least until capitalism creates the means by which we can move past it to something better, but for now it's the best system we got, so it should absolutely be defended.

But feminism doesn't challenge liberalism, it is in fact only possible through it, so that makes no sense.

Two points to make on this in the context of the thread. Steinem was not used to undermine feminism, as steer the politics of the left away from anti-capitalism. This is a matter of the public record. Secondly, there are certainly trajectories of feminism that are very much anti-liberal. So, perhaps you might want to explicate your claim.

I agree that too much state oversight into markets does often lead to the opposite of the desired result, but we've also seen the effects of completely unregulated markets absolutely shitting on everything

I don't disagree.

At the end of the day it's a balancing act, neither side will be happy with where the needle ends up at though, just by it's very nature.

Here I do disagree. The answer to the crisis of Feudalism, was not a rhetoric of balancing acts. Nor was the answer to the problem of absolute Monarchy the question of balancing power... it was abolishing of the monarchy.

But I completely agree with your last sentence, at least until capitalism creates the means by which we can move past it to something better, but for now it's the best system we got, so it should absolutely be defended.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. Not only did capitalism already create a means by which we can move past it, it created a mass of people whose existence is mediated through the labor market, it has also created enough productive power to meet everyone needs. And more importantly it has brought us to a precipice of an environmental catastrophe from which, due to its inherent dynamic, it can't get out of.

So, no... it should not be defended, and the intelligence community should certainly not be running domestic ops to undermine movements that challenge it.

The biggest problem with Capitalism is the failure of human beings as individuals and as a society. You will not likely make a system other than capitalism work without strictly controlling the individuality and liberty of human beings. If you could disseminate information, education, and general intelligence to the masses without compulsion or psychological manipulation, i.e. a miraculous kind of contemporary age of enlightenment, maybe we could transition into a capitalist-mutualist system and have something someday that resembles a mutualist meritocracy, but the very nature of such a phenomena would be miraculous and improbable, if not impossible. Humanity is far too easily domesticated by aforementioned forces of compulsion and psychological manipulation.

The biggest problem with Capitalism is the failure of human beings as individuals and as a society.

The biggest problem with capitalism is that it is a system that alienates us from our own activity and from each other. As a result it limits peoples capability to identify their interests, and potentials, and to develop them to the fullest extent.

You will not likely make a system other than capitalism work without strictly controlling the individuality and liberty of human beings.

Or you can maintain that freedom should be expanded into the sphere of social necessity. To put it bluntly, that workers control the places where they work.

Lasting change occurs slowly over time.

Some change occurs slowly over long time, some is instantaneous, some is in-between.

Our balancing act is to be made towards more efficacious policy which defies the propping up of megalithic multi-national corporations instead of subsidizing them, for example, while still protecting free speech and the right to bear arms, to defend oneself against the hegemonic state which we aim to prevent from becoming masters of our lives.

The very form of governance is corporate. The way that the state developed is through a series of crisis by which corporate rule not only was strengthened but also lead to a development of the state form. Using these mechanism to reign what the mechanism were themselves developed to protect is somewhat of a fools errand.

Thinking that weapons should be allowed on the grounds that it is a deterrent for state expansion, or even thinking that the modern war machinery of the state can be overcome on a battlefield, is a fantasy of an action movie, not serious analysis. Free speech will only be allowed to the point where it does not compromise corporate profits. After that point it is gone.

As it stands, policies have largely been created to disproportionately benefit giant corporations and the capitalist overlords which fashion them from the manipulated whims of the consumer, and the state is complicit in this crime, by operating as the violent enforcer of the totalitarian whim of these overlords. From this stems the crisis of human values, as society has become a thoughtless, visionless, and worthless meta-machine of billions of independent automatons unconsciously following the orders of Machiavellian masters.

I agree with this. Well said.

The biggest problem with capitalism is that it is a system that alienates us from our own activity and from each other. As a result it limits peoples capability to identify their interests, and potentials, and to develop them to the fullest extent.

How so?

Or you can maintain that freedom should be expanded into the sphere of social necessity. To put it bluntly, that workers control the places where they work.

Expand on that. Not sure how workers don't currently control the places they work, say for example, in America.

Some change occurs slowly over long time, some is instantaneous, some is in-between.

No lasting change occurs instantaneously. Ever. There is always a building up towards any long lasting, dramatic change in any society.

The very form of governance is corporate. The way that the state developed is through a series of crisis by which corporate rule not only was strengthened but also lead to a development of the state form. Using these mechanism to reign what the mechanism were themselves developed to protect is somewhat of a fools errand.

Please explain how government is corporate in nature and why that means you can't use the government to police the market. I want to hear this.

Thinking that weapons should be allowed on the grounds that it is a deterrent for state expansion, or even thinking that the modern war machinery of the state can be overcome on a battlefield, is a fantasy of an action movie, not serious analysis.

In no way shape or form would the American people ever be faced with combating the U.S. military. The U.S. military would be faced with combating factions within itself and foreign governments. The people would be faced with combating the police and elements of the national guard. See Puerto Rico for reference, a far more realistic situation and feat to accomplish.

Free speech will only be allowed to the point where it does not compromise corporate profits. After that point it is gone.

That and the hegemonic ambitions of the state.

How so?

We sell our labor power for a period of time where the products of activity and the production process are not controlled by us, and don't belong to us. We view others as competitors in the labor market, and our connections between people through our productive activity becomes obscured. And we must match ourselves to the demands of the labor market, instead of pursuing our interests.

Not sure how workers don't currently control the places they work, say for example, in America.

They don't control how long to work, they don't control how to work, they don't control how fast to work, in many places they don't control when to use the bathroom or when to eat. They don't have a say about who they work with. The workers don't control the means of the productions.

No lasting change occurs instantaneously. Ever.

Well this is obviously false, and trivially so. Societies have radically changed due to natural disasters, for example.

There is always a building up towards any long lasting, dramatic change in any society.

This is a little bit of a different claim.

Please explain how government is corporate in nature and why that means you can't use the government to police the market. I want to hear this.

First of all most of the government functions are done by institutions that are classified as government corporations.

The government corporation model has been utilized by the federal government for over a century. Today’s government corporations cover the spectrum in size and function from large, well-known entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to small, low-visibility corporate bodies, such as the Federal Financing Bank in the Department of the Treasury and Federal Prison Industries in the Department of Justice.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf

Secondly, corporations... or more accurate associations of corporations control the politicians, and write the legislation.

Thirdly, the gatekeepers to government entry are corporate and controlled by corporations.

I don't want to be misunderstood, because the state is moment of class struggle, and we can certainly have victories through it, it just means that the battle field is disadvantageous. It is certainly the case that one can still win a few battles...

In no way shape or form would the American people ever be faced with combating the U.S. military.

Why? The legal prohibitions on utilizing military domestically have continuously been eroded. Moreover, history if filled military dictatorships... so other than an ideological commitment to American exceptionalism, I see no reason why the military won't be used domestically.

We sell our labor power for a period of time where the products of activity and the production process are not controlled by us, and don't belong to us.

Many people do this, but nothing about Capitalism as a system makes it compulsory. This fact is not systemic to capitalism. It is how people choose to use Capitalism which results in this behavior.

We view others as competitors in the labor market, and our connections between people through our productive activity becomes obscured.

I don't see how this related to "it is a system that alienates us from our own activity and from each other". People naturally compete with each other and stratify themselves along social hierarchies. Those hierarchies have benefits and responsibilities for leaders and followers, and this is ingrained in the human psyche instinctually as a result of the conditions of our evolution. Competition is not inherently bad, unfettered and unrestricted competition is bad. If the objective of competition is to place those best suited for their roles in those roles, then competition is an efficient tool for simultaneously allocating labor whilst providing a vehicle for one to determine their own position within society's economy. Competition as a system does not deprive one of determining their own position in an economy, it sets conditions for labor and demands that applicants meet them. The problem with how humans utilize competition and social stratification is in the responsibilities of leadership. From our leaders we demand increased responsibility and accountability, and proportionate compensation for their position in the hierarchy. When our leaders are not responsible, are not held accountable, and are compensated disproportionately to what they produce, we become upset, because these natural principles are being violated, i.e. there is an injustice occurring. This is a human flaw. It is not endemic to Capitalism as a system, it is prevalent among Capitalist societies not because it is necessary, but because people tolerate it. This is a cultural problem, and can be solved with various tools, including but not limited to government intervention, boycott, protest, strike, and education etc. nothing requires this phenomena, it happens, because that is what humans are allowing to happen at this point in time. Capitalism didn't necessitate segregation and racism in the early 20th century, that was just what humans were deciding to do for some time. To put an end to it, we had to use all the tools I mentioned above. This is no different.

And we must match ourselves to the demands of the labor market, instead of pursuing our interests.

This isn't true, and the millenial generation is proving it to not be true. Just about anything is monetizable/marketable, you just need to figure out how to monetize/market what you do, and every day more tools and services are being created to do just that, because of innovations in technology. No conformation to the labor market is required, and in fact this is becoming far less frequent, as the creative producers of today are turning towards becoming independent owners of their own small businesses, with much success.

They don't control how long to work, they don't control how to work, they don't control how fast to work, in many places they don't control when to use the bathroom or when to eat. They don't have a say about who they work with. The workers don't control the means of the productions.

That's nonsense, none of this is endemic to Capitalism, and nothing is stopping anyone from reforming how companies operate, in particular how labor is performed and how production is controlled. Everyday, more tools and resources are being created to allow people more opportunity and freedom to produce. The state of labor is not a permanent fixture, it is subject to change within the Capitalist system. People presently aren't dramatically reforming this, but that doesn't mean they won't/can't. In fact we already see how changes to traditional labor models in our Capitalist system are starting to change with the advent of new technologies (see Patreon, bitcoin, etc.)

Well this is obviously false, and trivially so. Societies have radically changed due to natural disasters, for example.

Well, yes, if the sun exploded right now, it would create a lot of change, and if we underwent nuclear war, we'd see change then as well.

I thought we were talking about change within the context of social movements, however.

This is a little bit of a different claim.

Perhaps you see it that way. Maybe that's my fault for not making my claim clear, but that's what I've been talking about the entire time, or at least trying to.

First of all most of the government functions are done by institutions that are classified as government corporations.

Examples? Are you referring to municipal corporations and chartered/registered organization like for profit and non-profit organizations? They're not all the same. True, legally, states and local governments are incorporated, but private organizations being incorporated is a relatively modern convention, especially human rights for corporations, and the corporate legal structure is by no means the same thing as a capitalist or market structure, it is a system of delegating rights to entities which traditionally stemmed from a monarch, but today originate from (in theory) the people. In short, the corporate legal structure of is not a capitalist system, it is a legal system which predates democracy and capitalism alike. Today's modern corporate structure, as we colloquially refer to it, is a convention of how private organizations operate within a market, but that is very different from the underlying fundamental legal principles from which all organization in society are based. To use an analogy, in this case, the egg did come before the chicken, and eggs are not exclusive to chickens. You are suggesting that because eggs are chicken in nature, we can't use eggs to bring about anything but chickens, but the egg predates the chicken and is not exclusive to it, so this is logically a false presumption, i.e. it is not valid, so the premise cannot be actually true, nor sound.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf

Secondly, corporations... or more accurate associations of corporations control the politicians, and write the legislation.

Thirdly, the gatekeepers to government entry are corporate and controlled by corporations.

I don't want to be misunderstood, because the state is moment of class struggle, and we can certainly have victories through it, it just means that the battle field is disadvantageous. It is certainly the case that one can still win a few battles...

I don't understand your argument here, are you saying that because the government makes use of government owned enterprises, we can't use the government to make changes to our market economy? What is the point.

Why? The legal prohibitions on utilizing military domestically have continuously been eroded. Moreover, history if filled military dictatorships...

Because as soon as a military organization turns on the American people, foreign governments will support the opposing military factions (of which there would be many).

so other than an ideological commitment to American exceptionalism, I see no reason why the military won't be used domestically.

Well not American exceptionalism, but Western exceptionalism is a tangible thing. For example, in America, we have the ability to freely spread information, i.e. we have the infrastructure to support this. We have a massive private media infrastructure, with vast access to internet across the country. We are not a struggling 2nd-3rd world country invisible to the rest of the world. Quite the opposite, all eyes are on us.

Many people do this, but nothing about Capitalism as a system makes it compulsory. This fact is not systemic to capitalism. It is how people choose to use Capitalism which results in this behavior.

But, it is systemic. It is historically so, with the forcible creation through dispossession of a mass of people through force. Think the enclosure acts in england, or the colonial policy in the US against the native population, and through legislation which forced people into labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital

And through systemic pressure of entering the labor market, because our very existence is mediated through the laborpower-money-commodity relation.

People naturally compete with each other and stratify themselves along social hierarchies.

Well obviously human beings do this so it a mode enabled by our 'nature' what ever that means, but it is only one mode of social arrangement, meaning it is not entailed by necessity. Rather it is a result of social and historical development. And that social and historical development lead to a mode of production which obscures how we actually relate to one another.

Those hierarchies have benefits and responsibilities for leaders and followers, and this is ingrained in the human psyche instinctually as a result of the conditions of our evolution. Competition is not inherently bad, unfettered and unrestricted competition is bad.

Some hierarchies do, some don't. History of human politics has been people taking the hierarchies given to them as necessary and with strong justification, only to find that they are neither necessary, nor justified. Your claims are a literally rationalization for absolute monarchy, or the divine rule of kings, except a presupposition is imported that they are utilitarian. You want to justify that claim?

Nor is competition a result of our evolution, other than in a trivial sense, that the evolution of the human species allows for them to construct competitive and hierarchical frameworks. This misses the point, which is what is good for human beings, and what allows human beings to flourish. Systems where their very existence is mediated through constant competition, and where competition structures more and more of our lives is not that.

The problem with how humans utilize competition and social stratification is in the responsibilities of leadership. From our leaders we demand increased responsibility and accountability, and proportionate compensation for their position in the hierarchy. When our leaders are not responsible, are not held accountable, and are compensated disproportionately to what they produce, we become upset, because these natural principles are being violated, i.e. there is an injustice occurring. This is a human flaw. It is not endemic to Capitalism as a system, it is prevalent among Capitalist societies not because it is necessary, but because people tolerate it.

I would not frame it as an injustice occurring because the whole history of capitalism has been the struggle of subordinating more and more of our time to the demands of the market, and people fighting against it. We don't have limitations on the working day, because of the responsibility of our leaders, or their accountability, we have it because regular people struggled to win these victories, against their official governing institutions. Ditto for workplace protections, etc. The narrative that you presented has nothing to do with the history of Capital, the class nature of society, and the class interests and composition of ruling institutions.

This is a cultural problem, and can be solved with various tools, including but not limited to government intervention, boycott, protest, strike, and education etc. nothing requires this phenomena, it happens, because that is what humans are allowing to happen at this point in time.

This is on the right track, but this is literally the history of capitalism since its beginning. It consisted of creating a mass of people who only have their labor power to sell in the market, this was done through violence. People resisted it. Through legislation forcing people into the labor market, people resisted it, and once the class dynamic was well established, it has been the history of this struggle. That is capitalism.

Capitalism didn't necessitate segregation and racism in the early 20th century, that was just what humans were deciding to do for some time. To put an end to it, we had to use all the tools I mentioned above. This is no different.

We did not put an end to either racism or segregation, the mechanisms evolved, first of all. Secondly capital has no problem introducing division in order to splinter the working class and drive wages down.

For example, this was what was being done by creating and maintaining the ethnic conflict between the Irish and the English.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

This isn't true, and the millenial generation is proving it to not be true. Just about anything is monetizable/marketable, you just need to figure out how to monetize/market what you do, and every day more tools and services are being created to do just that, because of innovations in technology. No conformation to the labor market is required, and in fact this is becoming far less frequent, as the creative producers of today are turning towards becoming independent owners of their own small businesses, with much success.

The millennial generation finds itself in the worse position than the previous generation. Nor is anything marketable. People literally alter themselves to meet the demands of the market. You have the relationship ass backwards.

That's nonsense, none of this is endemic to Capitalism, and nothing is stopping anyone from reforming how companies operate, in particular how labor is performed and how production is controlled.

Except management, owners, boards of directors, and the precarity of our social existence mediated through wage labor, i.e., capitalism.

I will respond the claims about corporations at a later time.

But, it is systemic. It is historically so, with the forcible creation through dispossession of a mass of people through force.

Other than these things occurring in societies with free markets, what does this have to do with Capitalism? People do terrible things all the time, but they don't do them at the behest of Capitalism just because those people live in Capitalist societies. Nothing about Capitalism compelled colonial Americans to steal/trick natives out of their land. That's just what people did, because that is what they chose to do. Am I missing something? Do the concepts of private property and free markets demand taking land from native people? If this is true, why isn't America invading Africa and taking all its land from the native people there? Isn't it a necessary component of Capitalism?

And through systemic pressure of entering the labor market, because our very existence is mediated through the laborpower-money-commodity relation.

You have more opportunities now, than ever before in human history, to monetize anything you want to do outside of the traditional labor markets. If you live in the west, there is no reason to work in a factory for 60+ hours a week barely getting by if you don't want to. These are choices people make, which create precedents for labor relationships, but no aspect of Capitalism compels anyone to take this course of action.

Well obviously human beings do this so it a mode enabled by our 'nature' what ever that means, but it is only one mode of social arrangement, meaning it is not entailed by necessity. Rather it is a result of social and historical development. And that social and historical development lead to a mode of production which obscures how we actually relate to one another.

How do we actually relate to each other? Do we relate to each other by not caring how competent we are at fulfilling certain roles in society and holding hands in a circle singing how great we are for having transcended the need to achieve our very greatest potential? I don't see the point you're making. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to be the best you can be and expecting to be compensated for how good you are. You can either see competition with others as an opportunity to improve yourself or you can see it as an opportunity to destroy others. Capitalism as a system doesn't care which action you decide, it just lets you decide, and we have laws and government as tools to make sure people are encouraged to better themselves instead of destroy others. I'd argue we need more intervention to this effect, because human beings tend to destroy others when they are incompetent and incapable of self improvement (i.e. I can't climb up the ladder so I'll have to pull someone else down). Capitalism has nothing to do with this affair, it's in the realm of the human condition, which as I stated, we have tools for addressing. The problem of the west is its crisis of values, and the government's relinquishing responsibility for legally upholding them. We made the mistake of removing Christianity's presence from society without replacing its values. We have less bigotry, hatred, violence, and institutional prejudice now than we have ever before, but we have insane amounts of inequality, greed, gluttony etc. all because instead of abhorring these things, we've created a society that values them. That's not Capitalism's fault as a system, it is man's fault.

Some hierarchies do, some don't. History of human politics has been people taking the hierarchies given to them as necessary and with strong justification, only to find that they are neither necessary, nor justified. Your claims are a literally rationalization for absolute monarchy, or the divine rule of kings, except a presupposition is imported that they are utilitarian. You want to justify that claim?

Sure, easy. These hierarchies are necessary because some people work harder than others, are more productive/smarter or just all around better than others, and they should be able to achieve their greatest potential, and be incentive for doing so, instead of discouraged.

Other than these things occurring in societies with free markets, what does this have to do with Capitalism?

It literally created wage laborers. A system where a mass of people sells their labor for a wage to a small class that owns the means of production. This is capitalism. This is its genesis.

. Nothing about Capitalism compelled colonial Americans to steal/trick natives out of their land. That's just what people did, because that is what they chose to do. Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something, they did these things in order to get resources, which are sold on the market. What do you think compelled them? Sin? They did this in order to satisfy market pressures.

Do the concepts of private property and free markets demand taking land from native people? If this is true, why isn't America invading Africa and taking all its land from the native people there? Isn't it a necessary component of Capitalism?

Uhm... you are familiar with the colonial history of Africa? There was absolutely a bonanza to take land, resources and even people themselves in order to expand capital.

. If you live in the west, there is no reason to work in a factory for 60+ hours a week barely getting by if you don't want to. These are choices people make, which create precedents for labor relationships, but no aspect of Capitalism compels anyone to take this course of action.

This is simply false. We enter labor markets which are getting more precarious since the crisis in the 70's, and this is not by choice, but by necessity, as our existence is mediated through the relation of Laborpower-money-commodity.

How do we actually relate to each other?

Through alienated forms. If you are asking what un-alianeted forms are... it means that our needs are social, and that meeting others needs through our activity is an expression of our collective/social nature. It means that productive activity is an expression of our internal needs and creative energy, and that it should be done on our own terms. Not on terms set by another.

There's nothing wrong with aspiring to be the best you can be and expecting to be compensated for how good you are.

You are not compensated for how good you are, you are compensated based on a market price. Capitalism sucks because it treats these two things the same, and they are not.

. You can either see competition with others as an opportunity to improve yourself or you can see it as an opportunity to destroy others.

Or a system where others seek to destroy you.

Capitalism has nothing to do with this affair, it's in the realm of the human condition, which as I stated, we have tools for addressing.

It is not a realm of the human condition. It is a social system that arose historically.

The problem of the west is its crisis of values, and the government's relinquishing responsibility for legally upholding them.

There is no 'The West'. Nor are the crisis due to bad morals, or ethics or whatever. They are systemic issues arising from the capitalist mode of production, which is transforming not only nature, but our own subjectivity. We are more and more treated as human capital, or 'entrepreneurs of the self', whose values is determined by market relations, than as human beings.

We made the mistake of removing Christianity's presence from society without replacing its values.

I am sorry, but what values??

We have less bigotry, hatred, violence, and institutional prejudice now than we have ever before, but we have insane amounts of inequality, greed, gluttony etc. all because instead of abhorring these things, we've created a society that values them.

Well we created a system that produces them, that markets it to us, and that sells it to us, all because pursuit of this leads to capital expansion... which is an inherent tendency of the system, economic expansion.

These hierarchies are necessary because some people work harder than others,

Some working harder than others does not entail nor justify a hierarchy.

are more productive/smarter

Being more smart does not mean more productive. Nor does being smart or more productive, by itself justify a hierarchy.

all around better than others

No one is better than another.

and they should be able to achieve their greatest potential, and be incentive for doing so, instead of discouraged.

Sure, so instead all of those smart people that want and can be good teachers, that leave the profession because of shitty pay and working conditions, should be provided with a good life so that they can be teachers. Ditto for computer programmers, and ditto for doctors, and nurses, and every other field. In other words, their interests, and their development is stunted by the wage-form, and the wage-form needs to be abolished.

It literally created wage laborers. A system where a mass of people sells their labor for a wage to a small class that owns the means of production. This is capitalism. This is its genesis.

But these things were occurring well before Capitalism ever existed. You may as well blame Marxism for the millions of Russians that died fighting in WWI. It makes no sense.

Yes you are missing something, they did these things in order to get resources, which are sold on the market. What do you think compelled them? Sin?

Greed. There are plenty of people that don't harm others for profit. Just because you can do bad things to profit doesn't mean a system which allows you to profit compels you to do bad things. You can also profit from not doing bad things.

Uhm... you are familiar with the colonial history of Africa? There was absolutely a bonanza to take land, resources and even people themselves in order to expand capital.

Right and if Capitalism demanded this behavior, why isn't America doing this now? We live in a Capitalist society, right? If this were endemic to Capitalism, why aren't western nations invading and colonizing Africa right now? They're compelled to, right? That's what they did before, and you're saying they did it because Capitalism compelled them to, so if that were true, they'd be doing it right now, right? Yet that's not what is happening. African nations rule themselves and are destroying themselves all on their own.

This is simply false. We enter labor markets which are getting more precarious since the crisis in the 70's, and this is not by choice, but by necessity, as our existence is mediated through the relation of Laborpower-money-commodity.

No it's not. Productivity per worker has increase dramatically every year since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and working hours have followed suit.

Through alienated forms. If you are asking what un-alianeted forms are... it means that our needs are social, and that meeting others needs through our activity is an expression of our collective/social nature.

How exactly does Capitalism obscure this? Are you not allowed to be social because you make money through working?

It means that productive activity is an expression of our internal needs and creative energy, and that it should be done on our own terms. Not on terms set by another.

I agree that's a better way to live and Capitalism doesn't stop you from doing that, individual people that run companies in such a way that demands labor to be performed on their terms strictly is what stops that, but a lot of companies are adopting more fluid work environments, which allow people to work more "on their terms". A lot of other Capitalist countries in Europe resemble this more, but that is because their cultures are more relaxed, which I would say is better, but it has zero to do with Capitalism.

You are not compensated for how good you are, you are compensated based on a market price. Capitalism sucks because it treats these two things the same, and they are not.

They can and often are the same thing. True, sometimes people are rewarded for the wrong things, but overall, when it comes to a majority of work that is to be done, people are rewarded for their performance, if they demand to be compensated for their excellence. If you don't ask to be compensated for the value you bring to a company, you're not going to be. Plain and simple.

Or a system where others seek to destroy you.

Or a system which allows people to destroy you, true, but I'm not an advocate for getting rid of government and regulations on the economy. I think those are good things to combat the human condition.

It is not a realm of the human condition. It is a social system that arose historically.

People choosing to harm each other has nothing to do with Capitalism. How people react to the actions of others, and what they choose to do themselves is a matter of culture and the human condition, not of a system which allows people to choose how to carry themselves out economically.

There is no 'The West'. Nor are the crisis due to bad morals, or ethics or whatever. They are systemic issues arising from the capitalist mode of production, which is transforming not only nature, but our own subjectivity. We are more and more treated as human capital, or 'entrepreneurs of the self', whose values is determined by market relations, than as human beings.

I agree, but that is the result of the culture we create, one that is abusive, because we let people with power abuse us, because we identify as victims of a system instead of standing up to our oppressors. This is not a Capitalist problem, it is a crisis of values and of consciousness. The only thing stopping humanity from stepping out from this oppression is itself and the choices people make. We are all choosing to be complicit in this corrupt, evil, oligarchical society by not standing up to it. Marxism is not the answer, Marxism is how you sign over the last vestige of power you have to those very oligarchs.

I am sorry, but what values??

Of helping others, of valuing restraint, being humble, having compassion, giving back to the community when you have success, glorifying what is good and doing works for the world, The Gospel of Wealth.

Well we created a system that produces them, that markets it to us, and that sells it to us, all because pursuit of this leads to capital expansion... which is an inherent tendency of the system, economic expansion.

No one sells what people won't buy.

Some working harder than others does not entail nor justify a hierarchy.

Yes it does. What are you talking about? If you contribute more you should get more. It is absolutely justification for a hierarchy. Someone who slaves away contributing to society, spending their life in service to others, should be compensated for doing so. You should want people to contribute to society and progress humanity forward. This is what has made Western society capable of producing so much valuable stuff for people to consume. Without this mentality, you absolutely would not be able to have this conversation right now. Great accomplishments are built on the backs of hard workers.

Being more smart does not mean more productive.

It does if you use your intelligence to produce more.

Nor does being smart or more productive, by itself justify a hierarchy.

Yes it does. A fair, just, hierarchy, which gives people the fruits of their merits, but a hierarchy nonetheless. I'm not saying I think we should have billionaires. That's disgusting excess, but someone that contributes to society should get more from society.

No one is better than another.

That's objectively false. If you ever are shipwrecked at sea, and there is someone adept at fishing among you, that person will better survive. Might even save you from cannibalizing each other. People are not equal in an economic sense of what they are capable of producing. I am not saying that says anything about their inherent worth as human beings. It doesn't. Absolutely not. We are all equal in the law, both man made and natural.

Sure, so instead all of those smart people that want and can be good teachers, that leave the profession because of shitty pay and working conditions

In public education systems, that are not impacted by Capitalist market conditions.

Ditto for computer programmers, and ditto for doctors, and nurses,

All compensated greatly in America.

In other words, their interests, and their development is stunted by the wage-form, and the wage-form needs to be abolished.

Only teachers were stunted in their compensation, and that's because they're public employees.

However, I agree that everyone should be adequately compensated, but I don't think that Marxism is the answer.

But these things were occurring well before Capitalism ever existed. You may as well blame Marxism for the millions of Russians that died fighting in WWI. It makes no sense.

There was no mass of people that had to sell their labor power to survive. There were private producers, some of which entered a labor market during the off season for example. The mass of people were engaged in agricultural production. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what we are referring to when talking about capitalism. There is the system which we have, which had a concrete historical genesis. The genesis was the creation of a mass of people that were forced into the labor market. This is not just of historical interest, so called primitive accumulation is an ongoing process.

Greed. There are plenty of people that don't harm others for profit. Just because you can do bad things to profit doesn't mean a system which allows you to profit compels you to do bad things. You can also profit from not doing bad things.

The very category of 'profit' is 'bad'. It entails that surplus value is being extracted... it means people are working longer than they need to in order to have social reproduction.

Right and if Capitalism demanded this behavior, why isn't America doing this now?

Look, American corporations practically own whole countries. It is just that actual land ownership was not seen as profitable... even that is changing now.

Why do you think the US and China are having a bigger and bigger military presence in Africa?

No it's not. Productivity per worker has increase dramatically every year since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and working hours have followed suit.

Read what you just wrote. If workers productivity continues to increase, why do you think we need to work more? The object is to work less, no? But median real wages have been stagnant since the 70's, with the bottom percentiles loosing real purchasing power.

But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

How exactly does Capitalism obscure this? Are you not allowed to be social because you make money through working?

Capitalism does this, because human relations appear as relations between things. Instead of me fulfilling your need through my music, thereby affirming your individuality, and you mine, what appears is money being used to exchange for a commodity.

If you are interested in a an exposition of this, read Marx's work on estranged labour in the 1844 Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts.

The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and size. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity – and this at the same rate at which it produces commodities in general.

This fact expresses merely that the object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers[18]; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

I agree that's a better way to live and Capitalism doesn't stop you from doing that...

It has everything to do with capitalism. Decreases in working hours, and more autonomy are a direct result of workers struggling. They are a result of class struggle. Capitalism is the history this struggle. But like you, yourself admitted, working hours continue to increase.

They can and often are the same thing.

They are not. A market price you can earn is not the value of what you bring. In fact the object is to decrease that price as much as possible, while extracting as much value as possible. Labor is a cost to business that decreases profits. The incentive is to minimize costs...

People ... economically.

Not only are incentives and rewards systemic, but economic systems directly shape our subjectivity. What we are as subjects is altered. Hence why the new subject sees itself as an entrepreneur of the self. This are not just 'natural' expressions of the human condition, or whatever.

This is not a Capitalist problem, it is a crisis of values and of consciousness. The only thing stopping humanity from stepping out from this oppression is itself and the choices people make. We are all choosing to be complicit in this corrupt, evil, oligarchical society by not standing up to it. Marxism is not the answer, Marxism is how you sign over the last vestige of power you have to those very oligarchs.

I think I would say we are in a broad agreement that this is not a capitalist problem, however, capitalism is just an expression of this problem that arose historically, and it is what is the problem for us.

Concerning Marxism, I agree that it is not an answer, but that is because Marxism is not a system to be imposed, or a state of society to be worked towards. Marxism, is an analytic framework for capitalism, but while regular economics has as its object to understand capitalism better so that it can be managed more effectively and it's crisis mitigated, Marxism has as its object the transcendence of capitalism.

If you contribute more you should get more. It is absolutely justification for a hierarchy.

Well you should get as much as you want or at least enough to meet one's needs, but this is not a hierarchy in the sense of social power. You should certainly not have a bigger say in decisions that effect all just because you 'contribute' more.

Someone who slaves away contributing to society, spending their life in service to others, should be compensated for doing so.

No one should slave away, and more importantly there is no reason to slave away, at this point, other than capitalist accumulation.

This is what has made Western society capable of producing so much valuable stuff for people to consume.

Really, I thought it was public investment in infrastructure, coupled with public research and development that is given to corporations.

Without this mentality, you absolutely would not be able to have this conversation right now. Great accomplishments are built on the backs of hard workers.

I don't disagree.

A fair, just, hierarchy, which gives people the fruits of their merits, but a hierarchy nonetheless.

Again, just being smart or more productive does entail a hierarchy in a sense of having more authority, or a bigger say in the decisions that effect all.

More importantly, people don't get the 'fruits of their merits' in capitalism. They get a wage, which a market price for labor power in a particular, historical and geographical market.

If you ever are shipwrecked at sea, and there is someone adept at fishing among you, that person will better survive.

This brings a whole set of presuppositions, and is just a convoluted way of saying those that have food, eat. Yeah, but survival is a team effort. While fishing is important, so is water, and those that can capture it or figure out a way to boil water, and condense it, or recycle their piss or whatever, increase the chances of survival, as does the person that knows how to build, and provides shade while our fisherman battles the sea, and so on. The fisherman is not better than the builder, etc, and society is not reducible to one person. Each person a product of a historical development and member of a social organism.

People are not equal in an economic sense of what they are capable of producing.

Sure, this is true in a trivial sense, what is not entailed is that because of this people should have more social power, own more resources, or extract surplus value from those who do not own resources, except their labor power.

I am not saying that says anything about their inherent worth as human beings.

That is encouraging, but I claim that capitalist economic relations are making our inherent value as human beings obsolete, and replacing it with internalized market relations. And our worth as human beings won't be expressed fully as long as the capitalist mode of productions organizes us socially. It is making the old Kantian notions of human beings as ends in-themselves obsolete, and replaced with every human being is a means to end for another.

In public education systems...

The very existence of a public education system is a result of market pressures. It was a way that corporations get a trained and disciplined labor force, while the costs are socialized. Nor is it true that they are not impacted by capitalist market relations now, as the historical barriers of entry into teaching have been under corporate assault, with private schemes created to fulfill the crisis.

There was no mass of people that had to sell their labor power to survive. There were private producers, some of which entered a labor market during the off season for example. The mass of people were engaged in agricultural production. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what we are referring to when talking about capitalism. There is the system which we have, which had a concrete historical genesis. The genesis was the creation of a mass of people that were forced into the labor market. This is not just of historical interest, so called primitive accumulation is an ongoing process.

Regardless, the abusive behavior you attribute to Capitalism is not unique to it, it in fact predates it, and exists even in the exclusion of it.

The very category of 'profit' is 'bad'. It entails that surplus value is being extracted... it means people are working longer than they need to in order to have social reproduction.

Profits can be used in a wide variety of ways, including improving the lives of employees through benefits (like stock options, leveraged health insurance plans), their communities, developing environmentally friendly technologies etc. profits are only as bad as companies allocate them, but some level of profit is necessary in the abstract sense, for industry to grow and evolve. You can't equally distribute revenue to your employees, customers, share holders, partners, parent companies etc. and still ensure the health and evolution of an economic organization unless all those parties agree to all invest back into the company to a certain extent, which you can't guarantee. Profit is as bad as the people that allocate them to economic activities. Again, a consequence of human condition, not capitalism.

Look, American corporations practically own whole countries. It is just that actual land ownership was not seen as profitable... even that is changing now.

That's certainly not the case, these withdrawals were in large part the result of a handful of important factors, none of which had anything to do with the profitability of holding onto colonies. At play were the rise of nationalism in Africa, geopolitical conflict in the competition between Communist and Capitalist ideologies, the destruction of domestic European economies during World War II, and brokered negotiations and political influence from the U.S.'s foreign policy of enabling self determination among colonized nations.

Read what you just wrote. If workers productivity continues to increase, why do you think we need to work more? The object is to work less, no?

People are working less, and it was enabled by the Capitalist system's allocation of resources towards developing industry to create more consumer goods with less labor-goods that prior to this allocation did not exist in sufficient quantities to be distributed with even the most socialist policies you could imagine in effect.

Instead of me fulfilling your need through my music, thereby affirming your individuality, and you mine, what appears is money being used to exchange for a commodity.

That's absurd, Capitalism doesn't force people to commodify music, it requires people to commodify music if those people want their economic existence to be justified by their music playing. No one is forcing you to commodify your music. Not a single soul, not a single aspect of Capitalism. What Capitalism doesn't allow people to do, is live their lives as unambitiously as the human mind can conceive, and still live the same quality of life as a doctor that works 90 hours a week saving lives. You seem like a smart person, so it might be hard for you to conceive, but there are plenty of people that would do nothing to contribute to society if they were supported comfortably without having to produce economically. Honestly that's fine, but what I am not okay with is people that feel compelled to contribute not being compensated. Society should encourage productive activity, contribution to the community. It's better for society's progress and evolution. We can subsidize the eaters, I'm actually okay with that. No one should be faced with the horror that is homelessness and abject poverty. That is no more just than Communism.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

I made the claim that people are not compensated adequately for what they produce, but you're arguing that this is the fault of our Capitalist system. I am arguing that this is an endemic to the human condition, the consequence of the choices made by people, which would result in no better an outcome in any other system (far worse actually).

It has everything to do with capitalism. Decreases in working hours, and more autonomy are a direct result of workers struggling.

They are the result of industrialization creating economies productive enough to decrease working hours and still produce enough wealth to grow economies rapidly, as well as social movements made to ensure that people benefit from these developments.

But like you, yourself admitted, working hours continue to increase.

No they're decreasing overall in the west. I will be the first to concede that the U.S. is behind the times in this regard, but that is because Americans are not demanding better working hours. In general our government is corrupted immensely by corporations that make policies for their benefit, because our people do not understand how to use politics to benefit themselves. Our voting population is stupid to the point of self detriment. It is absolutely possible to live in a Capitalist society and also have less working hours, but you're not going to achieve that end without political action, which is virtually absent in American society.

In fact the object is to decrease that price as much as possible, while extracting as much value as possible.

No it's not. Any responsible entrepreneur will take care of their people. Look at Costco as an example. It pays its career employees upwards of $22.00/hr to do rote, mundane tasks, more than double what almost any other company will pay, and they have some of the best retail centers in the world, with exceptional service, streamlined logistics, etc.

Labor is a cost to business that decreases profits. The incentive is to minimize costs...

The incentive is to limit costs if leaders and followers in a private corporation are both poor.

Not only are incentives and rewards systemic, but economic systems directly shape our subjectivity. What we are as subjects is altered.

Every system alters the subject, and you imply that this is a bad thing, but I'd argue it is a good thing. Human beings are inherently driven by impulsive, biologically driven instincts to survive and reduce energy exertion. Values have to be learned, otherwise, survival is the only innate value. The value that Capitalism instills in its subjects is the value of self determination. You have the locus of control in your life and must determine your own fate. Other institutions in society are tasked with guiding how that value is upheld. We set restrictions on behavior and create ethical values to design humanity in a divine image of how we think the world ought to be. Humanity's modern problem is it has forgotten to ask the question of what the meaning to being is. We don't care. We've stripped away the underlying values which were made to curate a better humanity for tomorrow, and replaced them with the victim mentality, identity politics, the complete absence of self esteem, and other damaging perspectives which only enable an infantile psychology, which these very corporations are making use of to manipulate this coming generation, through the education system (primary education is the biggest culprit, but plenty of universities in blue states are over saturated with these schools of thought) into supporting a more blatantly socialist, Marxist society. That Marxist society will be the ultimate culmination of everything humanity has achieved through over-inflated corporations, regulatory capture, and hegemonic governments. To the victors shall go the spoils, and the Marxist overlords will be synonymous with the oligarchy which commands humanity today. Everything up until that point is smoke and mirrors to deflect from the shadowy struggle of these factions vying for domination in society today. What do you think Trump is? He's just the leader of his own faction, vying for his own clan's place in the human dominion.

This conversation has gotten to the point that I've exceeded the character limits to continue the conversation. That's a sign it is no longer fruitful lol.

I think I would say we are in a broad agreement that this is not a capitalist problem, however, capitalism is just an expression of this problem that arose historically, and it is what is the problem for us.

We are our own problem. We, human beings, are inherently flawed. Before we began sedentary living, we did not know war, or starvation, or strife as we do today. There is nothing "natural" about what we do as a civilization. Millions of years of evolution did not culminate in the cultivating of grains and permanent settlement. The purpose of our systems, institutions, values, etc. is to reconcile the human condition which is immovably based on the fundamental premise of survival at its core, and the extensions of that imperative through the human psyche such as accumulation of material wealth and physical security etc. The objective of survival is not inherently bad, it's necessary, but it still has consequences for how our society manifests, whether it is Capitalist, Socialist (doesn't even make sense these two things are not mutually exclusive, all economies are mixed) or whatever system we implore. The strength of Capitalism is its reward for contribution to the human economy, which is a key mechanism for humanity's continued survival, progress, and evolution as a species. The failure of humanity to check the unchecked power of the corporation is a human failure of the masses, a series of poor choices on a large scale by the many "small folk" of the world. It is we, humanity, that has failed, not Capitalism. Capitalism did what it was designed to do, to progress humanity forward by incentivizing continued development of the technological and productive mechanisms of society. It is humanity and its choices that has resulted in the abusive and in many places, outright horrifying situation we find ourselves in as a civilization. The answer is quite simple, no man is an island, and no company can produce without employees. We need to demand better economic quality of life. As I stated before, power is wherever people believe it is. When people stop working, and the machine grinds to a halt, all the violence in the world will be incapable of saving the elite.

Well you should get as much as you want or at least enough to meet one's needs, but this is not a hierarchy in the sense of social power. You should certainly not have a bigger say in decisions that effect all just because you 'contribute' more.

I agree with that, but the only thing that buys political power in this country (speaking of America) is the ability to advertise and thus manipulate people into giving their social power to corrupted politicians, but that isn't a power necessitated by Capitalism. We can all choose to vote for better leaders in our government. Most simply choose not to, because they're stupid and uninformed.

No one should slave away

Hard work builds this society we live in.

There is no reason to slave away

Yes there is. Do you not want humanity to progress forward, creating bigger and better things for future generations? Please explain to me who is going to do the work of society's economy if not humans?

Really, I thought it was public investment in infrastructure, coupled with public research and development that is given to corporations.

It's not. Much of that just went to line the pockets of Capitalists for promises not kept, or to prop up high cost industries that investors were afraid of getting involved in (the internet). Long before any of that, the market was allocating the spoils of industry towards modern manufacturing economies.

Again, just being smart or more productive does entail a hierarchy in a sense of having more authority, or a bigger say in the decisions that effect all.

To the extent of how economies are run, it does. Maybe not politically, no it shouldn't, but you definitely want the hardest working, most experienced, most intelligent and qualified people making economic decisions.

More importantly, people don't get the 'fruits of their merits' in capitalism.

They can. Nothing stopping anyone from doing that right now. Start your own business.

They get a wage, which a market price for labor power in a particular, historical and geographical market.

That's nonsense, wages are but one system of compensation in Capitalist society, and it is by no means compulsory. You are free to extract wealth from the market however you see fit, you just have to earn that ability. It isn't handed to you.

This brings a whole set of presuppositions, and is just a convoluted way of saying those that have food, eat. Yeah, but survival is a team effort. While fishing is important, so is water, and those that can capture it or figure out a way to boil water, and condense it, or recycle their piss or whatever, increase the chances of survival, as does the person that knows how to build, and provides shade while our fisherman battles the sea, and so on. The fisherman is not better than the builder, etc,

My point being, if you've got half a dozen spots, you're not bringing women and children with you to go starving to death at sea. You're bringing qualified people capable of survival.

Sure, this is true in a trivial sense, what is not entailed is that because of this people should have more social power,

Agreed.

own more resources,

Disagreed. You absolutely deserve more from society if you give society more, and society is better off with that mechanic at play.

That is encouraging, but I claim that capitalist economic relations are making our inherent value as human beings obsolete, and replacing it with internalized market relations.

If that is what humans decide to do with the market, that is true. What I am saying is that this is what human beings choose to do. It is not what Capitalism necessitates. This can change right now, if people took actions. They don't, so it remains the same.

And our worth as human beings won't be expressed fully as long as the capitalist mode of productions organizes us socially. It is making the old Kantian notions of human beings as ends in-themselves obsolete, and replaced with every human being is a means to end for another.

Literally has nothing to do with Capitalism. This is a shift in the culture, in the fundamental philosophy underlying what people do economically in our society.

The very existence of a public education system is a result of market pressures. It was a way that corporations get a trained and disciplined labor force

I can certainly agree with that.

as the historical barriers of entry into teaching have been under corporate assault, with private schemes created to fulfill the crisis.

Elaborate.

Examples? Are you referring to municipal corporations and chartered/registered organization like for profit and non-profit organizations? They're not all the same. True, legally, states and local governments are incorporated, but private organizations being incorporated is a relatively modern convention, especially human rights for corporations, and the corporate legal structure is by no means the same thing as a capitalist or market structure, it is a system of delegating rights to entities which traditionally stemmed from a monarch, but today originate from (in theory) the people

In terms of abstract legal theory, sure there is a difference between a corporation granted by the monarch, vs a republican state form that is representative, I don't deny this. In terms of concrete relations, of how this plays out, it does not matter. The Virginia Company was still a form with shareholders, seeking to maximize profits. And this corporate form was with us since the beginning of capitalism, and its evolution is also the evolution of this form.

To use an analogy, in this case, the egg did come before the chicken, and eggs are not exclusive to chickens. You are suggesting that because eggs are chicken in nature, we can't use eggs to bring about anything but chickens

Well I mean if the eggs are "by nature chicken', then chickens will come out of them. Historically only chickens came out them, and we can predict with good predictive power that only chickens will come out of them... it is safe to say that only chickens will come out.

I don't understand your argument here, are you saying that because the government makes use of government owned enterprises, we can't use the government to make changes to our market economy?

I am saying that the government is not a neutral entity, rather it is an organization that arises out of the needs of capitalist development, whose purpose is to make capitalism function, and in as much as our interests are anti-thetical to those goals, the state form will be used against those interests. Partly because the very form of the state, is corporate in nature.

Because as soon as a military organization turns on the American people, foreign governments will support the opposing military factions (of which there would be many).

This is begging the question. Why would there be many factions?

For example, in America, we have the ability to freely spread information, i.e. we have the infrastructure to support this.

Information is very controlled in the US. In fact the very mechanism of mass communications, were understood as mechanism by which the public is manipulated... not inform. This goes without all the military censorship of information that occurs, as well as self-censorship of the press that occurs because they see themselves as the extension of the national security apparatus. Lastly the most important structural control of information, is the very corporate structure of the media. There are incentives a) not to alienate advertisers, and b) not to undermine corporate hegemony itself. This was thoroughly argued by Herman and Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

In terms of concrete relations, of how this plays out, it does not matter. The Virginia Company was still a form with shareholders, seeking to maximize profits. And this corporate form was with us since the beginning of capitalism, and its evolution is also the evolution of this form.

Except incorporation is how every organization in the world is given rights, and it does not have anything to do with private corporation except that private corporations are organization that have rights. Corporations predate private corporations. They are merely organizations with rights bestowed to them by greater organizations from which their power is granted.

Well I mean if the eggs are "by nature chicken', then chickens will come out of them. Historically only chickens came out them, and we can predict with good predictive power that only chickens will come out of them... it is safe to say that only chickens will come out.

No, you've gotten your logic wrong, see, corporations predate private corporations. The corporation is not a business by necessity, it is any organization with rights granted by a greater organization from which rights are granted, for example a monarchy, a republic etc. You've got your history backwards. America's government is corporate by nature, yes, but incorporation has historically been exclusive to government organization up until recent times, i.e. the corporation structure of our government says nothing about government as an ineffectual tool for combating private corporations.

I am saying that the government is not a neutral entity, rather it is an organization that arises out of the needs of capitalist development,

I wonder how we had governments before we had Capitalism then?

whose purpose is to make capitalism function, and in as much as our interests are anti-thetical to those goals, the state form will be used against those interests.

Government doesn't have a purpose. It's a political tool and nothing more, one that people have been letting giant multinational companies use against them instead of vise versa. That's the fault of an ignorant, stupid population easily manipulated into supporting policies which work against their interests.

Partly because the very form of the state, is corporate in nature.

Has nothing to do with it at all.

This is begging the question. Why would there be many factions?

Because there are factions in our government right now that all want power and work against each other to acquire it. Greed. Power.

Information is very controlled in the US. In fact the very mechanism of mass communications, were understood as mechanism by which the public is manipulated... not inform. This goes without all the military censorship of information that occurs, as well as self-censorship of the press that occurs because they see themselves as the extension of the national security apparatus. Lastly the most important structural control of information, is the very corporate structure of the media. There are incentives a) not to alienate advertisers, and b) not to undermine corporate hegemony itself. This was thoroughly argued by Herman and Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent".

I believe it, I love Chomsky and follow his work. Despite this fact, there is still are platforms and infrastructures for communication, which can be used for communicating government abuses to the wider world. We're using one right now to have this discussion.

Except incorporation is how every organization in the world is given rights, and it does not have anything to do with private corporations except that private corporations are organizations that have rights. Corporations predate private corporations. They are merely organizations with rights bestowed to them by greater organizations from which their power is granted.

They are organizations of a particular type, with a particular purpose, to extract a profit through market mechanisms. The fact that in the US it was determined that the bill of rights is applicable to them, while important and interesting, makes no difference to the argument.

No, you've gotten your logic wrong, see, corporations predate private corporations.

It is silly distinction. The fact that the Virgina Company was a corporation granted its charter from the King, makes no difference to the fact that it existed to extract a resources and sell it on the market. The fact that it would not be technically meet the modern legal definitions of private corporation is interesting and all, but it makes no difference in the concrete.

The corporation is not a business by necessity, it is any organization with rights granted by a greater organization from which rights are granted, for example a monarchy, a republic etc.

Again, while this is interesting and all, and it merely plays on the term corporation, we are taking about organizations that existed to develop and extract resources for the object of selling them on the marketplace. These organizations predated the modern legal definitions of a private corporation, and it is the influence of this form on the modern state that is under discussion. Not corporation as a term for a body. The claim is not only have these business ventures shaped the modern-state form, empirically true, but the state-form is becoming more corporate in this sense. it is creating organizations using MARKET-BASED approaches to whatever they are about. Look is In-Q-Tel a private corporation? Is it a government entity? Can you make a clear separation??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel

I wonder how we had governments before we had Capitalism then?

While you are technically correct, what I meant was the state-form.

The state-form that was arising out of needs of a Feudal society, is not the same state-form that arises out of the needs of a capitalist society.

Government doesn't have a purpose.

Next sentence is a claim that it is a tool. Obviously tools have a purpose.

one that people have been letting giant multinational companies use against them instead of vise versa. That's the fault of an ignorant, stupid population easily manipulated into supporting policies which work against their interests.

It is not just that it is a tool used against the population. Rather it is a toolbox, that contains many tools, created for the corporate form to expand, and increase its hegemony.

Because there are factions in our government right now that all want power and work against each other to acquire it. Greed. Power.

Yeah, but this does not entail that the military does not fulfill its function and goals, as clearly it does, even with factions and all. So it can turn against the American people, factions and all, and impose its will, factions and all... mind you I think this was already done. The military and industrial nexus pretty much runs the place as it is.

Despite this fact, there are still are platforms and infrastructures for communication, which can be used for communicating government abuses to the wider world. We're using one right now to have this discussion.

Yeah, but from this it does not follow that we have infrastructure that is free. Reddit censors and buries the information all the time. In fact I would argue it was an answer to the problem of outright censorship. To quote a another user, you solve the problem by giving people the power to bury and censor, and you pretend to be the people.

I mean take for example Russia right now. It certainly has control over the information infrastructure, but there were all sorts of digital platforms that allowed people to bypass them. You are familiar with what is occurring in Russia concerning Telegram?

But the existence of Telegram does not mean that information is free.

They are organizations of a particular type, with a particular purpose, to extract a profit through market mechanisms. The fact that in the US it was determined that the bill of rights is applicable to them, while important and interesting, makes no difference to the argument.

It does if you are trying to use the corporate legal structure of government as a criticism of the government's ability to police markets, given that corporation predates private corporation.

It is silly distinction. The fact that the Virgina Company was a corporation granted its charter from the King, makes no difference to the fact that it existed to extract a resources and sell it on the market. The fact that it would not technically meet the modern legal definitions of private corporation is interesting and all, but it makes no difference in the concrete.

The important point is that the 17th century Virginia Company isn't the government of America. The Virginia Company was a private corporation. That's irrelevant, though, because incorporation predates private corporation, and the creation of The Republic was not that of the creation of a private corporation, but the independent declaration of a new sovereignty within which states were incorporated as they have been for hundreds if not nearly a thousand years in English law. Your point is logically invalid, and if it wasn't it wouldn't be sound anyway, because the actual premise isn't true, either.

Again, while this is interesting and all, and it merely plays on the term corporation, we are taking about organizations that existed to develop and extract resources for the object of selling them on the marketplace. These organizations predated the modern legal definitions of a private corporation, and it is the influence of this form on the modern state that is under discussion. Not corporation as a term for a body.

Glad we cleared that up.

The claim is not only have these business ventures shaped the modern-state form

Sure I can concede that corporation have influence on the government. Of course.

the state-form is becoming more corporate in this sense. it is creating organizations using MARKET-BASED approaches to whatever they are about. Look is In-Q-Tel a private corporation? Is it a government entity? Can you make a clear separation??

But these state owner enterprises and state insured corporations have nothing to do with the fundamental political tools by which citizens can affect political change democratically. Those tools still exist and are unimpeded by the U.S. postal service's existence.

While you are technically correct, what I meant was the state-form.

The state-form that was arising out of needs of a Feudal society, is not the same state-form that arises out of the needs of a capitalist society.

Okay sure, government changes over time in its essential functions as people change. Fundamentally the state is the same as it was on the day it was created, although we have seen some important, IMO detrimental changes, like for example the allocation of war declaration to the executive branch (seems as though it is about to officially be given to the president by congress). Overall the changes are small, though, and the basic political tools that have always existed still exist, i.e. the ability of the people to police the market hasn't changed, people just don't make use of this tool.

Next sentence is a claim that it is a tool. Obviously tools have a purpose.

What purpose does the Swiss army knife have? Its purpose is to be a versatile tool to suit various needs, and is updated and modified every year to stay relevant to the needs of the people that buy it. Government is precisely that, except it has come to suit the needs of the people that literally buy it, with capital, instead of the needs of people that buy it with the capital of their suffrage. This is a consequence of effective, widespread manipulation of an unintelligent, uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, easily manipulated mass population.

Not Capitalism.

It is not just that it is a tool used against the population. Rather it is a toolbox, that contains many tools, created for the corporate form to expand, and increase its hegemony.

It was not created for the corporate form to expand and increase its hegemony, but that is how it was used, yes. It was created as a tool for affecting political change. Corporations took over the tool and began using it to affect political change in the form of financial change-in their favor. All the same, the tool remains as it was, and in fact has come to encompass a wider stretch of the population, yet we still don't efficaciously make use of it. The fault of stupidity and nothing more.

Yeah, but this does not entail that the military does not fulfill its function and goals, as clearly it does, even with factions and all.

Separate goals fulfilled by separate people within the complex power network that is the American elite.

So it can turn against the American people, factions and all, and impose its will, factions and all

Incredibly unlikely. Everyone wants the biggest piece of the pie, and chaos is the best time to eat.

... mind you I think this was already done. The military and industrial nexus pretty much runs the place as it is.

Wherever people believe power comes from is where it rests. For a majority of people this is money. I'd say that stands even in the upper echelons of society, so chances are the military doesn't "run the place" but rather, the corporations building military technology for the military, and whoever has them bought.

Yeah, but from this it does not follow that we have infrastructure that is free.

I didn't say it did, and it also isn't necessary, it just needs to be free enough to communicate abuse with the rest of the world. To this extent it is free.

Reddit censors and buries the information all the time. In fact I would argue it was an answer to the problem of outright censorship. To quote a another user, you solve the problem by giving people the power to bury and censor, and you pretend to be the people.

Very true, but that doesn't mean that a violent culling of an American revolution or dissident movement wouldn't be heard by the rest of the world. That would be virtually impossible, at least at this time.

I mean take for example Russia right now. It certainly has control over the information infrastructure, but there were all sorts of digital platforms that allowed people to bypass them.

You awareness of this phenomena is proof enough.

You are familiar with what is occurring in Russia concerning Telegram?

But the existence of Telegram does not mean that information is free.

Nothing can ever be absolutely free, but within the context of this discussion we can establish that these platforms are free enough for the purpose of this argument.

It does if you are trying to use the corporate legal structure of government as a criticism of the government's ability to police markets, given that corporation predates private corporation.

But, I am not using the corporate legal structure of the government, I am using the way organizations exist in the concrete and act. The fact that what you want to do is equivocate legal fictions, with material relations is a faulty move on your part. My claim is that organizations that are oriented towards creating profit through market mechanisms, shaped the government, that many government organizations, are literally organizations that pursue profits through market mechanisms, and that this leads to an imbalance where the institutions themselves are not neutral.

The important point is that the 17th century Virginia Company isn't the government of America. The Virginia Company was a private corporation.

I am not making the claim that the US government has a legal designation of a private corporation. I am making a claim that the organizations like the Virginia Company governed in a particular way, and that these functions, these concrete processes, are imported into the functions of the state.

Moreover the main point of our disagreement, seems to me that you think our problems stem from influence of the private corporation on government policy. My claim is that the problems predates the changes in legal standing from the end of the 19th century, and that the organizational form that is the problem is not only emulated by the government, but actively creates it and shapes it.

The Republic was not that of the creation of a private corporation,

To reiterate the point, again, it is not my position that the US government has a legal standing of a private corporation, you can have that argument with sovereign citizen types, not with me.

but the independent declaration of a new sovereignty within which states were incorporated as they have been for hundreds if not nearly a thousand years in English law.

Again, the problem are organizations which generate profit through through the market. It is those corporations that are under discussion. And it is the needs of those entities, that shaped the actual governing institutions, to meet their own needs.

Sure I can concede that corporations have influence on the government. Of course.

It is what is meant by influence that we disagree on. My claim is that the very institutions are shaped by the needs of of corporations, and exist to further that form, and that it is this that makes them not neutral, as tools. Not that they pay politicians to vote their way or pass legislation or whatever. I mean all these things are true, I don't disagree that they do indeed do that.

But these state owner enterprises and state insured corporations have nothing to do with the fundamental political tools by which citizens can affect political change democratically.

This is simply false, as most of political thinking since the 1920's, and the institutions that have been created has all been about suppressing the democratic input and capability for democratically set policy. It was through people like Lippmann that the public was cast us incapable of making sound decisions, and that it needs to be goaded or manipulated into supporting positions that an 'elite' class makes, and that the function of the the state is to CREATE MARKETS. These strands came from Speier and crystallized in the network of institutions like the RAND corporation for 'defense' (see Bessner's work on this), it was echoed in the Trilateral Commissions work, The Crisis of Democracy, which identified the problems of the 60's as an EXCESS of democracy. Finally it brings us fool circle to the beginning of this thread, which is the creation of the OSS, and after it the CIA.. The organization is rooted in the financial sector and wall-street, since its beginning, and it literally existed to suppress political movement that threatened the capitalist order, whether domestically or abroad.

So in fact, the history of the 20th century is the creation of institutions which protect corporate hegemony, and suppress democratic movements that challenge it - public institutions.

Fundamentally the state is the same as it was on the day it was created,

Well look, we can find similarities between any things we compare, and we can find differences as well, so yes, in some sense state fulfills the same role. But that role can evolve through time in such a manner that it becomes radically different from where we started, there is always a unity in difference... I suppose it is the difference of emphasis on this point between us.

IMO detrimental changes, like for example the allocation of war declaration to the executive branch (seems as though it is about to officially be given to the president by congress).

Sure, I this is a catastrophic change, I agree.

What purpose does the Swiss army knife have? Its purpose is to be a versatile tool to suit various needs, and is updated and modified every year to stay relevant to the needs of the people that buy it.

Yeah, it is used to cut, to open bottles, to eat with. Each tool in the handset has a specific function it was designed for. You don't water a garden with a hammer. And government is like that, it enforces property rights, creates an environment for corporations to expand, works with specific corporations to meet goals, provides for education of the labor force, until that can be handed over to market mechanism. It pursues a foreign policy in which the corporate forms expands, etc. This is the concrete reality of the state.

This is a consequence of effective, widespread manipulation of an unintelligent, uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, easily manipulated mass population.

I agree that there is widespread manipulation, but I don't think it is easily done. I think the techniques have to be continuously improved, because people begin to reject them. Which brings to the point of that people are not unintelligent; misinformed, sure! But even through these massive campaigns, and through political institutions built to suppress their participation, regular people fought for and won victories, that really improved our society.

Not Capitalism

Oh yes capitalism! What is the history of the 20th century, other than amplification of the base, and the vulgar and creation of loops that cycle this stuff back to us, all as a result of neoliberal commitment. The befuddlement of regular people is by design and due to application of marketization.

It was not created for the corporate form to expand and increase its hegemony

This is a matter of the historical record. The modern state was created to codify a set of rules that makes the expansion of capital possible. Instead of having a large territory be governed by one corporation, like lets say the East India Company, a framework had to be developed where multiple organizations of this type could co-exist over the same territory.

The fault of stupidity and nothing more.

Right, we are going to pretend that movements that arose historically that challenged this, were not actively suppressed through the state apparatus.

Separate goals fulfilled by separate people within the complex power network that is the American elite.

Yeah, but there are obviously unitary principles and goals, whether that be something like pursuit of profit, or commitments towards preserving class rule. It does not follow from this that they don't turn against the American people. Especially once the class nature of these organizations is recognized.

Wherever people believe power comes from is where it rests.

Well I don't know, obviously property relations and power to enforce them are not a matter of belief.

I'd say that stands even in the upper echelons of society, so chances are the military doesn't "run the place" but rather, the corporations building military technology for the military, and whoever has them bought.

You have private contractors doing the fighting, private contractors providing logistics, private contractors providing intelligence and this vast force is mobilized on behalf of corporate hegemony. This is what the military is in the concrete. Moreover, military personal are on boards of directors of corporations, further doing away with meaningful distinctions. And yes, this network, of private and public institutions runs the place.

I didn't say it did, and it also isn't necessary, it just needs to be free enough to communicate abuse with the rest of the world. To this extent it is free.

While I agree that it is a necessary condition it is not sufficient. Not only does one need the capability to yell out the window, one needs to capability to hear the scream, and act from it. A system that attacks both nodes can't be characterized as free.

Very true, but that doesn't mean that a violent culling of an American revolution or dissident movement wouldn't be heard by the rest of the world. That would be virtually impossible, at least at this time.

Whether or not it's possible to suppress information of this scope is, I think not important. I guess I am more cynical here. Even if this information was available it would not matter.

Nothing can ever be absolutely free, but within the context of this discussion we can establish that these platforms are free enough for the purpose of this argument.

I am not advocating for things to be absolutely free. We just disagree on whether or not technical means of sharing information that bypass methods of suppression is a sufficient condition to call means of information free.

This has gone on so long, and to such an extent, that I am actually getting exhausted. I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue, but I respect and appreciate your perspective. I guarantee I'll read this comment, and thanks for the dialogue.

I guarantee I'll read this comment, and thanks for the dialogue.

Ditto!

I'm going to dissect what you've presented and see about doing some additional research into your perspective, because at this point I feel there's nothing left to do but learn from each other.

This is simply false, as most of political thinking since the 1920's, and the institutions that have been created have all been about suppressing the democratic input and capability for democratically set policy. It was through people like Lippmann that the public was cast us incapable of making sound decisions, and that it needs to be goaded or manipulated into supporting positions that an 'elite' class makes, and that the function of the the state is to CREATE MARKETS.

I'm interested in this subject. Direct me to some good reads about it if you don't mind.

These strands also came from Speier and crystallized in the network of institutions like the RAND corporation for 'defense' (see Bessner's work on this), it was echoed in the Trilateral Commissions work, The Crisis of Democracy, which identified the problems of the 60's as an EXCESS of democracy. Finally it brings us fool circle to the beginning of this thread, which is the creation of the OSS, and after it the CIA.. The organization is rooted in the financial sector and wall-street, since its beginning, and it literally existed to suppress political movement that threatened the capitalist order, whether domestically or abroad.

So in fact, the history of the 20th century is the creation of institutions which protect corporate hegemony, and suppress democratic movements that challenge it - public institutions!

Same with all this. Fascinating.

Yeah, it is used to cut, to open bottles, to eat with. Each tool in the handset has a specific function it was designed for. You don't water a garden with a hammer. And government is like that, it enforces property rights, creates an environment for corporations to expand, works with specific corporations to meet goals, provides for education of the labor force, until that can be handed over to market mechanism. It pursues a foreign policy in which the corporate forms expands, etc. This is the concrete reality of the state.

I can't deny that these are things the state does, but I still don't agree that this is a necessary function of the state, but rather the manner in which it is used, by corporations which make use of it for their own gain. Even if this is how government has always been used, it is still an efficacious tool for democratic movements and political change, but I'm sure I'll learn more about the details of how that has been challenged when I read some of the material requested above.

Oh yes capitalism! What is the history of the 20th century, other than amplification of the base, and the vulgar and creation of loops that cycle this stuff back to us, all as a result of neoliberal commitment. The befuddlement of regular people is by design and due to application of marketization.

I'd maintain the actions of Capitalists, sure, but I'd argue these are not necessary consequences of Capitalism, but rather what people have chosen to do with Capitalism historically. Without any government at all, and just Capitalism, you'd have a hell hole, wild west wasteland. My argument is merely that Capitalism as a system does not necessitate these things. Fundamentally these are consequences of human actions and decisions, which have occured within a Capitalist system, merely because Capitalism allows for these behaviors, and yes, perhaps in some sense, in the absence of certain roles of the state, rewards these behaviors, but it is the human that is perceiving reward and value from the material gains permitted by Capitalism. The system itself demands nothing. Perhaps it's just a semantic difference, but I think it is an important distinction for deciding how to deal with Capitalism, as I concede it presents problems given the human condition, which need to be addressed.

Right, we are going to pretend that movements that arose historically that challenged this, were not actively suppressed through the state apparatus.

No I've seen this happen even in contemporary history. Wasn't trying to deny that, but I can see how it came across that way.

Yeah, but there are obviously unitary principles and goals, whether that be something like pursuit of profit, or commitments towards preserving class rule. It does not follow from this that they don't turn against the American people. Especially once the class nature of these organizations is recognized.

I suppose but there's always ways that even elitists can divide themselves into sub-classes and vie for dominance even among themselves. I think that mentality must be pervasive, or they wouldn't be in the positions of power they are in.

Well I don't know, obviously property relations and power to enforce them are not a matter of belief.

Operative word there being power. The most fundamental power is capacity for violence.

You have private contractors doing the fighting, private contractors providing logistics, private contractors providing intelligence and this vast force is mobilized on behalf of corporate hegemony. This is what the military is in the concrete. Moreover, military personal are on boards of directors of corporations, further doing away with meaningful distinctions. And yes, this network, of private and public institutions runs the place.

It's an important distinction that implies something entirely other than "the military". Who has controlling interest in those military contractors?

While I agree that it is a necessary condition it is not sufficient. Not only does one need the capability to yell out the window, one needs to capability to hear the scream, and act from it. A system that attacks both nodes can't be characterized as free.

I agree, I guess we're really just arguing over what we think is most probable. If the American people were turned on by the government, would the people be capable of alerting the wider global audience? I think yes, and for our purposes in this discussion, I'd say that makes our communication infrastructure "free enough".

Whether or not it's possible to suppress information of this scope is, I think not important. I guess I am more cynical here. Even if this information was available it would not matter.

Perhaps you're right.

I am not advocating for things to be absolutely free. We just disagree on whether or not technical means of sharing information that bypass methods of suppression is a sufficient condition to call means of information free.

I don't think we're even arguing about that anymore at this point, we can both sufficiently say it isn't in the general sense.

Great conversation, thanks for the information, and please feel free to provide any other content you think I should look into to further understand your perspective. I'll give it a look!

Be safe out there, the world is fucked XD

I'm interested in this subject. Direct me to some good reads about it if you don't mind.

Sure, the historical beginnings of this are with the Lippmann Colloquium that met before WWII broke out, where a new kind of liberalism, and political strategy was discussed. For a good overview over the meeting this is the work to consult.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-65885-8

After the War these groups got together and organized the Mont Pelerin society, and begin implementing neoliberal political projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

Philip Mirowski is the scholar to go to in order to get a good account of how this functions.

A book on Mont Pelerin society:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674033184

An overview of this movement and ideology, again from Mirowski (PDF)

"The Political Movement that Dared not Speak its own Name: The Neoliberal Thought Collective Under Erasure"

https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP23-Mirowski.pdf

Here you will find how regular people were transformed from rational agents in neoclassical economic theory, to irrational agents that are ultimately epistemically flawed subjects, and the market is transformed from an allocation device to an epistemic agent.

Same with all this. Fascinating.

Well Bassner's work was already referenced, but this is a good book, that provides an overview.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140104396220

On the CIA, OSS and its connection to Wall-Street, I suppose the best entry would be David Talbot's work on the Dulles brothers.

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062276162/the-devils-chessboard

On the real history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Weiner.

Domhoff is a sociologist that has been working on this type of stuff for a long time, and has a website. He is a great resource to untangle modern corporate power. Check out his work on business think-thanks like Council on Foreign Relations.

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/postwar_foreign_policy.html

On state repression of democratic movements, start with the first red scare. Howard Zinn's book on history is still the best all around account of this subject.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2767.A_People_s_History_of_the_United_States

To see what I am arguing, it can be done through a particular state function, like policing. This is a good book that provides a history and function of policing, (it might surprise you) and advocates for its end.

https://www.amazon.com/End-Policing-Alex-S-Vitale/dp/1784782890

I can't deny that these are things the state does, but I still don't agree that this is a necessary function of the state, but rather the manner in which it is used, by corporations which make use of it for their own gain.

The state does not have a necessary function, other than to mitigate the problems of class relations, and to expand the processes of capital accumulation. I am in total agreement that it can be used and political victories won. Obviously, for example, a limit on the working day is political victory, and the state was used to achieve it. But it was the underlying struggle, and militancy that translated into a state victory. As soon as that militancy dissipated, the working day was under attack. If the state was a neutral instrument, this would not matter.

I'd maintain the actions of Capitalists, sure, but I'd argue these are not necessary consequences of Capitalism, but rather what people have chosen to do with Capitalism historically.

It is a consequence of pursuing most profit, and engineering a landscape where most profit is generated. This is an internal drive to capital accumulation. So if the object is maximum economic growth, then the object is going to be individual purchasing units, purchasing the most stuff. This has been well documented by sociologists, and commented on by philosophers and political theorists. It entails an apparatus that cultivates desire, instead rational contemplation, or spiritual and ethical values. If you don't have this type of subjectivity... then people by just what they need in a very narrow since, and you end up with a crisis of overproduction. Obviously a population entertained by commodity consumption in the form of the base.

Fundamentally these are consequences of human actions and decisions, which have occured within a Capitalist system, merely because Capitalism allows for these behaviors, and yes, perhaps in some sense, in the absence of certain roles of the state, rewards these behaviors, but it is the human that is perceiving reward and value from the material gains permitted by Capitalism.

I fundamentally agree, that ultimately capitalism is just a generalized system of human relations. It is just that those relations don't appear to us as such, they appear as things and forces outside of our control... and they are. They push us to exist in a certain manner, independent of our will. It structures our lives, and we fill those structures.

Operative word there being power. The most fundamental power is capacity for violence.

In a way we all have a capacity for violence, but that does not bend another will to your own. Power does that, even with absence of violence.

It's an important distinction that implies something entirely other than "the military". Who has controlling interest in those military contractors?

That is the military in the concrete. I don't know what you mean by controlling interest. If the contractor is private corporation, then it would be the board of directors, that is attempting to keep shareholders happy.

Be safe out there, the world is fucked XD

Same to you. Cheers!

k

Another feminism post from you!

Must be very lonely without your incel community to run too.

Feminists by religion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminists_by_religion

Used to weaken/destroy Christian family structure and culture

I'm all for weakening Christian culture. For far too long we have capitulated to these bigots.

I'm Christian. Not a bigot. I don't know anyone in that community who is. And if there are any, it's probably because the media is telling me to think that way. The same way that it's convinced you that we're all bigots.

I believe you when you say you aren't a bigot, but I vehemently disagree with your assessment of Christian culture. I worked, served, and basically lived in a protestant church for the majority of my childhood.

Negative attitudes toward gays, divocees, transexuals, and basically anyone who dared to not conform were pervasive. The amount of cult-like incidents I witnessed was staggering. Christian culture is predicated on a belief that (1) you don't need evidence for your beliefs and (2) if you don't buy what we're selling, you're going to burn in eternal hell for it.

Christian culture is predicated on a belief that (1) you don't need evidence for your beliefs and (2) if you don't buy what we're selling, you're going to burn in eternal hell for it.

not to argue, but I encourage you, look around. I would contend: this isn't so much a Christian thing as it is a person thing, a layman thing.

I mean, really, think of the common person. Does he truly investigate, does he truly substantiate anything he believes? Of course he doesn't. He just happens to believe a limited selection of well-researched things about the universe by coincidence, because those are the things that are normal and socially acceptable for him to believe. Just the same, in many cases, he also believes foolish and inaccurate things. These beliefs are not produced by well-reasoned and careful approach; they are produced by the approach that evaluates apart from the basis of evidence. It just manages to conceal itself due to our larger society having done so much of the heavy lifting already.

now think about when you disagree with this person, when you venture outside the boundary of what he decides is acceptable. What does he do, how does he feel? What does he say about conspiracy theorists, for example? I'm sure you already know the answer: he believes it is objective reality that you are in the wrong, first of all. He believes this simply because he declares it, and because people around him will agree. Just the same, he believes you are no longer eligible for the considerations and the understanding that would excuse your differences - effectively, that you are a non-person. Granted, he doesn't come out and say this. Of course he doesn't. But we don't need him to. We can deduce, based on the indicators, whether or not it is true. And it is true.

I am a Christian. I believe Jesus was sent by the real God in real life, and that he rose from the dead in real life to authenticate that he truly came from God. I believe this position is fully defensible logically; in fact I believe with my whole person that all disagreement altogether comes from ignorance, and that most of it is willful. I will fight about this. But I will not fight about Christian culture. I agree: Christian culture is absolutely garbage, and you are completely in the right to have issue with it.

because I am a Christian, I know what Christian teaching encompasses. And I testify to this: it is not Christian teaching that produces the behavior you see practiced in Christian culture. On the contrary: the teaching of Christ calls us to extraordinary psychological aptitude. Specifically, the teaching of Christ calls us to such an aptitude that has never before been seen in the history of the world. This teaching does not call us to believe without evidence by any means. Rather, it calls us to so great an understanding as this: that we know what is true within ourselves at all times, no matter what is indicated by any evidence, whether from the world or from our own senses. I say, Jesus Christ is THE light and THE truth, higher than anything that has ever been conceived by man. It is therefore impossible that anyone who knows him would walk in ignorance or in the darkness.

no, it is not Christian teaching that produces this behavior you see in Christian culture. Not in the least. It is rather this: that people will act like cultural Christians no matter what their framework of belief, and that meanwhile, to those who already want to believe that they are as righteous and as justified as God, the most base and superficial elements of Christian teaching will fit them like a glove.

cheers, and thanks for reading.

Because that's what Christians fling at us. Don't try this "no true Scotsman" bullshit here.

Christian culture is still rooted in the bigotry of the old testament, but it will likely one day merely resemble the words, and only the words, attributed to Jesus, in The New Testament. I have seen Christianity take truly evil, fucked up, broken people, and turn them into good people, that have negative attitudes towards those groups mentioned, sure, but they're not out committing crimes and harming people. It's an improvement, and for some people, it's perhaps the only way they get out of the darkness of their past.

In large part, yes. You'll find all manner of disgusting shit in there, some of which rivals the Hadith.

Which media outlet tells Christians to be bigots?

CNN for one

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/2016/06/28/cnns-bernstein-trump-coalition-has-awful-lot-bigots-hateful-people

He's saying there are lots of hateful people that like Trump. That's just a fact. Hateful people aren't being told to be that way.

That's an interpretation the lying media has given you. Not a fact.

Where is that stated in your link? Help me understand.

This conspiracy about feminism taking over always confuses me, because feminism is neither popular nor powerful, and their movement rarely gets what they want. If you think that's what a powerful shadowgroup looks like, you're hilariously off the mark and probably not paying attention to the real shit.

So?

Should we take away their right to vote? Prevent them from working?

What's the goal here lad?

I ask again, what's the goal here?

Go get a hooker, no one gives a fuck.

If that were the case you wouldn't be so pre-occupied with what other adults did with their time.

Something tells me you would object if it was the wrong Bible.

THAT is your goal?

PLEASE go find a better way to exist. You're literally throwing what little time any human has on the planet by spending it on things that DO NOT MATTER.

Who gives a flying **** what someone does with their damn genitalia, as long as it's consensual?

Well, clearly you do. But please, for your own enjoyment of life, stop trying to interfere with others' ability to enjoy theirs however they wish.

But I get my partner tested before I fuck someone new!

That's If* I decided to find someone new. I am not looking in the market.

lol, I think we just have....

As if you could find a virgin these days.

Lmao what the fuckare you on about? Who gives a fuck about promiscuity? Use rubbers and get tested like a goddamn adult. Practice safe sex. Its not hard.

Why on earth would a guy in his 30's want to fuck virgins? Shit is absolutely wacky.

Yes. Everyone should be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness within the bounds of not doing anything harmful to their fellow citizens or fellow humans. Gays. Ladies. Minorities. White men. You do you boo and allow your other citizens the same courtesy.

What’s wrong with that caveat?

God, you're stupid

No it doesn't. "Do what you please to whatever extent you do not harm others" is a condition, not a contradiction, and it is perfectly rational.

Ok I get that being anonymously pedantic online gives you a massive boner. But yes I still stand by my very easy "one rule" that I mentioned previously.

Your liberty to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.

Unfortunately that's not how civilisations are built and kept healthy.

They require a social order and >2 kids per family. Morality is a luxury ware that might not be affordable forever. This is just covering the social/biological side of our existence.

The economical side wouldn't exist without force which makes your suggested free will just a selective illusion. A chain letter with an undetermined but limited future because the individual doesn't really pay the price of their decisions now.

I'm not arguing here pro and contra something but that our current mode of thinking can be quickly washed away by changed circumstances.

They worked but didn't receive equal pay and it was okay for bosses to pinch lady's asses at work and if she told him to stop he could basically tell her to deal.

Do you think anyone is suggesting any of those things?

What's the point of your question lad?

If that isn't the suggestion, then what would it matter if the CIA was or wasn't involved with feminism?

Because feminism isn't about equal rights anymore and it hasn't been since they revived it. It's about hatred, and it's hatred that abets their mission and it's hatred that undermines society.

So yes in a perfect world the government wouldn't fund hatred. But we don't live in that world. Perhaps not the most eloquently put, but as Milo said, feminism is cancer and we shouldn't be keeping cancer alive.

The only remaining legal inequality between the sexes is draft eligibility. If women want to expose themselves to slavery that's stupid, but as a man I certainly don't want any part of that decision.

You're doing a spot on impression of that "interview" on channel4 with Jordan Peterson. Nothing but putting words in their mouth. "So what you're saying... So what you're saying..."

https://youtu.be/ctqA4kX9jWk

Well considering that OP's stated goal is to stop women from fucking so much, I wasn't all that far off.

Let us remember: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8hp2c3/feminism_was_not_an_organic_movement_it_was/dylkhyk/

There you go lad.

Literally nobody said that.

Yeah please clarify the point

There were feminists long before there was a Gloria Steinem or the CIA.

That's not feminism. Feminism really should be more defined as equality.

The operative word being equality. Not feminism. Simply because the perspective of feminism is widely varied. Some may view it as a stupid attention grab or garnering attention/affirmation. Others view it as a balancing of treatment and respect for both genders, aka humans.

That would be egalitarian than, no?

Call it whatever you want. It's the optimal way to live for all inhabitants of the planet. Any other extremes on perspectives of the genders is suboptimal.

Because women dont have it yet? The statistics are pretty clear on that, women make less money for the same work and are less represented in top leadership positions in the us. Compare this to Sweden where on average about half the legislature is made up of women (there is some natural fluctuation).

Modern feminism is also a critical theory in the humanities interested in uncovering deeper, often unintended, meanings in literature, law, political science, etc... This is very helpful for increasing our understanding of the world at large.

Feminism has also increased its focus from merely "equality for women" to the elimination of gender based social institutions that harm people. This is why modern feminists spend so much time on fighting "toxic masculinity" and the common depiction of women in media.

These ideas are harmful to all people of all genders. They represent a warped misunderstanding of reality that affects people's actions. The typical depiction of masculinity in media is stoic, unemotional and uninterested in deep emotional connections (Han Solo is an excellent example). This is not how humans actually work.

For a long while I acted this way, as do many other men, and I was unhappy. I was lucky enough to be open minded and listened to some feminist "propaganda", realised I was an idiot and changed his I acted towards other people. Feminism helped me, personally, to be a better person, and I'm not even a woman! Outside of some extremists, the movement as a whole is still necessary.

Actually, yes. While media around the world loves to point bluto statistics gathered by the swedish government and say "look, all the raep!!!!" They tend to leave out a little thing called "context".

Swedish law has several unique quirks that cause the reported uncidence.of tape to appear higher. For instance; in most countries if a woman came to the police with evidence that her husband had roamed her every night for three weeks, this would count as one instance of rape. In Sweden this is instead counted as 21 separate instances of rape.

Most countries also have a separation between sexual assault and rape (I guess it makes the stats look better), Sweden does not. Swedish culture is also much more egalitarian in general and ideas like toxic masculinity dont hold as much away there, so both men and women are much more likely to report a rape.

If you are just going to spout that "Sweden is rape capital" nonsense then I guess you also believe that Pakistan has no rapes at all. After all, the government there does not gather official figures at all, and you are just going off government stats without context here.

Haha, very funny. You sure are the cleverest of the clever. Can't debate the rest of what I wrote, so you make a dumb joke.

It doesn't matter where Pakistan is, what matters is that its official tape stats dont exist. To accept this without context would lead a person to believe there are no rapes in Pakistan. Just as accepting the rape stats of Sweden without context suggests it has the highest rape rate in the world. It's the CONTEXT that matters here, not the geography.

Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't comparing Palistan to Sweden in terms of society, culture, politics, etc... the comparison being made, as I have repeatedly stated, was that your failure to understand CONTEXT would lead you to believe Pakistan has one of the lowest rape rates on earth.

Frankly, I am not interested in debating you. However, there is a greater than zero chance that a reasonable person without much background knowledge comes along and reads this, so I'm hoping you keep this up for their sake. You have not given a rebuttal of anything I wrote, choosing instead to constantly misunderstand a simple point to fit your agenda. No wonder you can't understand context, realy.

Once again, CONTEXT. Since 1965 Sweden has consistently broadened the legal definition of rape through legislation and court rulings. In 2005 the legal definition of rape was expanded to include sexual acts with an unconscious person (asleep or intoxicated). In 2008 a Swedish court ruled that "digital penetration" of an unconscious woman was also rape (in most of the world this would be treated as sexual assault).

The feminist and egalitarian culture in Sweden has also resulted in less toxic gender relations, so men and women have become increasingly more likely as time goes on to report rape. The government of Sweden has also pursued policies to reduce the number of unreported rapes.

The rape rate in Sweden has also remained static on average (there has been some fluctuation) since 2005, the last time legislation broadened the definition of rape. So to claim that increase since 1980 somehow means feminism causes rapes is fairly ridiculous as it completely ignores context as well as confounding factors. A correlation exists, but there is no causation.

I am on mobile so I can't link info here, but it's all on wikipedia anyway. If you don't like wikipedia then the website of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) is where all the tape statistics can be found. Of course, UNDOC itself discourages people from using its statistics for cross national comparisons, because being reasonable people they realize that these statistics could result in a lot of mistaken beliefs of taken out of CONTEXT. Hopefully by this point you have figured out why that's important.

Yes, actually. Both men and women are more likely to report rape when there is no victim shaming involved. And, seeing as Sweden legalized homosexuality and established legal gender neutrality in the 80s, same sex tape is definitely included.

Toxic conceptions of femininity and masculinity may not be as serious for homosexuals, but they still have an impact. Homosexual rape, due to the stigma surrounding homosexuality, often gets reported a lot less than heterosexual rape (though men tend not to go to the police after rape as well, so it's mostly women raped by men that seek help as this is more socially acceptable).

Combined with the ever broader legal definition of rape, strong feminism, egalitarianism, faith in law enforcement and efforts to increase reporting of rapes by citizens, Sweden had one of the highest rates of reported rape in earth. But once unreported rapes are included Sweden suddenly becomes one of the least rapefull(?) Countries on earth.

Wait? I thought feminism was causing all of the rape?!?!

While this is pretty out of left field, I'll bite. Swedish authorities have repeatedly stated that there has been no statistically significant increase in the rate of all crimes. In the case of rape, specifically, there was an increase in reported rapes in 2005 that coincided with the law broadening the legal definition of rape that I mentioned previously. The year after that the rate fell to below previous levels and has fluctuated ever since.

Now, I understand you may not trust the official numbers from Sweden and the EU. But if that is the case then why are you turning to those numbers to suggest that they have the highest rape rate in Europe and that it has increased since the 80s. That's quite a bit of "mental gymnastics" right there.

Besides, the guy that came on fox during the 2016 election claiming to be a former Swedish government minister and brought all this up in the first place was lying. He never worked for the swedish government and had to publically apologize for lying. Of course faux news (infotainment, not a legitimate news source according to their own website) did not report that event.

Where do you get all these misunderstandings from. The laws are not a problem, they are a success. Thanks to Swedens legal system rapists are actually prosecuted and the rate of victimization is one of the lowest in the world. If you are a person that wants true legal equality, then Sweden is as close as you will get.

This is why Sweden regularly ranks as one of the happiest countries on earth. The people there are less stressed than almost anywhere else. People dont have unreasonable expectations of themselves and others (which is what toxic masculinity creates). If things were really so bad in Sweden as people like you seem to think, then why are the Swedes not in open revolt?

And now the truth is revealed. Breitbart is not a legitimate news source, you might as well link to the National Enquirer. This is the sight that sells steroids that dont work, claims that there is a conspiracy to make people gay and supports neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Come back when you have an actual journalistic source, like the conservative Wall Street Journal, that supports your view.

It is.

Brietbart is not a legitimate news source. It has repeatedly put out factually false stories. Not just misinformation as in the case of Fox, but plain and simple lies. I even pointed out one of these false stories, the whole "they are making the frogs gay!" Thing. While that is the most over the top example, it is sadly far from the only one.

Brietbart also used testimony from the Swedish guy that claimed to have been with the government. But where Fox at least stopped talking about Sweden once all the lies were revealed, Brietbart has clearly continued to pit forward a false narative.

As for the story itself, it's a literal nothingburger. A migrant was brought to court and charged with rape, and the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence. This in the "rape capital" of Europe, isnt it? Surely the evil feminazis would have jumped at the opportunity to throw a rapist in prison?

Except, as it turns out, not all feminists are evil man haters and not all Arab migrants are rapists. It turns out that the legal system in Sweden, shockingly, works. People trust the legal system and there is little to no social stigma, so rapes are reported. Once reported, if there is sufficient evidence, the perpetrator is convicted.

Not everything is some horrible conspiracy, not everything can be. If the world actually worked the way people like you think it does, it would already be way too late to fix anything.

... But he didn't compare the two. He just pointed out that comparing stats from different countries without accounting for the data collection methods is pointless, and it is the method you used to say that Sweden was "the rape capital of Europe".

Your central argument was debunked and now you come up with unimaginative points to divert everyone's attention.

For every 1 of that type of feminist, there are 999 completely normal feminists with careers, friends, and families. Not gonna try to convince you of that, though. When you live in a bubble, you only see what you want to see.

Yeah but all the good was done when the franchise was expanded.

The movement was co-opted and subverted to create another identity oriented political movement.

The point of it isn't to support any group. The point is to arouse hatred.

People that hate will accept another step violating liberty when it's used in the context of attacking the hated group.

EG The left's complete abandonment of free speech. They think, and intend, that it will just be speech of the enemy that will be censored and controlled. But of course that isn't how wit will work out.

Note also there's a push on the right to get Facebook regulated. But of course it just won't be facebook that gets regulated.

Ultimately it doesn't matter which identity group 'prevails'. It only matters that one does and it succeeds in getting some major protection of rights demolished.

It doesn't matter which group 'wins', the bad guys always win.

Great argument, it resonates well with observations of recent history.

Quoting, as comments too on-the-nose have a tendency to disappear.

Yeah but all the good was done when the franchise was expanded.

The movement was co-opted and subverted to create another identity oriented political movement.

The point of it isn't to support any group. The point is to arouse hatred.

People that hate will accept another step violating liberty when it's used in the context of attacking the hated group.

EG The left's complete abandonment of free speech. They think, and intend, that it will just be speech of the enemy that will be censored and controlled. But of course that isn't how wit will work out.

Note also there's a push on the right to get Facebook regulated. But of course it just won't be facebook that gets regulated.

Ultimately it doesn't matter which identity group 'prevails'. It only matters that one does and it succeeds in getting some major protection of rights demolished.

It doesn't matter which group 'wins', the bad guys always win.

They do? I noticed this sub seemed a little domesticated but comments actually get deleted?

NM I see;) It's strange my comment had a lot of upvotes but then out of nowhere it went negative.

Liberal and non violent, the cia.

And they're responsible for prohibition. Which lead to the war on drugs. Which destroyed the black community. Also welfare.

Y’all men are stupid!!!!!!

Feminism was introduced to subvert the white youth demographic. Originally, the civil rights movement was anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-segregation. It was started by poor people then recuperated by wealthier people in academia and media who twisted it to include themselves and shift it away from the originators.

It is- & it isn't. All movements when large enough grab the attention of intelligence agencies. This should be common knowledge.

kind of a no-brainer, but most movement have an element of corruption within except a few, the reach is deep and far reaching

The Feminist movement is certainly worth questioning.

On its face, Feminism is virtuous:

the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

If this ideal were achieved, though, would the movement cease to exist? I think not, and that must leave one wondering what that means for men. The worst evils in history were carried out by people that thought they were good people, doing good.

the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

family courts and fathers denied rights proves that one wrong.

The rare time OP is both wrong, and an asshole

The evidence you site exists but what you are trying to prove with it is bullshit

Well is it wrong that women got the right to vote and equal pay for equal work? The movement itself is not what I'm defending.

Kill all men

Removed. Rule 4.

We sell our labor power for a period of time where the products of activity and the production process are not controlled by us, and don't belong to us.

Many people do this, but nothing about Capitalism as a system makes it compulsory. This fact is not systemic to capitalism. It is how people choose to use Capitalism which results in this behavior.

We view others as competitors in the labor market, and our connections between people through our productive activity becomes obscured.

I don't see how this related to "it is a system that alienates us from our own activity and from each other". People naturally compete with each other and stratify themselves along social hierarchies. Those hierarchies have benefits and responsibilities for leaders and followers, and this is ingrained in the human psyche instinctually as a result of the conditions of our evolution. Competition is not inherently bad, unfettered and unrestricted competition is bad. If the objective of competition is to place those best suited for their roles in those roles, then competition is an efficient tool for simultaneously allocating labor whilst providing a vehicle for one to determine their own position within society's economy. Competition as a system does not deprive one of determining their own position in an economy, it sets conditions for labor and demands that applicants meet them. The problem with how humans utilize competition and social stratification is in the responsibilities of leadership. From our leaders we demand increased responsibility and accountability, and proportionate compensation for their position in the hierarchy. When our leaders are not responsible, are not held accountable, and are compensated disproportionately to what they produce, we become upset, because these natural principles are being violated, i.e. there is an injustice occurring. This is a human flaw. It is not endemic to Capitalism as a system, it is prevalent among Capitalist societies not because it is necessary, but because people tolerate it. This is a cultural problem, and can be solved with various tools, including but not limited to government intervention, boycott, protest, strike, and education etc. nothing requires this phenomena, it happens, because that is what humans are allowing to happen at this point in time. Capitalism didn't necessitate segregation and racism in the early 20th century, that was just what humans were deciding to do for some time. To put an end to it, we had to use all the tools I mentioned above. This is no different.

And we must match ourselves to the demands of the labor market, instead of pursuing our interests.

This isn't true, and the millenial generation is proving it to not be true. Just about anything is monetizable/marketable, you just need to figure out how to monetize/market what you do, and every day more tools and services are being created to do just that, because of innovations in technology. No conformation to the labor market is required, and in fact this is becoming far less frequent, as the creative producers of today are turning towards becoming independent owners of their own small businesses, with much success.

They don't control how long to work, they don't control how to work, they don't control how fast to work, in many places they don't control when to use the bathroom or when to eat. They don't have a say about who they work with. The workers don't control the means of the productions.

That's nonsense, none of this is endemic to Capitalism, and nothing is stopping anyone from reforming how companies operate, in particular how labor is performed and how production is controlled. Everyday, more tools and resources are being created to allow people more opportunity and freedom to produce. The state of labor is not a permanent fixture, it is subject to change within the Capitalist system. People presently aren't dramatically reforming this, but that doesn't mean they won't/can't. In fact we already see how changes to traditional labor models in our Capitalist system are starting to change with the advent of new technologies (see Patreon, bitcoin, etc.)

Well this is obviously false, and trivially so. Societies have radically changed due to natural disasters, for example.

Well, yes, if the sun exploded right now, it would create a lot of change, and if we underwent nuclear war, we'd see change then as well.

I thought we were talking about change within the context of social movements, however.

This is a little bit of a different claim.

Perhaps you see it that way. Maybe that's my fault for not making my claim clear, but that's what I've been talking about the entire time, or at least trying to.

First of all most of the government functions are done by institutions that are classified as government corporations.

Examples? Are you referring to municipal corporations and chartered/registered organization like for profit and non-profit organizations? They're not all the same. True, legally, states and local governments are incorporated, but private organizations being incorporated is a relatively modern convention, especially human rights for corporations, and the corporate legal structure is by no means the same thing as a capitalist or market structure, it is a system of delegating rights to entities which traditionally stemmed from a monarch, but today originate from (in theory) the people. In short, the corporate legal structure of is not a capitalist system, it is a legal system which predates democracy and capitalism alike. Today's modern corporate structure, as we colloquially refer to it, is a convention of how private organizations operate within a market, but that is very different from the underlying fundamental legal principles from which all organization in society are based. To use an analogy, in this case, the egg did come before the chicken, and eggs are not exclusive to chickens. You are suggesting that because eggs are chicken in nature, we can't use eggs to bring about anything but chickens, but the egg predates the chicken and is not exclusive to it, so this is logically a false presumption, i.e. it is not valid, so the premise cannot be actually true, nor sound.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf

Secondly, corporations... or more accurate associations of corporations control the politicians, and write the legislation.

Thirdly, the gatekeepers to government entry are corporate and controlled by corporations.

I don't want to be misunderstood, because the state is moment of class struggle, and we can certainly have victories through it, it just means that the battle field is disadvantageous. It is certainly the case that one can still win a few battles...

I don't understand your argument here, are you saying that because the government makes use of government owned enterprises, we can't use the government to make changes to our market economy? What is the point.

Why? The legal prohibitions on utilizing military domestically have continuously been eroded. Moreover, history if filled military dictatorships...

Because as soon as a military organization turns on the American people, foreign governments will support the opposing military factions (of which there would be many).

so other than an ideological commitment to American exceptionalism, I see no reason why the military won't be used domestically.

Well not American exceptionalism, but Western exceptionalism is a tangible thing. For example, in America, we have the ability to freely spread information, i.e. we have the infrastructure to support this. We have a massive private media infrastructure, with vast access to internet across the country. We are not a struggling 2nd-3rd world country invisible to the rest of the world. Quite the opposite, all eyes are on us.

Many people do this, but nothing about Capitalism as a system makes it compulsory. This fact is not systemic to capitalism. It is how people choose to use Capitalism which results in this behavior.

But, it is systemic. It is historically so, with the forcible creation through dispossession of a mass of people through force. Think the enclosure acts in england, or the colonial policy in the US against the native population, and through legislation which forced people into labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital

And through systemic pressure of entering the labor market, because our very existence is mediated through the laborpower-money-commodity relation.

People naturally compete with each other and stratify themselves along social hierarchies.

Well obviously human beings do this so it a mode enabled by our 'nature' what ever that means, but it is only one mode of social arrangement, meaning it is not entailed by necessity. Rather it is a result of social and historical development. And that social and historical development lead to a mode of production which obscures how we actually relate to one another.

Those hierarchies have benefits and responsibilities for leaders and followers, and this is ingrained in the human psyche instinctually as a result of the conditions of our evolution. Competition is not inherently bad, unfettered and unrestricted competition is bad.

Some hierarchies do, some don't. History of human politics has been people taking the hierarchies given to them as necessary and with strong justification, only to find that they are neither necessary, nor justified. Your claims are a literally rationalization for absolute monarchy, or the divine rule of kings, except a presupposition is imported that they are utilitarian. You want to justify that claim?

Nor is competition a result of our evolution, other than in a trivial sense, that the evolution of the human species allows for them to construct competitive and hierarchical frameworks. This misses the point, which is what is good for human beings, and what allows human beings to flourish. Systems where their very existence is mediated through constant competition, and where competition structures more and more of our lives is not that.

The problem with how humans utilize competition and social stratification is in the responsibilities of leadership. From our leaders we demand increased responsibility and accountability, and proportionate compensation for their position in the hierarchy. When our leaders are not responsible, are not held accountable, and are compensated disproportionately to what they produce, we become upset, because these natural principles are being violated, i.e. there is an injustice occurring. This is a human flaw. It is not endemic to Capitalism as a system, it is prevalent among Capitalist societies not because it is necessary, but because people tolerate it.

I would not frame it as an injustice occurring because the whole history of capitalism has been the struggle of subordinating more and more of our time to the demands of the market, and people fighting against it. We don't have limitations on the working day, because of the responsibility of our leaders, or their accountability, we have it because regular people struggled to win these victories, against their official governing institutions. Ditto for workplace protections, etc. The narrative that you presented has nothing to do with the history of Capital, the class nature of society, and the class interests and composition of ruling institutions.

This is a cultural problem, and can be solved with various tools, including but not limited to government intervention, boycott, protest, strike, and education etc. nothing requires this phenomena, it happens, because that is what humans are allowing to happen at this point in time.

This is on the right track, but this is literally the history of capitalism since its beginning. It consisted of creating a mass of people who only have their labor power to sell in the market, this was done through violence. People resisted it. Through legislation forcing people into the labor market, people resisted it, and once the class dynamic was well established, it has been the history of this struggle. That is capitalism.

Capitalism didn't necessitate segregation and racism in the early 20th century, that was just what humans were deciding to do for some time. To put an end to it, we had to use all the tools I mentioned above. This is no different.

We did not put an end to either racism or segregation, the mechanisms evolved, first of all. Secondly capital has no problem introducing division in order to splinter the working class and drive wages down.

For example, this was what was being done by creating and maintaining the ethnic conflict between the Irish and the English.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm

This isn't true, and the millenial generation is proving it to not be true. Just about anything is monetizable/marketable, you just need to figure out how to monetize/market what you do, and every day more tools and services are being created to do just that, because of innovations in technology. No conformation to the labor market is required, and in fact this is becoming far less frequent, as the creative producers of today are turning towards becoming independent owners of their own small businesses, with much success.

The millennial generation finds itself in the worse position than the previous generation. Nor is anything marketable. People literally alter themselves to meet the demands of the market. You have the relationship ass backwards.

That's nonsense, none of this is endemic to Capitalism, and nothing is stopping anyone from reforming how companies operate, in particular how labor is performed and how production is controlled.

Except management, owners, boards of directors, and the precarity of our social existence mediated through wage labor, i.e., capitalism.

I will respond the claims about corporations at a later time.

Examples? Are you referring to municipal corporations and chartered/registered organization like for profit and non-profit organizations? They're not all the same. True, legally, states and local governments are incorporated, but private organizations being incorporated is a relatively modern convention, especially human rights for corporations, and the corporate legal structure is by no means the same thing as a capitalist or market structure, it is a system of delegating rights to entities which traditionally stemmed from a monarch, but today originate from (in theory) the people

In terms of abstract legal theory, sure there is a difference between a corporation granted by the monarch, vs a republican state form that is representative, I don't deny this. In terms of concrete relations, of how this plays out, it does not matter. The Virginia Company was still a form with shareholders, seeking to maximize profits. And this corporate form was with us since the beginning of capitalism, and its evolution is also the evolution of this form.

To use an analogy, in this case, the egg did come before the chicken, and eggs are not exclusive to chickens. You are suggesting that because eggs are chicken in nature, we can't use eggs to bring about anything but chickens

Well I mean if the eggs are "by nature chicken', then chickens will come out of them. Historically only chickens came out them, and we can predict with good predictive power that only chickens will come out of them... it is safe to say that only chickens will come out.

I don't understand your argument here, are you saying that because the government makes use of government owned enterprises, we can't use the government to make changes to our market economy?

I am saying that the government is not a neutral entity, rather it is an organization that arises out of the needs of capitalist development, whose purpose is to make capitalism function, and in as much as our interests are anti-thetical to those goals, the state form will be used against those interests. Partly because the very form of the state, is corporate in nature.

Because as soon as a military organization turns on the American people, foreign governments will support the opposing military factions (of which there would be many).

This is begging the question. Why would there be many factions?

For example, in America, we have the ability to freely spread information, i.e. we have the infrastructure to support this.

Information is very controlled in the US. In fact the very mechanism of mass communications, were understood as mechanism by which the public is manipulated... not inform. This goes without all the military censorship of information that occurs, as well as self-censorship of the press that occurs because they see themselves as the extension of the national security apparatus. Lastly the most important structural control of information, is the very corporate structure of the media. There are incentives a) not to alienate advertisers, and b) not to undermine corporate hegemony itself. This was thoroughly argued by Herman and Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent