Comment by Atlas667 9 hours ago
They ARE the authoritarian regime.
This myth that capitalist perpetuate that the rich are not the government is the best lie out there.
The rich are the government. They are the national interests, countries' industries' is their property.
Governments should represent the needs and desires of humans. Corporations are algorithms designed to make their value go up - if not restricted by governments, they will crab-bucket eachother by any means necessary, including slavery. See: factory towns.
Therefore, corporations should have exactly 0 influence in governments, and billionaires should have the same influence as any citizen: one vote, and whatever influence they can peddle from a soapbox in a park.
This is obviously impossible because billionaires can buy TV spots. This is why governments under capitalism almost inevitably become extensions of corporations, which is what the OP comment means. In a system where capital = power, then, accumulation of capital means accumulation of power. You accumulate power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power, you use it to allow you to accumulate more power... and so on.
I'm skeptical there's any solution to this within capitalism - I don't think highly socialized capitalism will work long term since the profit generating algorithms (corporations) will play within the rules to accumulate just enough of an edge to wedge their foot into government enough to get a smidge of influence, which they will leverage to weaken restrictions on corporations, which will allow them to get more influence, which will lead to them weakening restrictions further, and so on.
So long as capital can be converted into any power at all, I think the system will inevitably trend towards late stage capitalism / corpotocracy / plutocracy.
Do you believe billionaires should have more say in government policy than you do? Why? Why wouldn't a billionaire use more say to help themselves even more at your expense? They clearly love hoarding wealth and power, so, would it not be fair to say they'd like to do more of that?
I fail to see the point you're trying to make or the argumentative process by which you're trying to make it.
Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs. Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. And this is just the blatant tip of the iceberg the current administration is brazen enough to show publicly.
> absolutely baffling to you and which probably makes a hundred obvious counter-arguments pop up in your head.
I can probably find a hundred obvious examples of conflict of interests, quid-pro-quos, or otherwise pro-corporation anti-consumer for any administration in history. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the government is issuing gold cards with the president's face on them for multi-millionaires to bring their business.
I'd be glad to hear a few of those hundred obvious counter-arguments.
I don't particularly subscribe to any ideology that puts companies above people, but it isn't hard to see things from GP's point of view. Before shooting the messenger, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
>Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs
Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied: this current administration (aka. Trump) or the businesses that grew large enough to buy a seat at the table or can afford to steer policy via "gifts"?
>Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper.
Is a person sitting in congress fully cognizant of what is happening in all facets of the economy and have an understanding of what needs to be implemented today to pave the way for the next 10 years and beyond? Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?
>The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer
Yet this is a golden age by every measure. Zoom out on your timescale and there has never been a more prosperous and peaceful time to be alive. Quality of life has tremendously improved and the possibility of striking out on your own and making it big has never been more attainable. Yes, there will always be people sitting at the top with massive power and wealth, but the average person isn't doing too bad.
> Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied
Should be applied for what purpose? What's the purpose of the government and what's the purpose of a corporation? When the latter is strongly influencing the former, why is it difficult to entertain the idea that their purpose and interests align?
> Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?
There's a difference between seeking and weighing input, and simply passing along legislature proposals without even looking at it. This is a strawman.
> Yet this is a golden age by every measure.
This isn't guaranteed to improve or even remain forever. And it really depends where you look. Plenty of war, misery and suffering to go around. And even in safe countries the lack of education, healthcare, financial stability is causing enough stress that people start favoring authoritarian options. That's not a great sign for the future. Just because most of us are doing better than our ancestors, doesn't mean we're going in the right direction or that we're doing the best we can. No progress is achieved by being content with the status quo, and the present is pretty miserable for a lot of people. Should we wait until a terrible war wipes out half the planet before we consider maybe changing things?
But I think that's beside the point. The argument being discussed is whether corporate entities parabolically "are" the government.
Maybe I'm too sleepy for rhetoric.
But a country needs material resources to exist, right? Some of these are food, shelter, energy, health, entertainment and security.
These are all private enterprises in a capitalist state. For example, the energy sector is a group of capitalist enterprises. The energy sector is also at the same time something the population needs.
Therefore it is also crucial to the nation, its a national security.
They country would go to war in order to secure resources for the energy industry because it is a part of national security.
Another: walmart is americas veins and its a group of peoples property. Walmart is national security.
The fact that some of these are publicly traded does not change their relationship to ownership.
The mistake is in regarding different organizations as fundamentally different creatures when they're not.
The theory of markets is that anyone can compete. That keeps people from abusing customers because they would go to someone else. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules inhibiting rather than facilitating competition, and the market consolidates and that stops working.
The theory of the government is that everyone gets a vote. That keeps people from abusing citizens because they would vote the bums out. Except that then powerful interests capture the system to have rules that create a two party system so people have fewer choices, centralize rule-making power in the areas that were supposed to have local control so people can't vote with their feet and then that stops working.
It's not fundamentally different problems, it's the same one. Consolidation of power, also known as centralization. People find ways to corrupt the system to take away your alternatives.
One of the ways they've found is to put half the people on Team Government and the other half on Team Markets and get them to fight each other when they should both instead be working together to fight the autocrats and create systems more resistant to them.
Yeah there was this great cartoon many years back where a guy is on his computer and the FBI is looking over his shoulder at his screen. A character named 'Facebook' is pushing him aside and says "Let me show you how to do it". When you look at the cartoon for a minute or so you see in the shadow in the back of the room this robot labeled 'Google' and he's just quietly observing.