The people is the greatest power — Daniel

Only when free of the "tender mercies" (any) Church.

In my ideal world we’d help members of our community instead of delegating that responsibility to the state. — NOS4A2

Never figured you for a communist. Good to see you’ve had a change in heart.

I think it is quite funny how liberalism started as a project initiated by the emerging commercial classes for the purpose of restricting the power of king and church and gaining more power for themselves.

The result is that we now seem to have rule by corporations. And as their power increases, the power of the people decreases. With modern methods of mass surveillance, manipulation, and control, it isn't easy to see a way out of it .... — Apollodorus

Good summary. Agree.

Yes. But liberalism is based on a Darwinian outlook, not a religious one. I mean Jesus was very anti-rich-people. — frank

Liberalism pre-dates Darwin, but regardless: I’d argue social Darwinism is a dogma.

Probably the one with the access to the nuclear codes and military — Maw

Reasonable. Power isn’t only brute force, though.

I mean it's easy to say that corporations are the one's who rule the world, essentially. And to a large extent that's true. But I think that misses the main point: corporations can do precisely because states allow them to do so.

If states did not grant companies patent rights, property rights, bailouts, international law defense mechanisms and so on, these very companies could not do what they do.

So at bottom, the state is the actor enabling this, it's also the entity that could restore order in the international arena. It all depends on what people are willing to accept from state action.

The state has the ultimate choice in controlling anything. They can choose to be guided by the corporations, — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, they can’t. That’s like saying the Pope can choose not to be Catholic. It’s possible, I suppose — but the point is that he wouldn’t be Pope if that were the case.

The government consists of people who make decisions. They’re almost all capitalists themselves. They wouldn’t be where they are without first internalizing certain beliefs. It’s no longer a choice. Maybe at some point you have the choice to believe what you’re taught, but it’s simply not so easy— any more than choosing a different religion.

If states did not grant companies patent rights, property rights, bailouts, international law defense mechanisms and so on, these very companies could not do what they do. — Manuel

True, but this is the current state of affairs. The bourgeois have won, and have brought with this win their worldview.

Liberalism pre-dates Darwin, but regardless: I’d argue social Darwinism is a dogma. — Xtrix

A liberal world called him a genius instead of burning him at the stake. He's their boy. Darwinism is definitely a dogma.

Yes and what else would they do? They wouldn't say we stole most of this wealth. They have to justify to themselves what they do, so they make up ideologies of free markets or entrepreneurial genius.

But the system of propaganda thus developed must be even cynically appreciated in some sense. It's extremely powerful and persuasive. It's only lamentable that, aside from inequalities, they're burning the Earth. So they're winning now. In a few decades it won't matter much.

But I don't think this story is written is stone yet.

I can't avoid but think that the state, the church, and the corporations are social agreements reached by (human) minds (this is true for any existing social entity; those that do not exist certainly did not gain the approval of society - or have not happened). If these institutions are dependent on the sociality of human minds then it is the capacity of the human mind to reach social agreements that which is most powerful (this capacity being a quality of individual human minds living in society). We can see that all these institutions are similar in that they rely on common objectives (common among the participant individuals) to triumph. What are these common objectives? Do they differ among the institutions under discussion? Most importantly, what is that which allows humans to reach social agreements [what is that in the human mind that allows it to (somewhat) share an objective with other human minds?] Why such ability is part of human nature? These are not questions for you (or anyone) to answer (although I would like to know the opinion of whoever reads this); instead, I think these are the sort of questions we should ask before we ask about which institutions are more powerful; we cannot discuss their power without understanding the source of such power, in my believe.

The source of their power is, in my opinion, that which is more powerful. What is the source of their power?

What is the source of the common behaviour shared by the population that makes an institution?

Get rid of mosquitoes and other creatures also disappear, like humming birds — frank

Very interesting -- that humming birds eat a lot of mosquitos. News to me.

The State and Business have been joined at the hip for a long time. I'm not sure they can be prized apart. They have been defining the terms of life for at least several hundred years.

The Church / Religion is in a long-term power decline, but it is nowhere near to irrelevance.

On a bad day I loathe all three.

Given the above, it's with some reluctance that I would argue that it's the church, in the sense of dogma, that is the most powerful of forces in today's world. — Xtrix

You have to be kidding. Or perhaps you've never visited Australia. The Church has about as much influence here as, I don't know, the Boy Scouts, or the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Every so often some Christian will put their head above the parapet to say something about [insert socially controversal issue] and have it blown off by the media. Speaking of which, the Murdoch media have disproportionately enormous influence here, where they run papers in every state and also a leading cable news outfit. They actively campaign against Labor and generally spout the Fox party line whenever they get the chance.

If forced to choose one institution, which would you choose as the most powerful in the world today? — Xtrix

Depends on which metric of 'Power' you're using. There's two poles; the number of people you can influence, and the strength of that influence. Is an institution which can make a handful of people into slaves more powerful than an institution which can only have a weak influence on what car people drive, but does so to half a billion people? A pop singer can make billions wear a certain brand of shoe, but it's doubtful that they could make billions clean toilets. A government can make people clean toilets, but only the much smaller number of people in its prison population.

Do we just multiply strength of influence by size of influence, or is one a more important measure for you than another?

:up:

The state has the ultimate choice in controlling anything. They can choose to be guided by the corporations, but they can also choose to tax the corporations to help the poor and vulnerable in society, as Jeremy Corbyn believes in, and presumably Bernie Sanders on the other side of the pond. — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, they can’t. That’s like saying the Pope can choose not to be Catholic. It’s possible, I suppose — but the point is that he wouldn’t be Pope if that were the case.

The government consists of people who make decisions. They’re almost all capitalists themselves. They wouldn’t be where they are without first internalizing certain beliefs. It’s no longer a choice. Maybe at some point you have the choice to believe what you’re taught, but it’s simply not so easy— any more than choosing a different religion. — Xtrix

As you have alluded to, this is the same for religion, and it will be the same for those running corporations. They all have the freedom to follow their desires (which is the compatibilist definition of freedom).

The state has the greatest potential for control, and will use it to satisfy its desires.

The state has the greatest potential for control, and will use it to satisfy its desires. — Down The Rabbit Hole

However, what is the precise origin and aim of the state's desires?

The state is supposed to represent the desires of the people. But it may only pretend to, or only partly do so, whilst in reality representing someone else's vested interests.

I think the success or failure of the state depends to a large extent on the success of the economy. And the economy depends on the commercial classes, the guys that control banking, finance, industry, natural resources and the media. Therefore, the commercial classes have some power in relation to the state.

This power can be exerted directly, by advising the state in economic and financial matters, or indirectly, through think-tanks, lobby groups, political parties, and media, funded, influenced, or controlled by the commercial classes.

Obviously, the state's main desire is to keep itself in power. But this is precisely why it must take other groups' desires into consideration. So, the question is, which group's desires and to what extent?

Over hundreds of years the CHURCH has held the most power (stole ancient traditions and forced conversion). At this moment, Business has the most power. People are getting weaker on rebellion! What we need is a good REVOLUTION! I call up the Gods of War! Empower us ye powers of fire and bravery and CHANGE! May the intelligent defeat the dumbasses and turn ye from sheep to wolf!

Obviously, the state's main desire is to keep itself in power. — Apollodorus

This isn't necessarily true. Looking at Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary record going back decades he has a history of voting against his own party, even when they were in government, at the sacrifice of his own career, reaching his first position in government/shadow government only after decades of being an MP and being voted in by party members as leader after a rule change gave them the power. If he had won the election, and become Prime Minister, his priority would have been to put his principles into practise.

So, the question is, which group's desires and to what extent? — Apollodorus

The people have the greatest influence over the state.

In the UK people tend to vote for the party of business, so the desires of corporations and the people are in alignment. What's interesting is when there's a clash between the desires of business and the people.

During the UK's Brexit Referendum, business were overwhelmingly in favour of staying an EU member to avoid trade barriers, customs checks etc, and the people voted to leave the EU. When the previous Prime Minister Theresa May proposed a Brexit deal that would have kept many ties with EU to avoid trade barriers, customs checks etc, she went into a General Election and lost her parliamentary majority, and went on to resign as Prime Minister. The exact day May resigned Boris gave a speech stating that we would leave "deal or no deal", and he was subsequently elected as Prime Minister, and went on to win a General Election with a humongous majority giving the Labour party its worse result since 1935. The bulk of Boris's gains were the "red-wall" - the working class that voted Brexit.

Never figured you for a communist. Good to see you’ve had a change in heart.

I’ve only ever seen communists coerce, imprison, and kill members of their community. I wager you’d turn me into the stasi as soon as you could.

Yes, but it doesn’t follow that the state has no desire to stay in power.

What you are saying seems to refer more to particular political parties and the position of individual politicians within those parties.

By state I meant more the organizational superstructure consisting of executive, legislature, judiciary, armed and police forces, etc., i.e. the thing that stays in place whilst governments or ruling parties keep coming and going.

In the Brexit example, Prime Minister David Cameron called the referendum under pressure from the electorate and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

However, (1) he was under no obligation to do so, and (2) he agreed to a referendum because he thought that the Remain camp would win.

So, arguably, it all started with Cameron’s miscalculation.

Corbyn is a different matter. There is no way telling what he would have done if elected. He operated in tandem with trade union leader Len McCluskey, an old-style Marxist who may have chosen to go for Remain.

In the event, Labour’s Marxist left wing was ousted by the Fabian Socialist right wing that was pro-EU and pro-Remain. And that was the end of Corbyn’s left-wing takeover.

Edit. But I agree that business were overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the EU - both during and after the referendum.

Given the above, it's with some reluctance that I would argue that it's the church, in the sense of dogma, that is the most powerful of forces in today's world.
— Xtrix

You have to be kidding. Or perhaps you've never visited Australia. The Church has about as much influence here as, I don't know, the Boy Scouts — Wayfarer

Perhaps try reading what you quoted. Apparently you missed the “in the sense of dogma” part. I’m not referring to the Catholic church or Christianity generally.

I’ve only ever seen communists coerce, imprison, and kill members of their community — NOS4A2

No those are called capitalists. They’re also destroying the prospects for human life. But keep worshiping them by all means.

Obviously, the state's main desire is to keep itself in power. But this is precisely why it must take other groups' desires into consideration. So, the question is, which group's desires and to what extent? — Apollodorus

The bourgeois, in Marx’s language. The 1% in ours. This is who the state represents. This is why when people choose business (corporations) I think they’re absolutely correct.

Studies have shown that the 0.1% get nearly everything they want, and the population’s desires have almost no effect on policy. That tells you all you need to know.

Studies have shown that the 0.1% get nearly everything they want, and the population’s desires have almost no effect on policy. — Xtrix

You are probably right there. I think what tends to happen in so-called "liberal democracies" is that politicians come to power on certain promises that they make to win elections. In some cases they may even be serious about the promised policies.

However, for a variety of reasons, those promises are not always kept and even if they are, there is no guarantee that no other policies are implemented that represent the interests of groups other than the electorate, e.g. multinational corporations or political organisations with an ideological agenda.

The state has the ultimate choice in controlling anything. They can choose to be guided by the corporations, but they can also choose to tax the corporations to help the poor and vulnerable in society, as Jeremy Corbyn believes in, and presumably Bernie Sanders on the other side of the pond.

The state can get away with evils you or I or a corporation or a church cannot. They can plunder your wealth, skim off every purchase, break into your home, steal your property, and imprison you. The lesser evils, the everyday slights, denials, red tapes, wage garnishing, ticket-giving, are just facts of life now. Even if Jesus Christ took power, none of those evils would dissipate.

Corporations are largely private enterprises. You or I could start one and direct it to do good, but no statist seems interested in even trying. Much better to aggrandize the state while shrinking our own power.

The state can get away with evils you or I or a corporation or a church cannot. They can plunder your wealth, skim off every purchase, break into your home, steal your property, and imprison you. The lesser evils, the everyday slights, denials, red tapes, wage garnishing, ticket-giving, are just facts of life now. — NOS4A2

Yes, and if you sue them for breaking their own rules, they can use your money taken under threat of force to outspend you to save face, and/or carry on with unsavoury policy. The majority are okay as they have the power to un-elect them, but it's the minorities that suffer in a democracy.

I even heard the other day that the United State's legal costs in their case against Julian Assange are being subsidized by the UK taxpayer. The corporations and church would have to pay out of their own pocket.

Even if Jesus Christ took power, none of those evils would dissipate. — NOS4A2

No, government isn't intrinsically bad; if you have people with the right principles at the helm, the country would be a better place than without government.

I can appreciate your faith in mankind. Insofar as the state represents the conversion of social power into state power, though, I see the state as a fundamentally anti-social institution. Even if all political careerists vying for positions of state power had the right principles, the motives of the state, it’s machinery, and its functions remain: the exploitation of the people, the confiscation of their wealth and power, and the regulation of their activity. To its core, the state is little more than a grand scheme of forced labor.

Corporations are largely private enterprises. You or I could start one and direct it to do good, but no statist seems interested in even trying. — NOS4A2

There are far more people in government that act to serve the population than there are CEOs and board chairs that do. By far. Why? Because the state is still somewhat democratic, and so the population can have some say -- less so as you get higher in rank, but still some.

Corporations are not democratic -- at all. No democracy whatsoever. They're private tyrannies. A few people at the top call all the shots, the people in the middle and bottom take the orders. It's the newest and fully legal (state-supported) system of slavery. The people at the top decide what to do with the profits that the entire company produces. That's how it works, by design. Some are nice people, some aren't. Some treat their employees well, some don't. But that's not the point. The point is that they're private tyrannies designed to make a profit, and have zero democracy.

So you can't even fault corporatists for "not even trying," since that's not the name of the game. The name of the game is to make money at any cost. You have no responsibility to the community or country in which you're based, nor to the employees, and the employees have no vote anyway. You do what makes the company the most money, or you're out.

You berate one more so than the other, and as usual have it completely inverted. Let go of the "government is the problem" propaganda and trickle-down economics you were fed when you were younger, for Christ's sake.

Even if all political careerists vying for positions of state power had the right principles, the motives of the state, it’s machinery, and its functions remain: the exploitation of the people, the confiscation of their wealth and power, and the regulation of their activity. To its core, the state is little more than a grand scheme of forced labor. — NOS4A2

It's as if you don't realize you're describing CORPORATIONS, not "states." This is the structure of corporations. They're the great system of exploitation in the world -- by design.

The state doesn't hold a candle to the corporation, at least in a democracy. If you're against tyranny, turn your attention to the institution in which most people have to work most of their lives -- taken orders and having zero vote. Plenty to criticize the government about, but come on.

I can see you back in the 1800s arguing about how awful the government is as your fellow citizens are working 16 hour workdays in the mills for private companies.

Capitalism and business is never the problem, according to the propaganda/dogma you abide by. It's always the state. Like a good little parrot of corporate-sponsored ideology.