I think that sounds a bit exaggerated. Yes, taxes do seem excessive but the state provides services in return. Without those services you would have to pay private companies to police your neighborhood, to collect refuse, to repair roads, etc., and I'm not sure that would come out much cheaper. — Apollodorus

In fact we know it doesn't. The quickest way to destroy anything is to privatize it. We know that from our healthcare system. The pattern is always the same for the people who want to profit off of what should be basic social programs, like healthcare or education: defund it. Defund it, then it fails. When it fails, you can swoop in with claims about how great it will be -- once we start treating it like a business, subjecting it all to those magical "market forces." Of course, it ends up a giant disaster, the state has to step in and clean it all up, and we repeat.

Older people like NOS and others are stuck in the cold war era of propaganda. where fear of communism was beaten into their heads, and capitalism was worshiped as nearly synonymous with "freedom," being the "American" system. Then came the "government is the problem" neoliberal program, which has been a complete disaster -- privatize everything, deregulate, cut taxes, etc. We're living with the results of all of this, and the prior generations who were taken in by it all. Milton Friedman, Sowell, Hayek, Ayn Rand, etc. -- these are the people they believe in, to this day.

Worth reminding yourself, too: this person voted for Donald Trump. These are the kinds of decisions that come out of this picture of the world. Sad.

I’m well aware of the concept of wage slavery. — NOS4A2

I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever.

Voluntarily working for a wage does not rise to the level of slavery, chattel or otherwise. — NOS4A2

I say it is. I guess that evens out.

Declaring it isn't so isn't an argument.

The relationship between master and slave, and employer and employee, are different.

This "voluntary" defense is so tired and so embarrassing it's barely worth responding to. Needless to say, one could make an equal argument that slaves were voluntary, too. They didn't have to be slaves, after all. They could have killed themselves, or tried to run away, or rose up in rebellion (all of which often happened, of course). True, those alternatives don't seem so great, but they were there.

Similarly, though less extreme, one makes the argument about renting yourself. "Well, you can quit if you want to." True, and face eviction, homelessness, starvation, humiliation, debt, poverty, stigma, etc.

Or you're forced to go to another job that perhaps treats you better. Wonderful. Many slaveowners were very decent people, too. Treated them well, housed them, had relationships with them, etc.

Is either of these facts an argument in favor of slavery as a system? Of course not -- although many did make such arguments. Fitzhugh is a good example. You seem to fit in well with someone like him. You're simply defending wage slavery instead of chattel slavery. It's that simple.

I have never subscribed to the theory of exploitation — NOS4A2

You're paid less than what you produce. That's not hard to understand. That's inherent in this system. That's exploitation. If people were paid the equivalent to what they produce, there would be no profit. There's nothing to "subscribe" to.

There is no valid reason beyond pure greed that an employee should own the company he works for by virtue of him working there alone. — NOS4A2

Yes, in your inverted world of alternative facts, it's the workers who are the "greedy" ones. How quaint.

"There is no valid reason, beyond pure greed, that a citizen of this country should get to vote by virtue of his living here alone."

So you're not in favor of democracy. Got it. No wonder you didn't answer that question.

The state, on the other hand, subsists entirely on exploitation in a way that is morally equivalent to forced labor: through taxation. — NOS4A2

So taxes are exploitation, but paying someone less than what they're worth -- isn't.

All capitalists are in favor of a very large welfare state. They couldn't survive a second without it. You cannot have defense, roads, or anything else without money, and you can't raise money without taxation. The rich want the following: pay as little as possible in taxes, let the working and middle class pick up most of the check. Then make sure that money goes to subsidies, bailouts, research they can then privatize, and infrastructure they can use. The state is absolutely essential for them.

I'll say it a thousand times: there are no "free markets." Certainly not in the United States. Your small government, free-market/ laissez-faire capitalism indoctrination was thrust upon you at some point in your life, and you should outgrow it. It's completely wrong. Which is partly why people on the forum (and probably elsewhere), including me, think you're mostly an imbecile. Doesn't have to be that way, though. Just takes listening and a willingness to learn.

By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor. As far as exploitive practices and greed is concerned, the robber baron pales in comparison to the state. — NOS4A2

Not at all. But even if it were true in absolute amounts, we have some say in what the state does with the taxes. 600 billion goes to defense, and I don't like. But billions goes to medicare and social security, which I do like. Billions goes to education and infrastructure, which is also good -- and I think far too little. We should have far more influence over where that money goes.

Now compare to a corporation. Take WalMart or Amazon. Billions of dollars of profits. How much say do the workers have in where those profits go? Zero. But importantly, they don't even have a say in who gets to make that decision for the company they all work for. The owners do.

If I employ you and another person, and I'm the holder of a piece of paper that says I'm the owner of the company, and all three of us generates $10,000 in profits, and I decide that I'm going to give it all to myself...if you're OK with that scenario, good for you. You make a good wage slave. In prior times, a good "house negro." But that's your issue.

religions are epistemic authorities and states are deontic authorities, but what are corporations? — Pfhorrest

There’s a bit of epistemic and deontic elements in both the state and in religions. I’d argue that capitalism is a religion, in many respects. Nationalism and statism too.

Corporations are legal creations, really. But they represent the current organization of an ideology— the worldview— of the merchants. The bourgeois. This is basically capitalism, but also at heart materialism.

That’s what I alluded to in the OP. This is why I argue that it’s dogma (ideology) that truly rules the world today. I associate dogma with the church, so the answer to my own question is “the church.” If I were forced to pick. That’s an unconventional definition, though, so I don’t hold it against anyone for missing my point. The Church of Materialism (in the form of money or capital) has ruled the day. To me, materialism is basically nihilism.

The real culprit is philosophy. Or I wanted to get around to making that point eventually anyway. By philosophy I mean Greek answers to basic questions, including the question of questions (seinsfrage).

The media, perhaps? Should they be a fourth option in the OP’s question? — Pfhorrest

Sure. Education is another. Both play very important roles. I’m rolling in both as either in service of the state or corporate sector, however, in my OP. But they certainly are important enough to warrant separate attention.

but I’ve had too many jobs to believe in a concept like wage slavery, and I would never expect ownership of a company I did not create. That’s just me. — NOS4A2

Again, because you don’t listen — either consciously refusing or unconsciously. Given your age, it’s likely unconscious. But who knows.

“Wage slavery” isn’t a radical concept. It was prevalent in the Republican Party during Lincoln’s day, in fact. The idea of renting yourself was seen by many at the time to be degrading and dehumanizing — for example, the factory girls of Lowell and Lawrence MA (close to where I live) in the 19th century. I agree with them.

I said absolutely nothing about a “whip”. You continue to pretend as if I don’t distinguish very clearly between chattel slavery and wage slavery. As I’ve said many times, and which you refuse to understand: they’re not the same thing; they’re very different in how they function.

As for ownership — why should the fact that you’ve filed for articles of incorporation entitle you forever after to exploit your workers for profit while giving them no say in where to allocate those profits? Workers “create” a company just as much as investors, founders, legal “owners,” board members, or anyone else. There would be no company without them. Unless you can run everything yourself, which is possible and we often see in small family businesses— sole proprietorships — the workers should have say. Otherwise it’s what Dewey called “industrial feudalism.”

The fact that you defend the worst aspects of capitalism is telling.

Workers who run the companies should control the companies. Just try applying all your criticism about “big government” to “big business.” You won’t find a less free place than within the confines of a corporate job. Why decry one and not the other, if “freedom” is a value?

There are millions of American slaves grinding for wages in your precious state machinery right now, all so people like you can beg them to pick up the slack wherever you refuse to. Where’s the foam at your mouth now? — NOS4A2

:yawn:

Anyway— yes, any job that exchanges your life and labor for an hourly wage is wage slavery. Whether government or private business.

You’re again not listening. The government is a partially Democratic institution, and we demand it be more so— or profess to. Are you in favor of democracy or not? You’re too intellectually immature to know for certain, but I would assume you are in favor of it, in principle.

Given that assumption, we should criticize the government for failing to be democratic. We should push to make it more Democratic.

We should do the same in the workplace. If we believe in democracy.

That doesn’t even mean abolishing “capitalism” necessarily.

Once you've won power there's no point having that power unless you put your principles into practice, or use it for your own benefit, depending on your character. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The problem is that those in power believe they are putting principles into action, but really serving themselves and their constituents.

Corbyn was a decent guy, but not a fighter. Even if he pushed through, the issue then becomes one of enacting the policies. Reminds me of Bernie. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do much without the Congress, the appellate courts and Supreme Court, or the state legislatures — almost all of which are completely dominated by far right Republicans and moderate Republicans (Democrats). Not to mention the huge media attack on both sides.

It’s an uphill battle.

Xtra s — Trey

:sweat: Just call me Mike.

Is it just only short-sighted protection of their interests, without much consideration for anything else? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes.

I mean, how do you justify something like that to yourself? — ChatteringMonkey

In many ways. First and foremost: “I’m just following orders.” They’re doing what comes “naturally” within a capitalist system: make profits, raise stock prices, post huge quarterly earnings, repeat. Or you’re out. All else is an externality, including climate change.

“It’s a job for Congress.” That’s another one. Knowing full well Congress is dysfunctional, and that they will lobby against any changes.

No slavery I know has at-will employment, — NOS4A2

Wage slavery. I’m not talking about chattel slavery.

Selling yourself and renting yourself. That’s the difference.

It’s weird to me to expect democracy from a corporation — NOS4A2

Because you’re a heavily indoctrinated neoliberal with no imagination and an incapacity (or unwillingness) to learn anything new.

More than that, running a company is also work, and owners are workers. They accept more risk, acquire the means of production, the property, pay the overhead, build the clientele, and employ human beings. He runs it because it’s his project, his property, the fruits of his own labor. Without him there is no opportunity to participate in it. — NOS4A2

More Ayn Rand bourgeois ass licking, as usual.

The fruits of the workers’ labor, not the owners. Wal Mart could easily be run without the Waltons pocketing the profits from their Yachts. In fact that’s exactly what happens, except thanks to gifts from the state (which is supposed to be “small”?) only a handful of people decide what to do with the profits that the WORKERS produce— by law.

You make a great apologist for chattel slavery. “The slave owner runs things his way because it’s his property— he takes on more risk, pays the overhead, etc.”

Old, tired ways of thinking. Neoliberalism through and through.

Anyone can start a company and run it as he chooses — NOS4A2

In your fantasy world. In reality, almost no one in the world runs a corporation. The owners— the major shareholders — are extremely rare. Maybe a basis point of the population.

Yeah, that’s “equal opportunity.” More bullshit slogans.

The question is, to those who lament the corporation and business men, why won’t you do that? fundamentally changing the system? — NOS4A2

Hmmm…well I suppose if I inherited 400 million dollars and 1.5 billion shares of a company my great grandfather started on the back of slave labor, I may do just that.

But for those without their heads up their asses: co ops exist all over the place. Some very successful. All worker owned. Mondragon is often used as an example, but plenty of others. Ocean Spray is one close to home for me. So it’s done quite often, and is not simply an abstraction. One simply has to see through the years of indoctrination which make it too “weird” to understand.

Abolishing the slave system was “weird” for many people too. Especially for the slaveowners. But in many cases (as in yours) even the slaves. You’d have made a great Uncle Tom.

So sad to see working/middle class people so utterly brainwashed that they’ll defend such a sick system, and a class that both loathes and shits on them. They’ll go to their graves with this sad perspective.

They can’t go quickly enough.

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. — Apollodorus

Yes -- check out Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson. Lays it out nicely.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://grist.org/cities/tampa-wanted-renewable-energy-resolution-florida-lawmakers-made-sure-it-couldnt-gas-ban-preemption/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon

Always great to see the Republican Party trying their best to not only destroy the planet, but preventing even minor efforts to save it. That’s commitment— they take death pacts seriously.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What if there is no better alternative? What if you have no education or qualifications for anything other than a retail job? — ToothyMaw

Tough shit. Then you have the freedom to starve to death. That’s NOS’s ideal world, anyway. Government is the problem, free markets are the solution. It’s done wonders the last 40 years— especially the Friedman Doctrine.

If you weaken the church, the void gets filled up by corporations — ChatteringMonkey

An important point. The void gets filled with varying sects of the church of nihilism: capitalism, scientism, etc. Nietzsche is good on this.

Put another way: what do the corporations fill the void with? What is their underlying belief system?

Oh sweet Jesus - don't tell me you think forcing doctors to care for people who don't have money is slavery. — ToothyMaw

You’re dealing with someone who voted for and continues to defend Donald Trump, and whose economic beliefs come straight out of Friedman and Ayn Rand. I wouldn’t waste too much time trying to figure anything out.

Isn't the state based on an ideology as much as the church? — frank

Yes, but I’m using “church” as basically a synonym for ideology — or dogma, in any case.

But even if we use religion (say represented by Catholicism), it’s still far more about belief than about creating laws or making money. In that respect, as I’ll argue, it is ultimately the basis for political and corporate decisions.

I guess Wall St has the most power. — frank

:up:

I don’t disagree, but given the parameters I established I offer two points in response.

1) I’m defining “church” as dogma/ideology/system of beliefs, not as the Roman Catholic church. So while the historical analysis is correct and related, it’s not completely what I mean here.

2) You never quite answered the question.

It is because they have this power that church and business often seek its favor and influence. — NOS4A2

True, but if the state is owned by business, as it is, then it’s business that controls violence — as it basically does, with few exceptions. (As well as the laws that are enforced through violence and imprisonment.)





:up:

Nietzsche has interesting things to say about this. Let us say: the overman is the meaning of the earth, and the highest goal. I personally like that.

I think you’re asking an important question. Individually, we have all kinds of unique problems and goals for ourselves. This is enough to occupy most of our time and energy. It’s also a terrible mistake and the source of untold suffering. Happiness comes from caring about something beyond yourself and in joining with others. For most it’s a partner or children or religion— that’s fine, as long as it wakes us up from our otherwise narrow concerns. But until it does, we’re stuck in a seemingly meaningless cycle of personal habits and routines.

Beware of those who discourage collective goals and collective action— they’ve been ensnared by a false ideology: the ideology of self. Where this thinking abounds, there’s always unhappiness and destruction.

The human species needs a goal, and right now we have none whatsoever— other than personal gain and greed. This will likely turn the future into an unlivable hell hole, thanks to what essentially amounts to nihilism in the wake of Christian dominance — represented in scientism, in capitalism, in technological advancement — and with nothing and no one steering the ship.

Capitalism is the cause, agreed, I'm just trying to figure where to go from here. One way or another we will need to change, the question is how, to what extent and when? If we believe climate scientists, which I do, there's not much time, which kind of restrains our options at this point. — ChatteringMonkey

If the choice was between destroying capitalism or destroying earth, given the time frame we’d have no shot. Capitalism — the form we have — will stay around a while longer, and so there has to be alternatives.

And there are. The push by investors like BlackRock — and the endorsement of the Business Roundtable—towards “stakeholder capitalism” and ESGs, the acknowledgment if Exxon, Shell, etc, that something needs to be done about climate, the mobilization of young people, and (depressingly the most important) the immediate effects before our eyes— are all signs that things are shifting.

The Republican Party mainly stands in the way. The Democratic Party aren’t that far behind — they’d prefer nice words and to throw essentially crumbs at the issue, but at least there’s an acknowledgement of reality.

If voters keep turning up to elect these assholes, or too many dems stay home, we’re toast. But I can’t believe this will happen, and we should all try our best to make the opposite happen.

Right now there’s smoke all over New England, from the wildfires in the west and Canada. Never seen anything quite like this — maybe once when there was a fire in NY.

Sun was red. Like a friggin omen.

The deficit spending, which enables the US to spend way more than it gets (in taxes), enables it to fight perpetual wars in other continents. — ssu

We hand $700 billion a year in discretionary spending to defense. It’s true that contributes to the deficit, but that’s a choice. No reason it has to allocate that money in that way. So when you say deficit spending enables wars, that’s not saying much— it also enables us to fund all kinds of things, good or bad.

If you buy and sell internationally, the deals are done in US dollars. — apokrisis

Kind of a lingua franca for currency.

That’s fair though. I’m failing to see how this relates to the function of the Fed.

The Fed’s role is mainly in monetary policy. So maybe I should have titled this thread that— or FOMC. But regardless, it has the power to increase or decrease the money supply and directly or indirectly set interest rates (the discount rate and funds rate, respectively), as well as determine reserve requirements— these are its tools to control inflation and either stimulate or contract the economy.

The fact that 19 people (or 12 with voting power) get to determine what the target fund rate is and how much money should be in circulation is something worth keeping in mind. These are people who make real decisions like you and I— but theirs just so happen to effect millions of people’s lives.

The real story is Bretton Woods and how the US agreed to fund the recovery of the post WW2 broken colonial empires by making the US dollar the world currency. — apokrisis

But it isn’t the world currency. There are many currencies in the world even today, but certainly in the 40s before the Euro.

It’s true that with Marshall Plan aid, several countries were indebted to the US, but I don’t see what this has to do with currencies. Being a superpower militarily will mean your currency and language and culture are going to have an outsized influence on the world.

Maybe I’m missing something.



I would prefer that you write something yourself rather than spam the thread with links.

without the role of the dollar, the US could not live on issuing new debt as it has for decades now. — ssu

What role do you mean, more specifically?

but I have no idea what interest rates, like is it the interest rate on a mortgage or credit card? — John McMannis

I think it’s the funds rate, or the interest rate of money the Fed lends to banks to cover a certain legal minimum (to prevent bank runs). Banks can also loan excess money to other banks who are low on funds, etc. This trickles down to the interest rates you and I can receive from banks for homes, cars, credit cards, etc. That’s my understanding— happy to be corrected.

The misunderstood genius with the magic (capitalist) solution to climate change, who goes around calling people "commies," is now leaving the discussion. Boo hoo. What a loss.

Everyone here, including myself, tried engaging you politely initially. When you prove yourself an imbecile over and over again, there's really no other way to respond -- unless you're the Dalai Lama.

Good luck with your magma dreams, of which you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm not willing to tolerate this - so knock it off or I'm gone. — counterpunch

You're even too stupid to see that you leaving is a desirable outcome.

Take your inflated ego, your magma pipe-dreams, your capitalism worship, and your utter idiocy somewhere else.

you always assume some sort of deficit on my part rather than assume I have reasons to say what I'm saying! — counterpunch

One has to assume deficits when one keeps saying the stupidest things imaginable, all with the utmost confidence.

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.

Rumsfeld of course. The great philosopher.

I'm wondering if you are happy with Counterpunch obsessing on your thread - it keeps it on the top of the discussions list, after all - or if you would prefer a different discussion. — Banno

I don't consider this my thread, in this case. Just a general discussion. If he wants to make a fool of himself, that's his business.

Terrible coincidence -- I hadn't even seen your post. Apologies.

Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. All excellent options, all getting easier and cheaper and more efficient as time goes on. Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels. This, along with reforestation, carbon capture, etc., will all be needed to solve the crisis. This is straight out of the IPCC. Or we can instead take seriously the rantings of a crackpot on the internet, with his silver bullet. To me the choice is clear.

I cannot comprehend how inequality of wealth is relevant to my proposal - even if I thought it were a problem, which I don't. I'm happy to see someone doing well for themselves - good on 'em! — counterpunch

Good god you're an imbecile.

I love how there's nothing you cannot misunderstand somehow! — counterpunch

Yeah, that's what's happening.

capitalism is the prevailing economic system, and imperfect as it may be, has the knowledge, skills and resources to apply the technology to prevent an imminent catastrophe — counterpunch

Capitalism has personal traits now -- like knowledge and skill.