This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@jaystephens Every accusation is a confession.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@jaystephens I always said the difference was in who exploited the working class - the corporations or the government. Now the corporations own the government so they're becoming essentially indistinguishable.
-
@jaystephens Every accusation is a confession.
Why do I feel like it's becoming a cliché now. It's so true and so powerful, and yet it (apparently) needs to be repeated so often.
-
@jaystephens Horseshoe theory in action
@landelare @jaystephens If you under wealth and power to be functionally interchangeable, then supposedly opposite political systems can be seen effectively equivalent: The real linear continuum is between centralization and decentralization of both, as centralizing either of wealth or power always centralizes the other.
-
@jaystephens I always said the difference was in who exploited the working class - the corporations or the government. Now the corporations own the government so they're becoming essentially indistinguishable.
@lidsel @jaystephens Money is power coupons, and corporations and governments are both consensual fictions: abstract entities which exist only by way of shared belief. Religious organizations are another example. Wherever power and wealth, which are truly redundant to specific conjunctly, get centralized, consually fictional abstract entities are socially constructed to coordinate humans and machines to the furtherance of the power and wealth centralization.
All that varies, in material terms, is the label we apply: one power–wealth concentrating collective gets called “Congress” or “Parliament,” another gets called “Apple” or “Microsoft,” another gets call “Pentecostal Assemblies” or “Vatican.”
The objective of anyone but the ruling class ought to be to invert the operational direction of one or more of these collectives—towards decentralization—and to let the others either follow suit or dissolve consequently. The easiest one for a sufficiently organized decentralizing collective to redirect, anywhere with some degree of functioning democracy, is the one called “government.”
The hard part is acting as a well-organized collective, despite continuous efforts by all the centralizers to socially atomize us.
-
This post did not contain any content.
the burdens of ownership
-
This post did not contain any content.
@jaystephens How DARE you imply a #DemocraticSocialism 'middle'!
-
This post did not contain any content.
@jaystephens unfortunately this confuses the ignorant right wing, who hear "you will own nothing and you will like it" not as the chilling goal of modern capitalism but for communisim because that's what their propaganda told them communism is. they see capitalism doing a thing and their propagandized little brains point and go "oh no! it's communism"
-
This post did not contain any content.
@jaystephens The meaning of ”you won’t be able to own anything” depends a great deal on how you define the plural ’you’ …
Now.. The great other over there, long way across the oceans, is gone.
And now the great other who aren’t included in ’you’ is right here at home.
-
This post did not contain any content.
@jaystephens It always seemed obvious to me that if capitalism ran unchecked, power and wealth would concentrate into the hands of a few self-proclaimed chosen ones. You know, the EXACT SAME SCENARIO morons pin on communism.
Say no to window licking. Stay in school.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
