I’m no economist, but I’m pretty sure what we have now is 100% capitalism. It’s exactly how many people predicted capitalism would look like if given enough time.
Many years ago, a libertarian classmate asked me how I think the world would look like if corporations were unregulated. I told him (again, without being an economist) that corporations would probably become the new countries, that they would own everything like monarchs used to, as a few corporations monopolized everything. (I still find his answer funny: “And wouldn’t that be better?”. I just told him “Of course not!” thinking “WTF?”).
My point is that this idea that the current system is “worse than capitalism” and “capitalism is dead”, stems from some kind of idealization of what capitalism is supposed to be like, and not from the realities that many people have been pointing out throughout the XX and XXI centuries about how capitalism works and what its end-goal is. This is exactly what capitalism looks like. “Technofeudalism” seems like yet another way of not addressing the issue, like when people say “the problem is not capitalism! it’s crony capitalism!”. As if there is some form of capitalism that has ever put people over money.
Also:
It might look like a market, but Varoufakis says it’s anything but. Jeff (Bezos, the owner of Amazon) doesn’t produce capital, he argues. He charges rent. Which isn’t capitalism, it’s feudalism.
Again, I’m no economist, so someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the capitalists (i.e. the owners of the means of production) have never produced capital. The workers do. The capitalist have always taken the profits of their worker’s labour in exchange for using those means of production. You could call that “charging rent”.
There is nothing new about what’s going on right now, except on the superficial level, the specific tech that’s being used to achieve the monopolistic goals of any corporation. Given enough time, the inevitable concentration of power that capitalism leads to, will always look like feudalism.
I still find his answer funny: “And wouldn’t that be better?”
libertarians man, I swear
feels like every other one I meet just repeats what the rest of them say without even thinking about it. Reminds me of the video I saw where a leading libertarian presidential candidate said he supported driver’s licenses and the entire room booed him.
Every libertarian I’ve ever met is convinced that actors will somehow be way more rational and benevolent when laissez-faire economics allows the market to act freely, as though ‘zero regulations’ is not already the goal of every major corporation, in order to more completely fuck over everyone they touch.
Either that, or they’re convinced they’re a good enough prepper to avoid being killed or captured by the inevitable PMC armies that arise from the libertarian apocalypse.
Every libertarian I’ve ever met is convinced that actors will somehow be way more rational and benevolent when laissez-faire economics allows the market to act freely
But then they’ll use the exact opposite reason as to why forms of socialism won’t work; that people are selfish, greedy and exploitive.
It doesn’t have to be nationalized, but it doesn’t make any sense for a civilian to be able to unilaterally make decisions like that while under military contract. At the very least, any decision to change or influence the contracted service while the contract is active should require some sort of review and approval. Maybe there’s a good reason it’s the way it is, I’m just a layman, but every time I hear about this it just baffles me why it was even allowable for Elon to make the call he did, or any call for that matter.
A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.
Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.
In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.
Giving a nation the idea you may support an enemy. Is in no way a protection from that nation taking control of your assets. It is at best giving the nation the ability to rationalise the need to limit your own power.
After all dispite not seeing any reason why any corp in the US would be worried about current potential govs nationalising them. It just not something either of the main parties are fans of.
Its even less likely musk would see cooperation with russia as a way to prevent such a thing.
I mean siding with Trump, buying Twitter and the “free speech” people. This is the smoke screen so that he CAN defend Russia and make Biden wary of fighting back, because he now has the unconditional support of 30% of the country.
Not that aiding Russia is the prevention, I think it may be at least part of the goal.
While I hate to give the little shit the benifit of the doubt.
It is worth considering. That there are plenty of other people out their. Who truly think letting russia keep the ground they have taken. Is the best way to prevent the war continuing on.
I disagree because evidence is give russia an inch. And they will just wait until they build up again. And take your whole nation. They are just not trustworthy when it comes to peace treaties.
But plenty of folks are less untrusted (more stupid imho)
There is also more direct fiscal reason why he may want to discurage the US from supporting Ukraine.
If the war continues with the current US weapons spending on Ukraine support. Eventually the gov is going to have to raise money to do so. This drematically increases the risk that industries like his. Will lose some tax breaks or loopholes he uses.
I shall remember for the next conversation someone thinks anti-abortion is a good thing… I mean besides underground abortion parlors, the fostering of poverty, using it as a political tool against opposition and to persecute people for other reasons than abortion, which won’t apply to the rich because they can always fly mistresses to some permissive western country and have a painfree vacation at the same time.
Seems policies are carved out by idiots worldwide.
Faced with this dilemma, it’s quite possible the automakers will respond by simply disabling telematics and connected services for customers in the state.
So the automakers may disable a feature I neither need nor want.
The health ministry’s August 3 dispatch is being celebrated for its protection of queer Vietnamese in medical settings and as fuel for an ongoing petition for the legalisation of same-sex marriage. […] Based on this, and citing the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) removal of homosexuality and being transgender from the International Classification of Diseases, it goes on to outline five primary guidelines for the health system.
Education should be strengthened so all medical providers have correct knowledge about “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” it says, and that queer people must be treated equally in medical environments. In addition, LGBTQ identity cannot be treated as a disease, while involuntary treatments are prohibited and mental health services can only be provided by experts on sexual orientation and gender identity. Lastly, supervision and inspection of medical facilities should be increased.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.