New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


Portrait_of_J._D._Rockefeller.jpg
[Hide] (186.6KB, 800x1096)
Why is the U.S. Democratic party so pro-corporatist in practice when they're able to claim that they're anti-corporatist in all their messaging?

I'mma go down the list ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States) ):
>Democrats support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality by making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay the highest tax rate.
Immediately jump to increasing income tax rates in their messaging, and in practice never touch the corporate tax rate or god forbid capital gains, which is about the most pro-corporatist tax policy you could think of.  Even when they talk about eliminating tax loopholes, it's always "for the rich," not for corpos.
>They oppose cutting social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
>Democrats call for "affordable and quality health care" and favor moving toward universal health care in a variety of forms to address rising healthcare costs.
The biggest cost for corporations are pensions and healthcare benefits.  It's the largest corporate subsidy in the world.
>Minimum wage
This is the only one I can think of that isn't blatantly pro-corporatist.  But I believe the Democratic party just has this for looks.  I mean, it's always way under inflation growth, it's always "$15/hr" and not "lock it in with inflation," and from what I can see this is completely all bark and no bite because they never follow through on it.
>They also support universal preschool and expanding access to primary education 
To make sure corporations have less of their labor force concerned with childcare.
>They call for slashes in student loan debt and support reforms to force down tuition fees.
Gigantic subsidies for major financial institutions.
>Environment
Holy shit if there wasn't a bigger pro-corporatist agenda, I'm going to break this one down:
>Environmental regulations
If you actually read through these they are SPECIFICALLY tailor made not just for big corporations' benefit, but down to the specific patents.  The biggest example is just go talk to a refrigeration guy about the new rules that come into effect regarding certain kinds of refrigerants that are banned.  The only ones that are accepted are basically DuPont's, and all the ones they're banning are ALL CONVENIENTLY THE ONES THAT THE PATENT JUST EXPIRED.  It's just rife with regulatory capture, and when you acutally look at any of these policies, they arguably increase greenhouse gases.
>Green subsidies
My god, what a direct pro-corporatist grift.
>Anti cars/walkable citites
Reducing labor mobility decreases major corporations' costs.
>immigration policy
Blatant policy to keep down labor rates.
>Gun control
Grift for major security firms



It's like every single item is tailor made to give a very "pro-proletariat" viewpoint, but is insidiously the biggest pro-megacorp party in the world.  How the fuck do socialists not see this?
Yellow_bellied_siskin-45524576.jpg
[Hide] (244.6KB, 1000x667)
>>274 (OP) 
>in practice never touch the corporate tax rate or god forbid capital gains
Taxing billionaires won't make the people richer and cutting taxes for billionaires won't make the people poorer. The underlying premise that the government uses tax money to improve the lives of citizens is pathetically detached from reality.

>This is the only one I can think of that isn't blatantly pro-corporatist.
Minimum wage is pro-corporatist because mom and pop stores can't afford to pay $15 an hour for a braindead zoomer to watch tiktok behind a cash register and then go home early. The whole point of minimum wage is to drive out independent competition and give large corporations a clear path to monopoly status. Dave Smith makes a good joke about being the tallest person in a swimming pool and increasing the minimum wage is like adding water until all the shorter people have drowned.

>To make sure corporations have less of their labor force concerned with childcare.
>Gigantic subsidies for major financial institutions.
These points are self serving more than anything else. Controlling the education system ensures an endless stream of future Democrat voters.

>Environmental regulations
All cronieist bullshit as you say.

>Blatant policy to keep down labor rates.
The problem with this theory that the 70iq africans streaming across the border will never be productive workers in our first world technology based economy. This is one policy I don't think you can pin on corporate lobbying.

>Grift for major security firms
Like the education points I think gun control is more about preserving their own power.

>How the fuck do socialists not see this?
You have to remember who owns the media. It's hard for socialists to fight against corporate power when all of their opinions and talking points come from corporate own media in the first place. They want to eat the rich but all they eat is their propaganda.
Replies: >>276
>>275
>The whole point of minimum wage is to drive out independent competition and give large corporations a clear path to monopoly status.
This is an essential part of the Marxist strategy.

>>274 (OP) 
>How the fuck do socialists not see this?
They see. You can't sell a socialist utopia to somebody who have good life under capitalism.
Replies: >>277
>>276
But they're serving the elite rich fucks.
Replies: >>278
>>277
>They see. You can't sell a socialist utopia to somebody who have good life under capitalism.
Marxists and corporatism both want the same thing which is the death of free market competition and all economic and political power centralized under a single institution. The only thing they disagree on is who would run the resulting monopoly.
Frederick Engels "Anti-Dühring"

Before the capitalist era, petty industry existed, at least in England, on the basis of the private property of the labourer in his means of production. The so-called primitive accumulation of capital consisted there in the expropriation of these immediate producers, that is, in the dissolution of private property based on the labour of its owner. This became possible because the petty industry referred to above is compatible only with narrow and primitive bounds of production and society and at a certain stage brings forth the material agencies for its own annihilation. This annihilation, the transformation of the individual and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, forms the prehistory of capital. As soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their conditions of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, the further socialisation of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production, and therefore the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form.

“That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the concentration of capitals. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this concentration, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever extending scale, the co-operative form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical collective cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the jointly owned means of production of combined, socialised labour. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. Capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Concentration of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”
Replies: >>280
>>279
>Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation
200 years later and nothing like that has actually happened.

Myspace killed icq, facebook killed myspace, tiktok killed facebook. What's the most advanced AI company right now, google, microsoft, ibm, some other trillion dollar tech incumbent? No it's a startup called openai which normies hadn't even heard of until 2023.

This idea that leaving the market alone will result in capital feeding on itself until one mega corp wins capitalism has been so thoroughly debunked.

After a company gets to a certain size the economics of scale break down, communication pathways inside the organization become so complex (see different divisions of sony suing each other in open court) and conservatism sets in (name one thing ibm has invented in the last 20 years).

Monopolies exist in the market because of political barriers to entry, not economic. The government either regulates competitors out of existence or they lean on the money printers to maintain their monopolies. Using political force to pick winners and losers like that is called central planning not capitalism.

>the transformation of the individual and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, forms the prehistory of capital.
Also completely wrong. Something like 70% of workers do all their work on the exact same laptop with the exact same software that you are using to post here. The truth is that marxists have owned the "means of production" for a long time now, the problem is they don't know what to do with it. Trying to understand modern economics by reading marx is like trying to understand modern science by reading aristotle.
Replies: >>281
>>280
I think it's more important to point out that monopolization or even "excessive centralization" can't happen without governments teaming up with corpos.  And the primary way they do this is regulatory capture.

Also, holy shit, I never heard about Sony suing itself, wtf?
Replies: >>284 >>377
>>281
>monopolization or even "excessive centralization" can't happen without governments teaming up with corpos
Corporations are a legal fiction created by government in the first place.

>I never heard about Sony suing itself, wtf?
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/sony-vs-sony/
>>274 (OP) 
>Environmental regulations
Lebanon is living through a “solar revolution,” we keep hearing in the media and webinars. Yet revolutions, by definition, are collective actions. Lebanon’s rush to solar is anything but.

Yet energy transitions are not simply about reducing carbon emissions; they carry other environmental, social, and economic impacts. Unregulated, privatized, and atomized, Lebanon’s move to solar is leaving behind all those who cannot afford to install the new technology, further consolidating electricity as a private commodity that only certain classes can afford. It is also creating a looming toxic waste crisis that will harm ecosystems and public health generally — but will fall disproportionately on the people who work in waste. “The individualized, chaotic approach is not sustainable,” says Ayoub. “This is not how to do an energy transition.”

https://thepublicsource.org/lebanon-solar-privatization
Replies: >>290
>>285
>Unregulated, privatized, and atomized, Lebanon’s move to solar is leaving behind all those who cannot afford to install the new technology, further consolidating electricity as a private commodity that only certain classes can afford. 
I'm so fucking sick of this argument.  It's just so bad.
Replies: >>291 >>294
>>290
>ban nuclear and fissile fuels
>omg why is energy so expensive
Obviously the answer is we need more government.
Replies: >>294
>>290
That argument is so blatantly "Tall Poppy Syndrome."  Like usually equalites hide behind a veneer of at least Robin Hood, where they pretend that they'll rob the rich to give to the poor.  But that argument is so blatantly "If the poor can't have what the rich have, then NOBODY should have it."

It reminds me of when I heard about The Ultimatum Game for the first time and thought, "Ahhh, THIS is why socialism is so engrained in society."

>>291
It's better than that, because if you read later IN THE SAME ARTICLE they point out how their own bureaucracy is a huge roadblock, too.
>Banque de l’Habitat’s “solar energy loan” requires an applicant to hold Lebanese nationality, be a homeowner, and pay them back within five years at an interest rate of five percent. The bank says it has received 10,000 applications but processed “only a few loans,” blaming the bureaucratic paralysis in government institutions. It has stopped accepting new applications until further notice.
Replies: >>367
>>294
>IN THE SAME ARTICLE they point out how their own bureaucracy is a huge roadblock, too.
The sun has become the hottest consumer product in what anthropologist Ghassan Hage describes as Lebanon’s laissez-tout-faire economy — laissez-faire capitalism bereft of any government regulation.
In Lebanon, as in other countries going through an unregulated solar boom

🤡 🤡 🤡

But Lebanon’s politicians and the moteur mafias who control the micro-grids are making it harder for solar solutions to move beyond the every-household-for-itself model. The current energy law allows households to install solar systems for personal use of up to 1.5 megawatts, but bans any sharing or selling. Neighbors, institutions, municipalities, cooperatives, or any other collectivities, cannot share electricity on micro-grids. The only legal alternative to off-grid, personal use is net-metering through Électricité du Liban (EDL), whereby households would sell their excess power back to the grid. With EDL providing close to no electricity these days, net-metering in Lebanon is purely theoretical.

Small, decentralized experiments are popping up in villages around Lebanon. But because they are illegal, they have a hard time scaling up or spreading.
Replies: >>368
>>367
The overton window has gone so far left people genuinely think "free market" means "not enough regulations".
>>274 (OP) 
>Why is the U.S. Democratic party so pro-corporatist in practice when they're able to claim that they're anti-corporatist in all their messaging?
You're not very smart for calling yourself an intelligent lolbertarian.
US politics can be summarized as hypocrisy, projection, golems, shabbos goyim, judeophiles, and jews.
Replies: >>374 >>376
>>369
>You're not very smart for calling yourself an intelligent lolbertarian
OP didn't say anything about being intelligent. You're just projecting your own psychological needs onto everyone else.
Replies: >>380
>>369
>daddy tell me i'm smart
>look daddy i memorized all the right talking points
>it's the jews daddy isn't it it's always the jews
>everybody except me is a retard
>tell me i'm smart daddy
Get some therapy.
Replies: >>380
>>281
>"excessive centralization" can't happen without governments
Yes.

Lenin «The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It»

Compulsory syndication, i.e., compulsory association, of the industrialists, for example, is already being practised in Germany. Nor is there anything new in it. Here, too, through the fault of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, we see the utter stagnation of republican Russia, whom these none-too-respectable parties "entertain" by dancing a quadrille with the Cadets, or with the Bublikovs, or with Tereshchenko and Kerensky.

Compulsory syndication is, on the one hand, a means whereby the state, as it were, expedites capitalist development, which everywhere leads to the organisation of the class struggle and to a growth in the number, variety and importance of unions. On the other hand, compulsory "unionisation" is an indispensable precondition for any kind of effective control and for all economy of national labour.

The German law, for instance, binds the leather manufacturers of a given locality or of the whole country to form an association, on the board of which there is a representative of the state for the purpose of control. A law of this kind does not directly, i.e., in itself, affect property relations in any way; it does not deprive any owner of a single kopek and does not predetermine whether the control is to be exercised in a reactionary-bureaucratic or a revolutionary-democratic form, direction or spirit.

Such laws can and should be passed in our country immediately, without wasting a single week of precious time; is should be left to social conditions themselves to determine the more specific forms of enforcing the law, the speed with which it is to be enforced, the methods of supervision over its enforcement, etc. In this case, the state requires no special machinery, no special investigation, nor preliminary enquiries for the passing of such a law. All that is required is the determination to break with certain private interests of the capitalists, who are "not accustomed" to such interference and have no desire to forfeit the super-profits which are ensured by the old methods of management and the absence of control.
(((Libertarianism))).jpg
[Hide] (477.5KB, 1899x1079)
e8b1de355d93e5e91433ab75ec828141f0d48eeb5fecace1f231a36da7bbbab9.jpg
[Hide] (217.1KB, 720x714)
>>376
Projection.
Rules post features: Murray Rothbard with text saying "get in we're privatizing everything"
Core libertarian literature is authored almost exclusively by jews.
This entire board is dedicated to judeophiles acting as golem.

>>374
OP uses rhetorical questioning to lead posters to draw similar conclusions on ideological opponents so that he can ask a question which reinforces his intellectual superiority:
>How the fuck do socialists not see this?

Libertarianism is a distraction to occupy autists that aren't entranced by hormones and flesh shapers.
Replies: >>381 >>383 >>384
>>380
>first pic
god fucking damn it
>>380
>Core libertarian literature is authored almost exclusively by jews.
Hoppe, Hayek, Ron Paul, SEK3, Bob Murphy, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell....

>The Free Market will solve this
As long as government has exclusive control over money we don't have anything approaching a free market.

>OP uses rhetorical questioning which reinforces his intellectual superiority
OP asked a serious question and got serious answers (until you came along). It's obvious that you are the one who is obsessed with "intellectual superiority" and you're projecting that onto everyone else.
>>380
>Libertarianism is a distraction to occupy autists that aren't entranced by hormones and flesh shapers.
I don't know about others but understanding real economics and personal responsibility has made me far richer than the kids I went to school with. Individualism is also a nice escape from dumb partisan bullshit since I can just agree with leftists on things I agree with them on and agree with rightists on things I agree when them on. There's no pressure to be an obnoxious faggot who ignores facts and logic and just throws shit at people because they're not "your" group.
[New Reply]
22 replies | 4 files | 12 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1