Why the f-ck did anyone ask Klaus Schwab the time anyway

[BigMoaner]

Jfc do you really think when Klaus says that he endorses seizing the means of production on behalf of workers' Soviets? That the head of one of Capital's more influential factions, controlled by and for the existing ruling class, is in favour of transferring everything to State ownership?

Not that this would actually be communism, but are you hearing how fucking bonkers that sounds? It's directly funded and owned by the world's 1,000 biggest companies ffs, it is Capital. You might as well denounce McDonalds for being Maoists.

it's wild the avenues these guys follow. that darn algorithym huh. no one can join the dots up completely regarding knowing what goes on, but these guys think they have joined the dots up and the pictures they come out with once the dots are all joined up are hillarious.

 

[Thesaint]

It's not even Schwab who said that, the WEF were quoting someone else who was making a prediction about where society might go, and who was not necessarily endorsing that prediction.

You right he didn't personally say it, but WEF did have some video or something were it was quoting it as some sort of vision of the world but got a lot of pushback so disowned it. The WEFs webpage still has all sorts of articles about a vision of future world still, which is top down mentality ignoring the the wants and needs of the masses who are feeling more and more sidelined who is influencing policy makers the most?
Complimenting China as a role model and covid certificate technology with the G20 was at best reckless and worst dangerous to me and raises alarm bells.

 

[BigMoaner]

You right he didn't personally say it, but WEF did have some video or something were it was quoting it as some sort of vision of the world but got a lot of pushback so disowned it. The WEFs webpage still has all sorts of articles about a vision of future world still, which is top down mentality ignoring the the wants and needs of the masses who are feeling more and more sidelined who is influencing policy makers the most?
Complimenting China as a role model and covid certificate technology with the G20 was at best reckless and worst dangerous to me and raises alarm bells.

What is the WEF any way - other than an open source get together where a lot of cunts talk up a load of guff, have some tea and biscuits, and then fuck off again?

What do you think it is?

 

[Rob Ray]

Of course the WEF vision is top down you fool, it's aimed at the people who run the place. The people who own and manage the assets which the WEF would like seen deployed in a particular manner are made up of Capitalists and State actors, both of which benefit from coherent, standardised, stable methods of doing business. It's not commies vs the people, there's no communists, they don't own anything, least of all the WEF.

This is Capital doing what suits it. Or more specifically, a particular section of Capital with a vision for what it believes is an ideal environment for its members to profit. And yes that may well be an anti-democratic vision but here's the big secret champ - capitalism doesn't need democracy. If it did the Saudis' many private companies wouldn't own half of London with Russian oligarchs, up until recently, owning the other half.

 

[tim]

so is volvo money and ford money

Back in the day we had our own British Leyland money and didn't have to bother with these foreign financial vehicles. We knew where we were even there were twelve Minis to the Jaguar; and twenty Jaguars to the Bentley.

 

[tim]

I mean yeah its shit but I don't get the conspiracy aspect.

We won't worry as long as you don't.

 

[gosub]

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology and current within the socialist movement[1] whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange which allocates products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8]

"Common ownership" is rather the opposite of "a small ... number of hands", is it not?

I took my grasp if it from visiting Philippines and Cuba two prizes of the US Spainish war that ended up taking different paths...what I noticed was while you had greater economic equality in Cuba (though some fucked upness where those in jobs that gave access to people not in the system such as serving bar for tourist earning more than doctors) but what was to Mr as striking was the under command economic model if there wasn't someone to pay attention to something and sign it off then it get done..remember being I. Havana the week property ownership became a thing.....and so did property renovation


That said...whilst Schaub may be holding up the China and the CCP as roke models can't help thinking WEF is going to be about Corporatism.

 

[NoXion]

I took my grasp if it from visiting Philippines and Cuba two prizes of the US Spainish war that ended up taking different paths...what I noticed was while you had greater economic equality in Cuba (though some fucked upness where those in jobs that gave access to people not in the system such as serving bar for tourist earning more than doctors) but what was to Mr as striking was the under command economic model if there wasn't someone to pay attention to something and sign it off then it get done..remember being I. Havana the week property ownership became a thing.....and so did property renovation


That said...whilst Schaub may be holding up the China and the CCP as roke models can't help thinking WEF is going to be about Corporatism.

The fact that the CCP got a ringing endorsement from Schwaub should be an epiphany for all the tankie idiots who think that today's Chinese government is anything other than another gang of capitalist exploiters. Although if they didn't get the hint when the CCP turned China into the world's sweatshop, I guess that realisation was never going to come in any case.

 

[StakerOne]

Why the fuck are you rabbiting on about carbon credits when BigMoaner hasn't even mentioned them? Why do you cultists insist on dredging up utterly irrelevant shit all the time?



Oh my goodness. Nobody has claimed that shit doesn't get invented under capitalism. Besides, weren't you just earlier claiming that capitalism is communism or some such muddle-headed bullshit?

If age-reversing drugs and personal planets really are in the offing, then we don't need to be "thankful" to the inhumane system of exploitation that got us there, no more than we need to be "thankful" to feudalism for the horse collar and advancements in crop rotation. We can enjoy such advancements without needing hereditary lords around which we have to debase ourselves through bowing and cringing. Capitalism certainly won't reciprocate any gratitude we display.

You can't buy carbon credits.
I can't buy credits.
I bet you can guess who can.
I bet you can guess whether they will be lower or higher in value in future.

Yeah yeah, I'm a "cultist" today, but it's amazing how many times I'm proven right when I don't want to be.

I wish I was wrong, I really do.

If we stopped expolitation (By your or my definiation of the word) tomorrow, would that end capitalisam? I don't think it would.

If the greedy stopped being greedy, would that mean an end to capitalism?

Communism would still be communism without an authoritarian dictator, but the trouble is that no matter how well meaning the leader is, he/she would have to turn into a violent nutter to protect their power.

Technology can be used to centralise or decentralise power. I'm in favour of the latter.

Only then can we have the political system we want minus the greed and authoratarianism.

 

[LDC]

You can't buy carbon credits.
I can't buy credits.
I bet you can guess who can.
I bet you can guess whether they will be lower or higher in value in future.

Yeah yeah, I'm a "cultist" today, but it's amazing how many times I'm proven right when I don't want to be.

I wish I was wrong, I really do.

If we stopped expolitation (By your or my definiation of the word) tomorrow, would that end capitalisam? I don't think it would.

If the greedy stopped being greedy, would that mean an end to capitalism?

Communism would still be communism without an authoritarian dictator, but the trouble is that no matter how well meaning the leader is, he/she would have to turn into a violent nutter to protect their power.

Technology can be used to centralise or decentralise power. I'm in favour of the latter.

Only then can we have the political system we want minus the greed and authoratarianism.

You've got some legitimate political concerns and worries, but you've got them mixed up with a load of shit from the internet and gone down some rabbit hole of nonsense I'm afraid. The choice you have is to realise that and look for factual and coherent answers that are grounded in reality, or continue with this incoherent bullshit that'll continue to drag you in a loony direction.

 

[Pickman's model]

I wish I was wrong, I really do.

Sometimes wishes do come true

 

[Pickman's model]

You've got some legitimate political concerns and worries, but you've got them mixed up with a load of shit from the internet and gone down some rabbit hole of nonsense I'm afraid. The choice you have is to realise that and look for factual and coherent answers that are grounded in reality, or continue with this incoherent bullshit that'll continue to drag you in a loony direction.

Trouble is, I think he's wedded to the rabbit hole nonsense and would sooner ditch the bits based on facts

 

[NoXion]

You can't buy carbon credits.
I can't buy credits.
I bet you can guess who can.
I bet you can guess whether they will be lower or higher in value in future.

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Of course ordinary people aren't going to benefit from carbon credit schemes, they're an invention by capital for capital. When do you begin to explain your point?

Yeah yeah, I'm a "cultist" today, but it's amazing how many times I'm proven right when I don't want to be.

I wish I was wrong, I really do.

When exactly have you been proven right? You talk as if you've got this great track record of prognostication, but you fail to mention any standout examples.

If we stopped expolitation (By your or my definiation of the word) tomorrow, would that end capitalisam? I don't think it would.

Capitalism is inherently exploitative. Where do you think the surplus value comes from?

If the greedy stopped being greedy, would that mean an end to capitalism?

You've got it backwards. It's not people being greedy that causes capitalism, it's that capitalism as a socio-economic system is structured in such a way that it rewards those willing to exploit others, especially those lucky enough to be born into significant wealth to give them a leg-up in exploiting others. The libertarian technbro douches who launch schemes like crypto and NFTs aren't fighting the system, they're playing the game.

Communism would still be communism without an authoritarian dictator, but the trouble is that no matter how well meaning the leader is, he/she would have to turn into a violent nutter to protect their power.

The maximal distribution of political power is why democracy is so important. I'm not an anarchist, but I also don't think it's desirable nor necessary that society be lead by a cadre of self-appointed strongmen either. The tendency under capitalism for wealth to concentrate in a small number of hands is what makes it antithetical to effective democracy.

Technology can be used to centralise or decentralise power. I'm in favour of the latter.

Only then can we have the political system we want minus the greed and authoratarianism.

But we live in a capitalist society. So does it not then follow that technological development will be strongly subject to capitalist influences? After all, who has all the money and resources to fund the most ambitious projects right now? A technology can be as decentralised as you please, but if the way it has been designed serves to reinforce or recapitulate capitalist relations, then it's not revolutionary in the sense of being a threat to the system which is robbing most of us. Technology alone cannot challenge the system, especially not a system which has survived a great deal of technological advancement in any case.

 

[StakerOne]

Capitalism is inherently exploitative. Where do you think the surplus value comes from?

So for the record

1) A workers co-operative is or isn't exploitative?
2) A workers co-operative is or isn't capitalism?

 

[SpineyNorman]

So for the record

1) A workers co-operative is or isn't exploitative?
2) A workers co-operative is or isn't capitalism?

1) depends what kind of social formation it's integrated into

2) No

 

[NoXion]

Also notice that workers' cooperatives aren't the predominant form of corporate organisation. Hmmmmm, I wonder why that could be?

 

[StakerOne]

Also notice that workers' cooperatives aren't the predominant form of corporate organisation. Hmmmmm, I wonder why that could be?

OK. So do we agree that corporations employ/utilise/exploit capitalism, but capitalism can still exist without corporations?

 

[Rob Ray]

OK. So do we agree that corporations employ/utilise/exploit capitalism, but capitalism can still exist without corporations?

Corporations form as a logical part of capitalist development, it's not a matter of "could".

 

[SpineyNorman]

OK. So do we agree that corporations employ/utilise/exploit capitalism, but capitalism can still exist without corporations?

Capitalism is in essence a relationship between wage labour and capital. It's a relationship that cannot exist without exploitation (much like the relationship between mother and child cannot exist without childbirth).

You're making the usual right libertarian mistake of conflating capitalism with markets. You're horribly out of your depth I'm afraid.

 

[SpineyNorman]

But to be really clear, a market economy comprised only of workers coops, run democratically by and for the workforce, would not be capitalist.

 

[NoXion]

OK. So do we agree that corporations employ/utilise/exploit capitalism, but capitalism can still exist without corporations?

Why the fuck should I care about that question? Corporations are not the sole instrument of capitalist exploitation.

 

[Pickman's model]

Capitalism is in essence a relationship between wage labour and capital. It's a relationship that cannot exist without exploitation (much like the relationship between mother and child cannot exist without childbirth).

You're making the usual right libertarian mistake of conflating capitalism with markets. You're horribly out of your depth I'm afraid.

Even though he's shallow

 

[StakerOne]

Corporations form as a logical part of capitalist development, it's not a matter of "could".

They don't. That's why I asked the question. You have swerved it.
If corporations seized to exist. Are we still left with capitalism?
I say we would be, ergo, corporations rely on capitalism, but capitalism does not rely corporations.
I fear the left hates capitalism, but not corporates, hence why they cheer on corporate censorship.

 

[StakerOne]

Why the fuck should I care about that question? Corporations are not the sole instrument of capitalist exploitation.

What else is. I'm trying to work out whether you are communist fruitcake or not.
You know the type. Everything belongs to the state and some have more privileges within the state than others.

 

[StakerOne]

But to be really clear, a market economy comprised only of workers coops, run democratically by and for the workforce, would not be capitalist.

If only there were some kind of decentralised, permissionless and immutable technology that would allow us to do that...

 

[LDC]

The not very tightly fastened mask slips.

Fuck right off you thick libertarian cunt.

 

[NoXion]

They don't. That's why I asked the question. You have swerved it.
If corporations seized to exist. Are we still left with capitalism?
I say we would be, ergo, corporations rely on capitalism, but capitalism does not rely corporations.
I fear the left hates capitalism, but not corporates, hence why they cheer on corporate censorship.

Oh, I see that you're one of those wankers. All in favour of free markets right up until the point where companies decide that open bigotry isn't profitable enough.

What else is. I'm trying to work out whether you are communist fruitcake or not.
You know the type. Everything belongs to the state and some have more privileges within the state than others.

How can you work out if I'm a "communist fruitcake" when it's patently obvious that you don't have a fucking clue what communism even is in the first place? You think bourgeois cunts like Schwaub are communists, you fucking loony.

If only there were some kind of decentralised, permissionless and immutable technology that would allow us to do that...

The barriers to a worker-led market comprised solely of democratic co-operatives are not technological, they are political and economic.

The not very tightly fastened mask slips.

Fuck right off you thick libertarian cunt.

But I thought libertarian wankers didn't wear masks, they think they have a right to spread pathogens.

 

[SpineyNorman]

If only there were some kind of decentralised, permissionless and immutable technology that would allow us to do that...

you thick cunt

 

[SpineyNorman]

Thinking that the question of power can be solved with a bit of code. It's naive, idiotic and dangerous.

I once watched a documentary on the silk road (drug market not the old trade route) and some right libertarian bitcoin twat was talking about PGP and bitcoin and he said it makes the use of force useless because 'force can't solve a math(sic) problem. Completely failing to realise that force can waterboard you until you handover your keys and passwords.

 

[NoXion]

Thinking that the question of power can be solved with a bit of code. It's naive, idiotic and dangerous.

I once watched a documentary on the silk road (drug market not the old trade route) and some right libertarian bitcoin twat was talking about PGP and bitcoin and he said it makes the use of force useless because 'force can't solve a math(sic) problem. Completely failing to realise that force can waterboard you until you handover your keys and passwords.

Besides, didn't the silk road online drug emporium get taken down anyway? I'm sure that online drug trading is still making brisk business, but that's no indication that it's necessarily any more "secure" than buying off a dealer in person. Street dealers get busted all the time but still find plenty of customers.