Thanks for that video! It's pretty much what I have been screaming for years, but he puts it so much more effectively.
What we are seeing is a move to oligarchy. Every "socialist" or "communist" revolution always and inevitably leads to a totalitarian oligarchy, whatever name or disguise it tries to hide under. But oligarchy is not limited to them. Capitalism can also move into totalitarian oligarchy. As he correctly observes, it is neither a "right wing" problem nor a "left wing" problem, it is a human, totalitarian problem. No one cares whether the oligarchs are right or left, not even the oligarchs themselves - they only care whether or not the "masses" are in abject, totalitarian obedience to them.
It is easier to control a mass population under Socialist/Communist conditions, because the individuality necessary to spur innovation in capitalism is not present. Nevertheless, oligarchs exist under both systems as a natural outgrowth of them. The oligarchs just exercise a greater degree of control over the population in socialism because there are not as many individualists insisting on going their own way and telling the oligarchs to eat shit and die.
A truly socialist society would have no government at all, nor would it need one, as each person's opinion and decision would be just as valid as the next person's, no government interference necessary. There are no truly socialist societies in existence on Earth other than among ants and bees.
What we refer to as "socialism" among humans is an invention of oligarch FOR oliqarchs, to wrest control of what they refer to as "the masses" away from those masses and deliver it to the oligarchs. It's a cleaner, easier way for them to gain that control than capitalism.
What we are witnessing now is something of an attempt at fusion of the two systems, but with the same goal of giving control to the oligarchs. Rather than the political oligarchs of old, we are witnessing the birth of financial oligarchies now, with corporate heads ruling them, and with the eventual goal of ruling over us as well.
He wasn't very far off the mark when he called it "neo-feudalism". Some people refer to what we are witnessing the birth of as "corporatocracy".
.
What we are seeing is a move to oligarchy. Every "socialist" or "communist" revolution always and inevitably leads to a totalitarian oligarchy, whatever name or disguise it tries to hide under. But oligarchy is not limited to them. Capitalism can also move into totalitarian oligarchy. As he correctly observes, it is neither a "right wing" problem nor a "left wing" problem, it is a human, totalitarian problem. No one cares whether the oligarchs are right or left, not even the oligarchs themselves - they only care whether or not the "masses" are in abject, totalitarian obedience to them.
It is easier to control a mass population under Socialist/Communist conditions, because the individuality necessary to spur innovation in capitalism is not present. Nevertheless, oligarchs exist under both systems as a natural outgrowth of them. The oligarchs just exercise a greater degree of control over the population in socialism because there are not as many individualists insisting on going their own way and telling the oligarchs to eat shit and die.
A truly socialist society would have no government at all, nor would it need one, as each person's opinion and decision would be just as valid as the next person's, no government interference necessary. There are no truly socialist societies in existence on Earth other than among ants and bees.
What we refer to as "socialism" among humans is an invention of oligarch FOR oliqarchs, to wrest control of what they refer to as "the masses" away from those masses and deliver it to the oligarchs. It's a cleaner, easier way for them to gain that control than capitalism.
What we are witnessing now is something of an attempt at fusion of the two systems, but with the same goal of giving control to the oligarchs. Rather than the political oligarchs of old, we are witnessing the birth of financial oligarchies now, with corporate heads ruling them, and with the eventual goal of ruling over us as well.
He wasn't very far off the mark when he called it "neo-feudalism". Some people refer to what we are witnessing the birth of as "corporatocracy".
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’