Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Not Communism, but Simulated Communism
#1
I have struggled trying to conceptualize what I have been witnessing the last few years. I have made that clear on past posts and I appreciate everybody's input to assist. 

This video helps me greatly. It's not long or complex. Just direct and poignant. 

Simulated Communism or simulated Marxism is a good way to put it. If large, powerful, wealthy corporations are getting woke, is it really Marxism? 




Reply
#2
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".

.
“The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people.”

-Aldous Huxley

-- Got mask? Just sayin'...




Reply
#3
(06-06-2021, 01:29 AM)Ninurta Wrote: 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".

.

Yes. Whatever we want to call it the means to get there are definitely in play. The levers are being pulled. The more I think about it, the more I believe most people just want an overlord, a strongman, a chief to make all the decisions for them. They welcome this.

  tinyshocked
Reply
#4
(06-06-2021, 04:00 AM)ABNARTY Wrote: Yes. Whatever we want to call it the means to get there are definitely in play. The levers are being pulled. The more I think about it, the more I believe most people just want an overlord, a strongman, a chief to make all the decisions for them. They welcome this.

  tinyshocked

The more I think about it, the more certain I am you are correct. That is the only explanation I can find for why I kept rising to management positions in the work force - no one else was willing to make the hard choices, so they all looked for someone else to do it, and someone HAD to do it, so that unpleasant task just fell to me by the luck of the draw. It certainly wasn't ability, it was just bad luck combined with the willingness in the absence of anyone else willing.

If it worked that way in my microcosm, it certainly must be at play in the macrocosm.

.
“The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people.”

-Aldous Huxley

-- Got mask? Just sayin'...




Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)