The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Northstar]

The issue with this argument is that it blames the average Joe for complex problems

That would be because the solution usually starts with the average joe.

where products from large corporations are almost always better, cheaper, and more convenient than smaller ones,

Cheaper and more convenient, perhaps. Better? That one I'm not so sure on. Things made on the small business level tend to be made in smaller quantities which means better quality control.

peoples' choices are often limited

True, but they are still there and more often than not will achieve the same goal.

rather than institutions with higher influence like the richest people on earth, big corporations, government, etc.

All those things draw their power from the average joe.

but the reality is, it's more expensive than WalMart or Amazon, and if you're someone on a lower income every penny counts.

And why do you think that is?

It's a vicious cycle, those places can only charge what they do because they treat their employees like garbage. In return the employees can only afford to shop there. Only average joe can break this cycle.

But our energy should be focused on the big guys, not individual choices. Protest the fossil fuel industry for the planet's temperature increasing, protest big corporations for mistreating their workers, protest politicians for bailing out tax-evading big industries while hardly doing anything for the shoppes on your local main street, not the average Joe for minutia.

All those things are great in principle but won't accomplish anything.

If you really want to hurt them hurt them where it counts, their wallet. That once again, falls to the average joe.

There's a massive difference in filling your car up at an Exxon once every two weeks than owning billions worth of Exxon shares. The former has a very minuscule impact on pollution, while in the case of the latter, you have a much larger influence on what the company does and how it affects the planet.

Sears was once one of the largest companies in the country, it's currently on life support.

The customer has the most impact on what a company does, not the shareholders, once they lose the customers faith they become a former company.

 

[Danoff]

There's a massive difference in filling your car up at an Exxon once every two weeks than owning billions worth of Exxon shares. The former has a very minuscule impact on pollution, while in the case of the latter, you have a much larger influence on what the company does and how it affects the planet.

...and you'd want someone like gates having that influence.

@Danoff to clarify, free market capitalism, like we have in the US, Singapore, and other places, is inevitably corrupt.

Capitalism is just a description of a free exchange of goods and services. It can't be corrupt. To have corruption, you need government, you need force.

So yes, the capitalist system the US currently has is not only corrupt, but rigged and very unsustainable. It's late stage capitalism.

The US is socialist. And yes, the US government, government has for sure engaged in corrupt behavior, most recently with the (lack of) impeachment of Donald Trump. It has nothing to do with the economic principles of the country (socialism) and everything to do with the government itself - specifically our elected senators' desire to keep their party in the white house.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Capitalism is just a description of a free exchange of goods and services. It can't be corrupt. To have corruption, you need government, you need force.

So has this devolved into a semantical argument now? The dictionary definition of the word corruption is "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain". It says nothing about government. or an outside force being required. What would you call a multinational corporation that exploits its' workers, pollutes the ecosystem, buys out politicians, extorts, and engages in all sorts of other immoral practices all for maximum profit? "Corrupt" is the first word that I would think of.

In nearly every case, it's not too much government influence that causes big corporations to be corrupt. It's the opposite; the lack of government. How do you think that child labor, a 14-hour workday, sweatshops, pay discrimination based on race, and the banning of unions and strikes became outlawed in the US? Simple, government interference. Progressive politicians for their time listened to protests and voted to outlaw these practices, facing harsh opposition from the other political spectrum and the corporate lobbies. Not because of the free market regulating itself, accepting that these practices are bad. And there's still more that needs to be done.

Bottom line is, government must always reign supreme over the market and its corporations, or else we'll end up having a corporatocracy, which the US is getting closer and closer to. Now obviously, there are lines that the government shouldn't cross, and times that government interference is a net negative rather than a positive.

It should be self-evident that both the government and an economic system has the ability to be corrupt.

 

[Danoff]

No, it's not a semantic argument.

So has this devolved into a semantical argument now? The dictionary definition of the word corruption is "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain". It says nothing about government. or an outside force being required.

If you want to look at capitalism in isolation (ie: in the presence of anarchy), and if you define corruption as behaving in any dishonest manner in exchange for personal gain, then yes you will find corruption. This mistake you are making is to claim that it is capitalism that is corrupt rather than anarchy. Usually corruption is in reference to a government. If someone offers to sell you a bird for $10 and it turns out the bird is dead an they won't return your money, that's not usually referred to as corrupt (though that is what you described as corrupt). That's usually referred to as dishonest, lying, thievery, etc. but corruption is generally reserved for force.

If that's how you want to use corrupt, so be it. But it's anarchy you're blaming, not capitalism.

Capitalism is not a form of government, and it cannot exist (for long) without one.

What would you call a multinational corporation that exploits its' workers, pollutes the ecosystem, buys out politicians, extorts, and engages in all sorts of other immoral practices all for maximum profit? "Corrupt" is the first word that I would think of.

Yes, buying out politicians is certainly corrupt. Of course that requires government. A corporation that engages in "immoral" practices, would be immoral, not corrupt. At least not in my use of the word.

In nearly every case, it's not too much government influence that causes big corporations to be corrupt. It's the opposite; the lack of government.

Anarchy. Capitalism is not a government, and cannot exist without one. You're arguing against anarchy.

How do you think that child labor, a 14-hour workday, sweatshops, pay discrimination based on race, and the banning of unions and strikes became outlawed in the US? Simple, government interference.

I highlighted the part that makes this tautological. It's hard to outlaw something without government. Capitalism can't outlaw anything, it's not a government.

Progressive politicians for their time listened to protests and voted to outlaw these practices, facing harsh opposition from the other political spectrum and the corporate lobbies. Not because of the free market regulating itself, accepting that these practices are bad. And there's still more that needs to be done.

Simultaneously you seem to claim that the US is socialist and that the US is not socialist. Tough position to take. But bottom line, you're arguing against anarchy.

Bottom line is, government must always reign supreme over the market and its corporations

Yup. Anarchy is bad.

It should be self-evident that both the government and an economic system has the ability to be corrupt.

An economic system is unable to be corrupt (any economic system). It's a theory on a piece of paper. Even by your definition, how can a theory be corrupt?

 

[MaxAttack]

I think it's more accurate that individuals are corrupt, and individuals are part of governments and corporations.

Say you have a police force of 1000 officers and you have proof that 10 of your officers have accepted illegal bribes and looked the other way from crime.

Which is true; that your police force is completely corrupt as it has failed to execute its duty across the board? That your police force is 1% corrupt because 1/100 officers will (statistically speaking) accept bribes? Or is your police force still exactly what it was, but contains 10 corrupt individuals?

I believe the latter firmly. The actions of one Englishman do not define the national character, interests or whatever else of the English, much as one US senator does not for the whole senate, and one McDonald's employee does not for McDonald's.

With that simple bit of logic out of the way, it becomes infantile to group "corporations" into one agenda, and it becomes purposeless to blame corruption or mistakes over policy on corporations. Everything is ultimately the work of individuals.

I know it's scary to accept that Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Dick Cheney or whoever else are bags of meat and organs just like you, but it's truer than simply believing people only become successful by chucking away their humanity.

As it stands, there's no system other than our current one (globally speaking about capitalism here, I'm not going into the nitty gritty of European socialism or whatever else, for all intents and purposes the economy functions on the same lines), theoretical or otherwise, that provides a better society for people at large than capitalism - and corporate capitalism at that. Until there is one (there won't be), the current way of doing things is not worthy of criticism for as long as you have roads, hospitals, communication, and pizza delivered to your door within thirty minutes or your money back.

People are spoiled by the trappings of our modern society and have lost perspective on just how great things are compared to the vast majority of human history.

 

[GranTurNismo]

No, it's not a semantic argument.



If you want to look at capitalism in isolation (ie: in the presence of anarchy), and if you define corruption as behaving in any dishonest manner in exchange for personal gain, then yes you will find corruption. This mistake you are making is to claim that it is capitalism that is corrupt rather than anarchy. Usually corruption is in reference to a government. If someone offers to sell you a bird for $10 and it turns out the bird is dead an they won't return your money, that's not usually referred to as corrupt (though that is what you described as corrupt). That's usually referred to as dishonest, lying, thievery, etc. but corruption is generally reserved for force.

If that's how you want to use corrupt, so be it. But it's anarchy you're blaming, not capitalism.

Capitalism is not a form of government, and it cannot exist (for long) without one.



Yes, buying out politicians is certainly corrupt. Of course that requires government. A corporation that engages in "immoral" practices, would be immoral, not corrupt. At least not in my use of the word.




Anarchy. Capitalism is not a government, and cannot exist without one. You're arguing against anarchy.



I highlighted the part that makes this tautological. It's hard to outlaw something without government. Capitalism can't outlaw anything, it's not a government.



Simultaneously you seem to claim that the US is socialist and that the US is not socialist. Tough position to take. But bottom line, you're arguing against anarchy.



Yup. Anarchy is bad.



An economic system is unable to be corrupt (any economic system). It's a theory on a piece of paper. Even by your definition, how can a theory be corrupt?

So it seems we actually have more in common on about this issue than I had thought. We seem to both agree that anarchy (lack of oversight) in a free-market capitalist system, leads to dishonesty, lying, thievery, which is of course, bad.

But, the notion of "corporations buying out politicians" has only been facilitated by the lack of government. After the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, it only became easier for this practice to take place, as regulations regarding campaign financing were rescinded. If you want less anarchy, dishonesty, lying, and thievery, it could at least start by having this ruling overturned.

Some economic formations are simply flawed by default. Free-market capitalism is one of them. And so is state-run communism and bolshevism.

Yes, the US is socialist and not socialist. Socialist, in the sense that our infrastructure, K-12 public education, services for the poor, military, etc are taxpayer funded. Socialist in the sense that the US government bails out big business when they are on the bring of bankruptcy (regardless of how immoral and tax-evading they may be). Not socialist in the sense that we don't have cooperatively owned big businesses. Not socialist in the sense that US workers are almost never worth the value of labor. Not socialist in the sense that other services which are single-payer in most other first-world nations, like healthcare, public university, railroads, and more, are still privately owned and are for-profit. There are no truly "socialist" nations in the world, just like there are no truly "free-market capitalist" ones either. Most nations are a mixture between the two.

 

[Danoff]

So it seems we actually have more in common on about this issue than I had thought. We seem to both agree that anarchy (lack of oversight) in a free-market capitalist system, leads to dishonesty, lying, thievery, which is of course, bad.

Ok... and far be it from me to refuse an olive branch but... you're still not quite getting this right. It is not a "free-market capitalist system" you're talking about. It's "anarchy" which is for some reason a place where you think capitalism can occur (it's something that occurs, it's a description of human behavior, not a form of government), when in fact capitalism cannot occur there (for long). Capitalism requires a lack of anarchy to occur.

The concepts of capitalism and anarchy are very tightly linked in your mind, when in fact they are fundamentally incompatible. Capitalism occurs (there's that word again... it's something that happens) within a legitimate government. Outside of a legitimate government it's very difficult for capitalism to occur (even a little). In anarchy, an exchange of goods and services requires arms. It requires the seller and the buyer to guarantee their own safety against a forcible exchange of goods and services, and if they fail, forcible occurs (enough that a new government will form). That's not capitalism, though it can be an "exchange".

But, the notion of "corporations buying out politicians" has only been facilitated by the lack of government.

Even in some of the most expansive government systems that have ever existed corruption occurs. In fact, it seems the more opportunities for corruption exist with more government, not less. What you meant to say when you said "lack of government" was "failure of government". And that failure occurs in large governments.

Some economic formations are simply flawed by default. Free-market capitalism is one of them. And so is state-run communism and bolshevism.

You're comparing a description of human activity against governments. It's not apples to apples. It's like saying communism is flawed, and also bananas. I think what you meant here is that anarchy is flawed, and so is communism. Which seems fair.

Yes, the US is socialist and not socialist. Socialist, in the sense that our infrastructure, K-12 public education, services for the poor, military, etc are taxpayer funded. Socialist in the sense that the US government bails out big business when they are on the bring of bankruptcy (regardless of how immoral and tax-evading they may be). Not socialist in the sense that we don't have cooperatively owned big businesses. Not socialist in the sense that US workers are almost never worth the value of labor. Not socialist in the sense that other services which are single-payer in most other first-world nations, like healthcare, public university, railroads, and more, are still privately owned and are for-profit. There are no truly "socialist" nations in the world, just like there are no truly "free-market capitalist" ones either. Most nations are a mixture between the two.

Socialist is not incompatible with capitalism occurring. It just stifles capitalism from occurring more often. The US is socialist, just not perfectly socialist.

 

[Sander 001]

Reasons May Vary

 

[GranTurNismo]

Reasons May Vary

That’s actually not far off from true. The left wants him to take it so that Trump goes bye bye, while the right thinks it’s an actual cure.

 

[MatskiMonk]

People are spoiled by the trappings of our modern society and have lost perspective on just how great things are compared to the vast majority of human history.

I'm getting to welly into this debate with one point, then probably not stick around to argue the point... but... from my somewhat anti-corporation view, it's the massive profits that are generated in the drive away from how a society "should" work.

I'm pro-high street and local business where appropriate, I'm anti-self service checkout, and by small extension I'm anti-minimum wage too, I'm fairly anti-online shopping, beit for groceries or for a takeout. I'm kinda anti-dating app, I'm kinda anti messaging app as well.

The reason why I lump these things together is because they take human interaction and minimise, or remove it, and in doing so generate a revenue stream for themselves. Often the revenue stream is out of the community, country or continent. They can do this because the benefits are easier to see than the long term damage, and they rely on human weakness to sell the idea, where as I (somewhat foolishly I suppose) believe that if you are in the position to effect most of the first world, it's your responsibility not to act to undermine societal interaction in the name of profit.

I can sit on my sofa, order my shopping, order a takeaway from an international franchise, stream a film, maybe browse tinder at the same time, and not interact with anyone. Twenty years ago, I'd go into town, get a video or DVD from Choices/Blockbuster, nip to the chinese and order some food, while that's doing I'd pop to wine rack, get a bottle of something, I might even have a quick drink in the chinese while I wait... then I'd go home, and enjoy the drink, the food, and the film. Now, I know that the most obvious retort is to point out how much easier it is to do all that from your smartphone, but you miss out on human interaction... sure you may say, why the hell do you want to interact with shop assistants, but it makes us more rounded people with broader mind to be able to interact and possibly even benefit from talking to strangers. We'll see new things that are targeted at us by a **** algorithm, we'll be more aware of our surroundings. We will be mentally and physically stimulated, and communicative. You don't get any of that being a lazy **** sat on the sofa. It's like learning maths... few kids would ever want to do it given the choice... but they'd end up worse off for it. Technology provided most often by large international corporations enables us to say no to doing that thing we don't want to do.

Also, if a corporation has a board, it ceases being about individuals in many cases. Decisions have to be made collectively towards the goal of the company, and that's not necessarily going to be socially responsible.

I'm sure there's countless ways to poke holes in this, and if I explain why I think it matters to me personally I'm going to sound like I'm sat here in a cardigan with a packet of Werthers Originals, but that's what I think... so there.

 

[Danoff]

I'm getting to welly into this debate with one point, then probably not stick around to argue the point... but... from my somewhat anti-corporation view, it's the massive profits that are generated in the drive away from how a society "should" work.

I'm pro-high street and local business where appropriate, I'm anti-self service checkout, and by small extension I'm anti-minimum wage too, I'm fairly anti-online shopping, beit for groceries or for a takeout. I'm kinda anti-dating app, I'm kinda anti messaging app as well.

The reason why I lump these things together is because they take human interaction and minimise, or remove it, and in doing so generate a revenue stream for themselves. Often the revenue stream is out of the community, country or continent. They can do this because the benefits are easier to see than the long term damage, and they rely on human weakness to sell the idea, where as I (somewhat foolishly I suppose) believe that if you are in the position to effect most of the first world, it's your responsibility not to act to undermine societal interaction in the name of profit.

I can sit on my sofa, order my shopping, order a takeaway from an international franchise, stream a film, maybe browse tinder at the same time, and not interact with anyone. Twenty years ago, I'd go into town, get a video or DVD from Choices/Blockbuster, nip to the chinese and order some food, while that's doing I'd pop to wine rack, get a bottle of something, I might even have a quick drink in the chinese while I wait... then I'd go home, and enjoy the drink, the food, and the film. Now, I know that the most obvious retort is to point out how much easier it is to do all that from your smartphone, but you miss out on human interaction... sure you may say, why the hell do you want to interact with shop assistants, but it makes us more rounded people with broader mind to be able to interact and possibly even benefit from talking to strangers. We'll see new things that are targeted at us by a **** algorithm, we'll be more aware of our surroundings. We will be mentally and physically stimulated, and communicative. You don't get any of that being a lazy **** sat on the sofa. It's like learning maths... few kids would ever want to do it given the choice... but they'd end up worse off for it. Technology provided most often by large international corporations enables us to say no to doing that thing we don't want to do.

Also, if a corporation has a board, it ceases being about individuals in many cases. Decisions have to be made collectively towards the goal of the company, and that's not necessarily going to be socially responsible.

I'm sure there's countless ways to poke holes in this, and if I explain why I think it matters to me personally I'm going to sound like I'm sat here in a cardigan with a packet of Werthers Originals, but that's what I think... so there.

You picked a strange time to rail against social distancing.

 

[MatskiMonk]

You picked a strange time to rail against social distancing.

I like having my patio lights on, but I'd have still turned them off during the Blitz.

 

[Liquid]

You picked a strange time to rail against social distancing.

 

[MaxAttack]

I'm getting to welly into this debate with one point, then probably not stick around to argue the point... but... from my somewhat anti-corporation view, it's the massive profits that are generated in the drive away from how a society "should" work.

I'm pro-high street and local business where appropriate, I'm anti-self service checkout, and by small extension I'm anti-minimum wage too, I'm fairly anti-online shopping, beit for groceries or for a takeout. I'm kinda anti-dating app, I'm kinda anti messaging app as well.

The reason why I lump these things together is because they take human interaction and minimise, or remove it, and in doing so generate a revenue stream for themselves. Often the revenue stream is out of the community, country or continent. They can do this because the benefits are easier to see than the long term damage, and they rely on human weakness to sell the idea, where as I (somewhat foolishly I suppose) believe that if you are in the position to effect most of the first world, it's your responsibility not to act to undermine societal interaction in the name of profit.

I can sit on my sofa, order my shopping, order a takeaway from an international franchise, stream a film, maybe browse tinder at the same time, and not interact with anyone. Twenty years ago, I'd go into town, get a video or DVD from Choices/Blockbuster, nip to the chinese and order some food, while that's doing I'd pop to wine rack, get a bottle of something, I might even have a quick drink in the chinese while I wait... then I'd go home, and enjoy the drink, the food, and the film. Now, I know that the most obvious retort is to point out how much easier it is to do all that from your smartphone, but you miss out on human interaction... sure you may say, why the hell do you want to interact with shop assistants, but it makes us more rounded people with broader mind to be able to interact and possibly even benefit from talking to strangers. We'll see new things that are targeted at us by a **** algorithm, we'll be more aware of our surroundings. We will be mentally and physically stimulated, and communicative. You don't get any of that being a lazy **** sat on the sofa. It's like learning maths... few kids would ever want to do it given the choice... but they'd end up worse off for it. Technology provided most often by large international corporations enables us to say no to doing that thing we don't want to do.

Also, if a corporation has a board, it ceases being about individuals in many cases. Decisions have to be made collectively towards the goal of the company, and that's not necessarily going to be socially responsible.

I'm sure there's countless ways to poke holes in this, and if I explain why I think it matters to me personally I'm going to sound like I'm sat here in a cardigan with a packet of Werthers Originals, but that's what I think... so there.

Interesting - and valid - points.

Sometimes I feel like an old man at 26 - I too dont do dating apps, don't use self service. I support my local businesses where I can (buying local produce as opposed to supermarket).

But I feel there's a balance to be struck and it's possible for both small and huge businesses to co-exist. While I think we would rather only have family businesses around given the choice, we can't ignore the ability of large businesses to create hundreds of jobs at a time, and be forces for good in communities with things like charity drives that many large companies do partake in.

I think it's a good thing to lament the decline of small businesses and the lack control they can have over their destiny where big business is involved. But I think it's important to balance that with an appreciation for the things I have/have access to which I might not have ten, 25, 50 years ago etc, much of which is thanks to huge multinational corporations.

I just try to have faith in humanity - not ignore the bad, but try not to let it dominate my thinking and how I form opinions. I count myself as a futurist and think there are some harsh truths we have to embrace about who we are and what we do as a species if we are going to achieve the kind of things we might be capable of.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[Danoff]

"Capitalists"

 

[MaxAttack]

"Capitalists"

Communists in the bad times: This will work out! Have faith in the manifesto comrades!

Communists in the good times:

 

[Spacegoat]

 

[Liquid]

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[ryzno]

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Memers pounce.

 

[TexRex]

Checking in on Bill Bramhall...

...

That second one reminded me of a piece from a little while back. He didn't re-upload, but it's still relevant.

 

[GranTurNismo]

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[Liquid]

@Danoff

 

[Sander 001]

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Joey D]

You know if it didn't have The Onion logo and URL on it, I'd just assume this was real.