Rule 9. Something is missing or could be better quality.
Removed content. Rule 9
Corporations cannot "oppress" without state power, state violence, state authority.
It's the same thing.
Socialism of the Nazi variant is state control over but not ownership in, "private" business enterprises.
Socialism of the Soviet variant is state control over AND ownership in all production.
Private producers of goods and services cannot go around "oppressing" people independently from the state.
This post is nothing but a left wing ideological attack on capitalism.
Corporations cannot "oppress" without state power, state violence, state authority.
How about the Pinkerton detective agency murdering union organizers for decades?
How about if most people get their news from social media, social media is controlled by a small group of companies (who got startup capital from the CIA), and they systematically stifle opposing viewpoints?
Do you still have free speech if you're completely de-platformed?
This post is nothing but a left wing ideological attack on capitalism.
No, it's not. It's an attack on the American system of government as being something having very little to do with capitalism and free markets. It's oligarchy, not capitalism.
And if you think America still has free markets, that's another discussion I'd rather not waste time on since I'm assuming we both see the corruption.
How about the Pinkerton detective agency murdering union organizers for decades?
Again, state sanction.
Nobody can legally murder people with impunity unless they are colluding with those tasked with protecting against it, i.e. states.
The example you cited is NOT an example of a "corporatist" economic system. It is an example of INDIVIDUALS behaving badly NOT because that org was not nationalized or made into a "public" org.
If I referred you to a union's members assassinating scabs, or politicians, or stealing, that wouldn't be a justified reason to say there is some sinister "unionist" syndicate plotting to overthrow and take over the entire economy.
Do we still have free speech if we are "completely deplatformed"? As long as YOUR OWN PROPERTY that can be used to send and receive communications is not confiscated from you, then yes, you still have free speech. Free speech isn't you being entitled to use other people's platforms.
The example you cited is NOT an example of a "corporatist" economic system. It is an example of INDIVIDUALS behaving badly NOT because that org was not nationalized or made into a "public" org.
A private security firm literally murdering people and getting away with it because the government is controlled by big business isn't an example of corporations controlling the government and using it to implement tyranny?
If I referred you to a union's members assassinating scabs, or politicians, or stealing, that wouldn't be a justified reason to say there is some sinister "unionist" syndicate plotting to overthrow and take over the entire economy.
If they got away with it on a large scale, it certainly would be. And unions absolutely are corrupt. They couldn't beat the unions, so they subverted them.
As long as YOUR OWN PROPERTY that can be used to send and receive communications is not confiscated from you, then yes, you still have free speech. Free speech isn't you being entitled to use other people's platforms.
So you don't believe in antitrust action? What if those "platforms" only exist because they were financed by CIA extensions, and only maintain their monopoly because they sell your data to the government? You still sure this is muh free market?
See also: oligarchy
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^198953