• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It's ALWAYS Oligarchs, an open challenge

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
First a definition: I use the term "oligarch" to include anyone and everyone who is super rich and/or has huge wealth. Maybe it's a true oligarch, maybe it's an undertaxed CEO.

My claim is that "oligarchs" exacerbate EVERY ill in our society. Name a societal ill, and with one or two degrees of separation, I can show how oligarchs are making things worse for us all.

The gauntlet has been thrown down :)


Now, if I'm right, or even mostly right, don't you think that the other 99.9999% of us ought to be working together to undo these oligarchs? Something radical like getting them to pay their fair share of taxes?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
First a definition: I use the term "oligarch" to include anyone and everyone who is super rich and/or has huge wealth. Maybe it's a true oligarch, maybe it's an undertaxed CEO.

My claim is that "oligarchs" exacerbate EVERY ill in our society. Name a societal ill, and with one or two degrees of separation, I can show how oligarchs are making things worse for us all.

The gauntlet has been thrown down :)


Now, if I'm right, or even mostly right, don't you think that the other 99.9999% of us ought to be working together to undo these oligarchs? Something radical like getting them to pay their fair share of taxes?
While your at it, blame the rampant infestation of lawyers in society these days as well.

I agree though. Those who have the money control everything. Even the laws and policies.

Unfortunately it's so much out of control and entrenched, I think we are past the point of no return of any type of remedying.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Now, if I'm right, or even mostly right, don't you think that the other 99.9999% of us ought to be working together to undo these oligarchs? Something radical like getting them to pay their fair share of taxes?
Yes, but unfortunately, it's like living in a dysfunctional family. Sure, dad's a tyrant and a bully that abuses his whole family whenever and however he feels like it, but the oldest son can't wait to grow up and be just like him. While the middle boy just stays drunk and high, living his life in a chemical cloud of oblivion. And the youngest son hides and tries to keep out of dad's way as much a possible until he's old enough to 'make a run for it'. Meanwhile mom, who's supposed to be protecting them all from dad's abuse is in total denial and pretending to herself and everyone else that dad's horrible behavior is just 'normal and inevitable dad stuff ... nothing to be done about it'.

And should anyone from outside the family dare to point out the insanity of this family's abusive and dysfunctional behavior, they will all close ranks and defend it to the death.

The INEVITABLE result of capitalism is oligarchy. And yet go ahead and DARE to tell the American people this. Watch them fight you tooth and nail insisting that capitalism is freedom and justice and opportunity and apple pie and all things good and proper even as the oligarchy that it's created strip them of everything they hold dear: their livelihoods, their dignity, their autonomy, and their children's dreams.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The INEVITABLE result of capitalism is oligarchy. And yet go ahead and DARE to tell the American people this. Watch them fight you tooth and nail insisting that capitalism is freedom and justice and opportunity and apple pie and all things good and proper even as the oligarchy that it's created strip them of everything they hold dear: their livelihoods, their dignity, their autonomy, and their children's dreams.

Large hurdles, I agree! But I can't bring myself to agree that it's inevitable. But to that end, I've been trying to wrap my brain around free-market-ism vs. capitalism. I'm hoping that free-market-ism might be easier to keep on an even keel?
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Large hurdles, I agree! But I can't bring myself to agree that it's inevitable. But to that end, I've been trying to wrap my brain around free-market-ism vs. capitalism. I'm hoping that free-market-ism might be easier to keep on an even keel?
It's not inevitable, but all evidence points to it being an end goal capitalist societies tend to drift towards unless people are actively working to counter said tendency, or a major catastrophe happens to set the wealthy back a few steps.

If you want to learn more about the issue of wealth inequality I strongly recommend Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century.Despite the usual smear campaigns from the usual suspects (Heritage Foundation members etc.) Piketty is emphatically not an anti-capitalist firebrand*, and near the end of the book actually argues for a variety of policy proposals in order to slow down or halt the trend towards oligarchy that seems to dominate capitalist societies.


*) If you are looking for the words of an anti-capitalist firebrand, then the original Capital by a certain duo of German theorists and political activists may be a better fit for you. While some of its data and conclusions are somewhat outdated, as an analytical tool it is still absolutely on point.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Large hurdles, I agree! But I can't bring myself to agree that it's inevitable. But to that end, I've been trying to wrap my brain around free-market-ism vs. capitalism. I'm hoping that free-market-ism might be easier to keep on an even keel?
A "free" market is code for an unregulated market just as a "free" society is code for an unregulated society. And BOTH are lawless anarchy trying to pretend it's not what it is. And both invite the rise of the 'bullyboys'.

The only truly "free" market is a market that sells things that we don't need to buy. Luxury markets. So that we are "free" to refuse to participate in it if it seeks to exploit and abuse us for it's own profit. Which EVERY market seeks to do, if it can. Yet in our modern and highly inter-dependent societies, we need to buy pretty much everything that we need to live, making all those markets CAPTIVE markets, and not "free" markets. And captive markets are fundamentally exploitive. They seek to deliver the least value for the highest price because they know we have to participate, to live. And they are going to take everything we have and give us as little in return as they can get away with. Which inevitably results in a few very rich people controlling the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. Economic enslavement.

Welcome to the new world order: the rule of the most greedy, few.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
It's not inevitable, but all evidence points to it being an end goal capitalist societies tend to drift towards unless people are actively working to counter said tendency, or a major catastrophe happens to set the wealthy back a few steps.

If you want to learn more about the issue of wealth inequality

I really enjoyed a book called "Who Owns the Future?" by the "inventor" of virtual reality, Jaron Lanier (interesting character).

One key idea I took away from Lanier, is that we should view all economic systems as man-made machines. Like ALL man-made machines, they need monitoring and tweaking. So I find discussions of "pure economic systems X vs. Y vs. Z" to be not very helpful. None of them are perfect if left unattended!
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
a "free" market is code for an unregulated market just like a "free" society is code for an unregulated society. And BOTH are lawless anarchy trying to pretend it's not what it is.
I beg to differ. In a capitalist regime, "free" markets require rule by violence and authority in order to preserve all-important private property and capital.

Conversely, a free society might as well do away with the oppressive system of capitalism altogether - and arguably has to, if it wants to pursue genuine freedom for every single one of its members.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
A "free" market is code for an unregulated market just as a "free" society is code for an unregulated society. And BOTH are lawless anarchy trying to pretend it's not what it is. And both invite the rise of the 'bullyboys'.

The only truly "free" market is a market that sells things that we don't need to buy. Luxury markets. So that we are "free" to refuse to participate in it if it seeks to exploit and abuse us for it's own profit. Which EVERY market seeks to do, if it can. Yet in our modern and highly inter-dependent societies, we need to buy pretty much everything that we need to live, making all those markets CAPTIVE markets, and not "free" markets. And captive markets are fundamentally exploitive. They seek to deliver the least value for the highest price because they know we have to participate, to live. And they are going to take everything we have and give us as little in return as they can get away with. And this inevitable result in a few very rich people controlling the lives and livelihoods of everyone else. Economic enslavement.

Welcome to the new world order: the rule of the most greedy, few.

My current, incomplete, understanding of free-market-ism is that the ownership of companies shifts away from uninvolved "capitalists", and more towards the workers. We but a lot of organic foods, and as an example, many of these organic food companies are "employee owned".
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I really enjoyed a book called "Who Owns the Future?" by the "inventor" of virtual reality, Jaron Lanier (interesting character).

One key idea I took away from Lanier, is that we should view all economic systems as man-made machines. Like ALL man-made machines, they need monitoring and tweaking. So I find discussions of "pure economic systems X vs. Y vs. Z" to be not very helpful. None of them are perfect if left unattended!
The problem I have with this analogy is that machines are designed for specific purposes, whereas nobody went and designed an economic system like capitalism - and arguably, even its true purpose can only be discerned by observation.

This may be perhaps the only flaw I see with the proposal of a true libertarian society - it's easy to design a new economic system that just works in one's head, while actually bringing about a change in people's economic behavior that is natural and self-governing seems extraordinarily hard.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I really enjoyed a book called "Who Owns the Future?" by the "inventor" of virtual reality, Jaron Lanier (interesting character).

One key idea I took away from Lanier, is that we should view all economic systems as man-made machines. Like ALL man-made machines, they need monitoring and tweaking. So I find discussions of "pure economic systems X vs. Y vs. Z" to be not very helpful. None of them are perfect if left unattended!
And even more importantly, it would be 'insane' to build a machine that then enslaves and exploits us. And yet this is what we have done. We have created an economic 'machine' that forces us to serve it, rather than it serving us.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
My current, incomplete, understanding of free-market-ism is that the ownership of companies shifts away from uninvolved "capitalists", and more towards the workers. We but a lot of organic foods, and as an example, many of these organic food companies are "employee owned".
The problem still remains. Regardless of who "owns" the business, they all would rather sell 10 widgets for $10 each than 100 widgets for $1 each. The income is still $100, but the cost of production is far less in the former trade, than the latter.

ALL trading seeks to exploit us for it's own gain. And that's what has to be mitigated by the 'trading systems' that we set up and engage in. "Free" trading does not address this problem except by allowing us to refuse to engage in it. Which is an extreme and very impractical method of mitigation. What we need are trading systems that increase our control relative to our need to participate in them. If, for example, we have to have some form of transportation to survive in a modern society, then we have to control the transportation market relative to that need, so that everyone can reasonably afford it. Thus, the transportation market cannot be "free" to do whatever it pleases for the sake of it's own profit.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
First a definition: I use the term "oligarch" to include anyone and everyone who is super rich and/or has huge wealth. Maybe it's a true oligarch, maybe it's an undertaxed CEO.

My claim is that "oligarchs" exacerbate EVERY ill in our society. Name a societal ill, and with one or two degrees of separation, I can show how oligarchs are making things worse for us all.

The gauntlet has been thrown down :)


Now, if I'm right, or even mostly right, don't you think that the other 99.9999% of us ought to be working together to undo these oligarchs? Something radical like getting them to pay their fair share of taxes?


Thanks to silver spoon, I control wealth
enough to put me in the top .0001
or so percent.

So I must be truly dreadful.

You figure some social ills would be
prevented if all but enough to live on
were seized and distributed?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The essence o
The problem still remains. Regardless of who "owns" the business, they all would rather sell 10 widgets for $10 each than 100 widgets for $1 each. The income is still $100, but the cost of production is far less in the former trade, than the latter.

ALL trading seeks to exploit us for it's own gain. And that's what has to be mitigated by the 'trading systems' that we set up and engage in. "Free" trading does not address this problem except by allowing us to refuse to engage in it. Which is an extreme and very impractical method of mitigation. What we need are trading systems that increase our control relative to our need to participate in them. If, for example, we have to have some form of transportation to survive in a modern society, then we have to control the transportation market relative to that need, so that everyone can reasonably afford it. Thus, the transportation market cannot be "free" to do whatever it pleases for the sake of it's own profit.
The essence of trade is both parties being
better off for the transaction.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Conversely, a free society might as well do away with the oppressive system of capitalism altogether - and arguably has to, if it wants to pursue genuine freedom for every single one of its members.
It takes violence to prevent free economic association, ie, capitalism.
We've no better examples of this than historical attempts, eg, China,
N Korea, USSR. There will always be property, wealth, & income.
But under anti-capitalist regimes, the state must oppress the
populace in order to keep them from economic activity outside
of the state.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
First a definition: I use the term "oligarch" to include anyone and everyone who is super rich and/or has huge wealth. Maybe it's a true oligarch, maybe it's an undertaxed CEO.

My claim is that "oligarchs" exacerbate EVERY ill in our society. Name a societal ill, and with one or two degrees of separation, I can show how oligarchs are making things worse for us all.

The gauntlet has been thrown down :)


Now, if I'm right, or even mostly right, don't you think that the other 99.9999% of us ought to be working together to undo these oligarchs? Something radical like getting them to pay their fair share of taxes?
Fair challenge. Start with Elon Musk, since he's famous for giving things away.. How is his wealth making everything worse?
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Thanks to silver spoon, I control wealth
enough to put me in the top .0001
or so percent.

So I must be truly dreadful.

You figure some social ills would be
prevented if all but enough to live on
were seized and distributed?
I'd say it depends a lot on who is doing the seizing and the distributing here.
An authoritarian regime is only going to use these actions to increase its power and support among the powerful, especially when they simply give capital away to their supporters and cronies.

An autonomous, libertarian community arming itself and seizing an oligarch's wealth for common and collective use by all - for example, seizing real estate to be used for communal housing, or seizing factories or businesses to turn them into worker-controlled cooperatives - would be a rather different issue.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Fair challenge. Start with Elon Musk, since he's famous for giving things away.. How is his wealth making everything worse?
For example, he skimps on worker's pay in his factories, and forces his employees to ignore necessary safety standards, which endangers the exact workforce that actually designs and builds "his" cars.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/fire-broke-out-at-tesla-factory-in-fremont-california.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/tesla-factory-paint-shop-fires-worse-than-revealed-workers.html

(edit)
And that's on top of forcing his employees to work during a global pandemic, causing multiple COVID-19 cases.

After Elon Musk opened Tesla's Bay Area factory against local rules, around 450 workers got COVID-19


Do you believe the same would have happened if Tesla had been a worker-controlled operation?
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Fair challenge. Start with Elon Musk, since he's famous for giving things away.. How is his wealth making everything worse?
I once estimated that about 30% of his car's cost is taxpayer
subsidized (because electric cars are so fashionable).
His company is a mooch.
 
Top