That’s not what socialism is to begin with, that’s just the state within capitalism affirming corporate power, which is a part of liberalism. “Liberalism” has always generally been that which affirms capitalism, ideologically, it isn’t a moral code.
Using taxes for things isn’t socialism, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy.
“Liberalism” has always generally been that which affirms capitalism
That’s one function of it (in context) but that’s not the definition. That’s not “what it is.” Also, these corporations would trample capitalism itself to gain more power.
socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy.
I’m not talking about socialism, I’m talking about corporate socialism, which is not a form of socialism. It’s a term which demonstrates how anti-liberal and anti-meritocratic and even anti-capitalist the top-down government-corporate control network is.
“Corporate socialism” does not exist. It isn’t socialist in any way. What it is is thoroughly capitalist, and is an example of the state under capitalism affirming corporate interests. A closer descriptor would be “state capitalism.”
Corporations cannot “trample capitalism itself for more power.” The only power corporations hold within capitalism comes from their ability to reproduce on an expanded scale in capital circulation. If corporations trampled on capitalism, they would erase themselves.
What you describe as “anti-liberal,” “anti-meritocratic,” and “anti-capitalist” is the peak of liberalism and capitalism itself. The late stage capitalism has not transcended capitalism, and is not denoted as “corporate socialism.” That’s just word salad.
Doesn’t matter. All my descriptions match reality. And these are the terms we use to refer to these aspects of reality. Corporate socialism is very real, even if it isn’t socialism. Get used to it because it’s a fixture of our society.
If corporations trampled on capitalism, they would erase themselves.
Nobody in any board room will ever care about that large-scale erasure. They will each act in support of their career and their shareholders’ profits. Destroying the environment may ultimately erase all corporations. They don’t care. They cannot care. They are an algorithm for increasing profits. Larger ideological values are irrelevant. So-called capitalism (to the extent that it even exists) is a product of all this high-concept greedy animal behavior, not the cause.
The process you define as “corporate socialism” is just regular capitalism. There’s no utility in defining it the way you do, that’s like calling Tennis “Paddle Soccer” or something even more outlandish. It doesn’t meaningfully describe anything.
As for corporations trampling the environment, risking themselves, etc, yes, that’s correct. It isn’t human greed, though, it’s because capitalism as a system selects for higher profits, those best capable of fulfilling their duty to best reproduce on an expanded scale, best chase higher absolute profits as the rate of profit falls. The ideological aspect only applies in affirming cultural hegemony, ie in protecting their right to continue this process of plunder.
In that way, it is thoroughly liberal, as in liberalism is the justification, and is thoroughly capitalist, in that this is the self-defeating stage of capitalism itself. None of this has transcended capitalism, though, it isn’t morphing into anything new, until a qualitative leap in property relations happens and public ownership in the hands of the working class becomed the principle aspect of the economy.
The contradictions within capitalism induce its demise, but these contradictions are characteristic of capitalism, and are not beyond or outside it.
I ready described such utility in how it opposes our shallow images of “cApiTaLisM” (and meritocracy etc). Capitalism as instantiated doesn’t match our descriptions of it. Human greed is the constant engine. Liberalism emerged from that emergent environment, and in some ways helps maintain aspects of those systems. But corporations will never actually support any ideology, whether that ideology supports or opposes “capitalism.” Corporations (or rather the humans whose greed is their engine) will, at best, stab us in the eyes and ears with ANY fractured ideological images that gets them some near-term increase in power or profits.
We are speaking largely past each other. Capitalism was not a choice, it emerged naturally from mercantilism and early industrial manufacturing within the boundaries of feudalism. It was never a choice to adopt it, it arose naturally as it subsumed everything else, extending the domain of private property.
The utility of Liberalism is in its ability to affirm existing property relations. This is pressed down by the state, and additionally the large corporations. This is called “cultural hegemony,” capitalism is maintained by the ideological superstructure.
Corporations, individual capitalists, etc did not choose capitalism, correct. They are the best at gathering profits. Capitalism as a system selects for them, because capital is a control system, if you fail to compete you fall.
Power is only useful as far as it increases profits, because profits are what is systemically driven. Humans are not in control of capitalism, capital is.
That’s not what socialism is to begin with, that’s just the state within capitalism affirming corporate power, which is a part of liberalism. “Liberalism” has always generally been that which affirms capitalism, ideologically, it isn’t a moral code.
Using taxes for things isn’t socialism, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy.
But that’s what corporate socialism is
That’s one function of it (in context) but that’s not the definition. That’s not “what it is.” Also, these corporations would trample capitalism itself to gain more power.
I’m not talking about socialism, I’m talking about corporate socialism, which is not a form of socialism. It’s a term which demonstrates how anti-liberal and anti-meritocratic and even anti-capitalist the top-down government-corporate control network is.
“Corporate socialism” does not exist. It isn’t socialist in any way. What it is is thoroughly capitalist, and is an example of the state under capitalism affirming corporate interests. A closer descriptor would be “state capitalism.”
Corporations cannot “trample capitalism itself for more power.” The only power corporations hold within capitalism comes from their ability to reproduce on an expanded scale in capital circulation. If corporations trampled on capitalism, they would erase themselves.
What you describe as “anti-liberal,” “anti-meritocratic,” and “anti-capitalist” is the peak of liberalism and capitalism itself. The late stage capitalism has not transcended capitalism, and is not denoted as “corporate socialism.” That’s just word salad.
Doesn’t matter. All my descriptions match reality. And these are the terms we use to refer to these aspects of reality. Corporate socialism is very real, even if it isn’t socialism. Get used to it because it’s a fixture of our society.
Nobody in any board room will ever care about that large-scale erasure. They will each act in support of their career and their shareholders’ profits. Destroying the environment may ultimately erase all corporations. They don’t care. They cannot care. They are an algorithm for increasing profits. Larger ideological values are irrelevant. So-called capitalism (to the extent that it even exists) is a product of all this high-concept greedy animal behavior, not the cause.
The process you define as “corporate socialism” is just regular capitalism. There’s no utility in defining it the way you do, that’s like calling Tennis “Paddle Soccer” or something even more outlandish. It doesn’t meaningfully describe anything.
As for corporations trampling the environment, risking themselves, etc, yes, that’s correct. It isn’t human greed, though, it’s because capitalism as a system selects for higher profits, those best capable of fulfilling their duty to best reproduce on an expanded scale, best chase higher absolute profits as the rate of profit falls. The ideological aspect only applies in affirming cultural hegemony, ie in protecting their right to continue this process of plunder.
In that way, it is thoroughly liberal, as in liberalism is the justification, and is thoroughly capitalist, in that this is the self-defeating stage of capitalism itself. None of this has transcended capitalism, though, it isn’t morphing into anything new, until a qualitative leap in property relations happens and public ownership in the hands of the working class becomed the principle aspect of the economy.
The contradictions within capitalism induce its demise, but these contradictions are characteristic of capitalism, and are not beyond or outside it.
There is, to defend liberalism and thus capitalim.
Fair!
I like the idea of just renaming things to criticize something else entirely.
Air conditioning? You mean weather lich witchcraft, we’re not doing necromancy in my christian home
Exquisite bit
I ready described such utility in how it opposes our shallow images of “cApiTaLisM” (and meritocracy etc). Capitalism as instantiated doesn’t match our descriptions of it. Human greed is the constant engine. Liberalism emerged from that emergent environment, and in some ways helps maintain aspects of those systems. But corporations will never actually support any ideology, whether that ideology supports or opposes “capitalism.” Corporations (or rather the humans whose greed is their engine) will, at best, stab us in the eyes and ears with ANY fractured ideological images that gets them some near-term increase in power or profits.
We are speaking largely past each other. Capitalism was not a choice, it emerged naturally from mercantilism and early industrial manufacturing within the boundaries of feudalism. It was never a choice to adopt it, it arose naturally as it subsumed everything else, extending the domain of private property.
The utility of Liberalism is in its ability to affirm existing property relations. This is pressed down by the state, and additionally the large corporations. This is called “cultural hegemony,” capitalism is maintained by the ideological superstructure.
Corporations, individual capitalists, etc did not choose capitalism, correct. They are the best at gathering profits. Capitalism as a system selects for them, because capital is a control system, if you fail to compete you fall.
Power is only useful as far as it increases profits, because profits are what is systemically driven. Humans are not in control of capitalism, capital is.