1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Story Of Your Enslavement

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by johnv, Nov 28, 2015.

  1. not me. customers maybe. why is it we only expect perfection in others?
     
  2. Not "others". You.

    We only expect perfection in you, fin.
     
  3. well, if yer not already your gonna be sadly disappointed
     
    • Drama Queen Drama Queen x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Well it was you who posted the original video. Surely you are not suggesting you never noticed it was an anarchist prospectus @johnv ?
     
  5. I posted the original video with the comment "An interesting perspective", and it is, but there are others.

    I suppose it is anarchist in that it suggests we are being farmed, "oppressed", for the benefit of an elite. This ties in with my view that elites have made the rules for the benefit of themselves and their friends throughout human history. The game periodically evolves and the elites come and go but basically the game remains the same, where the game will be in 10, 20 or 50 years time who knows.
     
  6. @Pete1950

    Do you have a view on the TTIP and Deregulation Act 2015 ?

    It would seem to indicate a "growth at all costs" mindset.
     
  7. Historically the various political movements have argued about whether power and leadership should be in the hands of those who inherit it from their ancestors, those who purchase it with their wealth, those who fight for it with their military forces, or those who seek it through contesting democratic elections. Each of those options has had its turn at dominance.

    The anarchist viewpoint rejects altogether having leadership in the hands of a few, regardless of how they obtain it. Everyone in society should share power, or have power in their own affairs, or take it in turns to exercise power; there would be no designated elite of leaders, it says.

    That appears to be the thesis of the OP video. The existence of leadership is referred to (rather hyperbolically) as "slavery". I must say the explication is poorly expressed, and full of muddle and inaccuracy. Like I said, the anarchist ideal is attractive in its way, but there are hosts of attendant difficulties which are ignored.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. I believe that it is possible to point out the iniquities and implicit design failings of our current capitalist corporatocracy without being an anarchist.

    Of course, if your mind is the metaphorical equivalent of a monochrome laser printer*, you will only ever see things in black and white.


    *Some older members might still be stuck with dot matrix equipment, of course. No shame in that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I agree, it is certainly possible. And common. Pity the author of the OP's video hasn't done so.
     
    • Face Palm Face Palm x 1
  10. It seems to be part of the ongoing struggle between control by governmental authorities and control by international corporations.

    Corporations naturally want to escape from legal restraints imposed by governments; they seek to weaken regulation, minimise taxation, and enable themselves to deal with their employees, customers, suppliers, and competitors as they choose with impunity. Governmental bodies naturally want to regulate industries, collect taxes, enforce laws, and protect the interests of their voters and/or backers. Those purposes are not entirely compatible, so we end up with some sort of compromise.

    The TTIP seems to embody an attempt by corporations to tip the balance in their favour and against states.

    Whether this is a good thing or a bad things is, of course, a matter of opinion.
     
  11. It would seem that the pendulum is swinging in favour of the corporations with both the TTIP and the Deregulation Act 2015. Aa matter of principle I quite like the idea of deregulation but if that deregulation increases the power of the already powerful, and it generally does, then I might have to reconsider this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Ha-ha. It is gradually dawning on you that regulation (or "red tape" as the terminally greedy call it) can serve a useful purpose.

    Deregulating banks? Deregulating drug companies? Deregulating arms manufacturers? Deregulating nuclear power stations? What kind of deregulation is it that you quite like, @johnv ?
     
  13. De-regulation is a good thing, it removes obstacles from individuals and companies who want to be competiitive.

    For example, if you are buying your electricity from a company whose nuclear facility subsequently goes Three Mile Island on you, you can just vote with your feet* and chose a different supplier, in order to register your dissatisfaction with their product.

    That'll show 'em.


    *assuming the radiation hasn't mutated your feet into tentacles ... but the principle is the same.
     
  14. I don't have a lot of time for these conspiracy theories. They like to postulate that there is "an elite" controlling things and that we are just their playthings. That isn't what it is really like. What it is like is this:
    You enter a job some way down the ladder. It might be a state enterprise, or a private concern. You progress up the ladder by working in the service of the organisation. When you get to a certain level, the organisation is working more for you and your peers than you are for it. You have joined "the elite". Your attitudes change. It is in your interests to ally yourself with the goals of the organisation and defend it against all comers. You ride the gravy train.

    There is no conspiracy, no farming. The "victims" today are the elite of tomorrow. The dice are loaded, of course. Some people will find greasy pole ascension a lot easier than others, but no one is technically excluded. The boundaries between them and us are constantly changing, are in flux. And "them" are "us". They do the same things, have the same concerns. They just have more power and wealth. The unexceptional guy you were at school with becomes a few decades later a corporate decision-maker. He hasn't turned into a lizard, just managed to appropriate more wealth than you thought he would.

    The have-nots like to demonise the haves. It confirms them in their victimhood. Well, if it makes them happy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Maybe the amount of regulation an organisation is subjected to should be inversely proportional to it's size ?

    Small is good, it is where a lot of innovation comes from, unfortunately once a small company innovates and becomes successful it is often swallowed up by the mega corporations.

    I see BAT, who made over 600 billion fags last year yet claim to an ethical company, are up on corruption charges; there's a surprise. Wasn't Ken Clark chairman of BAT, although on QT recently didn't he say he held a non-exec position ??
     
  16. There is no secret committee orchestrating global events - no Spectre or Smersh or whatever. They don't have clandestine meetings to decide policy.

    There is no need. Policy is self-evident once an individual reaches a certain level of wealth and influence.

    That level though - it is most assuredly not available to everyone. You need to not only be wealthy, and talented, you need to be a sociopath or psychopath. I'm not exaggerating here, I've read of studies that show that upper management talent is almost always encountered in individuals with little or no empathy.

    Capitalism and corporatism each have almost no controls, no self-limiting features, built into them, ideologically speaking. The profit motive is the only important feature of either of them.
    A business that can cut expenditures and maximise profits will always win out against ethically-directed businesses, because it does not divert any significant portion of its resources to goals that do not immediately serve the primary mission. It doesn't worry about staff, local economy, resources, pollution, any of the "distractions" that ethical businesses attempt to embrace.

    Corporatism is simply the best way to conduct a business in a capitalist monetary system - it does not impede the capitalist philosophy but builds upon the inbuilt human instinct to band together against "outsiders" in order to out-compete them. It is a more efficient methodology than the idea of small independent businesses competing against each other.

    That all said, it isn't all that desirable to have Government impose controls on, say, the size of businesses - even if it were actually possible for Government to do so. The only way that a more socially, or societally, ethical business model can work is if people choose to reward ethical businesses and shun corporations. Assuming you can sort out the one from the other, of course.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Of course not, I just liked the way the "game" was reinterpreted over time. Like I said it is an interesting perspective.

    Henry Ford built cars that his workers could afford to buy, then as one of his descendants said more recently "robots don't buy cars".

    Corporations are now global, both in terms of manufacturing and sales, and we no longer have a ring fenced position in that world.

    What do you think the Bilderberg group discuss at their meetings ? I suspect mutual self interest has to be fairly high on the agenda ?

    Didn't Gordon Brown get invited to one shortly before babbling on about a New World Order, a phrase which he then quickly stopped using ?

    Maybe there is a conspiracy ? Would we know about if there was ? I sure as shit don't know.
     
  18. People in the Bilderberg Group are often there by chance - because they got elected to the government of their country, or appointed to be CEO of some corporation. Or like a Bill Gates, just carved a niche out for themselves. They won't discuss "self-interest" as such, but they probably have an inherent understanding of things which are likely to benefit them and enable them to bolster their power, and the things that might threaten it.
    The WEF at Davos is just another symptom of the same thing.
    I don't really have a problem with it. You'd expect that leaders would find it useful to hang out with other leaders to discuss their problems and see if there is something they can learn, just as computer programmers are likely to attend events together, or bankers, or marketeers, scientists or doctors. There isn't anything very sinister about it. World peace would probably be quite well-served if Cameroon was having a few vodkas with Putin in some country retreat.
     
    #38 gliddofglood, Nov 30, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. The organization is called 'bilderberg' & they are also coined part of the NWO aka New world order. The rockerfellers have openly announced in print form a plan to control the planet. The bilderberg meetingsare attended by presidents & influential people from all western nations. But are secretive in there activities & stated goals. If you think that someone who's paid by a population to act on our behalf but not willing to tell the public the ramifications of said meetings is fine, ....you are also part of the problem.

    The TTIP tried to get passed without due process or scutiny. But from obviously your perspective, corporations should be given millions or billions in lost revenue if they decided when a nation bans a product on ethical grounds. That that corporation is been unfairly losing profit. Dear me, some people just like to side with the devil as its an easy friend to coalesce with'

    Some of us have morals & fathom the enormity of future activities by such NWO-players. Against the likes & dislikes of public at large around the world.
     
  20. It is always interesting, even amusing, when people ascribe opinions to you that they have induced themselves from nothing much.

    Do I think that there is a conspiracy for a New World Order (whatever that is...)? No.

    Do I think that the Bilderberg Group is part of this conspiracy? No.

    Do I think that the TTIP is a good thing? No. I think it's iniquitous.

    Do I think that corporations should do as they wish? Not remotely. I think that democracies serve to put the brakes on what they would like to do (make money at any cost). Government and democracy should be the arbiters of corporate actions. You can't expect corporations to be ethical. They exist to make money by maximising revenues and minimising costs. That's fine, but they have to operate within ethical parameters. As you can't expect them to define those parameters, still less work within them, you need some sort of regulation and legislation to enforce them.

    But don't let me prick your New World Order fantasy if it amuses you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Do Not Sell My Personal Information