Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Late Great Donald Blake 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,414
In Reply To
The Mandarin

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,003
Subj: Yes basically that's it, and we should be realistic.
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2022 at 08:12:17 pm EST (Viewed 250 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Here's my reply and account of how freedom of speech intersects with private social media power.
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2022 at 01:07:24 am EST (Viewed 261 times)

Previous Post

TLDR version: capitalism gradually causes all the soft power to be gradually accumulated by corporations. This soft power allows them to squelch free speech and most other rights without technically making them illegal.

Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Oligarchy?


Specifically realistic about how parts of the liberal cultural are laundering what would otherwise be seen as profound corporate overreach and the obscene privatization of public institutions (or the private replacement of public institutions,) by Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. because it's being used primarily (as of yet) against their political enemies like Trump and antivaxxers and so on.




TLDR version: capitalism gradually causes all the soft power to be gradually accumulated by corporations. This soft power allows them to squelch free speech and most other rights without technically making them illegal.


LGDB:  Yes basically.  I'm on the fence about whether capitalism itself would need to be overcome entirely before fighting for reformist measures in the mean time like breaking up massive monopolist companies.  I don't think those have to be a one or the other sort of thing though.  And I think it's a silly position to say until the revolution there's nothing worth trying to change.  In fact, I think quite the opposite.  Not that you're saying this, I just mention it because I think it's a naturally emerging question.



Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Oligarchy?

LGDB:  Yes, but there's a few things to mention here.  One is that a tendency doesn't equal inevitability, so even if organizations have a tendency to centralize power (as capital has a tendency towards concentration) or a tendency to form insular rulership classes  it doesn't mean that a political situation can't exist that resists this tendency.  We don't want to go so far as to say well there's always a temptation for government officials to become corrupted, let's then not have government officials, what say you?

And secondly, the person that coined this term and developed this theory was Robert Michels (I had to look up his name on Wikipedia), a man who literally joined the Italian fascists, and he would have plenty of reasons to want to delegitimize the attempt of democratically composed socialist government.  

But I will say, if we're just taking this at face value, we absolutely should be concerned with the possibility of distinct class formations emerging out of even a post revolutionary situation.  


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake





Posted with Google Chrome 96.0.4664.110 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software