False capitalist dogma: politics and the economy are separate--no need to study political economy.

@WilyRickWiles Did I say politics and the economy are separate? Your comprehension needs improvement. If politicians were required to have an understanding of economics we would not be in the economic morass we are currently in. Since they are studying "political economy" they are not required to know anything about economics.

What's political economy, Wily? Is it where they decide who should be rich and who should be poor? Is it where they take from the rich and give to the poor - redistribute wealth, so to speak? Is it where politicians extract ever increasing revenues and vote themselves largesse and privilege. Is it where they run up huge public debts? Political economy has more to do with politics than the economy and very little to do with economics.

@FrankZeleniuk Political power emerges from the social relations of the economy.

@WilyRickWiles If people understood economics and politics that might be a good thing. People want a national government to, internally, protect the security of person and property from threat and, externally, protect all citizens, i.e. the nation, from foreign invasion. I would counter that political power emerges from within government and its legislation not from social relations in the economy. Social relations of the economy simply results in some legislation, and because of economic ignorance, often does nothing to improve the economy or social relations It just shores up political power. Not to mention there is a lack of human behavioral understanding that contributes to an erosion of rights and freedoms.

In the end, if you trust government today and want bigger government you have drunk the kool-aid.

@FrankZeleniuk I don't trust the systems and agents of status quo power, I trust the potential counterbalancing movement of the working class.

@WilyRickWiles Is that because you are leading them? Got your Mansion yet?

@FrankZeleniuk Our politics is about the asset-rich vs. the asset-poor. I've simply identified my interests in that system.

@WilyRickWiles Of course, the virtuous, morally superior stance - helping the asset-poor.
Let me tell you something about the pursuit of happiness. A little Aristotlean philosophy might help.
Happiness is not found in "assets". The acquisition of assets leads only to disappointment and a thirst that is never quenched. So what is happiness? The struggle up Mt. Everest brings one to the objective- arrival at the apex. What does the mountain climber dwell upon that fulfills his happiness, the final moment of his arrival. The goal was achieved, yes. But he will be most proud to tell you of the struggle and hardship of his accomplishment. The overcoming of the obstacles blocking him from his moment of glory. Happiness is in the struggle not the objective. The objective is the end of it all and perhaps a moment of sadness if one has no further objectives.
You cannot bring people happiness. They are all different. They have different levels of tolerance, different levels of responsibility, different objectives, different likes and dislikes. You would have them all eat the same food, wear the same shoes, live in the same cramped apartments and believe they are now happy. I get that your ultimate goal is to make people happy. This is the ultimate nature of humanity, goodness and the serving of his fellow man. Very few harbor ill intent toward others.
Those who would oppress eventually fail and are miserable with their assets. They do not find happiness. One cannot find it in harm to others. Taking their assets is harm but giving those same assets to others is just as harmful. Assets are symbols of their struggle when they are acquired and
giving them to someone eliminates their opportunity for happiness by eliminating their struggle.
In your enthusiasm to help you instead will be making everyone miserable. If you achieve your goal of crushing the asset-rich and enriching the asset-poor, do you think either will live in happiness?

@FrankZeleniuk Here's the thing--in asset-centric capitalism, the asset-rich use their property and technology assets to deprive and control the asset-poor. I am not seeking assets--I am acting to unite the asset-poor to overthrow the unsustainable system of asset-centric capitalism.

@FrankZeleniuk I say it's unsustainable primarily because a policy of low interest rates and central bank purchasing of assets to increase access to inflated public goods like housing only serves to inflate and put them beyond reach in the long term. Would be so much easier to just directly fund public goods like we almost did for a moment in the late '60s and early '70s before that era's anti-Black race panic. [lareviewofbooks.org]

@WilyRickWiles You may find happiness in that but you are making no one happy. You are robbing the asset-poor of their struggle and personal achievement. There is no pride or happiness in saying "I got this from the State." Especially when it came from the production of others and not the State.

@FrankZeleniuk There is no agency in platform-capitalist social control and capitalism in general spoils everything it touches. Happiness can only be sought when that system is dismantled.

@WilyRickWiles If that were true the USSR would still be around. Your struggle then is to dismantle the system. It's crumbling makes you happy. I assure you, you will not be happy with the end result.
You are not helping Blacks who are poor and you are not helping yourself.
I do not disagree there are injustices today that need correction but you are, like Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung-il, Castro or Maduro, not going to establish it. They never did and you won't either.
Are you simply interested in making your perceived oppressors pay? Is that your goal - "punishment".
Do you like Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and on and on? I guess they weren't oppressed enough. Each one will tell you of their struggle to arrive where they are. How they rose above the challenges to get where they are. How do you think those from whom you stole the pursuit of happiness will thank you? They will only demand more until all are impoverished.
I don't think you are talking about capitalism at all. I think you are talking about corporatism.
Teddy Roosevelt broke up the rail and steel corporate monopolies at the turn of the 20th century. Perhaps the same thing needs to be done now as you do point out there are injustices. Monopolies are not naturally occurring in a capitalist market. They are more prevalent in a corporatist-government alliance. They become the establishment and protect their wealth, status and position at the cost of the lower and middle classes and the nation. Correction is necessary but all you seem to want is revenge. You will never be happy and those around you never will either.

@FrankZeleniuk Option 1: Seek assets, Option 2: Obey platform-capitalist masters, Option 3: Dismantle (or at least counter-balance) Capitalism. You have told me not to do #s 1 or 3, so you must be advocating #2, no?

Again, I am not seeking retribution. I am seeking the power to actualize my own and the majority's agency, opportunity, and ultimately happiness.

@FrankZeleniuk Call it corporatism if you prefer, the solution is the same.

@FrankZeleniuk Policy lock-in freezes all other avenues.

@FrankZeleniuk re: Teddy

@WilyRickWiles > re: Teddy

Aldrich and Elkins were both politicians.and corporatists Nelson Aldrich's daughter married JD Rockefeller Jr. All in the family. Teddy was a bit of a populist and not the most beguiling or craftiest of the bunch, nor the smartest. Aldrich and Elkins, I would say, were somewhat corrupt and found a hero in the socialist progressive Wilson.

@WilyRickWiles > You have told me not to do #s 1 or 3, so you must be advocating #2, no?

I said no such thing. Do you perceive capitalists to be masters? once again distinguish between corporatists and capitalists. The social media instant billionaires are corporatists. I think they are on board with you. How do you feel about that? They are advocating for a teardown of the system but I believe they are of the opinion it will be the same old establishment they are now a part of that will be running things. More DEI until they realize that no one is happy with that and a true socialist takes over and brutalizes them as well as any concept of DEI.
No the situation does not bode well for you or me. I see the destruction coming. You are encouraging it and in the end will not be useful.

I am seeking the power to actualize my own and the majority's agency, opportunity, and ultimately happiness.

Ahhh...in search of altruism. It sounds like a lot of damage has to occur before your own power is actualized. You might be having fun right now but you aren't going to like what happens. You won't have opportunity, like you do now and your happiness will disappear because you are a part of a loud minority that will sacrifice integrity, trust, respect and decency, anything for the end goal. The movement is so loud that it thinks it is a majority. Actually, it is a minority that the democrat socialists have temporarily granted some privilege to so they can behave like criminals.

@FrankZeleniuk Lucky for you capitalism has gradually developed into its current "corporatist" state, so no destruction is necessary to get the tech overlords what they want. The asset economy is already here and per my original post, allying with ultrarich conservatives will not restore capitalist "purity," especially not in any way to the advantage of myself, the majority, or even the corporate class.

@FrankZeleniuk I don't pretend to have a majority (hence the need for a movement), but I do know 1. My cohort's immediate interests, 2. Whose interests (the broader working class) our interests are most aligned with, and 3. What the most morally-correct (defined as narrowly as possible) course of action is. [alex-yablon.ghost.io]

@FrankZeleniuk What Zuckerberg (corporatist) and Peter Thiel (ultrarich conservative) want is not that different--one moves the economy closer to feudalism by the day and the other wants a formal transition. You have let yourself be fooled into thinking the left is on board with big tech and that your faves are not.

@FrankZeleniuk Capitalists become masters when they treat people like assets, which platform capitalism encourages. It's even worse than the commodification Marx spoke of. Ever heard of "human capital?" They're just dying to have slaves again.

@FrankZeleniuk We all better pray that "leftist" (well closest thing to one tbh) Lina Khan is unrestrained at the FTC.

@WilyRickWiles Marxists like to treat people like cannon fodder. I guess you figure that's a better deal than being treated like "assets" or "human captial" - nice dehumanizing, materialistic words. Who is concerned about materialism? As Stalin said, "A single death is a tragedy but a million deaths are a statistic."

I guess I'm not differentiating what you consider left and what you consider progressive left. In my view, the left has been taken over by the progressives entirely. There are no moderate leftists. They have been swallowed up by the progressive left. Don't move from the moderate left to the progressive left and you are subject to being "cancelled". Cancel culture is a phenomenon of the progressive left. The choice is leave the left or move to the extreme left.

Capitalism hasn't been around for awhile but you keep thinking it is and is the source of all evil. It doesn't survive corruption and there is enough around to have transformed it to just a pretense.

You may smile that mobs are burning and looting and tearing down the evil "capitalist" system and that is your source of happiness.It's called schadenfreude. As I said, you will not be happy with the result. There is no reward for you. You are the asset to the progressive movement and once your use is over you will be cast aside.

Good luck

@FrankZeleniuk The corporate elite has tried to coopt and whitewash social movements, but those movements have yet to change our laws, our economy, our leaders, or the beneficiaries of our economy.

@FrankZeleniuk Instead our political economy continues to move more and more to the right. Ultrarich conservatives, likewise, have promoted reactionary social movements--the "culture" you speak of--to get you to fall in line.

@WilyRickWiles

Instead our political economy continues to move more and more to the right.

There seems to be more and more political influence over the economy, in my view. Perhaps you see corporate America having a bigger influence on government? I would say they are colluding to centralize power and save the planet.

If you are thinking more in terms of the contemporary political spectrum where the extreme left is communism and the extreme right is fascism, I can understand there might be a confusion. A more useful political spectrum would go from no government to total government. We would then see that communism was the most extreme total State and other forms of socialism would plot close to it.
We could then run down the line to benevolent dictator, monarchies, republics, conservative republics, liberal republics, through to anarchy or no government.

Ultrarich conservatives, likewise, have promoted reactionary social movements--the "culture" you speak of--to get you to fall in line.

What ultrarich-conservatives have promoted what reactionary social movements? I support small government. I don't think ultrarich conservatives need my help I am not a member of any social movement run from a central organization. I support small government with a limited mandate.

I hope that clears up some confusion. You see right wing extremism as being fascistic, I suppose.
I see any move, right or left, toward bigger government as moving toward totalitarianism.

@WilyRickWiles Well gaining a little more understanding of what you're talking about. Just a few questions:
What in your view, is the far right? I seem to get that you feel it is some social engineering platform that will implement exclusionary social classes, like the Nazis excluded Jews. Or Louis Farrakhan excludes the Jews and the evil Whites.

Exclusionary politics, if I am to understand the term, does not seem to be an American concept. America is about the individual. The pursuit of happiness. The sanctity of person and property.

Now just a little something about university indoctrination and business. If you are taking a business class, getting an MBA or something like that. I don't know if you have ever dealt with your average businessman with a college degree but for the most part they are rather unthinking automatons that have been indoctrinated to think that "profit" is the sole motive of the businessman. While profit is an objective a business cannot survive by just seeking profit. It must have integrity, be trustworthy, establish a reputation. All of the characteristics of an individual that make him able to participate in a society. And do you know what they are teaching in economics today? Modern Monetary Theory, (MMT). Money is simply a method of account under this system. Money loses all its other characteristics under MMT. You need to be able to trust that money will remain a medium of exchange. As a tool of accounting it becomes merely a token. It has no future guarantee of exchange or social value. The neurosis that creates is that you must spend it as soon as possible before something like Venezuela happens.

I have not been fooled by "exclusionary politics" and I don't conflate it with small government. How are governments formed under a republic held to account? By leaving wealth in the hands of its citizens. When a government debases its money and hands out "tokens", calling it money, to its citizens it is already being a tyrant. Don't confuse a currency with money. They are not the same.
A currency is a symbol of actual money only. Unless it is money. A currency, as an example, is a bank note. But anyway, a government handing out tokens to be used as money through some scheme, inflation, a UBI, subsidies, etc. creates an anemic economy, a big strong government and an impoverished populace unable to hold its politicians to account.

You, my friend, have been duped into thinking there is exclusionary politics when America was founded upon the individual and has evolved to eliminate exclusionary politics over its history. I know there will always be fringe groups created when any society develops out of a majority. There will always be minorities. If they have common principles of honesty, integrity, decency and respect they can coexist. All the division in America today is because the minorities have been defined as separate or hyphenated Americans. Blacks have beaten back slavery, gained civil rights and equality under the law in America and they have by their numbers some status. Now some of them want to trash America - while the need for change is necessary, the course should always be toward a more perfect union not a replacement of founding principles with a government of tyranny - a socialist fake republic as was established in the USSR that crushes the individual or dissent of any kind.
You will not find happiness under such a regime.

America has finally arrived, or was close to arriving, at a point where respect for the individual has been realized and that is being thrown out in favor of the socio/political engineering of equality for group identities and equal asset outcomes. A nation cannot survive multiculturalism. It is a nation or it is not. Marxists know this and all who oppose the State under its communist socialist regime, no matter race, gender, class or whatever will be crushed.

You need to get your head around supporting the rights of individuals and not groups.
You are the one supporting exclusionary politics if you are supporting privilege for certain groups. I know you just want diversity, equity and inclusion but really individuals are the ones that earn or deserve that because individuals are not all the same and a group can provide harbor for individuals that should not be there, criminals, miscreants and even self-righteous do-gooders pretending to help.

That would be a great start. Now add in RECALL legislation as Alberta has done.