Why Is Silicon Valley So Dead Set On Pushing For Communism?
is it, whenever someone gets super wealthy from capitalism, they
push for Communism? Google, Amazon, Twitter... (whatever)
hours ago by obvious-throwaway-
[–] Pointyball 14 points (+14|-0) 14
it is about maintaining control.
[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points (+0|-0) 1.2 hours ago
isn't like Communism doesn't have rich people. But,
notice that their plans are always going to hurt others
more than them. Basically, Bezos would still be rich as
shit but the next Bezos would never get that rich.
[–] FishsticksForever 9 points (+9|-0) 14
try to prevent competition from coming up the way they
[–] watch_listed 8 points (+8|-0) 14
places a small group of powerful men in control of a
nation-state's capital and power. First, please note that
"capital" does not merely mean "money" as many
contemporary thinkers posit. Capital implies anything that
can be used to create value, be it labor, materiel, tools,
ideas, investments, etc.. Value can easily be thought of
as "money", but the two are not quite synonymous. Next,
controlling a nation-state's power implies both "soft" and
"hard" power. For examples. the State Department is "soft
power" and is representative of the "carrot" of diplomacy.
It offers aid and assistance (and with it, the implicit
expectation that you will play nice so we can gain more
capital). You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours. So
long as everyone gets what they want at a price they're
willing to pay, this all works out. The DoD is "hard
power." It is the stick which will rain down destruction
and ruination (and will usher in the rule of people who
will accept the offers and expectations of "soft power")
if you don't toe the line. It is the implicit threat of
"play nice or we will kick your teeth down your goddamned
throat, then take your lunch money."
you are already powerful and well capitalized, removing
competitors enables you to claim a larger piece of the
pie, reduces competition, and lets you exclude others from
making any sort of gains against you. Marx listed ten
points of communism, and all ten have at least had their
foundations laid in the US to some extent or another. We
are closer to "Das Kapital" than "The Wealth of Nations"
and the push towards Marx's "inevitable" system will only
[–] NoChoice 8 points (+8|-0) 14
more detached you become from society - which wealth tends
to do to those that have it - the more you see society as
a cost-benefit analysis, without an emotional or entropic
input. So Communism starts to look like the best way to do
things - assuming the wealthy person in question becomes
one of the Commisariat.
envision themselves as one of the Commisariat off the bat,
if for no other reason than they had the intelligence,
insight and presence of mind to understand this was the
correct path to take. And that would be a lifetime
position, because economic mobility in a Communist state
[–] GassyMcGasface 5 points (+5|-0) 13
it's communism for thee not for me. It's easy to spend
money from someone else pocket.
[–] elcob32 5 points (+5|-0) 14
Tony Montana once said...
you get the money, then you get the power.
[–] scoopadoop 4 points (+4|-0) 12
makes everyone poor. if they kill capitalism a challenger
will never be able to rise against them.
[–] Greenzero86 2 points (+2|-0) 8
Street funded the Bolsheviks.
[–] MaunaLoona 2 points (+2|-0) 8
hours ago (edited 8 hours ago)
businesses get rich through capitalism. Large corporations
stay rich through the power of the state. The state can
fine them, break them up, or pass laws favorable to them
by outlawing competition or increasing the barrier to
entry. Look at the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft for
bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. Microsoft didn't
pay enough attention to the political game back then and
lost out badly. Since then it has learned.
signaling is a way to appease politicians to make it more
difficult for them to go after your assets.
[–] 00ellis 2 points (+2|-0) 12
answer lies with r/K theory.
selected rabbits (aka liberals and communists) tend to be
on the whole more artistic and innovative as compared to
conservatives. As such liberals (r-selected) are great at
invention and bad at long term management. Which is why
you often see them turn communist and SJW converged cause
they are just being true to themselves. They were
innovative, became lucky in their success and because they
are liberals since they don't have a mindset for long term
critical thinking and implications they fail
[–] xenoPsychologist 2 points (+2|-0) 12
they think their money will protect them from communism.
[–] Justaddcoffee 1 points (+1|-0) 10
was never so much wealth in so few hands than under
[–] Vhaine 0 points (+0|-0) 11
hours ago (edited 11 hours ago)
guilt and good old fashion self loathing.
[–] FandyRandy 0 points (+0|-0) 13
think the people running those companies were always
commies, but they were only paid attention once they
became rich. Most of the tech companies come from
[–] Anson 0 points (+0|-0) 13
in the beginning phases of a hypothesis about super
saturation of resources... this pattern fits in every
single place communism/socialism has been attempted.