Capitalist Corruption

[Chief]

we see democracy perverted by many influences be it the church, the % of people who smoke, unions, NRA and large businesses.

For me, many large businesses do not act in the interest of democracy or even their consumers. Take McDonalds and the tie up with Coca Cola both pushing salt, sugar and fat to get their customers addicted at an early age. Then good luck to government to address the issue with so many peasants turning up every day to get their fix and even introduce their kids to the sh*t.

but who is to blame? definitely coke and maccas but just as much blame lands with the customers and their representation in the electorate

I don't agree. You take individual families who are up against the marketing and lobbying of multi-billion dollar companies. Those companies push buttons relentlessly to get to the x% of people who are as vigilant as they can be given their own circumstances.

It's wrong to think that humans are perfectly rational economic units, and therefore it must be a moral failing to be otherwise.

 

[bfff]

we see democracy perverted by many influences be it the church, the % of people who smoke, unions, NRA and large businesses.

For me, many large businesses do not act in the interest of democracy or even their consumers. Take McDonalds and the tie up with Coca Cola both pushing salt, sugar and fat to get their customers addicted at an early age. Then good luck to government to address the issue with so many peasants turning up every day to get their fix and even introduce their kids to the sh*t.

but who is to blame? definitely coke and maccas but just as much blame lands with the customers and their representation in the electorate

Influence is bought. Those with the most money can buy the most influence. It is the fundamental flaw of capitalist democracy.

 

[CM86]

WA ‘counter-terrorism police’ raid climate activists’ homes over chalk graffiti

The homes of six West Australian climate activists have been raided by police amid allegations they graffitied a Perth CBD bridge with chalk paint during a protest against oil and gas giant Woodside.​

​

They were later released on bail under the condition they did not go within 200 metres of Woodside’s headquarters in the CBD or associate with one another, but some members charged are related.​

​

Carmen Stobaus, who lives with her two teenage daughters, watched on as state security investigation group detectives searched her home for four hours.​

She was then carted off to the Perth watch house, where she was formally charged.​

​

“What’s worse – some washable chalk on a bridge, or a fossil fuel giant that will permanently damage Aboriginal rock art and destroy any chance we have of a safe climate?”​

​

The graffiti, written in chalk, read “no new gas”, “gas-led extinction” and “pollution tax”.​

 

[bfff]

This is an excellent article about the effect of corporate political activity on democracy.

Corporations, Politics, and Democracy: Corporate political activities as political corruption

Abstract

Corporate involvement in democratic processes typically takes the form of corporate political activity (CPA). In this paper, I develop a framework of political corruption to explain the corroding influence of CPA on democratic processes. CPA corrupts democratic processes by excluding (a) citizen representation from political decision making, (b) citizens’ voices from public deliberation, and (c) citizens’ interests from private deliberations about political preferences. By attending to the power relations within the three key democratic spheres in society—political, public, and private—I explain how corporations influence democratic processes and how these processes in turn become dependent on corporate involvement. My theorization explicates the corporate capture of democratic processes and provides a nuanced understanding of corruption in Western liberal democracies. Finally, I suggest ways to halt this process and thereby defend democracy as a system of governance from undue corporate interests.

Rather, the concern is that Western liberal democracies are moving increasingly in the wrong direction; corporate influence is on the rise leading to an erosion of democratic principles and a process of de-democratization in many countries around the world (Brown, 2015; Fraser, 2015).

Corporate legitimacy is further achieved through indirect CPA in the form of building constituencies in attempts “to influence public policy by gaining support of individual voters and citizens, who, in turn, express their policy preferences to political decision makers” (Hillman & Hitt, 1999, p. 834). This form of political influence can be seen as Lukes’ (1974)third systemic dimension of power in that corporations shape the interests of citizens and political decision makers through CPA (Barley, 2010). These tactics include public political marketing campaigns against proposed governmental policies (Murray, Nyberg, & Rogers, 2016) and covert “astroturfing” operations (i.e., fake grassroots movements) to make it seem as though widespread support exists for a corporate public policy position (Walker & Rea, 2014). This type of CPA ensures that corporate political involvement appears natural and inevitable (Fleming & Spicer, 2014).

The whole article is definitely worth a read. It’s open source too.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't agree. You take individual families who are up against the marketing and lobbying of multi-billion dollar companies (that are run by greedy opportunistic groups / individuals). Those companies push buttons relentlessly to get to the x% of people who are as vigilant as they can be given their own circumstances.

It's wrong to think that humans are perfectly rational economic units (humans are flawed but there is probably a tiny minority that are these units), and therefore it must be a moral failing to be otherwise (yes humans again).

EFA

 

[CM86]

EFA

Did you just edit his post, to reference humanity. Just in case he was talking about aliens?

EFA=Edited For Accuracy.
Pretty sure everyone was already aware he was referring to humans...

 

[Carringbush2010]

Did you just edit his post, to reference humanity. Just in case he was talking about aliens?

EFA=Edited For Accuracy.
Pretty sure everyone was already aware he was referring to humans...

Then why the need to point out the flaws of human kind in a post about the flaws of capitalism? What is your point exactly? (Try to explain without your usual melting pleasing)

 

[CM86]

Then why the need to point out the flaws of human kind in a post about the flaws of capitalism? What is your point exactly? (Try to explain without your usual melting pleasing)

OK, I'll hold your hand.

Pointing out flaws of and within the system of humanity, in which it only exists in humanity... doesn't need someone to point out that it's in reference to humanity...

 

[Carringbush2010]

OK, I'll hold your hand.

Pointing out flaws of and within the system of humanity, in which it only exists in humanity... doesn't need someone to point out that it's in reference to humanity...

Ok you must've missed the obvious question, so I'll ask again. Don't be scared it's just a lil bit of comprehension.


Then why the need to point out the flaws of human kind in a post about the flaws of capitalism?

You might be able to help out here Chief

 

[CM86]

Ok you must've missed the obvious question, so I'll ask again. Don't be scared it's just a lil bit of comprehension.


Then why the need to point out the flaws of human kind in a post about the flaws of capitalism?

You might be able to help out here Chief

He wasn't... you edited his post to make it look like that's what he was doing.

Why don't you try to address his posts, or engage with it?

 

[Carringbush2010]

He wasn't... you edited his post to make it look like that's what he was doing.

Why don't you try to address his posts, or engage with it?

No you misunderstand.

If you read Cheif's post again, he's implying that capitalism is at fault.

I'm pointing out the flaws of capitalism are a result of human design.

Is that ok by you?

Or you could stop dancing around the subject and just tell me what your problem is, I know you've got a bee in your bonnet about something / me.

EDIT: Not fussed either way.

 

[CM86]

No you misunderstand.

If you read Cheif's post again, he's implying that capitalism is at fault.

I'm pointing out the flaws of capitalism are a result of human design.

Is that ok by you?

Or you could stop dancing around the subject and just tell what your problem is, I know you've got a bee in your bonnet about something / me.

EDIT: Not fussed either way.

I love that you made an "EDIT" in your original post. Rather than editing it.
Considering our whole conversation comes around you actually editing other people's posts.

Oh you fool.

Chief was pointing out some flaws in capitalism.

You pointed out that capitalism only exists in humanity.
Mic drop... Nothing of humanity exists without humanity.

We are allowed to address or discuss problems, without a binary "we exists or we don't exist".

I'm pointing out the flaws of capitalism are a result of human design.

This is my favourite part.
You're drawing attention to humanity's role in capitalism... because you've made the Earth-shattering discovery that application exists.

Or you could stop dancing around the subject and just tell me what your problem is, I know you've got a bee in your bonnet about something / me.

I mean, I've called you out repeatedly for your bullshit...
You've responded to it multiple times... in victim format.

And here you are pretending that it's never happened before.
Which is bullshit... Which is what I've called you out for... We're going in circles.

Why don't you make a strong statement that you stand by? And defend it?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I love that you made an "EDIT" in your original post. Rather than editing it.
Considering our whole conversation comes around you actually editing other people's posts.

Oh you fool.

Chief was pointing out some flaws in capitalism.

You pointed out that capitalism only exists in humanity.
Mic drop... Nothing of humanity exists without humanity.

We are allowed to address or discuss problems, without a binary "we exists or we don't exist".


This is my favourite part.
You're drawing attention to humanity's role in capitalism... because you've made the Earth-shattering discovery that application exists.



I mean, I've called you out repeatedly for your bullshit...
You've responded to it multiple times... in victim format.

And here you are pretending that it's never happened before.
Which is bullshit... Which is what I've called you out for... We're going in circles.

Why don't you make a strong statement that you stand by? And defend it?

Ah yes CM.

How about you get off your high horse, remember not to fall.

You have zero to 'call me out' on. This is the second time you've gone and misinterpreted / miscomprehended what I've stated - not to mention it wasn't to you, but still you somehow take offence to something so trivial and frivolous.

I mean really what is the problem of calling out that capitalism does not have an intention, it's inanimate, but you have a bee in your bonnet about it. And you call it 'bullshit'

Well then it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. You're FOS!

I really do not know what your problem is, but hey looks like I'm stuck in your head - lots of room in there. Looks like you're lacking a life.

Enjoy your misery!

 

[Power Raid]

Influence is bought. Those with the most money can buy the most influence. It is the fundamental flaw of capitalist democracy.

In poor countries "buying votes" is easy but in wealthier and educated nations, I dare say votes are "influenced" more by behaviour than $s. An example would be trying to ban cigarettes in the 1980s would be impossible but phasing in strategies to reduce the number of smokers over time worked.

We'd see the same thing with alcohol and fast today.

 

[Power Raid]

I don't agree. You take individual families who are up against the marketing and lobbying of multi-billion dollar companies. Those companies push buttons relentlessly to get to the x% of people who are as vigilant as they can be given their own circumstances.

It's wrong to think that humans are perfectly rational economic units, and therefore it must be a moral failing to be otherwise.

you're right, many people act against their interest

ie we've always known about pedos and churches but many handed over their kids anyone. we've always known fast food causes health issues but many hand over their kids to maccas. same said with alcohol and tobacco

I question whether this behaviour is driven by $ influence or weakness in character, where people can't control their urges? I'd suggest a lack of self control is the bigger issue.

 

[Gethelred]

This is, as per uge, about the apples, never the barrel.

Things get easier with Carringbush2010 when you realise he's internalized Thatcher's "There is no society" mantra. Systems don't matter, only individuals.

 

[Chief]

ie we've always known about pedos and churches but many handed over their kids anyone. we've always known fast food causes health issues but many hand over their kids to maccas. same said with alcohol and tobacco

"Hand over their kids to Maccas". That's a bit hyperbolic. I've got no issue with my kids eating Maccas a few times a month. I still own them.

I question whether this behaviour is driven by $ influence or weakness in character, where people can't control their urges? I'd suggest a lack of self control is the bigger issue.

If you are poor and/or uneducated you are likely stressed day to day. This puts you in a situation where you don't have the mental resources to make good decisions in the face of well tuned marketing. It's not a character weakness to be exploited at a vulnerable time in your life.

 

[Gethelred]

"Hand over their kids to Maccas". That's a bit hyperbolic. I've got no issue with my kids eating Maccas a few times a month. I still own them.


If you are poor and/or uneducated you are likely stressed day to day. This puts you in a situation where you don't have the mental resources to make good decisions in the face of well tuned marketing. It's not a character weakness to be exploited at a vulnerable time in your life.

... and it's quite frequently those with the privelege of financial security that accuse those without of lacking self control.

 

[Chief]

Just watching a vid on the issues of Roblox:



Quinns took months to work out how Roblox works, how it makes money from an unregulated stock market of kids buying and selling virtual trinkets...

Roblox played all sorts of corporate-speak tricks, veiled threats etc:




But their share price is up 40%, so IT'S ALL GOOD!

 

[Taylor]

Near immediate gratification cycles don't lend themselves to positive long term outcomes, especially when built in a culture of external responsibility.

But big business target their advertising at children and their psychology for a reason and parents as a reward and placating tool helps.

 

[Gethelred]

Near immediate gratification cycles don't lend themselves to positive long term outcomes, especially when built in a culture of external responsibility.

But big business target their advertising at children and their psychology for a reason and parents as a reward and placating tool helps.

On the subject of self control, it's interesting when you hear wealthier families discussing the importance of discipline on development. Placating children - as you outline - is far easier to avoid doing when you can outsource your childcare whenever it becomes too much or you're constantly away on work, and controlling what media your children consume - ie, not advertising directed at them, higher quantity of educational content or what you want them to consume, financial markets for example to improve financial literacy - is also much easier due to having as much time as you like to apportion to it.

Could go into creating self-fulfilling prophesies: kids of wealthy families are taught discipline easier, which leads them to having better self control, which leads them to earning more money, which leads them to being able to teach their kids discipline from a young age.

The inverse could also hold true.

 

[CM86]

Just watching a vid on the issues of Roblox:



Quinns took months to work out how Roblox works, how it makes money from an unregulated stock market of kids buying and selling virtual trinkets...

Roblox played all sorts of corporate-speak tricks, veiled threats etc:




But their share price is up 40%, so IT'S ALL GOOD!

Incredible. Thanks for sharing.

The limited research I've just done, all 100% supports everything they've stated and shown.



"Platform Capitalism" - Not something I'd really ever considered.

 

[Taylor]

On the subject of self control, it's interesting when you hear wealthier families discussing the importance of discipline on development. Placating children - as you outline - is far easier to avoid doing when you can outsource your childcare whenever it becomes too much or you're constantly away on work, and controlling what media your children consume - ie, not advertising directed at them, higher quantity of educational content or what you want them to consume, financial markets for example to improve financial literacy - is also much easier due to having as much time as you like to apportion to it.

Could go into creating self-fulfilling prophesies: kids of wealthy families are taught discipline easier, which leads them to having better self control, which leads them to earning more money, which leads them to being able to teach their kids discipline from a young age.

The inverse could also hold true.

I think we can also make an argument that families with more means are better able to placate their children's influenced demands for products to be fully functioning members of their society. Not suggesting here that those children become fully functioning members, just that they are filling the role they have been told makes them as such with their gadget of the day.

If you don't have the money to buy the smartphone for the tiktok you might have to teach your children to find validation and value in something more meaningful because you have fewer options to avoid it. You still can avoid it by suggesting to your children that material or otherwise immediate satiating of want is the meaning of life but due to external factors that don't diminish the parents in the eyes of their children, it's just not fair yet.

 

[Chief]

In relation to tech, the rich seem(ed) to be limiting their kids - they have more resources to give them other fulfilling activities. More cultural capital to draw on to engage with their kids.

$10 a week for a smartphone is in the reach of poorer people. A hand me down phone and a $12 a month phone plan is well within reach.

Tech-free dinners and no smartphones past 10 pm — how Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Cuban limited their kids' screen time

They changed the way the world uses technology, but these billionaires make sure their own kids spend some time unplugged.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Gethelred]

I think we can also make an argument that families with more means are better able to placate their children's influenced demands for products to be fully functioning members of their society. Not suggesting here that those children become fully functioning members, just that they are filling the role they have been told makes them as such with their gadget of the day.

Think that's a choice that the parents get to make, as opposed to poorer parents who do not get to choose.

If you don't have the money to buy the smartphone for the tiktok you might have to teach your children to find validation and value in something more meaningful because you have fewer options to avoid it. You still can avoid it by suggesting to your children that material or otherwise immediate satiating of want is the meaning of life but due to external factors that don't diminish the parents in the eyes of their children, it's just not fair yet.

Except that tiktok is yet another means by which kids can become famous/generate wealth, and the various new media means of creating wealth are easier by far with a wealthy beginning.

There are people who have made millions on Twitch/Youtube etc because they had the finances to a) have top grade computers to run the most recent games, b) top level mics and cameras, coupled with c) recording software and a good to great internet connection. Then, you get into the purely cosmetic aspect of the most of the new media production: you can be the best producer of content there is, but unless you're front of camera material (and the connection between having time to spend on your appearance and wealth is fairly well established) you're not going to amount to much, with a few notable exceptions.

Think we're getting a little far afield.