• Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!

Why representative democracy is evil

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Comrade
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,778
Location
Kingdom of Croatia
This is reliant on what are actually fairly specific events to occur, as displayed well by the vast majority of socialist power grabs just imploding the economy altogether instead of granting an existing corporation a monopoly via nationalization. As Reveille implied, the sort of "socialist" that big corporations get behind tends to lead to a failed state and them out of money in the end because the infrastructure and labor market turn to shit, whereas the kind of socialist that lasts with a chance to evolve into a mixed market like China tends to brutally destroy the existing big corporations to make new ones beholden to them.

Just because billionaire corporations are backing a power grab doesn't mean the natural progressions of dictatorship stop applying. The moment it descends to blatant cheating or physical violence, it stops being about money and starts being about naked force, which big corporations actually tend to be quite poor at. Once you start backing the socialist revolt, the determinant of who's in charge becomes a matter of who's best at courting and managing socialist revolutionaries, who are markedly opposed to corporate profits making keeping them in line considerably more difficult.

There is, after all, a reason every major media group suddenly stopped talking about economic class after Occupy Wall Street and started talking about unequal outcomes based on ethnicity and ultra-minority identity groups. Because socialism's been proven a terrible mechanism because the socialists you're trying to appease actively hate you and the desired policy direction is known by precedent to be terrible for lasting profits so your stock market cap will drop out from under you.
True, but frankly I think that corporations have the same problem as the voters: they tend not to think beyond the next quartal. Or as we have a saying here in Croatia, "iza mene potop" (which is in fact a translation of the Louis XVI's Après moi, le déluge). Modern world has a very fast living pace, and most of the wealth is literal vaporware - just a code in bank's computer, with people spending other people's money because banks know that most of the money is not used at the same time (and if everybody did decide to withdraw their money at the same time, system would collapse). This leads to very fast transitions and transfers of wealth, and need to keep up with day-to-day developments. But this fast living pace means that nobody has the capacity to consider what will happen even the next year, let alone the next decade or next century - and many if most people wouldn't care anyway, as they have come to care about personal profits only. In the political arena, we have a problem which I have described in the OP - a political class with no stake in long-term prosperity of the nation, living from elections to elections. So it actually makes sense, in such an environment, for corporations to back something that will destroy them long-term if it leads to short-term profit.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Comrade
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Reaction score
1,306
Location
wouldn't you like to know?
o it actually makes sense, in such an environment, for corporations to back something that will destroy them long-term if it leads to short-term profit.
Corporations are not managed by owners, they are managed by mercenary hired managers who are given orders to to show growth this quarter or fiscal year to make the stonk price go up, so the 'owners' who are institutional investors, ie, merchant speculative investment banks, make a profit. No one cares about the 'long term' because in the long term, everyone dies.
 

Hastur of Carcosa

Well-known member
Sotnik
Comrade
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Reaction score
2,647
Corporations are not managed by owners, they are managed by mercenary hired managers who are given orders to to show growth this quarter or fiscal year to make the stonk price go up, so the 'owners' who are institutional investors, ie, merchant speculative investment banks, make a profit. No one cares about the 'long term' because in the long term, everyone dies.
Well I mean when your kids grow up and decide to give you and your legacy a middle finger regardless of how well you try to raise them, why would you care about the long term? In the end we're all worm food, so if no one is going to care, why not live it up and reward yourself and your wife? Nothing kills a legacy faster than children.
 

ATP

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,366
True, but frankly I think that corporations have the same problem as the voters: they tend not to think beyond the next quartal. Or as we have a saying here in Croatia, "iza mene potop" (which is in fact a translation of the Louis XVI's Après moi, le déluge). Modern world has a very fast living pace, and most of the wealth is literal vaporware - just a code in bank's computer, with people spending other people's money because banks know that most of the money is not used at the same time (and if everybody did decide to withdraw their money at the same time, system would collapse). This leads to very fast transitions and transfers of wealth, and need to keep up with day-to-day developments. But this fast living pace means that nobody has the capacity to consider what will happen even the next year, let alone the next decade or next century - and many if most people wouldn't care anyway, as they have come to care about personal profits only. In the political arena, we have a problem which I have described in the OP - a political class with no stake in long-term prosperity of the nation, living from elections to elections. So it actually makes sense, in such an environment, for corporations to back something that will destroy them long-term if it leads to short-term profit.
Like Lenin said - capitalist would sell us rope on which we hang them.And he could succed,if german revolution win,or Poland do not stop them in 1920,or Stalin backstab Hitler first.
Anthony Sutton in his books proved that Wall Street not only paid bolshewik revolution,but also gave them credits and technology till at least 1973.

Now,it is the same with Wall Street and leftists.Only difference - this time they could win.,at least in USA.
 
Top Bottom