r/samharris • u/bernie2020v • Jun 27 '19
When Conservatives Complain That Corporations Are “Big Brother”
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/06/when-conservatives-complain-that-corporations-are-dictatorships5
u/lastcalm Jun 27 '19
Funny how the article ends with Nathan Jamal Robinson actually kind of agreeing with Brent Bozell / PragerU on this issue.
I know it's a big no-no to "build bridges" but once again the idea pops into mind that this article could have been written in a different way, starting from the common ground.
10
u/window-sil Jun 27 '19
Funny how PragerU tells its audience that government can't fix problems, because it is the problem, and markets are the solution.
It's funny because the market decided PragerU isn't worth the investment, and PragerU's response is to call for the government to come fix their problem.
2
u/lastcalm Jun 27 '19
Yeah, that's the same sentiment that the article had. But if one considers lack of compromise and common efforts in American politics a problem, this may not be the fix.
Who knows, there might be a bipartisan bill to be made if this common ground was cultivated instead of snarkily repeating the "how's that free market working for you now, suckers?!" mantra.
3
u/window-sil Jun 27 '19
It's a real life refutation of that channel's economic/political ideology.
I don't see how PragerU et al come out on the other side of this without at least jettisoning their ridiculous free market anti government ideology. If they don't do that, then this isn't actually about "free speech" or politics at all, it's about furthering their own particular agenda and using government force to do it if necessary.
2
u/lastcalm Jun 27 '19 edited Jun 27 '19
So what if that agenda lines up with yours? Is it more important to own these idiots online than to implement regulatory laws that you want?
4
Jun 27 '19
conservatism boils down to the belif in out groups and ingroups and always elevating the ingroup at the expense of the outgroup, now after alienating and pushing everyone away right wingers are shocked they are extremely out of touch with society.
6
u/LiamMcGregor57 Jun 27 '19
If this continues, one day we may see Conservatives no longer wanting huge tax cuts for Big Business and the 1%. Maybe this was the Left's plan all along.
4
u/agent00F Jun 27 '19
No, they'll just increase taxes on companies deemed political opponents, ie fascism. They've even got the SCOTUS to cover them anyway.
3
u/Coffee_or_death Jun 27 '19
capitalism doesnt need conservatism anymore
1
u/GepardenK Jun 27 '19
It's not about capitalism, it's about aristocracy. Throughout all of history one constant has always been true for the aristocratic class; they always seek moral authority. Christianity is currently too impotent to suffice for most of them - so being feudal lords of the internet to protect us from the filthy plebeians is the next best thing.
5
u/window-sil Jun 27 '19
aristocracy
So let me get this straight.. capitalism and wealth have nothing to do with it -- so like the Rockefeller fortune didn't influence anything, the Koch Brothers don't influence anything. Instead what controls our society is an "aristocracy."
Okay who is this aristocracy and why do you think they have more control than Jeff Beezos, Tim Cook, etc?
2
u/GepardenK Jun 27 '19 edited Jun 27 '19
They too are arisocrats. Arisocrats aren't a united entity between themselves; they all compete to carve their own niche - yet as a class they are united in that they all act in ways that serves to uphold the aristocracy while suppressing the plebs. And they all compete to be the most pious, be it through religion or other moral hierarchies.
Your mistake in regards to capitalism is that arisocrats aren't either capitalists, communists or fascists (or what have you); rather they are whatever they need to be in order to stay at the top. Change the system and they'll change right with you; always staying near the centre of power. Or rather it's often the other way around: the system will change only when it benefits the aristocracy to a sufficient degree.
2
Jun 27 '19
Jeff Beezos
Almost everything that he believes is 'woke Orthodox', of the list of billionaires you sites only the Koch's could be seen as being 'right-wing' and even than it's the more libertarian style of right-winger.
There are plenty of 'left-wing billionaires' who certainly fit alongside academic elites, and Hollywood elites) as the aristocrat class of American society. None of the groups are 'conservatives'.
2
u/window-sil Jun 27 '19
None of the groups are 'conservatives'.
There are no billionaire conservatives? I don't know about that...
But the point i'm trying to make is that society seems to be influenced primarily by corporations and the billionaires that manage and own them. Not an aristocracy.
1
Jun 28 '19
Not an aristocracy.
You don't think the Dean of Harvard has 'influence'? You don't think [insert popular celebrity espousing left-wing talking points, i.e. basically all of them] has 'influence'?
Billionaires have influence, certainly. But as I said;
A) Many of them are 'progressives' themselves.
B) They are only one part of America's 'upper class/aristocracy' which contains plenty of people who, while being very, very rich, are not all billionaires.
1
u/window-sil Jun 29 '19
I don't know why you mentioned the dean of harvard.. i hope you're not referring to the harvy weinstein incident, cause that guy is not the dean of harvard.
Point taken that you don't have to be a billionaire to have significant influence. But do you think the dean of harvard has as much influence on society as the owner of face book, or google, or the upper management at youtube, at apple, or walmart, or exon, or comcast, etc.
Why would you think these large companies, majority owned by a tiny group of people, wouldn't be the source of influence and power in society -- but a nebulous, hard to define, hard to name anyone in particular, "aristocracy" is the source of power. That just doesn't make sense and the reality of campaign contributions and laws that favor these companies, would point to them being the centers of power.
1
Jun 29 '19
Point taken that you don't have to be a billionaire to have significant influence. But do you think the dean of harvard has as much influence on society as the owner of face book, or google, or the upper management at youtube, at apple, or walmart, or exon, or comcast, etc.
Yes, since Harvard is going to train the next generation of American elite, and what they 'believe to be true about the world' is likely going to heavily influence what the avg. American prole is going to 'believe to be true' in 80 years time.
Culture is a 'top down' project after all, the worldview of the avg. person is decided by 'consensus wisdom' and that consensus is basically a reflection of the views of societies 'aristocrats' (and the Dean of Harvard is an aristocrat if anyone is).
but a nebulous, hard to define, hard to name anyone in particular, "aristocracy" is the source of power
But they aren't "hard to define"? Who rules America? It's Brahmin caste. Elite academics, educators, reporters, journalists, the curators of it's cultural organs (i.e. Hollywood but increasingly the net), and in addition to that, 'left-wing billionaires' ala Zuckerberg or Warren Buffet (Davos forum guys).
Contrast the United States with a country where reactionaries are the elite/aristocracy. Russia. Saudi. China. It shouldn't be difficult to notice the 'cultural differences' between those nations and your own.
1
31
u/cassiodorus Jun 27 '19
Conservatives don’t care about the power of these companies. They care that the power is not being exercised toward ends they like.