Thanks again.

they put absolutely minimal work into it

I don’t believe this. The small shareholders do, but not the ones who choose the board.

The Waltons have to stay up to date unless they accept that Amazon takes over. Likewise, Bezos will work to keep his company in the lead.

Bezos bought a big house in Washington, not Florida. He will be busy all day most of the days.

Thanks for the insights. I thought it was only Stalin who decided to collectivice the farming.

With stocks for instance the owners typically arent involved in the operation

Those are not the real owners but people who rent money.

There are always shareholders who control the board and who make the ultimate decisions. They decide when they want to meet but nevertheless I don’t think that they do much more than managing their companies which includes networking. So even when they don’t work, they will be ‘on’. No pity, they are rewarded more than enough.

I should have looked it up before. I don’t remember my original source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

The red army had 6 million out of 280 million citizens of the USSR. So it’s a bit more.

and often the company does worse when the owners get involved

How long do those companies exist? If owners just skim, I would expect most companies to dissolve sooner than later.

My point is that the Capitalists manage the rate at which workers learn about the left point of view so that the chance of them reaching a ctitical mass for change is very low.

It’s definitely not a deliberate misunderstanding.

consumerism is driven by a necessity for Capitalists to sell more commodities. It isn’t the choice of individuals, but the underlying Capitalist system

Yes. By the same logic, Capitalists need consumers to stay calm and to not change the system.

How can the Capitalist system be changed if people don’t act on individual choices?

Finally, Leftists do reach people, with action. It isn’t a “trap.”

They reach some. Do they reach enough?

You may be right. Then please explain to me how history is needed for science.

Which all go back to the white army losing.

Yes, I mean the Tsarist army. But you are right, my knowledge of history is limited.

Workers are consumers, they get their means to live through being paid wages.

That’s not what I mean with consumers. Consumers spend their money against their interest, to fulfill emotional needs that were highlighted by advertising. I don’t think that I have mentioned advertising before, but I actually think that this type of advertising won’t happen in a socialist country.

When I say your point on TikTok is Idealist, I mean it in the philosophical way, in opposition to Materialism. Idealism is wrong, it’s the concept of thoughts and ideas being the primary mover, not material reality.

I think that’s also how I understood it.

My point is that the mindset of people have changed and thoughts have become the primary movers.

The reason I say yours is idealist is because you’ve invented a problem that doesn’t exist, tik tok does not change the material base, being workers who spend their wages on goods.

Workers are not workers who rationally spend their money on products that have the most benefit to them. Those people are now consumers. They spend their money on stuff that is supposed to make them happy which induces the need to accept the current system. A revolution becomes a threat.

The answers of the “bros” like government supplied girlfriends are not worth considering.

But the motivations are. What do those people want and why do they prefer it over the offer from the left.

but that screams that you haven’t ever engaged with Leftist theory. Knowing leftist theory leads to action, not inaction.

Action means nothing if it doesn’t reach people. As I said, truth becomes a trap if it leads to ineffective action.

Overall I agree with two exceptions.

The Russian civil war was fought with 1% or 2% of the population. It’s not the majority that fights to own things.

Owning means to constantly think for the company and constantly try to optimize it. There is no time off. It’s a job on its own that is more than just skimming the profits.

You are not wrong that I should read a book on epistemology. But why do you ask me how science can create knowledge? If you have read those books yourself, you should know.

I would argue that people in general don’t want ownership or we would have many more cooperatives.

The White Army was specific to Russia, not all Socialist states like China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

If I remember correctly, Mao was supported by Stalin. I assume something similar for any other revolution. Outside support is needed.

Look at Syria. Assad was in control and it took massive outside support to let the opposition win. Who is going to support a socialist revolution today?

Workers were always consumers.

Not like today, where brains are addicted to TikTok and shopping. Workers could work less but they shop more. That’s not considered in the original theory.

As Capitalism decays, proletarianization increases even in the Imperialist countries, and thus reception to Socialism increases.

Will it reach critical mass?

There is no “mental problem that cannot be solved,” this is quite literally inventing a problem that exists purely in your head. Idealism to a T.

Exactly. Consumers are trapped there. The left cannot handle this because it absolutely contradicts their mindset. This alone will prevent any further progress towards socialism.

Broism is a reaction to proletarianization, combined with patriarchial culture. It ignores analysis and goes for vibes-based solutions, which is why all bro-culture is incoherent and contradictory.

Correct. ‘Ignoring the material ones’ means ignoring analysis while vibe-based solution corresponds with ‘mental issues’. My point is that Broism looks at aspects of the current situation to which the left analysis is blind. Calling it a reaction already frames it as not worth considering.

The left analysis in itself is correct. That doesn’t change anything if the consumers are not listening. Knowing the truth is a mental trap if it leads to ineffective action.

As you noted, I rephrased your words. We are not talking about my axioms. It doesn’t make sense to define tainted if that is not what you mean.

Still, your point seems to be that definition of words require history. You can have that form of history. The context is just that history is rewritten and I argue that that can be compensated with science.

Enlighten me. Science can always be recreated. Which knowledge is needed from history that cannot be created in a scientific way?

Science was created for a time when knowledge was insecure because it was tainted with superstition.

Ok, that’s clearer and more to the functional point than unity.

My perspective is that people are driven by emotions. Is ownership something in itself that people want? I would say that it is just a tool.

How does science know if something is true, with experiments.

So we need software that enhances the voices of those who we want to hear.

The past doesn’t tell you what to do, especially not when your recordings of history are wrong. If you cannot trust your history, how are you going to make decisions?

I was arguing that history is not needed when we have access to all experiences so we can ignore history if it is tainted.

You say that relying on wrong history is dangerous and in the original comment, you say that well cited information is essential.

There is no real contradiction but you have shown how access to information can be changed, or framed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

You are welcome.

What’s your opinion if you don’t mind me asking?

That’s the challenge. I still believe that it is possible.