Posts by rustywalker32

Michael Davis9 said:While there’s certainly a grain of truth in what’s being said here, I’m struggling to see how a "leftist" culture—and honestly, we could spend all day debating what that even means—would actually differ from a "right-wing" one when it comes to this whole "useful idiot" label.

I mean, think about it: you'd likely find the exact same sense of resentment toward massive multinational corporations coming from both a radical leftist and a hardline right-winger. The right-winger fumes because they see globalism eroding traditional culture, whereas the leftist bristles at the unchecked expansion of foreign capital. It’s just two different sides of the same coin.

It’s honestly a bizarre contradiction to see the international left claiming to be the face of anti-globalism. If you look at the facts, globalization has actually worked to narrow the wealth gap on a massive scale. Over the last thirty years, the social and economic divide between Americans and Western Europeans on one side, and the combined population of Chinese people and Indian people—which is over two and a half billion souls—on the other, has shrunk significantly. It makes you wonder exactly what the international left is actually fighting for if they oppose this trend.

It makes far more sense to view nationalists and national socialists as the true proponents of anti-globalism; after all, globalization inevitably erodes unique national identities and distinct cultures, ultimately forcing the entire world into one homogenous global village.

Harold Martin10 said:I don't think this is nonsense at all! Honestly, big business prefers a powerful government over a weak one—they can lean on the state for subsidies or massive bailouts, and they certainly have the deep pockets needed to hire lobbyists who can dismantle high regulatory hurdles that specifically target them.

On the flip side, small business owners just don't have the muscle or the cash for that kind of game. That's why it's so much harder for them to navigate a system full of red tape, find the capital to scale up production, or get any help when a crisis hits—the state basically just lets them sink.

If we had less government regulation, the economy would probably be way more dynamic. You'd see more major players failing and more small startups rising to take their place. But, of course, the people currently sitting at the top aren't exactly thrilled by that prospect. I’m not saying everyone mentioned in the article has those exact motives, but it’s an undeniable truth that a strong, "social" state serves big capital better than anyone else (even more so than the people the "social" state is theoretically supposed to protect).

I think this distinction between big capitalists getting bailouts and small entrepreneurs being left out doesn't quite hold water. First off, nobody actually *wants* a bailout because it usually triggers partial nationalization, a mountain of new restrictions, the inevitable firing of management due to poor oversight, lower wages, and a massive public outcry.

As for the idea that subsidies exclusively flow to the giants, that feels like a bit of a stretch. While the absolute dollar amounts might be higher for them, those massive checks given to giant corporations often have a much smaller impact on their day-to-day operations compared to how a smaller subsidy can transform a local business. In reality, you'll find that significantly more subsidies are allocated to things like solar panel manufacturers than to the massive oil industry.

James Nguyen13 said:The reality we're facing is that the line between the government and big capital has basically vanished.
In this setup, you see capital essentially nudging the state to fund these groups that spend all their time shouting about how much they hate capitalism, when in reality, they aren't even tackling anything meaningful.

Ever since things started going downhill, everyone has been calling it a "crisis of capitalism" and pointing fingers at the system, all while the government is busy handing out billions in subsidies to private corporations!!

There is a connection between the state and capital just as much as there is a link between the state and labor unions or any other slice of society. It’s simply because the government is an integral part of the economy—it’s unavoidable, especially since the government's footprint in our economic life keeps growing.
When you claim there's a cozy relationship between the state and capital nowadays, my question would be: when was there *not* a connection between the state and capital, or the state and anything else? Since the dawn of organized government, it has played a role. How tight that bond is depends on tax revenue, spending, how people perceive the government's role in the economy—whether it should be active or passive—regulatory bodies, and strategic industrial sectors, among other things...

The idea that capitalists actually enjoy this leftist whining against capitalism is a pretty shaky argument. Though, it must be said that among entrepreneurs—and this is especially true here in America—you can find plenty of people who are indifferent toward capitalism or even quite critical of what they call "neoliberal capitalism." Some might be insincere, trying to suck up to people in a predominantly socialist cultural climate, but others do it out of clear financial interest. What really bothers them is that they can't handle foreign competition, or they simply love squeezing the federal budget. Take Darinko Bago, for example. He’s certainly lined his pockets from taxpayers. Every time Darinko cried out that he needed millions just so Končar could have a government contract, the state jumped right in, only for that "reference" to end up being useless because nobody outside of the government ended up buying the product.

But I don't see Darinko financing Srećko Horvat, nor am I seeing Srećko Horvat and a whole bunch of other blowhards providing any actual benefit to domestic entrepreneurs like him. If their anti-capitalist critiques were limited to topics like protectionism or subsidies for local businesses, there might be some interest there; however, their criticism is so generalized that it ends up being harmful to both Darinka and everyone else of his ilk.

As for Warren Buffett and George Soros, their activism isn't driven by pure financial gain. What they care about is their legacy. They want to be remembered not just as business and financial geniuses, but as philanthropists, ideologues, and so on. Money isn't the only human motivator; fame and power are often much stronger drivers than the desire for wealth. Once you've been a billionaire for decades and fulfilled every material whim you ever had, you start looking for new battles and new arenas to prove yourself. They want to shape the world. And honestly, who doesn't?

While there are certain moments where it hits the mark, the overall argument feels a bit forced to me. It seems quite a stretch to interpret the tax demands made by Soros, Buffett, or Gates as being driven by business interests; their true motivations lie in an entirely different realm.

There’s just no way that’s going to happen.
It seems like the US is positioning itself to gain some serious leverage when sitting down at the negotiating table with the Slovaks or the Czechs.

Michel Platini really leans into those old stereotypes about how much football players actually think. It seems like UEFA has fully embraced this warped, left-leaning ideology driven by certain untouchable holy cows. For instance, when a white player like Terry shouts something offensive and racist at a Black player, he gets slapped with a multi-game ban, a media circus, and eventually gets kicked off the national team entirely. Honestly, I don't think it’s hard to imagine that someone who lashes out at one athlete will eventually turn that same venom on another, just regardless of their race. The slur might change from "Black" to "French," "German," or even "North American."

Why is that specific slur treated as such a catastrophe while calling someone "German" isn't? If we are strictly talking about historical context, white people have arguably suffered the most at the hands of other white groups. Just looking at the 20th century alone, tens of millions died in intra-white conflicts, and during the two World Wars, over 50 or 60 million white people perished. And that's not even touching on deeper history; Black victims were often caught in the crossfire of much larger struggles. If Terry has to carry the entire weight of English history on his shoulders, why is the era of slavery treated as more significant than the countless, massive European and intra-white conflicts that England was involved in?

Or let me put it in a different perspective. The way some fans throw bananas or boo Black players is primitive, humiliating, and truly disgusting. However, if we're ranking levels of depravity, there's something even lower on the scale: calls to "kill the enemy" or incitements against specific ethnic groups. That moves into the territory of literal calls for liquidation. But I suppose everyone has already Googled those phrases, and local moralists assume foreigners won't understand our regional slurs, so they don't even bother to worry when people start booing foreign delegates under the radar.