The nibba writes:
Also, IT WAS private business which incited the murder of WELL over 200 million in the last 300 years and throughout history. In England for example, it was guided by the financial hand of the East India Company, which incited war globally for economic control and in return it offered much less than Bonaparte to European society.
Even in this case, it was the State that made the war happen. Private companies can’t make war happen on their own, unless they somehow raise a private army to make the war which we have hardly seen anywhere. Even when all the companies are nationalized, States then become the dominant economic actors who desire resources, living space, etc. If eliminating capitalism made war go away, then explain why Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union were some of the most aggressive States in the world, initiating war and conquest at every turn.
The nibba quotes Mussolini:
“Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace”. -Mussolini
Said the guy who invaded 10 countries. Mussolini was extremely pro-war. He supported World War I and gleefully entered World War II. War is a key part of fascist doctrine. Pot calling the kettle black here.
The nibba writes:
Today’s wars are not between eastern communist versus western democracies,,,, you see neither exist. Today’s wars are between wealthy, greedy oligarchs (Capitalists) who control congress. They don’t have to raise private armies, they already dictate orders to your existing national ones.
That’s a mighty assumption buddy. Which companies control congress? Major companies are not a united front, they’re competitors with each other, so that’s a blanket statement. And if that were true, then why is Congress hauling people like Zuckerberg, Bezos and the oil executives in front of congress to threaten them with regulations and higher taxes? The FBI went to Zuck to demand he censor certain posts. That’s the State controlling business not the reverse.
“Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532
Here’s a story of how France embedded regulators at Facebook to force them to censor stuff:
“Facebook will allow French regulators to “embed” inside the company to examine how it combats online hate speech, the first time the wary tech giant has opened its doors in such a way, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-facebook-macron/france-to-embed-regulators-at-facebook-to-combat-hate-speech-idUSKCN1NH1UK
Here’s another example that disproves you:
“In 2020, the Justice Department filed a civil antitrust suit against Google for monopolizing search and search advertising, which are different markets from the digital advertising technology markets at issue in the lawsuit filed today. The Google search litigation is scheduled for trial in September 2023.”
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20Justice%20Department,for%20trial%20in%20September%202023.
The EU also fined google for breach of anti-trust:
“The European Commission has fined Google €2.42 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service.”
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/MEMO_17_1785
Here’s another:
“The US Department of Justice filed a civil suit against Activision Blizzard today, accusing the publisher of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act with Overwatch League and Call of Duty League rules that kept player salaries down.” https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activision-blizzard-sued-by-us-government-over-esports-salaries
Biden is proposing tax bumps on the rich.
So if the US government (and EU) is regulating and suing big companies, then the big companies obviously don’t control them. If they did, then your thesis is that they’re suing themselves, which makes no sense. They’d just squash all these lawsuits and stop paying taxes tomorrow. No big company wants to pay its taxes, but they’re compelled to by the State. If the US gov was controlled by one big company, then they’d use the gov to squash their competitors, but we haven’t quite seen that yet. If Amazon controls the State, then they’d use the State to crush Walmart and other competitors tomorrow, but that hasn’t happened.
If the big companies already controlled congress, they wouldn’t need to spend millions on lobbying would they? Why would they lobby something they already control?
The nibba says:
Iraq had everything to do with money, States were influenced by big oil (our state primarily), and their combined incomes of industrial profit and state taxes made off them, in a land where States don’t control business, business controls State.
That’s a lie. Big oil had precious little to do with the Iraq war. That thesis is thoroughly debunked by James Petras in this book.
“Contending that Zionist power in America ensured unconditional US backing for Israeli colonization of Palestine and its massive uprooting of Palestinians, it views the interests of Israel rather than those of Big Oil as the primary cause of the disastrous US wars against Iraq and threats of war against Iran and Syria.” https://www.amazon.com/POWER-ISRAEL-UNITED-STATES-Petras/dp/0932863515
It was a combination of the Israel lobby, Israel itself and Zionist neoconservatives in the Bush admin who engineered the war for geopolitical reasons, not business interests. You are coping to blame all wars on business when I have already given many examples of States engaging in wars for their own State interests.
The nibba says:
You say if big business controlled congress then they would not have to lobby them,, hey, your destroying your own thesis! Why then would they lobby them with hundreds of millions (sum totals) to date if that is such a fruitless effort?
That proves my thesis that they don’t directly “control the state” because if they did, there would be no need to lobby. Lobbyists don’t always get what they want. There are lobbies for everything from feminists, LGBT, foreign countries, farmers, NGOs, religions, charities, labour unions and business. They all throw money around in the hopes politicians will listen, but they don’t always get what they hope for hence the need to keep lobbying until they do. I also gave you other examples of States suing private companies, which refutes the thesis that “big business” in general controls the State. What are they suing themselves?
The nibba says:
Yes, Dictators of the past had a lust for glory and immortality,, some simply self enrichment,, But I believe that Mussolini, Bonaparte, and many emporers of the earlier period along with many famous American presidents which deplored financial power in few hands
So you’ve admitted again that your thesis is wrong. You claimed all wars are started for business interests then you admit these politicians like Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt were opposed to business interests and still went to war aggressively. There are examples of States being influenced to make war or do coups for business interests, but there are just as many examples of States doing that for State interests. Should we abolish the state then since they are aggressive and make war? Truth is that even when you nationalize all companies, States then become the monopoly economic power who act as one giant corporation and will act according to its own desire for more land, resources and power. Eliminating markets will not end war, that’s a fact.
The nibba writes:
Theodore Roosevelt was a great man who at times realized injustice and fought against it as he did with JP Morgan and other conglomerates of finance when he battled their monopolization of business, finance and power. Unfortunately like Mussolini and many of the men of his time, he believed in war as a symbol and expression of true manhood. His lust for war was considered by some of his political contemporaries verging on the border of insanity.
So this disproves your own thesis. First you said all wars are caused by private companies forcing States to engage in war, but here you say Roosevelt fought against big business and STILL went to war and had a lust for war. So it wasn’t companies making him go to war, it was his own ambition.
Same with Mussolini. You say Mussolini reined in all the businesses and wasn’t controlled by them, yet he still initiated various wars and had a lust for it. So you’ve debunked your own thesis that capitalism and greed causes all wars.
The Soviet Union eliminated private enterprise entirely, yet the USSR initiated multiple wars (against Poland, Finland, Afghanistan, etc.).
Hitler too had a lust for war for geopolitical reasons. When the State takes over most private enterprise, it becomes the sole dominant economic actor and must pursue “profit” in a similar way that a private company would, in order to increase its own market share in the world as a State. That’s why Hitler invaded Russia, to gain control of its oil reserves and land (for Lebensraum). He invaded Poland to increase his land-mass.
Many wars today, like the Iraq war and the Ukraine war, had little to do with business and much more to do with geopolitics (protecting Israel in the case of Iraq, & overthrowing a Russia-skeptical gov in Ukraine in Putin’s case). That’s not the fault of business, that’s the fault of States and their ambitions. Certain businesses profit from wars, but that doesn’t mean they caused the wars, they’re just taking advantage of the niche markets created by the States who initiate war. States profit handsomely from wars too (they win more land-mass & can suck up the resources in the newly acquired territory). Even if they later privatize the new conquered resources, the State still benefits from collecting taxes on it.
I don’t disagree that we should prevent businesses from influencing the State (they must compete fairly in the market & stick to their realm), but I totally disagree that States are benevolent actors who wouldn’t do anything wrong if not for businesses making them do it. That’s totally disproven by the examples of USSR, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and even Roosevelt’s USA, who you admit were not beholden to any business interests yet were some of the most aggressive war-making States in modern times.
There are examples of big businesses pressuring States to do things that benefit them, including foreign policy things. But there are just as many examples of States doing these things on their own for geopolitical gain that has little to do with private industry. So if we must curtail the power of business so it doesn’t misbehave, then shouldn’t we also curtail the power of the State so that it doesn’t misbehave? But it seems to me that the anti-business zealots don’t want to limit the powers of the State but to increase its powers, giving it free reign to do whatever it wants. Sorry to say that this won’t lead to the world peace utopia you imagine, but more war.
Moreover, when States consolidate economic power and control, it creates circumstances that make civil wars and violent coups more likely, because in order to gain access to the resources, envious groups must gain access to the State that owns or controls all of it. Whereas under a market-based system you can simply invest your money into a business to get returns or start your own. That makes internal strife less precipitous.
