US Politics Mega-thread - Page 103

On April 12 2018 01:58 SoSexy wrote:
Can anyone explain on which accounts is Zuckerberg being questioned? Is there a law in the US where the Congress can call any C.E.O to explain things? Or is this a thing connected with foreign power/treason?

On April 12 2018 02:09 Plansix wrote:

Congress can summon any citizen to testify if they feel it is necessary. Just like a court can.

On April 12 2018 02:18 SoSexy wrote:


So will this have legal implications?

On April 12 2018 02:21 Kickboxer wrote:
Zucc is the closest creature to Data from Star Trek I've ever laid my eyes on. If you saw him on the street you'd think something must be seriously wrong with him. Even his skin looks unusual, like it's glossy or something.

Also, the way the congress people were questioning him was really unusual. Making awkward jokes about facebook and instagram etc., giving shout outs, sometimes showing they have no clue how the internet or apps even work. Weird times

On April 12 2018 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:
It feels weird how Trump announces air strikes and now everything is silent until it happens. A really major military escalation is announced, but nothing yet. Usually it seems like we hear about major escalations after the fact. There's something uncomfortable about knowing about it ahead of time.

On April 12 2018 01:58 SoSexy wrote:
Can anyone explain on which accounts is Zuckerberg being questioned? Is there a law in the US where the Congress can call any C.E.O to explain things? Or is this a thing connected with foreign power/treason?

On April 12 2018 03:29 Excludos wrote:


As Plansix said, Congress can question anyone they want on the account of whatever they want. This is less about attacking Zuckerberg for being a bad guy and more about finding out where things went wrong and what regulations should be put forth so this doesn't happen again.. Although not everyone in congress seems to have understood this..

On April 12 2018 02:08 Kickboxer wrote:
I'm talking about added value, not money. They're not the same. I look at all things positive in terms of value. Financial products and tricks like speculation make a lot of money, but rather than adding value they deplete the system i.e. leech the social and natural environment. I see that as cancer. There are many other ways to make money that generate negative value, the most basic one being a bank loan, and we should be trying to make them all very hard or eliminate them from society if we can do so through peaceful and constructive means. Things like reality TV also make money but generate negative value in terms of turning people into cretins.

Value comes in many forms. I believe legitimate art has tremendous value for example. There are many more "artists" than legitimate artists tho (blaming postmodern tendencies here ), so it's complicated. Healthy food, tech, nice shoes (general aesthetic factor), pleasant avenues, these are all things that increase the value of society.

I've noticed workers have a very hard time generating value without a capitalist around, and I'm starting to suspect lack of capital is not the fundamental problem. It takes a lot of creativity, effort and dedication, not to mention considerable intellectual breadth to operate your goods on a mass free market. Capital isn't just "dead labor" since things don't sell themselves. The people who provide the labour tend not to have the specific organizational, intellectual and temperamental traits required to perform market strategic activities. It's arguable if their class position even fosters the values (or affords the luxury) to develop such traits.

Since some people on the far left believe rich people are necessarily "parasites", I think they don't understand how reality operates.

On April 11 2018 23:44 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump had no idea that the Ukrainian was going to donate to his charity. It was all arranged by someone else, without trumps knowledge.

On April 12 2018 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
He also stated that a bank loan generates negative value, which doesn't really make sense. Debt, like equity, is just a form of capital/ financing.

On April 12 2018 04:57 Kickboxer wrote:
I'm trying to explain things in very simple terms Igne, but you still don't understand. Maybe because I'm not following your iron definitions? You should really be able to infer more precisely what I mean from the plain language. The Marxist notion of a "capitalist" is, the way I see it:

a) outdated, because you've de facto been able to run a business with 0 capital for decades, while still exploiting labour, ever since the internet - something that "should not compute". The necessity for any kind of intermediary between labor and consumption is, theoretically, no longer there in many professional and even service fields. But the proletariat is still not behaving according to expected marxist models since functioning cooperatives are something you need to look for with a magnifying glass. I find that interesting and problematic, and also wonder why the left doesn't talk about it all the time

b) fails to understand there is implicit labour, of a non-proletarian nature altogether, performed by any (non-failing) capitalist that is core for the operation of the entire capital-labor symbiosis. Call it politico-socio-economic networking or whatever you want, that is likely critical in the generation of large-scale value in society. Yes, some people really do "create jobs". Out of thin air. In fact without these people, the economy tends not to work. I haven't found this concept in my admittedly very rudimentary understanding of Marx where the proletariat in some endgame is able to run the show by itself

the "value" concept should be pretty clear. Whatever improves the wellbeing of people or keeps them healthy and smiling