• Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know how people talk about “deep state” and it’s either a tinfoil about Jews, or disregarded as rightoid paranoia?

    Well, here it is. The true “deep state”.

    • Mzuark@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s honestly hilarious because this shit is right in the open, and no one wants to talk about it.

      • Comrade Birb@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lenin has written about this kinda stuff more than hundred years ago. It has been obvious to communists but the capitalist media turn a predictable blind eye to this.

    • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually have seen and heard American right-wingers mention the Black Rock deepstate, but they twist it to mean that they’re pushing the woke agenda onto everything

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not unexpected. Their ideology prevents them from understanding class struggle. And capitalist owned media (which is near damn all media) purposefully amplifiers these voices, so that we point out the existence of such international capital and how deep it all runs - we are branded as being the same as Qanon, Pizzagate, et al

  • Mzuark@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    The shadow government isn’t that shadowy really. The truth is a quick wikipedia article away.

  • coderade@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why bother lobbying people when you can just insert yourself directly into government? Market efficiency baby

  • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m surprised actually, why aren’t they ancient? Is it because they need new blood to introduce new ideas that old folks wouldn’t be as quick to adopt?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reason US politicians are ancient is because they’re just there to provide a veneer of democracy for the hoi polloi. They’re just figureheads who don’t make any actual decisions.

      • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Genuine question, how does them being old make it seem more democratic? Wouldn’t it look better if the politicians were a similar age to the voters? I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just a bit confused

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh it doesn’t, but I don’t think it matters because you don’t get genuine options. They just give you a set of canned option to vote for, and that’s all you get. As Marx put it: “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”

          • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, I’m just surprised that for their own sake that they don’t choose younger people to seem more representative of the US population

            • Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think it is the sole reason but they ARE representative of the voting US population. The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.

              In my country, voting is almost entirely the domain of the elderly. I can count on one hand the number of people in my age range I know that actually go out and vote.

              I think there is also some portion of belief that “this person has a lot of experience so must be better suited for the job”.

              • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                “The 65+ demographic has the highest voter turnout within their age group.“ Ahhhh, that makes a lot more sense now. Thanks, I didn’t put 2 and 2 together, but that seems a lot more obvious now that you mentioned it

        • LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I also don’t really understand what the OP is getting at with the age thing in the title. If anything, it would seem like the actual rulers (pictured) should be more likely to be ancient vampires than the the politicians chosen for the facade of democracy.

          • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly! Like reality doesn’t fall into my own preconceived notions obviously, but in this particular instance I’m very confused

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I guess it is because they need to have a long career in politics to appear experienced. Well, they really do need to have experience to ratfuck everyone else and to build connections because particular politicians are a tools to ruling class and it don’t really care who is the one doing its bidding, so politicians do need to compete among themselves. Also the more ossified bureocracy is, the more ancient cadavers are getting propped by the vitrue of having more accumulated ties inside the bureocracy than the younger ones, that’s why US has Biden now and that’s why catholics had most of their popes.

          Also name is a brand. People, especially content liberals and conservatives, are more likely to vote on someone they always heard than someone new.

          • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s very true actually, a lot easier to have a political dynasty that changes nothing if you have an older experienced politician giving cred to the rest of the family. For example we wouldn’t have FDR if not for Teddy Roosevelt, we wouldn’t have had Hillary running if Bill didn’t win in the 90s, etc.

        • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In theory: these capitalist types are allowed “proper” hereditary system. Scions taking over after the elders decide they want to chill. Meanwhile, the politicians are just tools. And if you have an old hammer that does the job, why would you waste money on a new one? One that may not be exactly to your preferences too. When the tool is completely broken, then you toss it away and grab a new one.

  • MatBC@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, to be fair, it was always run by the interest of the capital, that is the nature of the system itself, the role of the state is to protect private property after all, the shocking thing is the brazen way they are doing it lately, usually the system likes to hide this shit and pretend that democracy means something in capitalism, but now this is as explicit as it comes.

    • funky_tomatoe@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The first part about how a few investment firms own pretty much everything is on point but it gets weird towards the second part. The author uses 1984 imagery and equates the control that “megacorp” (as he calls it) has over the media to “Marx’s utopia” where the means of communication are centralized in the hand of the state. Also, the author seems to be some kind of stock guy. Their investigation was prompted by the whole Gamestock thingy and, although I stopped reading at section 5.0.3, it seems like their argument is building up towards something along the lines of “muh big corporations are controlling the market so that I can’t make any money off of it”. In summary, a decent investigation into the ownership structure of the modern economy with a severely misguided conclusion on why this is a problem.

      Edit: Alright I looked into this a little more since I was really bored and the author goes full horseshoe theory by claiming “Both Communism and Fascism have their roots in Socialism” and Rockefeller gained from the " Communism Economic Design Model" wtf even is this? Also, the account that posted this only has two comments on lemmy both linking to this website, seems like it’s just spam tbh. Please don’t upvote this.

        • funky_tomatoe@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not disagreeing that the entire economy is owned by a small circle of corporations/individuals. The sources provided for this are probably accurate as well although I haven’t bothered double checking. We know this is true. In fact, Marx predicted it over a decade ago. But this article comes to the wrong conclusions on why this is a problem because the author has petty bourgeois aspirations and is butthurt about the fact that they can’t profit off the stock market themselves because it is run by the bourgeoisie. On top of that it equates socialism to fascism which is so fucking stupid I’m not even gonna go into that. Anyone active on Lemmygrad should know this is false and refrain from spreading anything espousing such ideas. It feels like you have no idea what beliefs this community holds which is ok, but if you find yourself agreeing with any of the opinions you find here I’d suggest you look into Marxism. I believe it will give you a lot more insight into why the economy is structured the way it is than this “investigation” ever will. It’s not that a few smart people figured out how to take control of the companies that run the economy. This is an inevitable consequence of capitalism and as long as this disgusting socioeconomic system is allowed to persist nothing will change about the fact that the world is run by a very small group of people who line their pockets.

            • funky_tomatoe@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, the author states “Both Communism and Fascism have their roots in Socialism” and this does not seem to be referring to any contemporary ideas but rather the authors opinion. On top of that, the author claims to support this statement later in the text but I couldn’t find any elaboration on why this would be the case. Now I suggest you either engage with the point I am making about capitalism instead of copy and pasting paragraphs of text in the hope of spreading this bs or just go somewhere else with it. Pretty sure mods will remove this anyhow.

                • funky_tomatoe@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I apologize for misinterpreting what you were trying to say, it seemed to me that you were agreeing with everything the author said, which was wrong.

                  While the author is right about the ownership structure of the economy I think that the whole article comes to very wrong conclusions. Also some background info that may be of interest. The author is some guy that posts on r/superstonks which makes me believe that he is very much a proponent of capitalism, although I can understand that it may not seem so by just reading what is on the website. Admittedly, it also took me a good portion of the text to get suspicious. A few things that gave it away were:

                  1. Them admitting that an investigation into GameStop started their investigation

                  2. The repeated references to Orwell’s “1984” which is basically CIA-funded anticommunist propaganda

                  3. The assertion that a few people controlling the means of communications was the same as what Marx advocates for in the communist manifesto, so basically equating the problems of capitalism with communism

                  Though I haven’t read the entirety of the article I feel like the author is criticizing capitalism from a rightist point of view, basically arguing that there isn’t really a free market because it’s all controlled by a few individuals. This seems especially plausible when you take into consideration that they are trying to make money off of stocks but feel like they are being scammed by the big players in the market who play both sides. This is basically the whole thing Wall Street Bets was complaining about with the shorting going on against GME. It is primarily for this reason that I believe this investigation is severely misguided and we should refrain from spreading such stuff. I thought you were agreeing with this. While there is a valid point to be made in a lot of instances to “take the good and leave the bad” I don’t think it applies here due to the blatant anti-communism and the availability of much more thorough and in depth analysis of these issues. I believe Marx’s “Das Kapital” is a good resource on this, especially the concept of centralization of capital, although I will also admit that I do not fully understand this concept as I haven’t found the time to thoroughly study it yet. Furthermore, the author just randomly brings up vaccines at some point and also talks about the Rothschilds which is very sus when arguing that a small elite of people control the world economy. The whole thing kind of smells like some conspiracy theorist doing some actually decent research (as in the part about Investment firms owning everything) to then spin it in a direction that completely contradicts the evidence he presented, namely that we have to fight these evil guys owning everything so they can’t run the stock market anymore and the small man can also make a profit on stocks.

                  Edit: Also I apologize for the condescending tone I used towards you, I thought you were one of this stock guys trying to spread their stuff here, sorry 😅

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Admitting you don’t know something is the first step to learning something new. Nothing wrong with that. Good on you for admitting you were out of your depth on this one.

  • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Black Rock also unfortunately invests in China, so I caution against… I don’t know what for once.

    • Buchenstr@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Blackrock invests primarily in the private sector, things like evergrande, the property speculation market, and the luxury brand sector, it’s one of reasons why China isn’t bailing out property companies like Evergrande, since BlackRock has deep investment in these speculator companies. The hope is that these companies will declare bankruptcy so that the Chinese government can nationalise them for greater public use, another fault I hope china corrects soon.

        • Bloobish [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think what was meant is China allowing a foreign investment corp such as Blackrock to become involved in housing speculation in the first place.

        • Buchenstr@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was meaning the speculator market companies which grew far too large during china’s development, and had the attention of predatory western investment companies which wanted to strengthen these companies. A fault to china’s goal to prosperity as these companies which were largely ignored, and allowed to fester into the tumors which blight china’s economy, a fault which needs correction. Something which china’s doing by nationalising them after they fail.