It starts not with a bang, but with a wimper. . . . .

I've read plenty about "Corporate America". So much has been talked about on these forums. The risks, the dangers, the inevitable.

I don't pretend to know everything about America. About politics, government, corporations and their lobbyists.

I am a simple, humble man who just tries to provide for his family, live a good life, and tries to have some fun along the way.

But we are entering a brave new world. One that I don't understand.

Today I read an article
Link

The headline reads,

Occupy founder calls on Obama to appoint Eric Schmidt 'CEO of America'

One of the co-founders of the Occupy Wall Street movement has called on Barack Obama to resign as president, and “appoint Eric Schmidt CEO of America”.

Justine Tunney, a self-styled “champagne tranarchist”, is now a software engineer at Google, but remains involved with Occupy Wall Street, through the occupywallst.org website, which she created.

In the petition, which currently has two signatures (a far cry from the 195,000 who follow the Occupy Wall Street twitter account Tunney started in 2011), she calls on Obama to arrange a national referendum to:
1.Retire all government employees with full pensions.
2.Transfer administrative authority to the tech industry.
3.Appoint Eric Schmidt CEO of America.

Tunney previously hit headlines when she reclaimed control of the Occupy Wall Street twitter account in February, and mooted the possibility of raising $1m to form a “non-violent militia”. Yasha Levine, a reporter for Silicon Valley publication Pando Daily, noted the seeming discrepancy between Tunney’s former anarchist beliefs and her current role at Google. Since her arrival at the firm, he writes, “she has become an astroturfer par excellence for the company, including showing up in a comment section to bash my reporting on Google’s vast for-profit surveillance operation.”

“It never ceases to amaze me how far people have to stretch in order to denounce the one corporation that gives away everything for free,” she wrote. Explaining on Twitter why she thinks anti-capitalism is compatible with promotion of her employers, she argued that “Tech companies expropriate ad money from capitalists to build a superintelligence & don’t pay dividends!”

“Silicon Valley is firmly post-capitalist. There just isn’t a name for it yet, nor an intellectual [assessment],” she continued.

Is this where we are headed?
Do people really think the we are entering a post-capitalist world?

I know this won't gain traction right away, but the thought that it even merits a story-line disturbs me.

Do we say good-bye to the Constitution and say hello to corporate rules?

Are our freedoms now to be determined by a bottom line?

I leave it to you to decide.

As always, read, ignore, reply, or send flowers to elderly people you don't even know.

I humbly leave it up to you.

reply to post by beezzer


Strange language for sure .The corporation ....Canada is a Crown Corporation and is listed on the stock exchange ,or so I have read . The United States of America is supposedly as well .But the name ,much like the Federal Reserve is a little ambiguous isn't it ? don't know but that may be where she is coming from ...imo

I dont think it should be a corporation,
But i see her point. Tech companies have the capabilities to fire us off into the future
They just had a debate (hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson) for the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate about the private space industry space.com link

If the world ran on exploring the cosmos instead of war. 1.5trillion this year alone (world wide) on killing eachother. VASIMR technology only has a 30 million dollar budget. A tech that could get us to mars in just over a month.
Well, things would be different that's for dang sure.

reply to post by beezzer


Eloquent as always Beezzer.

Some weird stuff going on in the world these days man. Half the time I don't know what to think, half the time i don't what to believe... hell, half the time I don't even know what to do! That's three halves... one half too many.

At least I can say that I try and make the best of things ALL the time. Its all I can do, after all.

Kallisti

AzureSky
I dont think it should be a corporation,
But i see her point. Tech companies have the capabilities to fire us off into the future
They just had a debate (hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson) for the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate about the private space industry space.com link

If the world ran on exploring the cosmos instead of war.
Well, things would be different that's for dang sure.

Nothing is stopping the tech companies from innovation.

If this was a true post-capitalistic idea, then wouldn't the tech corporations be giving this stuff away?

beezzer

AzureSky
I dont think it should be a corporation,
But i see her point. Tech companies have the capabilities to fire us off into the future
They just had a debate (hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson) for the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate about the private space industry space.com link

If the world ran on exploring the cosmos instead of war.
Well, things would be different that's for dang sure.

Nothing is stopping the tech companies from innovation.

If this was a true post-capitalistic idea, then wouldn't the tech corporations be giving this stuff away?

That is true, We're not that close yet. But the end result is yeah, money could eventually be phased out. IF the majority of the work on the planet is replaced by robots, In a capitalistic world the tech companies have to play by the rules. Without money they wouldn't have the funds for innovation. As it sits right now in a capitalistic world.

I dunno...


She works for one of the BIGGEST companies around and supports OWS which is/was/whatever blatantly anti BIG company. She is free to say whatever she cares to but, isn't this a bit odd?

To deny we are corporate Amurica ... is the same as denying we won't turn ... after being bitten by a vampire.

Apologies for posting under the extreme influence of a fine single malt.

reply to post by AzureSky


Corporations bottom line has always been money ...what if they changed it to ------ ? who knows , but they may have already figured that out and it would make sense because it seems inevitable the present system is going to crash ..It might just burn and from the ashes comes ???

reply to post by AzureSky


The way I see it, if change were to happen, it must be precipitated by something.

Change just doesn't "happen".

Not at this level.

There has to be a catalyst for the type of change that some want.

The question then is, do we wait for the catalyst to occur naturally?

Or do we become the agents of the catalyst itself?

reply to post by Snarl


So...

Kill it with fire?

I always had a feeling there was something off with the corporatist blood suckers... I just didn't take it literally!

Anyway... I got things to do...

*wanders off to fashion wooden stakes from all the chair legs in the house*

reply to post by beezzer

Or do we become the agents of the catalyst itself?

You know we will. I know you've seen the writing on the wall. It ... is ... inevitable.

Once it starts ... the blood's gonna flow. I don't know who's gonna make it and what won't. I don't know if Amurica will be invaded in the moment of weakness or not. I just hope I live to see what rises from the ashes.

reply to post by beezzer


I was born to catalyze, son, dig?

I think we all, most at the very least, feel something on the proverbial horizon. Make no mistake, change is coming. Whether its short change, loose change or what have you, change it will be. We just need to, as a species, take a more active role in this upcoming cultural metamorphosis, like we used to. Rather than remaining complacent in our technocratic featherbeds.

Kallisti

SLAYER69
I dunno...


She works for one of the BIGGEST companies around and supports OWS which is/was/whatever blatantly anti BIG company. She is free to say whatever she cares to but, isn't this a bit odd?

Ever hear the old saying keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Being anti big business and working for them is the best way to keep an eye on them and see what they are doing. It's like when people were complaining about how the people were using iphones and macs at occupy. The best way to take something down is to use their own technology against them.

Interesting read for sure.
Sounds like a lesson in modern Anarchism.

reply to post by buster2010


Either that or...

She wants to play both sides of the fence while committing to none. Yeah right, HER company is 'Special' in this regards. pffft.


Anyway, I agree with your sentiment in many regards

beezzer
reply to post by AzureSky

 

The way I see it, if change were to happen, it must be precipitated by something.

Change just doesn't "happen".

Not at this level.

There has to be a catalyst for the type of change that some want.

The question then is, do we wait for the catalyst to occur naturally?

Or do we become the agents of the catalyst itself?

I pray for the latter, i am impatient. But its baby steps. What can we do when most of the north american population doesn't realize its getting screwed. So much of the worlds change hinges on north america and they've kept us all docile with doritos and crappy television. That is just a rash judgement, a lot of folks i meet these days are sick of everything, especially people around my own age. (I am mid 20's).

I would love to bounce some ideas off you, what do you think COULD be the catalyst?

I've had another thought.
(yes, I know. . . 2 in one day!)

People adjust their environment to suit their needs. It has always been the case.

It this just another aspect of adjusting people's environment? Is government (be it any -cracy or rule) simply a way of people conforming their environment to suit their needs?

A few decades ago, we didn't have the entitlement ideology that we have now.

Is this an aspect of an attempt at realigning our environment to simply suit our ever-changing needs?

If so, then how transient is the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, a capitalist society?

AzureSky


I would love to bounce some ideas off you, what do you think COULD be the catalyst?

Societal, economic, outside government intrusion/invasion, or simply a better idea comes along.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said, "America has the worst form of government, until you compare it to the rest of the world."

I'm all for change, as long as it is positive. I will admit to being a bit of an old-timer when it comes to traditional values. Personal responsibility, individualism.

My main worry is that we are stagnating and the solutions being presented are worse than the actually problems we face now, though.

reply to It starts not with a bang, but with a wimper. . . . .


oh bloody hell beezer, that is disclosing way too much information.

lol