Digging into ways large businesses and corporations work it become clear to me that they are the only source of trotskist socialism today.
That's weird, because all that large businesses become so large only thanks to capitalism. And at the same time, it is capitalism was the only reason they turn to severe socialist entities, USSR could not dream about.
If you take a close look at any western large business, you inevitably find out that inside it is purely socialistic. With strict planning, complete absence of free trade, dogmatic leadership, some corporate rules and even ideology. Workers have to be absolute loyal to the ideological leadership of big business. Value that workers produce is distributed by leadership, useless jobs of those who does not create anything forcefully paid from money made by those who create real value and so on. Awful combination of extreme trotskizm ideologically and worst soviet socialist practices economically.
Corporations and big budinesses leadership have a lot of money in control - business money and their own. And they trying to change world around using their business internal structure as template. So they throw a lot of money to all that political socialists from WEF to LGBTXYZ++ and BLM activists in the hope they will reformat the world into well-known for them and fully controllabel by them structure, as they have in their large businesses.
Of course, globalists have their own, "reptiloid" agenda, but they are fully financed and rised to the top by big business with corporate socialism inside. In turn, globalists see this corporate socialism as ideal model for the NWO.
So, if you want to defeat NWO you have to completely destroy any socialism inside big businesses. Destroy any central planning, establish free trade between employer and employee, between branches and so on, eliminate any corporate ideology, prohibit any forcefull redistribution of wealth from real workers to useless stuff, no demands for loyalty to the top management and so on.
You can't have capitalism made from socialist entities. And if this socialist entities control most value adding in the country they will control overall political system. And will inevitably change it to the model they know and use.
Also, big business always want to destroy any small business in the county, because they see them not only as a prey and source of workforce for their corporate gulags, but also as ideological enemies, who show people that there could be another way to make business, and you don't necessary have to surrender your freedom, independece and free will to trotskist socialism in some corporation to earn for living.
Interesting, that in literature and even Hollywood products you could easily find examples of dystopian depiction of "corporate state" as they call it. But for "whatever" reason they never call it by its real name - "trotskist socialism". This is what big business use and produce. And this is what they try to establish over the world.
Prove me wrong. :)
large western corporations are held privately or publicly traded by shareholders, but not owned by the public or workers.
workers get recompensed for time but typically aren't shareholders.
profits are distributed unequally and exponentially up the corporate pyramid.
centralization of decision making process can still occur in either system, and it's sort of needed for most large endeavors to stay focused.
at this point many people realize a lot of large corporations produce only poison, and there is a market for smaller products that can meet the need of not being poisons (food, cleaning products, clothes, etc.).
Don't mix some idealistic textbook socialism with real world socialism. USSR enterprises was not owned by workers too. China enterprises also not owned by workers. You could barely find any really large enterprise who was owned by workers in any timespan of any socialism implementation existence.
And only tiny part of their time is really compensated.
Interesting, that larger enterprise have steeper curve. Despite there are no any logical (in terms of enterprise workflow) need for that.
Of course you need some planning just to be able to produce anything. But I'm talking not about technical planning, but about strategic planning. Some car manufacturer board of directors just decide that they should produce 20% of EVs this year. Just because they rhink so or believe in something. It is exactly like some soviet Gosplan decided that there should be produced 20% of yellow fabric on some textile enterprise. Then both could not sell that 20% to the customers for the set price. In case of western enterprise, additional money spent to convince customers to buy unneeded product by marketing or by damping price, in USSR this unneded fabric goes to industry where fabric color does not matter or in some warehouse. But in both cases top managemend will force enterprise to fulfill that based on nothing 20% plan and punish workers if their plan is not fulfilled.
And that's excellent. This prevent corporations from total monopolisation of the market. And that's why corporations through their cartels like WEF and other global shit trying to suppress small businesses with non-market measures.
Well, in USSR was also some place for tiny small businesses named "cooperatives". Mostly in food and clothes industry. It was businesses owned by workers, so it does not contradict socialism ideology. "Cooperative" prices was noticeably higher, but you could always buy quality products if you really needed to.
You're basically right. The situation is practically futile. But I don't think one particular ideology or another is the origin of the problem, rather they are the symptoms of the problem, which is the innate nature of a large minority of humans, regardless of race. In particular, females have this trait more often. After all, a system of rules protects those who are not strong enough to defend themselves amongst chaos. Women like rules, because it creates an orderly environment in which they can thrive. This is nothing sexist against women; this is just nature. However, given a few bad actors in such an environment, these systems can grow out of balance, drastically.
For example, create an HOA and give control of this HOA over to a small group of random people from your neighborhood, and they will create a socialist structure within six months time. About half of the people involved will just want to enforce some basic rules (don't leave piles of garbage in your front yard, don't paint your house bright pink, etc.), but before you know it, due to the remainder of the group who will be more controlling in nature, the HOA will have formed a Gestapo that marches around your neighborhood looking for minute rule violations to levy fines against. The HOA will have a proclivity, due to these people, to raise the monthly fees continuously, creating a bigger and bigger monster that becomes addicted to revenue. After a few years they will practically own and completely dominate the neighborhood.
This is basically the same thing that happens in governments. Because there are some bad actors behind the scenes that are exploiting these proclivities of humans, it's easy to implement globalism. If you can take over the neighborhoods within a year, it's not too hard to imagine how a group of powerful and wealthy elite are able to achieve the same kind of ends on a global scale.
Judaism.
Not all heads of big business are Jews. And it's not the Jews who force big business create only croporate gulag from their enterprises.
But you can't throw out Jewish influence from the picture, including purely Jewish things like usury which create conditions for establishing trotskist socialism inside any big business to allow maximum wealth extraction to pleasure Jewish usurers and investors.
Even if you would be lucky to establish some big business without a single Jew, you will have no option other than implement corporate gulag in your enterprise, because otherwise you will not be able to pay all that loan interests, dividents and all that stuff, or you will have to rise final product prices to the level your business would not have a chance to compete with rivals on the market and so go bankrupt immidiately.
Jews with their dogma of usury based economy created conditions where corporate gulag is your only option to have a big business, but they are not personally establish trotskist socialism in the each and every large enterprise.
Thanks for asserting something no one questioned.
It is, yeah. Jewish behavior—and only jewish behavior—created an economic system that foundationally and operationally rewards this behavior while punishing other behavior. If you build an artificial channel for a river to move contrary to its riverbed, you don’t have to personally pump every gallon of that water into the new channel. It will flow there automatically.
Right; that (and otherwise) are what I mean with regard to the previous point.
Again, they don’t have to be. If you’re the one who writes the rules for a board game, you don’t have to hover over every player to enforce it at every table.
Writing the rules (suggested words over perceivable sound) for a game (spell-craft).
If your rules become an existential threat to players you will have to. That is exactly what happening now. And I think all that wars, surveillance and censorship crap is exactly that attempt to enforce their rules at every table. Or somewhere, somebody will began to play by his own rules, breaking that behaviour conditioning you wrote about. And some could suddenly choose another river.
Aslo, there is another problem that is not connected with Jews at all. Even if you remove all Jews and their things from economy, corporate gulag will still have advantage on the market over other enterprises. F.e. wealth that was directed to the above layer of usurers/investors could be used to dump prices or expand, throwing out competitors from market.
In any case total elimination of socialism inside corporations is a necessary step. Even in case of Jewish economy elimination on the higher level.
IIRC Marx always said Socialism would arise out of capitalism, not in spite of it.
I agree, corporations operate on a Socialist model and, when they're monopolies, I would suggest they are fully Communist; they control the entire market, set prices, and completely control workers because there's no one else to work for, especially for specialists.
You raise an interesting point in their pushing corporate culture on nations. We're certainly not living in Democracies where the will of the general population is important. It's all special interests/connections that drive things, ie corporate politics. Same with these top down directives; not consistent with Democracy, but certainly par for the course for a Corporation.
The good thing about fighting Corporations is that they're unwieldy and slow, almost as much as governments. Unlike governments, they're sensitive to the bottom line and quite touchy about their public image, thus susceptible to psyops.
Yes, he also stated that capitlism is absolutely necessary for socialism and that you can't skip that step. He accounted capitalism and socialism as sequential stages of society development as far as I remember.
Just like USSR. I even think that USSR was more kind of Corporation State, than pure Socialist state. In kind of mild form, really, comparing to what seem to be hatching from modern corporations.
Mono (suggesting few) Poly (consenting many)
a) -ist (communist) implies consenting to suggested -ism (communism)...few suggest -ism to amalgamate many into -ist. Notice that only few wield the power to label who is or isn't an -ist...did the "racist" libel ever work the other way around?
b) Commune (one place with another) + Social (consisting in union) implies togetherness (we); being implies apartheid (one). It's the consent of each one of the many to the suggested -ism by few, which puts them together.
The origins of judaism are described as "temporary dispensation", which implies setting apart...not putting together. Tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) is how each jew apart lures gentiles together.
Work implies energy (internal power); internal (partial) implies division within external (whole) aka SPECIAL, noun - "a particular"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/special
Within ALL each ONE is special aka set apart from one another.
a) Corporation aka corpus oration aka suggesting others to speak a dead language (words) instead of being alive (per sonos; by sound).
b) Business aka busy (employment) aka exploiting the consent of others by keeping the mind employed with suggested information.
A being employed by another being ignores being (partial) within work (whole) aka "full employment for life".
a) Lev Davidovich Bronstein learned as a jew to exploit others, and then as a mason how to build with bricks (suggested -isms) and mortar (gained consent); yet only perceivable nature as source allows the exploitation of others through suggestion.
b) Social implies "together", being implies "apart"...ones consent to suggested -ism tempts one to ignore apartheid for togetherness.
a) Why does world wide poverty grow faster than the rest?
b) Why is growth (life) slower than loss (inception towards death)?
Inside implies apart (few); outside implies together (many)...it's called a business, because few keep many busy ignoring that.
Workers devalue themselves while producing "nothing" of value. In reality...work (energy aka motion) utilizes value (inception towards death aka momentum) to generate evaluation (life aka matter).
Matter can be tricked to believe that "nothing else matters"...
a) m-one-y aka my-one, which implies ones choice consenting (buy) to a chosen ones suggestion (sell). The trick...buying into sells one out to another.
b) LOT; noun "chance, hazard, fortune; that by which the fate is committed to chance" aka gambling for suggested, while losing within perceivable...ones lot in life when ignorant.
It is change (inception towards death) which generates will (life)...
Name aka nombre/number - "designation of a unit" aka Unit aka unitas/unus - "one"...reason tempts ONE to ignore self for conflict with others.