Is Elon Musk spending $ 44 Bazillion on Twitter a sign of Late Stage Capitalism?

[MrNiceGuy]

I didn't say destroy. I said disrupt. Many businesses use Twitter to function and communicate effectively, many organizations use Twitter to organize and communicate, and even governments used it to spread a message. It was always a right-wing cesspool, with an algorithm that demonstrably favored the right-wing (despite the right-wing diaper-whining that they're being censored), but now it's kind of a hate sewer with no redeeming value, with no real rules or terms of service beyond the mood of a rich weirdo.

LOL, Twitter didn't look like a "right wing cesspool." It was biased toward the Democrat Party, for sure, and it was also biased to the neoconservative factions and the military industrial complex, as well as the security State. That's why Twitter's narrative control acted like it did. Governments use it to spread propaganda, and we saw that over and over.

If by "right wing" you mean the current crop of Establishment Democrats as well as the Establishment Republicans, all of whom are controlled by the Military Industrial Complex which also controls social media now, including but not limited to Twitter and Facebook and Youtube, well, then I agree with you. And, they clearly favor Biden and the Establishment Democrats, at least until Trump is finally silenced and ended. At that point, it will just be the establishments of both parties, and they will control the allowed narrative - if they want an emergency mandate, you won't be allowed to argue about it on social media because such arguments are dangerious and need to be silenced -- if we're talking about war with Russia (proxy or otherwise) then any protest of that will become treason, as it has with the Ukraine discussion.

No longer will we have any anti-war messaging of any consequence, like we had in the early 2000s over Iraq. The narratives are now controlled. That's why there is no liberal faction of any consequence that opposes Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine. There are no more voices among liberals allowed to oppose US bases in 85 countries, gone are the liberal voices opposing dark ops and CIA secret prisons. The Military Industrial Complex used the Trump situation to seize even greater control of narratives.

 

[Mycroft]

Is Elon Musk spending $ 44 Bazillion on Twitter a sign of Late Stage Capitalism?​

In order to answer this question...one must first answer this question.

What is "late stage capitalism"?

The answer:

Late stage capitalism describes the unrealistic perspectives of the wealthiest 1%. In the same vein, it highlights how the middle class is largely oblivious to the struggles of the poor.

It's the sense that monopolies, and the oligarchs that run them, have rigged the system in their favor. They hired well-paid lobbyists to influence politicians. They won Supreme Court cases, such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), that give corporations the same rights as people.3 This allows them to spend untold millions on political ads that benefit them.

Late Stage Capitalism, Its Characteristics, and Why the Term Is Trending

Late stage capitalism is a term and concept that describes the perceived irrationality of the current economic system. Its use rose after the 2008 recession.

www.thebalancemoney.com

The answer to your question:

No.

There is no indication that Musk, buying Twitter, has anything to do with late stage capitalism. there is no indication that Musk has rigged the system in his favor. There is no indication that he has hired well-paid lobbyists to influence his purchase of politicians. Hell, he didn't win any court cases involving his purchase of Twitter.​

The problem I see here is that you are trying to apply a general system (late stage capitalism) to a specific example (Musk buying Twitter) and the two are really not connected at all.

A better example of late stage capitalism would be the WEF's attempts to use capitalists money to influence country's politicians to enact policies that favor the WEF's agenda along with increasing the wealth of the capitalists. More specifically, the Carbon Cap and Trade System.

How does carbon trading work?

How did we end up turning carbon into a commodity? The world trades everything from sugar cane to luxury cars, as well as intangible goods like intellectual property and patents.

www.weforum.org

 

[aociswundumho]

Using what currency?

Again, it doesn't matter. Whiskey, shells, gold, have all been used for money. Anything can be used for money.

That's not really capitalism.

People producing and trading value for value is capitalism.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

If modern capitalism is functioning well, and it produces an Elon Musk, who can effectively burn $44 billion dollars and disrupt countless lives / businesses 'for the lols', what does this say about the system?

When I said 'modern capitalism', I'm referring to the choices that the government makes that allows single people or small families to accrue more wealth than some countries. Capitalism, of course, does not exist in any real capacity without government.

Other.

Elon was born with money. Many people are. People with too much money frequently consider themselves superior to all. Also, even billionaires get bored. When that happens some take up a hobby, like aircraft piloting. Others like to strut around and solicit admiration by displaying their wealth to others, like building a McMansion, driving expensive cars around town, etc.

If you're a white supremacist and a sociopath, you really don't care how you get attention. Trolling and terrorizing people and playing with their minds is fun to these people. <-- This is Elon.

 

[notquiteright]

The sun has again risen in the east. Is this a sign of late stage capitalism?

Only if we have to get Disney+ to see it....

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Elon Musk buying twitter is more an example of the Peter Principle....

It's an example of obscenely expensive attention-whoring.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

Maybe, but it's not characteristically different than Bezos buying The Washington Post.

Is Bezos trolling his non-racist enemies every day? I don't think so. I don't think your comparison is accurate.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

I have no opinion on what is or isn't a "blunder" and who got a good deal. Lots of people open lots of businesses every day and they are high risk propositions that many other people would consider a "blunder." The point is that people didn't start calling this a problem, whether a sign that capitalism is dying or a political issue where it's some threat to democracy, until Musk bought Twitter. If Bezos bought Twitter, the same idiots railing about Musk's purchase would be creaming their pants over Bezos taking Twitter to the next level.

If Bezos removed the guardrails and under the guise of "free speech" brought back traitors and white supremacist to the membership you'd be correct.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Well, just because we don't know his business plan, doesn't mean he doesn't have one. And, he has run successful businesses before. So, I'll reserve judgment until he's had some time to restructure it. Plainly, what Twitter was before needed revamping, IMO. We shall see if it turns out to be a good deal.

Under what scenario can Twitter turn a profit? I'm still waiting for someone to come up with something. You're not the first person I asked.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Sure, his motivation is to turn a profit, and he also has a motivation to do good in terms of a fair public square platform that doesn't work for one party over another.

You believe that Elon Musk was interested in free speech...? Without a bias? Come on now, I thought we're having a serious conversation. I was starting to respect you.

He has had failed businesses, but he's also had very successful ones. He's had control of Twitter for a few weeks. It's too early to tell if his revamp will work.

Is it though?

It hasn't "turned out" any way. There is no reasonable support for any allegation that Musk should have magically restructured Twitter in a month or two. Shit, just dealing with the payroll issue is taking him 3-6 months. He has to cut large severance checks to a huge percentage of the company's employees, and he's working to restructure how Twitter operates. That doesn't happen in a few weeks.

Name a decision that he's made that would further Twitter's ability to generate a profit.

This is not accurate, as in the past there has been huge fortunes amassed by individuals. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Frick, Flagler, Vanderbilt, Hunt, Mellon, DuPont, Getty, etc. etc etc.

Then there was an economic apocalypse and a series of regulations / limits on wealth, which have largely been rolled back. Hence my topic.

Perhaps not, but that problem is worse in non-capitalist systems. There are suspected trillionaires in the fascist and monarchical regimes of the middle east.

What do you think fuels the wealth in Saudi Arabia?

In Communist countries, all the wealth was and is held by the very few (party leaders). In the capitalist West, the economic freedom allows for very wealthy people, yes, but it also allows for the greater good for the greater number.

Capitalist vs. Communists is a bit of a misnomer. Capitalism certainly exists in China, it's just that the elite few have control over the government, and thus the economy. In a healthy democracy, the people control the government through elected representation, and they determine how that economy functions via regulation and taxation. In an unhealthy / failing democracy, people with enormous wealth are able to short-circuit democracy and buy politicians to accrue more wealth and power, such that it never really leaves the elite few. Which, in the end, is not that much better than communism. It just has a fancy veneer.

Money existed, and then governments took it over by backing it with governmental promises, rather than independent value.

Money existed pre-government? Tell me more. If you're talking about sheep skins... nah.

Money was created by people.

As was government.

There are many advantages to a single money system operated by a government, yes. But that is not the same thing as suggesting that money can't exist without a government. It can, and has.

Money is largely an illusion, it has no value.

"Need" is a loaded term. And, humans can exist without governments.

But society cannot.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Again, it doesn't matter. Whiskey, shells, gold, have all been used for money. Anything can be used for money.

It matters. There has to be an accepted currency for an economic system to exist. Otherwise its trading or barter. I see why you're confused, but unless you think that an economic SYSTEM can exist without government (not two people exchanging pelts), you're not really addressing anything relevant.

Do you think an economic SYSTEM can exist without government? If so, how?

People producing and trading value for value is capitalism.

Barter has a separate definition. Capitalism is an economic system.

 

[aociswundumho]

In a healthy democracy, the people control the government through elected representation, and they determine how that economy functions via regulation and taxation.

There is nothing "healthy" about what you describe above. What actually happens, and what we observe happening over and over, is politicians and special interest groups teaming up in order to drastically restrict competition and supply. The healthcare market and the housing market are two prominent examples.

 

[Fishking]

If modern capitalism is functioning well, and it produces an Elon Musk, who can effectively burn $44 billion dollars and disrupt countless lives / businesses 'for the lols', what does this say about the system?

When I said 'modern capitalism', I'm referring to the choices that the government makes that allows single people or small families to accrue more wealth than some countries. Capitalism, of course, does not exist in any real capacity without government.

1. "Disrupt countless lives"? Only for Twitter employees, and that's something we can count. No one else is disrupted by Twitter.
2. There is a reason why capitalism has become the backbone of every major economy. There is no better option. Even China opened up a little to controlled capitalism. Only fools think a centralized planned economy works.

 

[What if...?]

That's a big "if.' Musk doesn't suggest he's doing it "for the lols." And his motivation does not appear to be less than the motivation of Twitter's previous owners.

Capitalism can exist without government, as capitalism is an economic system in which property is chiefly held by private individuals and private associations of individuals, as opposed to the State or governments.

To function well, any economic system requires a set of laws and a government to enforce them. Society cannot exist in any real capacity without a government., which is the word we use to describe the governing entity of any group of individuals. A private organization adopts rules of governance and a government within itself. A State adopts a government and rules of governance applicable to the collection of private individuals and associations which are part of that State.

Without the state ‘s armed men to protect private property there is no capitalism.

It cannot function without a state to support it.

 

[notquiteright]

If modern capitalism is functioning well, and it produces an Elon Musk, who can effectively burn $44 billion dollars and disrupt countless lives / businesses 'for the lols', what does this say about the system?

When I said 'modern capitalism', I'm referring to the choices that the government makes that allows single people or small families to accrue more wealth than some countries. Capitalism, of course, does not exist in any real capacity without government.

Well, he didn't do it for the 'lol' of it. Many on the Right support the move, they think allowing the banned MAGA users back will spread the 'truth'. He is doing it to stroke his ego. (perhaps the biggest driver of the 'biggest' little men)

History is full of extravagant stunts by the extreme wealthy. From Cinderella castles to celebrations costing a King's ransom.

I'd argue that capitalism came long before government. For centuries wealth WAS government.

Perhaps the biggest blow to regulating the wealthy's influence on society (Twitter is a pimple not a cancer) has come from the Courts that equate money to free speech and bestowing citizen status to corporations.

In a way it is a hybrid Feudalist system... The 'throne' is the CEO's office. A vast system of vassals supports the 'crown' where favor can be granted or taken away. Like days of old, too severe a hand caused a revolt, so no CEO has limitless power unless the vassals submit to it. Each CEO does have a council to keep happy- usually with money like the King's court- full of very ambitious men many coveting the throne themselves...

Anyway, this is nothing new, just a new suit on an old soul. Musk is just another 'mad prince'...

 

[aociswundumho]

It matters. There has to be an accepted currency for an economic system to exist. Otherwise its trading or barter. I see why you're confused, but unless you think that an economic SYSTEM can exist without government (not two people exchanging pelts), you're not really addressing anything relevant.

Do you think an economic SYSTEM can exist without government? If so, how?

Again, it already does. In the US, 10% of GDP is off the books. The worldwide average is (if I recall correctly) about 20%. If that enormous amount of economic activity can take place even with the state actively trying to stop it, then I see no reason why the other 80% can't as well.

Furthermore, virtually everything currently provided by the state is already being provided by the market. For example, there are more people working for private security firms than there are cops. Private arbitration is a huge industry which firms use in order to avoid expensive, slow, corrupt government-run courts. Arbitration companies write their own laws, which their clients agree to because the laws are written by experts in the field, not by some idiot politician. Private schools are superior to government-run schools. Cryptocurrencies can and will replace inflated fiat currencies, and in some countries they almost already have.

If government is so wonderful and so necessary, why does it have to threaten people with a prison sentence in order to force them to pay for it?

 

[Dans La Lune]

If government is so wonderful and so necessary, why does it have to threaten people with a prison sentence in order to force them to pay for it?

If the government is so bad, what prevents me from taking your stuff? What is your Private Property worth then? Honest question.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Without the state ‘s armed men to protect private property there is no capitalism.

It cannot function without a state to support it.

That's a Bingo.

 

[Dans La Lune]

There is nothing "healthy" about what you describe above. What actually happens, and what we observe happening over and over, is politicians and special interest groups teaming up in order to drastically restrict competition and supply. The healthcare market and the housing market are two prominent examples.

The right-wing has been conspiring to hand government over to corporations since the 1970s. The ability for vast wealth to write the rules is the feature, not the bug. These are the results.

 

[Dans La Lune]

1. "Disrupt countless lives"? Only for Twitter employees, and that's something we can count. No one else is disrupted by Twitter.

How many businesses do you think use(d) Twitter?

2. There is a reason why capitalism has become the backbone of every major economy. There is no better option. Even China opened up a little to controlled capitalism. Only fools think a centralized planned economy works.

You're kind of all over the place here, and I frankly think you're confused about capitalism and the economy as it relates to the involvement of government. There is no sustainable economic system that exists, or can exist, without government involvement. Whether it's a King in control or the peasants. It's never been about the size of government's hand in the economy, it's about whether that hand lifts wealth up to the rich or allocates resources to allow for the function of a society. In a healthy, sustainable democracy, we decide that via the political process. In a broken, failing democracy, corporations buy politicians, and they decide.

People like @aociswundumho advocate for more of a feudal system, where the rich can right the rules, and we bow to edgelords like Elon Musk; I advocate for the democratic process. Shared power rather than consolidated power in the hands of a few people (or one) and praying that they act in my interest because they own the libs.

 

[aociswundumho]

Without the state ‘s armed men to protect private property there is no capitalism.

Here's a video of the state protecting private property:

It cannot function without a state to support it.

Except it does function without state support. It even functions with the state actively trying to destroy it. See post 40.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Under what scenario can Twitter turn a profit? I'm still waiting for someone to come up with something. You're not the first person I asked.

I have no idea, but then again, I suck at running businesses. And Twitter lost $220 million in 2021. So, why wasn't that question being asked in 2021? Clearly, it wasn't being run right, then correct?

You believe that Elon Musk was interested in free speech...? Without a bias? Come on now, I thought we're having a serious conversation. I was starting to respect you.

He's stated he's interested in a platform which does not practice "...censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect," and that Twitter should be “reluctant to delete things” and “very cautious with permanent bans.” He wants Twitter to basically follow legal restrictions on speech, and not go beyond that into crafting narratives, silencing "misinformation" and conducting biased reporting.

That's not to say that any particularly person, including Musk, is bias-free. However, even though I have a bias myself, I still think Musk's stated desire as to how Twitter should treat tweets makes sense.

Is it though?

Yes, it is too early to tell, in my view. At least I can't tell. I don't presume that anyone could buy a company that lost $220 million dollars last year, and turn it around in a few weeks into some magically successful money tree.

Name a decision that he's made that would further Twitter's ability to generate a profit.

Getting rid of unnecessary employees by cutting the workforce of superfluous employees.

He also cut back on the $400 per lunch "free" employee lunches.

Un-banning folks whose bans were controversial and apparently very biased - like the Babylonbee, like Donald Trump, etc. Any policies which will create an environment where people aren't being banned for speaking about vaccines, mandates, medications, political news stories, trans issues, etc., in the "wrong" way, will go a long way to increase user trust in the platform.

Increasing subscriptions, possibly charging for Tweet embeds, and restructuring away from ad-based to subscription based service are ways in which Musk has suggested he can restructure Twitter.

Adding a means for Twitter to process payments, which the company is in the process of creating.

Now, name something the previous owners and management did or proposed that would turn Twitter profitable?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Then there was an economic apocalypse and a series of regulations / limits on wealth, which have largely been rolled back. Hence my topic.



What do you think fuels the wealth in Saudi Arabia?

Government power. The wealthy are the fascist oligarchs in Saudi Arabia. It's certainly not free market capitalism. It's a conservative, nationalist, absolute monarchy built on a marriage between Mosque and State. The few control everything, and it's an oil/petroleum based economy with a tiny group of wealthy people, and a large amount of poor people.

Capitalist vs. Communists is a bit of a misnomer. Capitalism certainly exists in China, it's just that the elite few have control over the government, and thus the economy. In a healthy democracy, the people control the government through elected representation, and they determine how that economy functions via regulation and taxation. In an unhealthy / failing democracy, people with enormous wealth are able to short-circuit democracy and buy politicians to accrue more wealth and power, such that it never really leaves the elite few. Which, in the end, is not that much better than communism. It just has a fancy veneer.

Indeed, and that is the trouble we have now, as the Western governments have been largely coopted by the military industrial complex, and the security states which work together.

Money existed pre-government? Tell me more. If you're talking about sheep skins... nah.

The government isn’t the only entity allowed to issue money. Private citizens and businesses can too, and throughout U.S. history, they often have. In the 1800s, for example, much of the country’s paper currency consisted of notes issued by private banks. A major time period in the US where private currency was issued is called the Free Banking Era. It wasn't the best way to do things, IMO, but it did happen.

As was government.

Yes, governments are instituted among men to serve purposes. Agreed.

Money is largely an illusion, it has no value.

It has no inherent value beyond what another person is willing to give you for it, which is based on what that person can subsequently get for it.

But society cannot.

Society can exist without a public government, but all societies have governance (otherwise, it's not a society). So, depending on how you define government -- like, often the idea of private, voluntary organizations are not included in the term government when folks are talking about the issue. So, society can exist without a representative government like we have now, or without a monarchy or dicatorship or oligarchy -- but society results from the organization of people into groups, and all such groups have some sort of governing structure - which would be the government (whether voluntary or involuntary, like we have now).

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Without the state ‘s armed men to protect private property there is no capitalism.

That isn't accurate.

I'll agree, one of the purposes of a government is to protect private property of the citizenry, and that does help maximize the benefit of capitalism.

However, as long as property is chiefly held in private hands, then the system is capitalist.

It cannot function without a state to support it.

It cannot function well without a government to support it. We need, as a practical matter, laws to protect against civil and criminal wrongs, legal structure to help facilitate the transfer of payments, real property, and personal property, etc., but it can exist without those things, in a technical sense. I agree, though, that it would be rather fragile and would fall apart quickly.

 

[Paradoxical]

If modern capitalism is functioning well, and it produces an Elon Musk, who can effectively burn $44 billion dollars and disrupt countless lives / businesses 'for the lols', what does this say about the system?

When I said 'modern capitalism', I'm referring to the choices that the government makes that allows single people or small families to accrue more wealth than some countries. Capitalism, of course, does not exist in any real capacity without government.

If Musk did NOT have 44 billion dollars, we would have had to stay with a provider of information like Pravda, or what they have in Venezuela or China with no recourse other than to tolerate a company that excludes from public discourse any information that comes from conservatives by just calling it disinformation or hate speech.

Now then, if you as a socialist knew there was this large private company out there that worked hand in hand with the FBI and conservatives in government to deny YOU the right to post about the viruses of socialism by labeling it hate speech or disinformation, what would you do?

IF Musk was required to give that 44 billion to the government it would be spent in a day on stupid projects like what do we relable CRT so that we can keep teaching it, or "how do we introduce Marxism in public schools and call it conservatism?" or "What can we to get more tax money so we can give it toi people that took out loans for college" or ...................................

 

[ttwtt78640]

Wealthy influential people own Twitter - all is fine. Another wealthy person buys Twitter. End of capitalism ensues. LOL

Yep, it’s amazing how that works. Maybe it’s not the wealth inequality involved, but the “too rich” guy’s political lean, which makes this instance of “too rich” folks getting control of large businesses which makes capitalism seem so bad. After all, few seemed to object to him having control of a large EV business.