Shopify seems to have a fascist problem.
Words have a well-defined meaning. Fascism, as established by Benito Mussolini, has nothing to do with oligarchy or plutarchy.
Fascism, as established by Mussolini is very deeply related to plutarchy.
Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
211–220 of 378 posts
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were always capable of these thoughts, money just gave them access to actions as well. Money didn’t turn them extreme IMO, maybe more fearful about losing it.
Money would've allowed them to act any time. But no, this is because of the shifting tide, enabled by an openly elitist government that doesn't give a shit about the layman. Remember how a few years back, all these billionaires and corporations were all talking about DEI and taking the knee and George Floyd, and (insincerely) shoving it all down everyone's throats? It just became socially more acceptable for them to…
I don't see why these colors would be any more truer than the ones before. I bet they would change again just as quick if winds went back to blowing the other way. The only color they care about is the green of money. And if you asked them why they supported it they'd get all forgetful and not remember ever supporting any of that.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#213Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words have a well-defined meaning. Fascism, as established by Benito Mussolini, has nothing to do with oligarchy or plutarchy.
Fascism, as established by Mussolini is very deeply related to plutarchy.
Please produce your evidence that Mussolini's ascent or style of government was a "society ruled or controlled by people of great wealth", as defined by Wikipedia.
Fascist political philosophy is about racial purity, militarism, autarky, and suppression of dissent through political violence. In fact, one of their methods of enacting such worldview was by appropriating the wealth of rich people to advance their own purposes.
Please educate yourself, it's free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words have a well-defined meaning. Fascism, as established by Benito Mussolini, has nothing to do with oligarchy or plutarchy.
I'm referring to how both Lütke and DHH, a Shopify board member, have fascist politics. The word does have meaning. But underlying that meaning is a philosophy that there is an in group that should have power and many out groups from which power should be stripped. There is a long history of industrial leaders supporting fascist ideology.
Shopify's former COO Kaz Nejatian and his wife Candice Malcolm are behind True North and Juno News, sketchy far right media outlets.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump paid about $750 in taxes in 2016 while still claiming to be a billionaire. I wouldn't consider it a fair share, but would that $750 entitle him to a vote under this plan?
>Trump paid about $750 in taxes in 2016 while still claiming to be a billionaire Right, because the tax system (generally) taxes income, not wealth. Not taking this into account is like asking "you're millionaire, yet you don't have any income, how come?" to a retiree. According to the new york times article that broke this story, most of it seems to be from his loss making businesses elsewhere. Moreover in recent ye…
It is legal, but is it "fair"? And should someone who doesn't pay a fair share be entitled to a vote? Is the fairness important?
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a structural problem in our socio-technical system. You can't separate money and government, because "corruption" to some degree is the default state. Yes there are exceptions, but the opposite if the bad apple concept. You have to get lucky to find the good apples. Which means there is some structural insufficiency in the concept of money and government.
> It's a structural problem in our socio-technical system. it has always been like this, has it not? almost by definition the more resources you have the more power you have. this is how the universe works.
Not really, because converting resources into power required other humans.
A huge pile of gold isn’t inherently powerful, you need someone willing to accept gold to do what you want. They would also generally be intimately involved in doing the thing, so you paid premiums for dangerous or unpalatable work.
These days technology lets you turn resources into planes, tanks, drones, etc in a way where 100 soldiers with limitless resources probably beat 1000 with a constrained supply line pretty consistently.
You see the same with domestic conflict. Once upon a time, finding and tracking down revolutionaries was a tedious, labor-intensive process that usually resulted in failure. Now those resources can be converted into surveillance that is much more effective, and much less reliant on another human being willing to help.
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#218I have a different idea. How about we weight your vote by your fiscal commonality with the average American? No?
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#219Money is power. That is the problem with extreme wealth. It provides unaccountable power outside the democratic process. It is not surprising that an already powerful man wants even more power, but I do not understand why anyone else would go along with this.
> I do not understand why anyone else would go along with this. Aspirations.
"temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
Re: Why a $154B CEO just endorsed stripping most Americans of voting rights
#220How about that: If you are a billionaire you lose your voting rights because you are already powerful enough and don’t need that extra power
There are only 900 billionaires in the U.S. Do you think if they lost their voting rights it would affect the outcome of even a single election whatsoever?
If it includes ability to vote via campaign donations that cause votes, then yes absolutely. Note for instance in the Massie primary, rich donors literally turned money into new votes by prodding a bunch of demented elderly people who never vote in primaries to believe Massie was banging AOC and Ilhan Omar and secretly a democrat (the vote from regular primary voters remained almost unchanged, the delta was almost entirely new voters brought out by a fraudulent propaganda campaign). That's essentially indistinguishable from those rich people having cast the vote themselves.