Mark Zuckerberg’s Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,350
Anyone with brains either will quit or has quit Facebook. Wise ones never joined it in the first place.
Or wise ones joined it for the money, and left keeping their brains and money.
 

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
Just stop using it. Walk away.
Anyone with brains either will quit or has quit Facebook. Wise ones never joined it in the first place.
The unfortunate thing about the wise ones is there are just so few of us around that the masses of stupid are drowning us out 24/7. :(
I take it none of you have close friends or family abroad or if you do you just don't care to keep updated in their lives or see their new born pictures etc.? Yes, there are other ways to receive this information but it's selfish to make someone go out of their way to send you special e-mails or pictures because you don't like the platform that the majority uses. Like it or not it's here for now and I don't like Failbook either but I'm not going to make my family that's scattered all over do something different because I'm interested in staying up to date in their lives because I care.

I feel like most people that don't do facebook are those that have the ones they care about right in the same house or close by which to I'm jelous or are the ones that really don't give a shit about anyone else regardless to which I pity.
 

B00nie

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
8,331
I take it none of you have close friends or family abroad or if you do you just don't care to keep updated in their lives or see their new born pictures etc.? Yes, there are other ways to receive this information but it's selfish to make someone go out of their way to send you special e-mails or pictures because you don't like the platform that the majority uses. Like it or not it's here for now and I don't like Failbook either but I'm not going to make my family that's scattered all over do something different because I'm interested in staying up to date in their lives because I care.

I feel like most people that don't do facebook are those that have the ones they care about right in the same house or close by which to I'm jelous or are the ones that really don't give a shit about anyone else regardless to which I pity.
If you need Facebook to keep in contact with your family you need to get your head examined. What did you do before Facebook?

Just because it's convenient it doesn't mean it doesn't have a price. A high price.
 

Tiberian

DILLIGAFuck
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
5,725
do facebook
Well there it is I suppose. ;)

And as for myself, I've been "online" since the 1970s so the people I associate with including family and friends have been online almost as long as I have and we have more useful methods of communicating that have been in place for literally decades now without failing us. Just because you and people like you are (more than likely) relatively new to technology and "social media" doesn't mean I and many many other people find it useful on any levels.

If nothing else, "social media" serves one primary purpose more than anything else: to give the vast majority of stupid people a way to express their stupidity writ large, sadly. No, not everyone using Facebook or social media sites are actually stupid (or at least stupid enough to express it with such services), but that doesn't mean that people using such services just can't seem to realize there's a time to say something useful and a time to honestly shut the fuck up and not type stuff off the top of their heads stream-of-consciousness style which is where most of the problems come from.

Face to face people have an innate sense of "Ok, I better not say that because it'll cause a negative reaction..." whereas - ironically enough - when using "social media" there is no face to face therefore there is no innate sense of cutting oneself off before it's too late and they realize it after they've already submitted the post/tweet/snap/what-the-fuck-ever and once it's out there even for a few seconds it's never going to fully disappear.
 
Last edited:

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
If you need Facebook to keep in contact with your family you need to get your head examined. What did you do before Facebook?

Just because it's convenient it doesn't mean it doesn't have a price. A high price.
Before facebook I was too young to keep in touch. What did you do? Snail mail pictures to family far away? Calling is not a problem to keep in touch (just as before) vocally but that's not the format of staying up to date I'm speaking of. Today more people are relocated and spread across a nation more so than back then I think. What is the alternative to share those special moments and video with ALL of your family that all have adopted? Failbook....
 

Krab

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
231
Maybe we were not meant to stay in constant contact with every person we have ever known. Maybe our brains can't handle a constant stream of information about events from around the world that we have zero control over. Maybe that's not healthy.

Just saying.
 

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
Well there it is I suppose. ;)

And as for myself, I've been "online" since the 1970s so the people I associate with including family and friends have been online almost as long as I have and we have more useful methods of communicating that have been in place for literally decades now without failing us. Just because you and people like you are (more than likely) relatively new to technology and "social media" doesn't mean I and many many other people find it useful on any levels.

If nothing else, "social media" serves one primary purpose more than anything else: to give the vast majority of stupid people a way to express their stupidity writ large, sadly. No, not everyone using Facebook or social media sites are actually stupid (or at least stupid enough to express it with such services), but that doesn't mean that people using such services just can't seem to realize there's a time to say something useful and a time to honestly shut the fuck up and not type stuff off the top of their heads stream-of-consciousness style which is where most of the problems come from.

Face to face people have an innate sense of "Ok, I better not say that because it'll cause a negative reaction..." whereas - ironically enough - when using "social media" there is no face to face therefore there is no innate sense of cutting oneself off before it's too late and they realize it after they've already submitted the post/tweet/snap/what-the-fuck-ever and once it's out there even for a few seconds it's never going to fully disappear.
Oddly my wall on facebook reflects none of this. If you add friends or family you know that you do encounter face to face on occasions I don't feel like this happens. If it does simply hide them? I think maybe others just use the platform incorrectly whereas I enjoy it for the most part seeing old family videos, pictures, and how the elders in my family are doing that don't live close. Again, I'm not saying facebook is great by any means but it is currently the popular go-to choice for the majority which I guess it comes down to choice of seeing what my family is up to or rebelling against the machine.
 

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
Maybe we were not meant to stay in constant contact with every person we have ever known. Maybe our brains can't handle a constant stream of information about events from around the world that we have zero control over. Maybe that's not healthy.

Just saying.
Maybe so! I however feel like we have become more disconnected from family and friends this day and age. Maybe facebook and social media is to blame also...
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
Another lefty who is completely ignorant of history.
The KKK consisted of Democrats, just like the Democrats in West Virginia kept reelecting Robert Byrd to the senate.

Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."
Man, you nailed it.

History shows the REAL party of oppression is the Democratic party. HISTORICALLY this was the party of the slave owners. This was the party of the KKK. This was the party that was AGAINST desegregation, this was the party against equal treatment regardless of race under the law.
ALSO, historically the black or negro* population always voted REPUBLICAN because this was the party of the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln; who by the way was murdered by a pro slavery leftist. The changed with LBJ and the "Great Society" of the 60s. Social workers went into Black communities with the message "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you".
The result is you have GENERATIONS enslaved to government largesse and votes for the democratic party bought and paid for with tax dollars. This is ECONOMIC OPPRESSION.

Don't be afraid to call the "fake new" issue what it really is. It is LEFTIST PROPAGANDA. Pure and simple.


*No labels. They are not Africans first and Americans second. They are not born or from Africa. They are pure, red blooded Americans BORN in the USA
 

B00nie

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
8,331
Before facebook I was too young to keep in touch. What did you do? Snail mail pictures to family far away? Calling is not a problem to keep in touch (just as before) vocally but that's not the format of staying up to date I'm speaking of. Today more people are relocated and spread across a nation more so than back then I think. What is the alternative to share those special moments and video with ALL of your family that all have adopted? Failbook....
That's the problem. Young people think that giving your privacy to a megacorporation in exchange of sharing puppy and kitten videos with friends is all fine and dandy. Well I have news for you - it's not. You're destroying the society one user at a time.

I have family in Greece, Australia and Germany along with my home country and I have never needed Facebook to keep in contact with them.

If I have moments that are so 'special' that I want to share them with my family I sure as hell won't publish them publicly on some corporations server.

Facebook is for narcists who want to show off their life (often in a distorted and polished way) and seek acceptance from their peers. The whole concept is crooked and sick.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,493
Before facebook I was too young to keep in touch. What did you do? Snail mail pictures to family far away? Calling is not a problem to keep in touch (just as before) vocally but that's not the format of staying up to date I'm speaking of. Today more people are relocated and spread across a nation more so than back then I think. What is the alternative to share those special moments and video with ALL of your family that all have adopted? Failbook....
Letters, e-mail, phone calls. Special moments were only shared around Christmas and other celebratory times of year. I remember as a child receiving packages from family and family friends that had photos and VHS tapes. It made those special moments feel even more special.
 

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
Letters, e-mail, phone calls. Special moments were only shared around Christmas and other celebratory times of year. I remember as a child receiving packages from family and family friends that had photos and VHS tapes. It made those special moments feel even more special.
I'd love to see this happen again! Unfortunately today that isn't going to happen and I'm a slave to the network. It's all well and great if you can get your family to use other means instead but for me it's the nature of the beast of how my family posts their "special moments" that I love to see but would miss out on if I didn't have FB...
 

kinjo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,053
Just reacting to the headline, due to its clickbaity nature ^_^

I suspect that it is closer to the truth that he sees snail journalism being destroyed, sees that the internet is taking over the role of informing, and now he wants to get first dibs on all those future views.
Yeah stupid snail Journalism with it's reliable sources, and vetting of information, and fact checking, and professional Journalists, screw that. Onward to the future, we are all reporters now; my racist grandfather who believes that his gardener is stealing his oranges, my friend Eric who believes the earth is hollow and lizard people live inside it, my cousin who thinks that Obamacare is terrible and should be more like the ACA program he gets his health insurance through (I just don't have the heart to tell him they are the same thing), news shouldn't be controlled by the press news is all of us we are all the news welcome to a new tomorrow.(y)
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,922
Facebook is not news. I don't consider it anything. I don't even follow it. I sign in maybe once or twice a month, but I don't even know why I bother doing that.

But then again, when was the last time anyone saw a real journalist in the mainstream media? There aren't many of those left, and alternative news sources are taking over. The only problem with that is it's easy to fall into an echo chamber where you only hear a singular side of every story, through a very biased lens.

Nowadays you just get information poured on you and the journalism part falls on the consumer, meaning you have to do your own fact checking if you want to be informed, simply reading or listening to "news" is not enough anymore due to said lack of real journalists.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,477
The fact obsessed media is ending, post-truth America is on the rise. A glorious new day is dawning, the idiocracy is upon us!
Fact obsessed? Most of the whack jobs are pushing opinion as news, and can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. Real journalism has been dead awhile now in the mainstream, hell, even the best of them (Fox) still is not that great always. No, a change is definitely coming in here, and I'm all the happier for that.
 

King of Heroes

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,006
Is it that the media is telling people what to think, or people only want to hear what they THINK they want to hear?

I find some people are not interested in truth as in, literally, exactly happened. The only "truth" to them are the things that are written solely to conform to their beliefs.
This.

"Fake News" is the new buzzword for "Anything that doesn't conform to my <insert_political_ideology_here> beliefs". To the left, "Fake News" is any source that leans conservative (e.g. Fox). To the right, "Fake News" is any source that leans liberal (e.g. CNN). So far, all claims to wanting an objective source of truth that I've seen has been BS-speak for "A source of truth that tells me what I want to hear".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
3,556
Fact obsessed? Most of the whack jobs are pushing opinion as news, and can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. Real journalism has been dead awhile now in the mainstream, hell, even the best of them (Fox) still is not that great always. No, a change is definitely coming in here, and I'm all the happier for that.
Really? Because twenty minutes of even casual research will take you to the events and information behind the evil media and it's crazy social engineering. The whacko websites engage in an eternal circle-jerk of using one another for references until you make your way back to the initial fabrication on the website you started with.

"Fake news" is stories that don't come from facts, like pizza-ordering-child-abuse rings. It was pure fabrication from a hoax site that wasn't expecting the mass delusion of the "alt-right" to add it to their imaginary world. It's not spin, it's completely fabricated. Remember when GW Bush was in the reserves just to draft dodge because he was rich? Or when John Kerry got fake purple hearts just for being a liberal communist and was never really wounded? Or when Obama was a Kenyan Muslim? Those are fake, the evil media fact checked, analysed, and they ended up being dropped by everyone who wasn't completely deluded. Web sites don't hold one another to account, they just reference each other as "evidence" nobody clicks the links if the article already made them feel good about themselves.

Add to that the importance of the right wing strong man and his efforts to undermine reality by cultivating mistrust in the media. Tayyip Erdogan, Rodrigo Duterte, Vladmir Putin, Robert Mugabe, Donald Trump, they all engage in the same strategies. Blame someone for social issues, Mugabe blames white people, Trump blames Mexicans and Arabs, Duterte blames druggies, Putin blames liberals, it's all the same thing. It's all about assuring people who are struggling that it's group X that are causing their problems. It's called populism and it's built of a foundation of pretty lies, it's hard to get away with pretty lies when journalists keep telling people you're full of shit and then proving it. Go visit the evil media in Turkey, Russia, Zimbabwe, or the Philippines. You'll need to move quickly though, the great reality purge moves quickly.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,674
HISTORICALLY this was the party of the slave owners.
Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?
I'm sure it's like those Christians that follow the bible until you call them out on the old testament problems and they claim they don't really follow that part any more. But the second it serves their purpose, old testament all the way!
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,493
Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?
Nothing has changed. The black population is now just a slave to the government instead of private citizens. The Democratic Party "owns" 93% of the black adult population in the US.
 

Krab

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
231
I can never tell if conservatives are serious about the whole "democrats are the real racists!" "Robert Byrd KKK!" I mean is it just a clever way to troll the left or do you actually believe it.


Nothing has changed. The black population is now just a slave to the government instead of private citizens. The Democratic Party "owns" 93% of the black adult population in the US.
It's interesting how both the far right and far left have identical views in that regard.

You both think that black people are too dumb to know who they are voting for.
 
Last edited:

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,674
Nothing has changed. The black population is now just a slave to the government instead of private citizens. The Democratic Party "owns" 93% of the black adult population in the US.
If this is true why are black people becoming more and more successful, even to the point of becoming president? Or is this all an elaborate cover to throw people off their true intentions? Truly just trying to learn here, not saying you're wrong...
 

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,219
I take it none of you have close friends or family abroad or if you do you just don't care to keep updated in their lives or see their new born pictures etc.? Yes, there are other ways to receive this information but it's selfish to make someone go out of their way to send you special e-mails or pictures because you don't like the platform that the majority uses. Like it or not it's here for now and I don't like Failbook either but I'm not going to make my family that's scattered all over do something different because I'm interested in staying up to date in their lives because I care.

I feel like most people that don't do facebook are those that have the ones they care about right in the same house or close by which to I'm jelous or are the ones that really don't give a shit about anyone else regardless to which I pity.
No I have an imagination and learnt other means of COMMUNICATING with others than standing in one huge lazy herd with all the other sheep.

I actually physically meet up with friends and family rather than do a lazy "Like".Or I phone them or write them a email.

Facebook...life for the lazy and socially inept.
 

emphy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
209
Yeah stupid snail Journalism with it's reliable sources, and vetting of information, and fact checking, and professional Journalists, screw that. Onward to the future, we are all reporters now; my racist grandfather who believes that his gardener is stealing his oranges, my friend Eric who believes the earth is hollow and lizard people live inside it, my cousin who thinks that Obamacare is terrible and should be more like the ACA program he gets his health insurance through (I just don't have the heart to tell him they are the same thing), news shouldn't be controlled by the press news is all of us we are all the news welcome to a new tomorrow.(y)
In my post snail refers to the speed, not to the intelligence. Like snail-mail ^_^, but including TV and news websites which are slow compared to the speed of information provided by other internet denizens, simply by virtue of them slightly outnumbering journalists ^_~
 
Last edited:

kinjo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,053
In my post snail refers to the speed, not to the intelligence. Like snail-mail ^_^, but including TV and news websites which are slow compared to the speed of information provided by other internet denizens, simply by virtue of them slightly outnumbering journalists ^_~
Fair enough though my post is attempting to point out that that speed is the problem. Real Journalism is slow because to takes time to check facts and vet sources, but that also what makes it reliable and valuable.
 

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
Man, you nailed it.

History shows the REAL party of oppression is the Democratic party. HISTORICALLY this was the party of the slave owners. This was the party of the KKK. This was the party that was AGAINST desegregation, this was the party against equal treatment regardless of race under the law.
ALSO, historically the black or negro* population always voted REPUBLICAN because this was the party of the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln; who by the way was murdered by a pro slavery leftist. The changed with LBJ and the "Great Society" of the 60s. Social workers went into Black communities with the message "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you".
The result is you have GENERATIONS enslaved to government largesse and votes for the democratic party bought and paid for with tax dollars. This is ECONOMIC OPPRESSION.

Don't be afraid to call the "fake new" issue what it really is. It is LEFTIST PROPAGANDA. Pure and simple.


*No labels. They are not Africans first and Americans second. They are not born or from Africa. They are pure, red blooded Americans BORN in the USA
That's what always baffled me, looking at US history, I would have completely hated Democrats due to their support for that kind of thing, and I would have expected that Republicans to be the first to stand up to it.

What happened that cause them to switch around like that?

EDIT: Also, sorry for going off topic, but why is the "Obama is secretly a Muslim" even a thing? Why would it make ANY difference what religious denomination (or lack thereof) Obama belongs to?
 

opfreak

Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
763
That's fake news buddy. The official statement from Berkeley said that it wasn't the left student's protest that it was a separate group the one that was burning shit down and causing chaos. Don't spread fake news. Always read official statements first. Extremist groups do not define neither all of the left nor the right. The KKK does not define the majority of right wingers, just like the masked people in Berkeley do not define the majority of the left. So attributing those fake news to being from the left is like saying that all right wingers are racist neo-nazis because a minority of them are.
A university that hates him, claims it wasn't their students doing it? LOL. And you believe them?
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?
What happened that cause them to switch around like that?

EDIT: Also, sorry for going off topic, but why is the "Obama is secretly a Muslim" even a thing? Why would it make ANY difference what religious denomination (or lack thereof) Obama belongs to?
The Southern Strategy, basically, during the civil rights era the republican party realigned itself with the southern/conservative voting bloc and became the conservative party.

I still don't understand the weird anti-Obama stuff, but it seems to be a mix of racist attitudes and plain old fearmongering. My mom and grandmother aren't racist at all but I knew something was up when they told me they were worried because they heard on Sean Hannity that Obama is a secret Muslim.

I find it interesting that these character attacks didn't really work at all on Obama (he won practically every state that mattered in the presidential elections), but crushed Hillary Clinton.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
If Facebook started having it's own news, it'd be just as good as the BS "News" we have today. Journalists are suppose to be unbiased. Ya...haven't seen any like that in a long time.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Perhaps not as safe as you might think... You might look into the relationship of Marx and Engels when you have some time for some pleasure reading...
Engels was born into a family of some wealth and was pressured into business because of his upbringing. His heart was never really into it, hence why he developed the philosophy and sold his business later on. It was a way for him to pay the bills in other words. Even then, we're talking about ONE factory, so maybe somebody either in upper middle class or lower upper class. Now compare against Zuckerberg, who has spent his entire professional career in the pursuit of money at any cost, is in charge of a large profit-reaping empire, and who is not only upper-upper class, but the sixth richest person on the planet.

What is it about his life, behavior, and practices, that even REMOTELY suggest he is a Marxist? He sure is doing a heck of a job on advocating workers owning the means of production, eradicating economic class division, and condemning capitalism in general! Next will you be telling me MLK Jr. was really a white supremacist? Serious, implying that Zuckerberg is a Marxist, I couldn't even make that up.
 

NapnDog

n00b
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
60
I didn't make the implication that Zuckerberg was a Marxist. Others did. What I did was imply to a poster that simply because Zuckerberg is a wealthy businessman does not make a 'safe' assumption that he does not have totalitarian leanings (some have said Marxist). Regardless of how he got there, Engels was a wealthy businessman who financed Karl Marx, I believe during the time he was writing The Communist Manifesto and further. Therefore the wealth, occupation and social status of Engels are not really an evidence of his political views. Thus, we really cannot say what Zuckerberg's political views are based solely on his career. It is not really a safe assumption to make, which is the thrust of my disagreement. I personally do not believe that we have Marxists precisely in our time because Communism has largely collapsed due to it's many financial flaws and abuse of liberties. There are however elements of Marxism that are totalitarian that seem to be making a comeback on the left and suppression of speech is one of them. Zuckerberg is clearly leaning in this direction. Even though I wouldn't myself label Zuckerberg a Marxist, I think what you are seeing is people picking up on those totalitarian elements that were shared with Communism.

I have no opinion about Martin Luther King Jr.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
I didn't make the implication that Zuckerberg was a Marxist. Others did. What I did was imply to a poster that simply because Zuckerberg is a wealthy businessman does not make a 'safe' assumption that he does not have totalitarian leanings (some have said Marxist). Regardless of how he got there, Engels was a wealthy businessman who financed Karl Marx, I believe during the time he was writing The Communist Manifesto and further. Therefore the wealth, occupation and social status of Engels are not really an evidence of his political views. Thus, we really cannot say what Zuckerberg's political views are based solely on his career. It is not really a safe assumption to make, which is the thrust of my disagreement. I personally do not believe that we have Marxists precisely in our time because Communism has largely collapsed due to it's many financial flaws and abuse of liberties. There are however elements of Marxism that are totalitarian that seem to be making a comeback on the left and suppression of speech is one of them. Zuckerberg is clearly leaning in this direction. Even though I wouldn't myself label Zuckerberg a Marxist, I think what you are seeing is people picking up on those totalitarian elements that were shared with Communism.

I have no opinion about Martin Luther King Jr.
My point was Zuckerberg is essentially the polar opposite of a Marxist, in philosophy, and in practice. You say it's not safe to assume that a billionaire global corporation owner isn't a Marxist, I really think it is, because being a billionaire who has spent his life controlling capital is the exact opposite of what Marxism is. Marxism didn't exist when Engels was in charge of a company, so there was no previous frame of reference like there is now. While Engels had some wealth, he was born into it, and eventually left it and BECAME a Marxist as time moved on. Zuckerberg has spent his life making more money and wealth more akin to Caesar, not a single-factory business owner. I don't see how the two concepts are compatible when you live your life in the exact opposite fashion of what you claim to be. In the same way I can't be a non-violent protester and fire bomb cop cars, you can't be a Marxist and also a self-made capitalist billionaire. It's one or the other.

Now if you want to say he has totalitarian leanings, that's entirely fair, but totalitarian control isn't part of Marxist philosophy. Hell, even Lenin only saw that as a means to an end, then Stalin decided that was the end in and of itself. In the same way you have holy rollers who claim to follow the teachings of the bible, but are essentially con-men, in history we've also had totalitarians claiming to be Marxist. Zuckerberg, however, isn't even close. Again, I know of absolutely nothing about his behavior that makes him resemble a Marxist.
 

NapnDog

n00b
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
60
My point was Zuckerberg is essentially the polar opposite of a Marxist, in philosophy, and in practice. You say it's not safe to assume that a billionaire global corporation owner isn't a Marxist, I really think it is, because being a billionaire who has spent his life controlling capital is the exact opposite of what Marxism is. Marxism didn't exist when Engels was in charge of a company, so there was no previous frame of reference like there is now. While Engels had some wealth, he was born into it, and eventually left it and BECAME a Marxist as time moved on. Zuckerberg has spent his life making more money and wealth more akin to Caesar, not a single-factory business owner. I don't see how the two concepts are compatible when you live your life in the exact opposite fashion of what you claim to be. In the same way I can't be a non-violent protester and fire bomb cop cars, you can't be a Marxist and also a self-made capitalist billionaire. It's one or the other.

Now if you want to say he has totalitarian leanings, that's entirely fair, but totalitarian control isn't part of Marxist philosophy. Hell, even Lenin only saw that as a means to an end, then Stalin decided that was the end in and of itself. In the same way you have holy rollers who claim to follow the teachings of the bible, but are essentially con-men, in history we've also had totalitarians claiming to be Marxist. Zuckerberg, however, isn't even close. Again, I know of absolutely nothing about his behavior that makes him resemble a Marxist.
I believe there is a flaw in your thinking centered around absolutism. In the same way that Zuckerberg is not absolutely Marxist even though he has some totalitarian leanings like Marxism (in philosophy or practice is a separate argument), it is also so that Zuckerberg is not absolutely a Capitalist as his defense. I acknowledged already that I do not think we have Marxists precisely today, however, our brand of capitalism leaves a good deal to be desired as well, and when people like Zuckerberg (not only him) begin to use their wealth and power to shape culture, it should be plain and clear that they are moving beyond a purely capitalistic philosophy of life, and it is frankly a misnomer to believe that capitalism attempts to be a life philosophy to start with. There is already an assumption that certain liberties and principles are already in place in a political and social level. I do not have to defend the statement that Zuckerberg is a Marxist because of his totalitarian tendencies any more than I have to accept the defense that Zuckerberg is a capitalist because he owns a successful business since that appears to me to be becoming for him a means to an end for the advancement of his political views (which he has every right to do, but it certainly detracts from the idea that his thinking is purely a development of capitalism). In the same way that I think it is an unsafe or unsound argument to simply place Zuckerberg into the camp of the capitalist in order to represent him as less than threatening to liberty, I also think 'totalitarian tendencies' is a better way to understand him than the term Marxist, but I understand why the term is being used and what the point is on those people's part. My position therefore is consistent. I believe your argument (at least with myself) is flawed by absolutism.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
I believe there is a flaw in your thinking centered around absolutism.
I think I get what you're saying, but my point is there are lines that are crossed also. A person's occupation can force them to perform one way, even if their real motivations lie elsewhere, true. This was the case with Engels. For example, a cop might be ordered to break up a protest, even if he personally sympathizes with their cause, but his duty as an officer requires him to shut it down. There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing. My point is Zuckerberg is not just any capitalist, he's one of the most successful capitalists in history. Part of the core of Marxism is that production should be owned by the workers, and there should be no capital owning class ruling over the other. By those metrics, he literally could not be farther from Marxist principles. But hey, is he restructuring Facebook to be owned by the workers? Funding organizations to try and bring about an end to capitalism? In other words, making his massive wealth simply a means to a Marxist end? No? Then he's not a Marxist! I don't think it's much clearer than that and doesn't have to do with absolutism so much as everything about how he has lived his life.

I acknowledged already that I do not think we have Marxists precisely today, however, our brand of capitalism leaves a good deal to be desired as well, and when people like Zuckerberg (not only him) begin to use their wealth and power to shape culture, it should be plain and clear that they are moving beyond a purely capitalistic philosophy of life, and it is frankly a misnomer to believe that capitalism attempts to be a life philosophy to start with.
I wasn't implying it was, but if your spend your life running a business to make as much money as possible and hoard billions, that certainly excludes you from claiming you practice SOME philosophies, Marxism being one of them. Again, I can't say I'm a non-violent protestor if I'm fire bombing cop cars. I CAN say I'm a freedom fighter or a terrorist, or a conscientious objector, something else, take your pick. But some behaviors naturally exclude certain descriptors.

There is already an assumption that certain liberties and principles are already in place in a political and social level. I do not have to defend the statement that Zuckerberg is a Marxist because of his totalitarian tendencies any more than I have to accept the defense that Zuckerberg is a capitalist because he owns a successful business since that appears to me to be becoming for him a means to an end for the advancement of his political views (which he has every right to do, but it certainly detracts from the idea that his thinking is purely a development of capitalism).
I think there's some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying because he's a capitalist, that's all he can ever think and other dimensions to his personality are impossible. I'm saying, by definition, nothing about him suggests he is Marxist. I could just be ignorant here, but if I am, what exactly is he doing that could be considered Marxist? Totalitarianism in itself is not Marxist. Neither is influencing politics with your money. Plenty of differing philosophies have used those tactics for all kinds of goals. Trying to bring down capitalism, advocating ownership of production by the workers, eradicating economic classes, THAT is Marxist, and I'm simply unaware of anything Zuckerberg has ever done along those lines, on the contrary.

In the same way that I think it is an unsafe or unsound argument to simply place Zuckerberg into the camp of the capitalist in order to represent him as less than threatening to liberty
I don't even know where you thought I did this. Feel free to quote me for clarification. I'm hardly a fan of billionaires running society to their whim.
 

NapnDog

n00b
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
60
I think I get what you're saying, but my point is there are lines that are crossed also. A person's occupation can force them to perform one way, even if their real motivations lie elsewhere, true. This was the case with Engels. For example, a cop might be ordered to break up a protest, even if he personally sympathizes with their cause, but his duty as an officer requires him to shut it down. There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing. My point is Zuckerberg is not just any capitalist, he's one of the most successful capitalists in history. Part of the core of Marxism is that production should be owned by the workers, and there should be no capital owning class ruling over the other. By those metrics, he literally could not be farther from Marxist principles. But hey, is he restructuring Facebook to be owned by the workers? Funding organizations to try and bring about an end to capitalism? In other words, making his massive wealth simply a means to a Marxist end? No? Then he's not a Marxist! I don't think it's much clearer than that and doesn't have to do with absolutism so much as everything about how he has lived his life.

I wasn't implying it was, but if your spend your life running a business to make as much money as possible and hoard billions, that certainly excludes you from claiming you practice SOME philosophies, Marxism being one of them. Again, I can't say I'm a non-violent protestor if I'm fire bombing cop cars. I CAN say I'm a freedom fighter or a terrorist, or a conscientious objector, something else, take your pick. But some behaviors naturally exclude certain descriptors.

I think there's some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying because he's a capitalist, that's all he can ever think and other dimensions to his personality are impossible. I'm saying, by definition, nothing about him suggests he is Marxist. I could just be ignorant here, but if I am, what exactly is he doing that could be considered Marxist? Totalitarianism in itself is not Marxist. Neither is influencing politics with your money. Plenty of differing philosophies have used those tactics for all kinds of goals. Trying to bring down capitalism, advocating ownership of production by the workers, eradicating economic classes, THAT is Marxist, and I'm simply unaware of anything Zuckerberg has ever done along those lines, on the contrary.

I don't even know where you thought I did this. Feel free to quote me for clarification. I'm hardly a fan of billionaires running society to their whim.
I have to get some work done, but since you seem like a reasonable guy who has yet to flip out and call me a racist nazi homophobe, I'll come back to this later. Have a good one.
 
Top