[Ray20]

> What's wrong with that?

The absence of a clear objective boundary of what can be taken and what cannot.

And without such a boundary, such a practice could be quite widespread, with the poorest and smallest actors being the first to be subjected to it, simply because it is easier to take from them and they do not have sufficient influence on the distributing bodies. This is like theory of building socialism 101

[komali2]

> The absence of a clear objective boundary of what can be taken and what cannot.

I don't understand why this is an obstacle - this issue already exists with writing laws and various countries have different solutions, all of which seem to be working kinda ok. There's the USA's constitution which isn't working so well in most cases but working great in others (free speech for example, though this is now failing), whereas other countries depend on histories of case law for example (UK).

It seems to me that if a government specifically sought to target the largest and richest actors it could avoid the issue you're speaking of. Of course this would require removing the ability of capital to influence politics, maybe that's the issue you mean?

[Ray20]

>free speech for example, though this is now failing

I don't quite understand what you mean.

The great advantage of the American constitution in terms of freedom of speech is that it sets a relatively clear boundary. And it is obvious that in this regard the constitution copes with its task perfectly: freedom of speech in the USA is currently protected better than in any other country.

It is so well protected that Americans were able to elect Trump as their leader, despite the fact that more than 80 percent of the mainstream media openly opposed him, and the government tried to shut the mouths of all his supporters under the guise of fighting dis- and misinformation (regardless of how we feel about his personality and presidency).

So if we look at the freedom of speech in the current US on a historical scale, we see exactly the opposite of what you saying: we see how freedom of speech in the US has once again stood firm despite the strongest opposition.

> Of course this would require removing the ability of capital to influence politics

You describe it as if it is something ordinary, not something catastrophic. Just to understand, if the government gets enough power to deprive capital of ability to influence politics - we get Nazi Germany or Russia. In the best case. At worst - the USSR, North Korea or Kampuchea

[komali2]

> freedom of speech in the USA is currently protected better than in any other country.

I don't know every country so I'm not sure if this is true, but it seems to me free speech was decently well protected up to a certain point and so long as you didn't threaten American hegemony. For example there was a long era where you were able to be jailed for being a communist or speaking out against American wars. Or often speech as protest, such as during the civil rights era, was violently put down.

Aesthetically Americans seem to enjoy decent free speech but only so long as it doesn't meaningfully challenge the government. Protests are almost always violently suppressed in America it seems.

Recently the Americans' free speech rights seem to be degrading even further with media being ejected from the press room or sued by the president. Not to mention the chilling effect of calls by prominent politicians to do violence (typically deportation) to various dissidents such as anti Israeli voices.

Other countries elect unpopular politicians, that's not really unique. The American right to call for violence or use slurs against minorities is I suppose unique, I'm not sure why someone would be proud that that right remains unsullied when the bits of free speech that actually matter are being stripped away but so it goes.

> Just to understand, if the government gets enough power to deprive capital of ability to influence politics - we get Nazi Germany or Russia. In the best case. At worst - the USSR, North Korea or Kampuchea

I find this very interesting because you're the first person I've met to openly defend corruption, or the American word for it, lobbying. Most neoliberals want to "keep the good parts of capitalism" but argue that money shouldn't be able to influence politics. Or maybe you draw the line somewhere between corruption and not corruption, when discussing money influencing politics? If so where's that line for you?

The PRC for a while had virtually 0 influence of capital against their government and now they're the second most powerful country on earth - arguably the most powerful, if we compare the ability of either executive leader to control the military (the parade comparison is... embarrassing to say the least). Of course capital still has some influence in the PRC but seems to be not as much as the USA given the PRC will happily nationalize things to this day, or chuck billionaires it doesn't like in prison.

Taiwan seems to have less corruption the USA. The KMT are obscenely wealthy and yet still struggle to get their policy through, and have had a couple of their media stations pulled off air for corruption.

The EU seems to often act against the interests of capital, as well as member nations to a certain degree. I'd be surprised if you denied this since capitalists often use this as evidence FOR the superiority of capitalism against socialism, since America's gdp is so high and businesses prefer to incorporate there.

So it seems to me that Nazi Germany, Russia, USSR, North Korea are more political failures than economic ones. The Soviet Union after all did industrialize the entire empire and was the only serious challenger to American hegemony for decades. Not that I'm a fan but it was hardly a failure until it dissolved - a fate which may befall the United States after all.

[Ray20]

> Americans seem to enjoy decent free speech but only so long as it doesn't meaningfully challenge the government

Trump's election was such a challenge. As we can see, the government failed to restrict freedom of speech.

> Recently the Americans' free speech rights seem to be degrading even further with media being ejected from the press room or sued by the president.

But it always happened. Moreover, media being ejected from the press room is not violation of the free speech, and there have been fewer court cases against the press from the government recently. I'm not saying that free speech in the US is absolute. Just that it is better protected than anywhere else and that it works effectively in the areas where it matters most.

> Other countries elect unpopular politicians, that's not really unique.

But we are talking about exactly the opposite: the election of popular politicians who are opposed by the current government. And this is quite unique.

In Europe, in such cases, such politicians are silenced, imprisoned, banned from running, killed, or results of elections are simply cancelled if people voted incorrectly. And in the rest of the world, the situation generally is even worse than in Europe.

> first person I've met to openly defend corruption, or the American word for it, lobbying.

Lobbying occurs everywhere and it cannot not occur. Even in the most totalitarian and communist societies, the most bloodthirsty dictators do not live in a vacuum and are subject to the influence of various isolated groups. So the attempt to separate lobbying from corruption is primarily aimed at reducing this very corruption.

> argue that money shouldn't be able to influence politics.

This is an impossible situation. Or rather, it is possible, but it implies totalitarian powers of the government. Because politics is by definition influenced by everything, and money is by definition a measure of things that influences everything. And the only option when money will not influence politics is when the government has the power to directly manage capital. In any other case, money influences politics.

So neoliberals who believe that money should not influence politics are stupid prototalitarian pigs, no matter what else they say.

> The PRC for a while had virtually 0 influence of capital against their government

But that's not true at all. At the time when capital in China had no influence on politics - literally millions of people died of hunger there. And later, the Chinese government gave capital unlimited power over some areas of public activity.

> The EU seems to often act against the interests of capital

There is no common interests of capital. Each individual capital has its own interests, usually consisting of eliminating all competitors and becoming a socialist government with a monopoly over all spheres of public activity. And if we look at Europe - without a doubt, this is exactly what is happening there.

> So it seems to me that Nazi Germany, Russia, USSR, North Korea are more political failures than economic ones.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: giving the government such enormous powers to influence all elements of the economy makes it completely unaccountable. Which is certainly a political failure.

> it was hardly a failure until it dissolved

I think here you are already starting to substitute concepts. What do you mean by failure? Soviet industrialization is a propaganda myth, the pre-revolutionary standard of living was achieved only in the 60s, tens of millions of victims of famine, millions of political executions. What do you mean by not a failure? Lack of accountability of government to the public? But then North Korea is a huge success, but you call it a failure.