Replies

Yes.

It’s a goal that was conceived before the technology age, when the perception was that taking control of manufacturing and mining/refining would be essential to neutralising western power.

It was largely rendered redundant by the USA and UK moving away from heavy industry in favour of service economies, letting Asia take the lead on microelectronics, and the fetish for offshoring/downsizing in the 80s.

MBAs and venture capital quarterly numbers obsessions were enabling the commie takeover 30 years before we even had Woke.

Tech giants and mass production of cheap goods were encouraged BY CAPITALISM to move their HQs around the world, bypass competition rules, and find the sweat shops.

They’re now uncontrollable.

The commies don’t need to own the tech giants because the tech giants are already beyond democratic control.

The commie manifesto is a red herring; a far more apt reference is the WW2 reaction to Zaibatsu in Japan.

By the 80s it had turned into a silly meme for the movie industry with Nakatomi in Die Hard, Yutani in Aliens and OCP’s aggressive acquisition by Kanemitsu in Robocop 3. Almost always painting Japan not China or Russia as the puppet master being a “too big to fail” global megacorp.

The concept also fed into Taco Bell in Demolition Man. As a result of all this, Wall Street loves business until it becomes a diversified conglomerate, applies a huge risk rating, artificially deflates it’s value, and then wonders why the American giants are now all part owned by China.

The technology age is everything after World War II. A lot of commerce and technology was computerized and digitized throughout the 1950s onward. Thus, the 45 communist goals for the USA are no anachronism.

Tech giants and mass production of cheap goods were encouraged BY CAPITALISM to move their HQs around the world, bypass competition rules, and find the sweat shops …

Actually, not by capitalism. The rest of the 45 communist goals bear that out, as do Karl Marx’s own words:

… (I)n general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

— Brussels, 01/09/1848

I find you too dismissive of the Communist Manifesto. All its ideology is still active, particularly its four targets for abolition, that being of the family, private property, religion and (eventually) national borders.

Not to mention, the takeover of both political parties of the USA was goal number 15. In The Conscience of a Conservative, the author expresses dismay at observing that takeover in action. It was no new thing to be a RINO in the 1950s; Reagan found that out the hard way throughout the 1970s into the 1980s.

People don’t seem aware of how the commie manifesto was enabled by Harvard economics and hard right wing casino capitalism and I get laughed at if I explain it. Until I present this...

Simple question: why is it that a tech firm with one good idea that’s never traded at a profit and has never made anything that works, can be worth 50x more on Wall Street than a prestige brand that makes tens of millions of dollars in profit year after year?

The whole concept of “worth” was flipped on its head decades ago. Sack 100 productive people to get a .01% boost on the company value even if it reduces productivity. Sell off your good machinery. The cash value of a well cooked golden goose is higher than its worth as a thing that lays golden eggs.

If you presented modern economics to the postwar generation they’d think the commies were pulling the strings in Wall Street even in the 70s.