English has many synonyms.
For instance, look at these words:
Organized crime gang
The fist thing you will notice is that some nouns represent one person and some represent more than one person. Leaving aside the differences between singular and plural nouns, what exactly are the differences between the above words. At first glance, they all appear to mean the same thing, except some cannot be inverted. For instance, corporation and and criminal are obvious synonyms, but it doesn’t work the other way, since many criminals are not incorporated businesses with state charters.
One could argue that there are shades of differences between the above. I would agree with that.
We have many proponents of capitalism in the comments section. Yet capitalism, as practiced everywhere on Earth, automatically turns into an orgy of White-collar crime at best, street crime at worst. There doesn’t seem to be any way around it. Wherever you have capitalists, you have Roman legions of shady businessmen and professional liars and thieves, stretching as far as the eye can see. Capitalist apologists, even if they agree with this, say that that is why the state is needed, to enforce anti-fraud laws.
Yet Gramsci, Marx and anyone with their eyes open can see that under capitalism, the business class and oligarchic rich tend to capture the state. The ruling class and the state are synonymous. The ruling class parasitizes the state and fills the state with its agents, so essentially the state is simply another faction of the ruling class. And the agenda of the capitalist class and the rich, everywhere on Earth, is to get rid of state law enforcement into “business crime.”
Yep, businesses want the freedom to be fraudsters and thieves, even if they are honest themselves. Have you noticed that the US Chamber of Commerce typically throws a 2 year old temper tantrum whenever states start prosecuting more businessmen for fraud? Why? Because the C of C, here, and presumably everywhere, wants fraud to be legal. I guess they think you can settle with the guy in court or something. Especially when he’s offshored most of his operations. Yeah right.
Have you noticed that the overwhelming majorities of both parties decry “regulation of the Internet?” So the Internet is unregulated. Therefore, it’s a sewer with more shady characters and crooks than your average teeming ghetto corner at noon. The reason that 80% of both parties won’t “regulate the Internet” is apparently because they like the fact that it’s The Wild West where criminals outnumber humans 2-1. That or they’ve been brainwashed.
Let’s examine this more closely. Do both parties really prosecute fraud equally? Typically, when a state has a Republican attorney general, fraud and white collar crime rates go through the roof. Same thing when a Republican administration comes in. The Bush and Reagan Administrations were synonymous with corruption. Yet when you get a liberal Democrat in, like here in California, he typically vows to go after white collar crime and fraud. Why should this be only the job of liberals?
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Republican Party thinks that fraud and White collar crime is a-ok. Apparently it’s all part of doing business. Which brings us back to the synonym test above.
Since fraud as thick as locust clouds seems to be automatically inherent in just about any possible capitalist society, what do you capitalist apologists in the comments section propose to be done about this? Are landslides of white collar crime that bury society the price one pays for living in a capitalist society? Inquiring minds want to know.
Sure, you argue that not all businesses are like this, but that’s a typical Internet business. “Internet business” and “scam” are more or less synonymous. And they are synonymous in large part because of the “don’t regulate the Internet” line pushed by both parties and the entire IT industry. So deregulation just means antelope herds of fraudsters galloping through your life. Can’t you guys see this? Capitalism and crime are in praxis one and the same.