[Geeked by flyer so deleted.]
In a recent viral post on X, Dr. Maalouf shared a video of a far-left activist in France extolling the virtues of Islam, describing it as a “religion of openness, gentleness, forgiveness, acceptance” and the “only inclusive religion.” This sentiment, while passionate, has sparked widespread debate and criticism, with many questioning the compatibility between progressive values and certain interpretations of Islamic teachings.
You cannot make up how much the left is eating itself with these types of alliances.
2 Likes
We can play whatever word games that you want to in on the subject. The term Oligarch has a well formed meaning in modern context that has been redefined by the left for specific purposes. More importantly, we can recognize that Aristotle’s context of it dates to a time when the concept of individual property rights or the basic idea of individualism were non existent. In fact, Marxism borrows from Aristotle, hence the reason it became popular in terms of Russian Corruptive grabs for power.
The one playing word games it the one objecting to its usage. Why are you triggered by the term? If you don’t identify as one of the ultrarich, why does it offend you?
6 Likes
It’s not a debt in terms of financial terms. It is a debt in the broader sense of prior actions by groups that then bestows an obligation on future generations, usually based on some immutable characteristics. It is incompatible with Christian principles. Our sin is our own to bear, seek forgiveness, and or reconcile. This is the dystopian nightmare of collectivism. You are from birth defined and owe a debt for which you had no control.
Why do I have to be ultra rich to object to its misuse? It does not offend or trigger me. I’m just calling it out and the nonsense of it for what it is. Do I have to be black, a woman, or gay to object to pejorative terms or mischaracterizations about those groups? When is the first time you remember hearing the word oligarch in this fashion and by whom? Do people think about how these phrases enter the lexicon and then come and go?
And how has US capitalism evolved into?
In Gouged, economic expert and veteran consumer advocate Lindsay Owens takes us inside the corporate boardrooms where pricing decisions are made, uncovering the tricks, traps, and grifts corporations use to jack up the price you pay at checkout. From data collection to drone surveillance, modern technology provides companies a staggering arsenal of sophisticated tools to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible, resulting in record profits. Drawing on original reporting, shareholder meeting transcripts, and rigorous economic analysis, Owens takes aim at Big Tech behemoths, airlines, health insurance companies, and others to pull back the curtain on how price gouging is coming for almost every line item in your household budget, from doctor visits to rent, groceries to diapers, and even your summer vacation.
from AI:
Overview of “Gouged” by Lindsay Owens
“Gouged” is a compelling exploration of how corporations exploit advanced technology and algorithms to manipulate pricing, often resulting in increased costs for consumers. Lindsay Owens, an economic expert and consumer advocate, delves into the tactics used by major companies to maximize profits at the expense of everyday shoppers.
Key Themes
Corporate Pricing Manipulation
- Dynamic Pricing: Companies use algorithms to adjust prices based on consumer behavior and market conditions.
- Surveillance-Based Pricing: Data collection techniques allow businesses to tailor prices to individual consumers, often leading to unfair pricing disparities.
- Hidden Fees and Dark Patterns: The book highlights how manipulative design tricks can lead consumers to pay more than intended.
Consumer Impact
Owens emphasizes the widespread effects of these practices on various aspects of daily life, including:
- Groceries
- Housing
- Travel Expenses
- Insurance Premiums
As corporations reap the benefit from AI will this trend accelerate or decline?
rhetoric question.
2 Likes
Which traditional context? Plato’s? Aristotle’s?
The term wasn’t applied to wealthy Russians until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late 1990s. It seems silly to be ok with the application there, while rejecting its use to describe similar wealthy influencers in other parts of the world, whether they be in the past, present, or future.
You could take that bet, but you’d lose. 17 years ago, “financial oligarchy” was used to describe how banks were working to block reform after the 2008 meltdown. Simon Johnson specifically referred to oligarchs in the US.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/103122382
He wasn’t the only one, many were describing US oligarchs after the Citizens United decision in 2008, when big money political influence exploded.
8 Likes
The oligarchs were in control of Congress at least as early as 1990 when they persuaded Congress to stop closing estate tax loopholes so that millionaires, then billionaires, and now trillionaires could pass massive estates to their heirs without paying taxes.
5 Likes
Yeah, Bernie and AOC draw long connections to the Greek origins of the term. Give me a break. This is a guy unable to differentiate from Equity vs Equality. We are so unserious.
- Terminology Shift: Users on platforms like Reddit and X (formerly Twitter) note that calling someone an “oligarch” instead of a “billionaire” intentionally draws parallels to state capture and concentrated political control, moving past simple wealth accumulation into active governance influence. [1]
- US vs. European Dynamics: Popular comparative text memes contrast “American oligarchs” (who claim they “founded a tech startup”) with “European oligarchs” (whose families traditionally own vast historical land or resources), poking fun at the rebranding of modern corporate power. [1]
- Political Amplification: High-profile political figures and commentators—such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on their “Fighting Oligarchy” tours—frequently use punchy soundbites and shorts that feed directly into social media reaction loops and meme formats regarding income inequality and corporate lobbying. [1, 2]
1 Like
Some people are just prescriptivist. There’s been a meaning shift in the word “oligarch.” Some people get upset at meaning shifts in words and insist that it’s “wrong” somehow. Like, they literally blow up over it, irregardless of whether the meaning is perfectly clear from context and widely established modern usage.
Happens all the time.
4 Likes
Only if you subtract future taxes. Which it seems is the case.
I appreciate your comment. A true prescriptivist would want to stick to the original meaning, no? The term became synonymous with Russian business tycoons only after its use and meaning had already shifted multiple times.
“The term “oligarch” was used in Soviet parlance in the late 1970s and early 1980s to describe magnates in Latin American states allied with the United States. Soviet newspapers would describe workers in Peru, Panama, Argentina or Chile as fighting against “American imperialism and local oligarchs”. In the Cold War great game, oligarchs were the agents of international capital in general and the United States in particular.”
“The problem with the term oligarch as a figure in Russian politics is that its usage has changed repeatedly since Soviet times. Confusion springs from its two often inseparable elements: wealth and political influence. While oligarchs are ideally both, many commentators on Russia need only identify a figure with either wealth or political power, but not necessarily both.”
https://neweasterneurope.eu/2017/10/04/what-is-a-russian-oligarch/
The Prescriptivist Breakdown
- Etymological Accuracy: The word comes from the Greek oligos (few) and arkhein (to rule). Therefore, a prescriptivist insists that a true oligarch must actively belong to a small governing faction.
- The “Wealth” Distinction: In modern everyday speech (descriptivism), “oligarch” is often used as a synonym for any ultra-wealthy individual, particularly from Russia or former Soviet states. A strict prescriptivist would correct this usage, arguing that wealth alone makes someone a plutocrat. To be an oligarch, that wealth must directly translate into systemic political control or governance.
- Systemic Context: A prescriptivist would limit the term to individuals operating within an oligarchy—a specific form of government where power rest-structures structurally reside with a small segment of society (whether distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, or military control).
1 Like
Aristotle DEFINED what he meant with the word, and he was of such critical importance in the invention of the very idea of politics that what he meant ought outweigh the whinging and arrow slinging of all the zillions of lightweights and cheap orators.
Attention to precision in LANGUAGE matters immensely, both in investing and in living together as humans.
4 Likes
Choosing between bigots? The olive branch can be painful if not accepted.
…
3 Likes
When that happens they will ask for another abatement and if they don’t get it, they will move somewhere else that will give it to them. This happens with sports franchises. Chicago Bears heading to Hammond, IN for example. Socialize costs, privatize profits.
JimA
1 Like
Yes, I would agree that this a more correct use of the term. There are some well written articles on India’s telecom and internet sector and its transition from a govt run monopoly to more of an oligarchy. The key difference between the use of the term by progressive socialists in the US is their application to any billionaire that uses his or her wealth in opposition to their ideas and political ambitions. The real meaning of the term has been to describe those that gain and maintain wealth through thetakeover of prior run state businesses. India’s telecom billionaires might actually be something in between Plutocrats and Oligarchs but close enough. Clearly, starlink represents a threat to these businesses which control 80% of the market.
You’re funny.
So Steve Bannon is now a progressive socialist?
“It ain’t gonna be that cold,” he protested, and speculated that the decision must have come to protect the tech billionaires who were invited to sit behind Trump on the dais for the ceremony. “Just because the oligarchs are there. They’re too tender, coming from Silicon Valley. Are they too soft?”
But wait, it gets better! Who knew that our own Vice President was a progressive socialist!
“We are effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too,” Vance said.
4 Likes
Steve Bannon is a provocateur and somebody using the political arena to gain power and money. People stoking populism are pushing very dangerous things, no matter which side they play on. Bannon is more than willing to align himself with anybody and any ideas that serve his own interests. Is that too complex for you to understand that Bannon might use the same pejorative but for different reasons?
How would you define oligarch and do you see a distinction between Musk’s use of it to describe the power structure in India’s telecom sector vs self made Billionaires in the US?
What is your excuse for the VP?
2 Likes