🔥 First they came for the incandescent bulbs...
-
@LaoC said:
You do know that a precondiftion of the classless society envisioned by Marx is the "withering away" of the state, don't you?
And that's a significant part of the idiocy of his ideology.
I can understand that it starts to hurt after a while when you try and criticize Social Democracy by calling it "Marxist" regarding the question of government where its position is pretty much diametrically opposed to actual Marxism. That's hardly Marx's fault though.
-
WTF does that have to do with anything I've stated?
-
WTF does that have to do with anything I've stated?
I think he's trying to say that you're full of
. ;)The biggest problems with Marxism are that it makes a bunch of assumptions that turn out to be not true, the primary one of which is that all people are honest all the time. Kick such assumptions out and the rest of the system doesn't hold up, certainly not long-term. Which is not to say that the alternatives are without deep flaws either; often it is the communists that are the best critics of capitalism and the capitalists that are the best at finding the faults in marxism. Reality is messier than models…
-
I think he's trying to say that you're full of
. 
Whatever you think he's saying, he'll tell you that you're wrong. He's saying something else.
often it is the communists that are the best critics of capitalism and the capitalists that are the best at finding the faults in marxism
"The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists." – Willi Schlamm
-
He's saying something else.
Maybe he thinks he's saying something else, but that's not necessarily what is actually being communicated.
And the problem is always “people”.
-
WTF does that have to do with anything I've stated?
You stated some unspecific disagreement with the idea of a state withering away and let me guess what exactly you dislike about it. So I guessed it's for the same reason as @xaade.I think he's trying to say that you're full of
Not really. I think @xaade. ;)wasis confused and I have no idea what @brianw13a's reasoning was.The biggest problems with Marxism are that it makes a bunch of assumptions that turn out to be not true, the primary one of which is that all people are honest all the time. Kick such assumptions out and the rest of the system doesn't hold up, certainly not long-term.
Huh? That would indeed be almost on par in silliness with the popular *Homo Economicus* ("almost" because it's probably safe to say that people are more often honest than rational) but why would it assume that honesty in the first place?
-
it's probably safe to say that people are more often honest than rational
Most people are mostly honest most of the time. But not all people, all the time. Once you add in the systems to deal with the consequences of that, you're a long way down the road to permanent government, especially once you have larger populations (it turn out that human society is not scale-invariant) and that in turn acts strongly against the assumptions of communist theory.
Some of this was not known at all during the 19th century; the discovery of the lack of scale-invariance was one of the more interesting discoveries of the late 20th century in the field of social dynamics. Digressing rapidly… Humans are better at holding societies together than chimpanzees, but not infinitely good. The natural limit with chimps is about 50 and with people it is about 150. Above that, government of some form is required. That “150” factor crops up in all sorts of places in human society as an organisational limit (e.g., it's the size where companies start to really need an HR department, and so probably marks the transition from SME to larger corporation).
I'm usually on the side of what the science says. Sometimes that means apparently opposing both sides of an argument; no reason both groups can't be factually wrong.
-
The trouble with socialism is socialism
I would say that the real trouble is that, when you run it to its logical course, humans themselves become means of production, and therefore humans become public property.
-
I have no idea what @brianw13a's reasoning was.
Most people are mostly honest most of the time. But not all people, all the time. Once you add in the systems to deal with the consequences of that, you're a long way down the road to permanent government,
Pretty much that and also that governments do not like the idea of downsizing or being eliminated. They tend to prefer the opposite.
-
The biggest problems with Marxism are that it makes a bunch of assumptions that turn out to be not true, the primary one of which is that all people are honest all the time. Kick such assumptions out and the rest of the system doesn't hold up, certainly not long-term. Which is not to say that the alternatives are without deep flaws either; often it is the communists that are the best critics of capitalism and the capitalists that are the best at finding the faults in marxism. Reality is messier than models…
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
(Although something something discount anything Mises said about anything ever).
-
@LaoC said:
Of course they're not. And nowadays the vast majority of dishonesty is dealt with without any state intervention at all.it's probably safe to say that people are more often honest than rational
Most people are mostly honest most of the time. But not all people, all the time. Once you add in the systems to deal with the consequences of that, you're a long way down the road to permanent government,
especially once you have larger populations (it turn out that human society is not scale-invariant) and that in turn acts strongly against the assumptions of communist theory.
If you think the nation state is not the right unit size for any sort of social cohesion I agree completely. I didn't know there was any recent research into that but it's quite intuitive—even as a kid I always thought of the "feelings" nationalists supposedly have for their country as something very artificial.Do you mean specifically Marx's assumptions (which?) or do you think those assumptions necessary for any theory that thinks government shouldn't exist?
I'm usually on the side of what the science says. Sometimes that means apparently opposing both sides of an argument; no reason both groups can't be factually wrong.
Me likes. "Much enemy, much honor", as the Krauts say
I would say that the real trouble is that, when you run it to its logical course, humans themselves become means of production, and therefore humans become public property.
You mean they'd become "Human Resources"? Whow. Just to think of it ...Pretty much that and also that governments do not like the idea of downsizing or being eliminated. They tend to prefer the opposite.
Sounds kinda fatalist.
If the withering-away scenario is ever to happen however, they'd know full well that they're governing a people who've just done away with the previous government. Of course in the light of Stalinism I tend to think maybe the anarchists are right and you can't leave anything to wither away to begin with once you're done with the old government.Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
(Although something something discount anything Mises said about anything ever).
What was that about Mises?
Regarding the calculation, Mises and Hayek, who were used to accountants using big leather-bound ledgers and sending expensive morse-code messages where mounted couriers wouldn't do, would be surprised to see today's centrally planned economies with hundreds of thousands of participants using "electronic brains", as they'd have called them, that communicate at the speed of light (well, 2/3c give or take a bit) and can "orient" themselves just fine "among the bewildering mass of intermediate products and potentialities of production". We call these economies "multinational enterprises".
That's not to say central planning in a nation state was a smart idea BTW, just that "Enterprise Resource Planning" is a big thing today and even if we wrinkle our noses at ABAP that's not the fault of ERP in general.
-
What was that about Mises?
He was a bit of a crank. Some of the 'praxeology' stuff is probably the clearest indication.
Regarding the calculation, Mises and Hayek, who were used to accountants using big leather-bound ledgers and sending expensive morse-code messages where mounted couriers wouldn't do, would be surprised to see today's centrally planned economies with hundreds of thousands of participants using "electronic brains", as they'd have called them, that communicate at the speed of light (well, 2/3c give or take a bit) and can "orient" themselves just fine "among the bewildering mass of intermediate products and potentialities of production". We call these economies "multinational enterprises".That's not to say central planning in a nation state was a smart idea BTW, just that "Enterprise Resource Planning" is a big thing today and even if we wrinkle our noses at ABAP that's not the fault of ERP in general.
And it's generally accepted that most of the large-to-very-large companies doing that kind of thing are wildly inefficient compared to smaller companies; economies of scale, network effects, regulations, etc. battle it out with the fundamental inefficiency of large centrally-planned entities to determine what size entities can get before they fall over.
I do think that the argument that central planning is fundamentally impossible is over-egged, but the point that market mechanisms are a very effective way of generating prices seems very strong, at least to me. Any effective centrally-planned economy tends to reinvent market mechanisms in an internal way, via budgeting or similar.
(What you do with that is a good question, though. I'm not in favour of laissez-faire economics myself; just pointing out a separate and interesting problem that Marxism has).
-
it's probably safe to say that people are more often honest than rational
Most people are mostly honest most of the time
That doesn't matter. You don't lock your house because everybody's a crook, you lock your house because there's at least one crook out there somewhere.
-
You mean they'd become "Human Resources"? Whow. Just to think of it ...
Yes, but it means something different in Marxism.
-
We call these economies "multinational enterprises".
Nope. Not even close.
And I don't think even you take your suggestion seriously that those are good examples of being able to efficiently allocate their own resources, let alone for the rest of us.
-
What are pencils? Fuck pencils! I don't even need biros! I prick a finger and scrawl in blood!
-
Are Model M's blood resistant? Asking for a friend.
-
Are Model M's blood resistant? Asking for a friend.
Probably not and I would recommend against trying. They're a good keyboard.I just looked down at my own keyboard... Somethings can't be unseen...
-
His point was to show of how smart he thinks he is by demonstrating a bit of theoretical knowledge without considering relevant facts even for a moment. I'm not surprised, given that he failed out of thermodynamics (and then blamed the professor's politics).
-
Sounds kinda fatalist.
What makes the bourgeoisie of communism any different than the bourgeoisie of capitalism? (Except the obvious, capitalist controls the means of production vs the communist that controls that plus all other government forces)If the withering-away scenario is ever to happen however, they'd know full well that they're governing a people who've just done away with the previous government.
You're assuming it gets that far which I disagree with.
-
I do think that the argument that central planning is fundamentally impossible is over-egged, but the point that market mechanisms are a very effective way of generating prices seems very strong, at least to me. Any effective centrally-planned economy tends to reinvent market mechanisms in an internal way, via budgeting or similar.
There's also the point that if a business creates a product that people are willing to pay more than cost for, the business has at least done something positive with the resources. Maybe not the optimum, but without real prices, there's no way to be sure that they have even done something positive.
-
@LaoC said:
Ah, sure. It may have sounded appealing 100 years ago, now I'd just call it falsified by modern psychology.What was that about Mises?
He was a bit of a crank. Some of the 'praxeology' stuff is probably the clearest indication.
The same could be said about Hayek. I don't know much about his earlier stuff but at least "The use of information in society" should have been reason enough to stop taking him seriously.And it's generally accepted that most of the large-to-very-large companies doing that kind of thing are wildly inefficient compared to smaller companies; economies of scale, network effects, regulations, etc. battle it out with the fundamental inefficiency of large centrally-planned entities to determine what size entities can get before they fall over.
Is it? Varying definitions of "efficiency" aside, I can't see any inclination to fall over in companies like Walmart, McDonalds or Foxconn, each of which is the size of a small country both in employees and output. And with brief interruptions during crises when bankruptcies break up companies, there has been a fairly steady trend towards larger companies over the last decades.I do think that the argument that central planning is fundamentally impossible is over-egged, but the point that market mechanisms are a very effective way of generating prices seems very strong, at least to me.
If that is your goal, yes. That's quite distinct from maximizing benefit to people though.@LaoC said:
You mean they'd become "Human Resources"? Whow. Just to think of it ...
Yes, but it means something different in Marxism.
Ah. Must be that special brand of Marqsisme de Xaade, a cornerstorne of which is Faith-Based Religion™.@LaoC said:
We call these economies "multinational enterprises".
Nope. Not even close.
I'm not sure in what way you think this video would contradict anything I said, so I'll just assume it's a chattier version of your usual "Huh?"@LaoC said:
The bourgeoisie. In communism. Controls the government.Sounds kinda fatalist.
What makes the bourgeoisie of communism any different than the bourgeoisie of capitalism? (Except the obvious, capitalist controls the means of production vs the communist that controls that plus all other government forces)
That's like … yeah, in a pride of lions it's also the queen that lays the eggs, isn't it?@LaoC said:
I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. The point was simply that this is how Marxism says it's gonna be so calling faith in government a cornerstone of Marxism is nothing else but ignorance.If the withering-away scenario is ever to happen however, they'd know full well that they're governing a people who've just done away with the previous government.
You're assuming it gets that far which I disagree with.There's also the point that if a business creates a product that people are willing to pay more than cost for, the business has at least done something positive with the resources. Maybe not the optimum, but without real prices, there's no way to be sure that they have even done something positive.
Thanks for reminding me what was positive about those arms shipments to the Saudis. I was sure there must be something.
-
Oh man, nice comment though: "i never did like phillips screwdrivers. guess the company isn't any better."
But it's not the same Phil(l)ips.
-
-
So give Philip his screwdriver back!
-
I don't know much about his earlier stuff but at least "The use of information in society" should have been reason enough to stop taking him seriously.
This sentence went on for far too long. You clearly don't understand the knowledge problem either.
I'm not sure in what way you think this video would contradict anything I said, so I'll just assume it's a chattier version of your usual "Huh?"
Likewise. But you don't even understand (as evidenced in what I quoted above) what you're trying to argue against, so that's not surprising.
-
Do they work? I thought plants needed a full-on spectrum, including infrared and ultraviolet.
Give a blue photon to chlorophyll, it will go to a state where it can absorb two red photons to produce O2, H+ and e- from water. No need for full-spectrum, but the blue photon is absolutely needed.
Don't ask me for the exact wavelengths, I don't know.
-
The bourgeoisie. In communism. Controls the government.That's like … yeah, in a pride of lions it's also the queen that lays the eggs, isn't it?
Originally I stated that the withering away of government was part of Marx's idiocy. Having all power vested in government is recipe for disaster. In my opinion, vesting all power in government is counter to it withering away as planned by Marx. If bourgeoisie are behaving badly, I find it hard to believe that the empowered proletariat (government) would behave any differently.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
This sentence went on for far too long.Huh?
FTFYYou're not even trying any more.
-
Ah. Must be that special brand of Marqsisme de Xaade, a cornerstorne of which is Faith-Based Religion™.
raised eyebrow
shrugs
walks away
-
Post was too old, forget it.
-
Don't ask me for the exact wavelengths, I don't know.
Chances are it doesn't need to be exact. Chlorophyll is a molecule, so it will have a band absorption spectrum. A quick google suggests it absorbs fairly well across the blue-violet and violet regions but drops off sharply in the mid-blue to green-blue, with a peak a little below 450nm, maybe about 440 or so.
-
I suppose.
He focused in on the term Human Resources, and completely ignored the "cornerstone" of Marxism which is public ownership of the means of production, of which Humans naturally become.
Unless those Humans are offered inalienable rights, there's nothing to stop that progression.
-
Why the fuck do you randomly just shove my name in there to make notifications?
the really funny thing here is that Phillips is doing this about a week after Keurig admitted to destroying their own business by doing the exact same thing.
Because when the topic seems to speak to something you said before, I'm interested in what you might have to say about the topic.
It makes the discussion more...
Interesting
-
Unless those Humans are offered inalienable rights, there's nothing to stop that progression.
The usual challenge is to figure out which inalienable rights a particular group is prioritising. It's not possible to put all of them first; any software engineer will know that putting everything top priority means putting nothing top priority. By what is actually valued will one's society be defined.
-
Originally I stated that the withering away of government was part of Marx's idiocy. Having all power vested in government is recipe for disaster. In my opinion, vesting all power in government is counter to it withering away as planned by Marx.
That's true, but I see no indication Marx intended to have all power vested in government.If bourgeoisie are behaving badly, I find it hard to believe that the empowered proletariat (government) would behave any differently.
"Behaving badly" is not the problem. Behaving exactly conforming to the intended economic order is. That's a distinction that admittedly many self-proclaimed anticapitalists don't get when they rave about bankers' "greed" or "casino capitalism" as if the problem was one of the participants' character, an "excess of finance" or something like that.
-
-
-
Behaving exactly conforming to the intended economic order is
You would think capitalism is a conspiratorial order.
It's much better to be overtly communistic.
At least now I know that the real moral superiority is just being honest about the foot you have on people's necks.
-
@LaoC said:
Behaving exactly conforming to the intended economic order is
You would think capitalism is a conspiratorial order.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/order
You're misunderstanding sense #1 as #6.At least now I know that the real moral superiority is just being honest about the foot you have on people's necks.
As I certainly don't have any foot on anyone's neck, I suppose you're talking about some kind of government someone (certainly with the best of intentions) has told you was characteristic of Marxism. As long as even Conservapedia is less delusional I'm afraid there's no help for you.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
plantwoman
If this is @Yamikuronue, I'd like to ask her how she felt about killing her father tonight.
-
You're misunderstanding sense #1 as #6.
If there is an intended economic order, and it benefits certain people, then both forms of order must exist. You must be implying an oligarchy for sense #1 to be possible.
has told you was characteristic of Marxism
Demonstrate to me one real-life arrangement based upon principles of Marxism that doesn't come with a boot on a neck.
-
@LaoC said:
Yes, after a week without internet and then some work to catch up on I do have to revive this.You're misunderstanding sense #1 as #6.
If there is an intended economic order, and it benefits certain people, then both forms of order must exist. You must be implying an oligarchy for sense #1 to be possible.
Why does there have to be an order of monks or the like for there to be an intended economic order?@LaoC said:
has told you was characteristic of Marxism
Demonstrate to me one real-life arrangement based upon principles of Marxism that doesn't come with a boot on a neck.
Demonstrate me a nation-state that doesn't come with a boot on a neck and I might try. It's pretty hard, with every single of the five existing self-declared socialist country adhering to Lenin who had a pretty different vision from Marx of state power. Of course most are bullshit socialism anyway, at least by now. Vietnam made a good start with a revolutionary who admired at least the human rights parts of the US constitution. Unfortunately he was driven into bed with the Soviets so the whole thing didn't turn out so well, though in any case he'd have been hard pressed to match the boot on the neck of the Vietnamese people that symbolizes the US' killing of over a million and a half of them.
In Laos you wouldn't get the idea that anything here could be socialist if it wasn't for the red flags and the policemen wearing 70s soviet-style uniforms.
Cuba comes closest to something based on actual Marxism, although "closest" isn't saying a lot there either—see Lenin above.
-
Demonstrate me a nation-state that doesn't come with a boot on a neck and I might try.
Everyone looks at you like you're crazy when you point it out, though.
-
Why does there have to be an order of monks or the like for there to be an intended economic order?
Maybe it would help if you defined "intended economic order".
Unless you're starting to include some Cosmic Being, there is no intended order, there is a competition of interests.
Demonstrate me a nation-state that doesn't come with a boot on a neck and I might try.
Every single one of your potential ideals doesn't come to pass.
Let's examine.
the five existing self-declared socialist country adhering to Lenin who had a pretty different vision from Marx of state power
Because Marx evolves into Lenin in practice. There simply isn't a way to have public ownership of the means of productivity without devolving into humanity becoming one of those means of production.
Vietnam made a good start with a revolutionary who admired at least the human rights parts of the US constitution
Because, that alone is why we have more freedom than any Communistic country. Wow... your incapacity to simulate ideologies in practice or recognize how they end up failing is bizarre.
I think the whole "The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists / problem with Socialism is Socialism" sums it up.
boot on the neck of the Vietnamese people that symbolizes the US' killing of over a million and a half of them.
Non sequitur.
See Soviet Russia.
These Socialists always end up with some brand of cultural revolution, capitalism scare, and subsequent death of large amounts of innocents.
Compare that to the "Red Scare" here in the states, that didn't end up in a complete cultural revolution and subsequent enslavement of our entire population.
And yet, here we are in the modern era being told to spy on our neighbors again, by a new set of authoritarians... the neo-liberals.
Cuba comes closest to something based on actual Marxism, although "closest" isn't saying a lot there either
Again, you fail to see that it's not socialism, it's authoritarianism.
The world's big bad Communism states were all highly authoritarian, because they let a bunch of uninformed uneducated dumb sheep hand the keys of the country over to authoritarians, because they got their way and realized they had no capacity to run a country.
-
@LaoC said:
Said bourgeoisie always exists within a state that usually has a kind of economic order set in the constitution or other laws. That's the intended economic order.Why does there have to be an order of monks or the like for there to be an intended economic order?
Maybe it would help if you defined "intended economic order".
Unless you're starting to include some Cosmic Being, there is no intended order, there is a competition of interests.
When some of these interests are deemed unconstitutional, they can usually (i.e. outside of civil war or so) be considered irrelevant.@LaoC said:
Which potential ideals? You mean the countries I called bullshit on?Demonstrate me a nation-state that doesn't come with a boot on a neck and I might try.
Every single one of your potential ideals doesn't come to pass.@LaoC said:
What's the inherent reason for it to evolve into Lenin and not, say, into Trotzki or Kropotkin? If public ownership i.e. ownership by the people) of means of production did imply the people becoming means of production, that would imply the means of production owned themselves. That sounds strongly like a problem with your definitions. You haven't explained what you think "means of production" means in Marxism, just that it's apparently something different from the commonly accepted meaning. Maybe you're confusing them with "factors of production"?the five existing self-declared socialist country adhering to Lenin who had a pretty different vision from Marx of state power
Because Marx evolves into Lenin in practice. There simply isn't a way to have public ownership of the means of productivity without devolving into humanity becoming one of those means of production.
@LaoC said:
So Ho Chi Minh writing a Declaration of Independence like this was bad how?Vietnam made a good start with a revolutionary who admired at least the human rights parts of the US constitution
Because, that alone is why we have more freedom than any Communistic country.@LaoC said:
True. Intentionally mangled quotes tend to be, look:boot on the neck of the Vietnamese people that symbolizes the US' killing of over a million and a half of them.
Non sequitur.
Russia.
Non sequitur.These Socialists always end up with some brand of cultural revolution, capitalism scare, and subsequent death of large amounts of innocents.
Do you mean it was fine to kill them because the Russians had a huge fucking boot on their people's neck, too, or the dead were the Communists' fault for not letting good old colonialism rule in the South?Compare that to the "Red Scare" here in the states, that didn't end up in a complete cultural revolution and subsequent enslavement of our entire population.
How quickly the remaining guarantees human rights even for US citizens were flushed down the drain together with the Rule of Law after 2001 should be an indication what would happen if there was indeed an existential threat to the country.And yet, here we are in the modern era being told to spy on our neighbors again, by a new set of authoritarians... the neo-liberals.
@LaoC said:
False dilemma. Those are orthogonal categories.Cuba comes closest to something based on actual Marxism, although "closest" isn't saying a lot there either
Again, you fail to see that it's not socialism, it's authoritarianism.
Yes, Cuba is fairly authoritarian. It's also remarkably peaceful and resilient economically—compare Cuba's situation in the 90s to Europe's big fucking crisis and rising violence in the face of a bunch of refugees they could provide for out of the petty cash box. And authoritarian or not, the worst human rights violations on the island are still happening in the part that's not Castro-run.
The main point however is that Cuba has not just used socialism as a cover-up for the usual kleptocracies but has some communally owned institutions that are doing very well, not just relatively to their conditions but absolutely, first of all their medical service and education.The world's big bad Communism states were all highly authoritarian, because they let a bunch of uninformed uneducated dumb sheep hand the keys of the country over to authoritarians, because they got their way and realized they had no capacity to run a country.
Which has very little if anything to do with Marx's economic theory.
-
Said bourgeoisie always exists within a state that usually has a kind of economic order set in the constitution or other laws. That's the intended economic order.
Why does there have to be an order of monks or the like for there to be an intended economic order?
So, you're turning back on what you said.
Either there is some oligarchy group that cooperates in the shadows or its just the competition of interests.
I'm not denying that corporate has heavy lobby power, but so does the unions. Unions are some of the biggest donors to campaigns.
When some of these interests are deemed unconstitutional,
Again, despite this manufactured image by the US liberal media, unions have massive lobbying power. The real interests that are being ignored, are the interests of the actual middle and poor classes. Some bankrolled union is not representative of the workers unless they are a special case. Someone that's rolling in millions has no interest to stop the union lobby.
Which potential ideals? You mean the countries I called bullshit on?
The potential socialist paradise. It never happens.
that would imply the means of production owned themselves
But that can't happen in practice.
What it means is that some oligarchy ends up owning the public.
You haven't explained what you think "means of production" means in Marxism
Is land a means of production?
Is labor a means of production?They are both means of production.
So Ho Chi Minh writing a Declaration of Independence like this was bad how?
It isn't. That's my point.
The error is
Unfortunately he was driven into bed with the Soviets
That's THE reason we fought in the war.
Do you mean it was fine to kill them because the Russians had a huge fucking boot on their people's neck, too, or the dead were the Communists' fault for not letting good old colonialism rule in the South?
That doesn't make sense. Fine to kill who? The Soviets who fucked over their people and gave them the exact opposite the people hoped for?
You're comparing two bads as if one is superior, I don't understand what your point is.
False dilemma. Those are orthogonal categories.
That was my POINT. Gad.
The authoritarianism of implemented socialism that devloves into communism is the problem.
Socialism without heavy authoritarianism is anarchy.
bunch of refugees they could provide for out of the petty cash box
You mean the ones, that after giving to hotels and being provided for, marched in the streets, lit tires on fire, and threw furniture out of the hotels because it wasn't enough?
Which has very little if anything to do with Marx's economic theory.
Which remains a damned theory.
Show me it in practice.
-
Does it really surprise you? Philips was a part of the Phoebus Cartel, after all.
-
Everyone looks at you like you're crazy when you
point it out, thoughthink authority can be exercised without boots.empty post is empty
Phoebus cartel - Wikipedia
