From the excellent Douglas Rushkoff:
http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/intro/
O.
Printable View
From the excellent Douglas Rushkoff:
http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/intro/
O.
Some of his premises are accurate, his conclusions are the opposite of what the merits of the factual principles he lays out would indicate.
Interesting perspective. The idea, as I follow it, is that corporatism has become part of our personal lives. The author begins by telling the story of how he was reprimanded for reporting a crime. Having reported the crime might reduce property values charged his critics. Although a frank open discussion might head off future problems, short term considerations are what is important to corporate thinking.
From the article-
"It’s not the fault of a government or a corporation, the news media or the
entertainment industry, but the merging of all these entities into a
single, highly centralized authority with the ability to write laws, issue
money, and promote its expansion into our world."
"This is the landscape of corporatism: a world not merely domi-
nated by corporations, but one inhabited by people who have internal-
ized corporate values as our own. And even now that corporations
appear to be waning in their power, they are dragging us down with
them; we seem utterly incapable of lifting ourselves out of their de-
pression."
His conclusion that corporatism is a bad thing is erroneous and an oversimplification [[propaganda like).
Unregulated federal/socialism as in coercive monopolies are the root of what you are referring to.
Where did I say unregulated?
Well, unregulated in the sense that the biased beneficiaries of said regulations are government and the cronies thereof.
Given these necessary qualifiers...you are correct.
The military-industrial complex warned about by Eisenhower is really here, folks, and has been for some time. We're just more aware of it now.
Unregulated business is the key to all of this. We can thank Phil Gramm for the commodities reformation act of 2000 which gave us the open season on sub-prime mortgages as well as loan-shark rates on credit cards. We can thank Bill Clinton and the republican majoity controlled congress for the repeal of the Glass-Stiegel Act which removed key dampers from the financial landscape.
We also need to return to a 90% tax rate for all income over 5 million [[2 million in the 50's) which would discourage legacy wealth, which does nothing positive for society, and in fact harms it. Legacy wealth may enrich Neiman Marcus, but creates no manufacturing jobs, and is detrimental to the GNP and serves no purpose other than creating a robber baron class, which I though we were suppose to be getting beyond since the early 20th century.
Repugnicans are hysterical over what they perceive as "socialism" from Obama's policies- news flash- we already have socialism. What do you think Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are? We need a single payer health care system, which the aforementioned bureaucracies are, and by expanding them, and taking the profit out of health care, i.e. the insurance companies- we will then have a quality health care system on the model of most European nations which have a much better track record of getting health care to the people.
Insurance and big pharma lobbies need to be destroyed in order to make a single payer system work well. Let's get started!:)
rb, I'm aware of that comment attributable to Mussolini. I would just like to nuance it. I would slightly modify the formula to corporatism=economic fascism. The reason is because to many people, fascism has connotations of gas chambers. As we know, Bush's Wall Street bailout did not involve gas chambers but it was a shining example of 'economic fascism'.
What I liked about this article was that the author delved into the idea that people have too often internalized corporatism into their behavior.
I came across a post that sort of dovetails with this article. Exerpts-
I remember during the Clinton administration there was the big uproar over Elian Gonzales. On the day that the swat team broke down the door with their guns drawn and kidnapped that child from law abiding citizens..... it was all over the news. I was sitting in an airport. I was sick to my stomach reading the article and looking at the pictures of that terrified child with an automatic rifle pointed at him. I thought to myself, "well, it is not significant that the government DID this because that is what governments DO. What will be significant will be whether the populace ACCEPTS this or demands prosecutions". Needless to say..... the populace did nothing .... after all the stock market was doing well and portfolios were growing by leaps and bounds....so why rock the boat. At that point I knew that the country was officially over because the PEOPLE had given tacit approval of this police state action.
When a society as a whole rejects it's moral compass, prefers the immediate unearned pleasure to the long term pleasure that must be earned, prefers stealing goods from one's neighbor rather than working for one's own livelihood, prefers the convenience of immediate pleasure over the responsibilities of family, prefers eliminating unwanted children or elders as too much trouble, and prefers to allow others to do the "thinking" for them, in effect that society leads itself into extinction preferring a culture of death over a culture of life...... At that point, the society itself sets the tone and ELECTS LEADERS LIKE THEMSELVES...
It is the PEOPLE that must change their outlook and their demands upon their elected officials. THEN we will get different people elected. WHAT THE COUNTRY HAS BECOME IS WHAT THE POPULACE HAS WANTED! Clinton and Bush and Obama were elected because THEY ARE what the country has BECOME - not the other way around. We have become a nation of killers, thieves, liars and con-men..... a nation of PIRATES. -elviejo
Mussolini, a preeminent Fascist, defines fascism as a way of evading the label.....Quick hint, don't use that reference.
Here’s an eclectic quote selection that relate to economic power and the government’s use of military power abroad to advance U.S. economic interests. I even found a Mussolini quote for our favorite “Randian” or is that “Randinista?”
“I firmly believe that when any territory outside the present territorial limits of the United States becomes necessary for our defense or essential for our commercial development, we ought to lose no time in acquiring it.” Sen. Orville Platt [[R-Connecticut) 1894.
“We are the ruling race of the world…We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world…He has marked us as His chosen people…He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile people.” U.S. Senator [[R-Indiana) Albert Beverage, 1900 commenting on the U.S. invasion of the Philippines
“What the proletariat needs is a bath of blood.” Benito Mussolini, speech in Milan, July 22, 1919
“We are going to war on the command of gold...I feel that we are about to put a dollar sign on the American flag.” George Norris, U.S. Senator from Nebraska commenting on the U.S. entrance into WWI
“Why, my fellow-citizens, is there any man here, or any woman – let me say, is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? ...This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.” President Woodrow Wilson, September 15, 1919 commenting on the U.S. involvement in WWI
“The prosperity of the lower and middle classes depends upon the good fortune and light taxes of the rich.” Andrew Mellon, treasury secretary under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover; founder of Gulf Oil and Alcoa who, at his appointment, was the third richest man in America
“The revenue bill as passed in the House is indefensible. In a nutshell it is a millionaires' bill. Practically all the reductions made are on the taxes of the incomes of those who are immensely wealthy Mr. Mellon himself gets a larger personal reduction than the aggregate of practically all the taxpayers in the state of Nebraska. The reduction of inheritance taxes on big fortunes contained in this bill is a greater step backward than has been taken by Congress since the war. It was passed by the House without fair consideration, without reasonable opportunity for debate, and is a demonstration of the working of the new rules just adopted by that body, enabling a few men who are alleged leaders to dominate the House and handle it as completely as the master controls his servant.” Nebraska’s U.S. Senator George Norris commenting on the tax cuts proposed by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon
“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service in the country's most agile military force, the Marines. I served in all ranks from second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
“I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
“Thus I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers and Co. in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel that I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents.” Major General Smedley Butler [[July 30, 1881-June 21, 1940), former US Marine Corps Commandant and twice the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor in a speech delivered in 1933.
“We have about 60% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." George Kennan, former Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff, Document PPS23, 24th February 1948
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953.
“That's the great problem of history and somehow we find it hard to sell our values, namely that the rich should plunder the poor." Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in conversation with President Eisenhower 1958
“Our upside down welfare state is ‘socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor.’ The great welfare scandal of the age concerns the dole we give rich people.” Retired Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, Points of Rebellion, 1969, p68
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961
Welcome back, Omaha.
Your wit has been missed.:cool:
Thanks Jams. Keep up the good work.
I see that the new format has not ended "running the board." But there are constants in life, and DetroitYes's Randinista is one of them. Thank goodness he is seen for what he is.
My job now makes it much more difficult to visit but occasionally. It takes a lot of energy to post as a Social Darwinist and faux [[FOX?) conservative ala my hero, Stephen Colbert. But it is also fun.
So remember that all of the so-called “progressive movements" [[Abolitionists, Suffragettes, Organized labor, Civil Rights, etc.) that historically have extended our founding ideals and fundamental rights to groups beyond the original property-owing white males [[who are the only people that have inalienable human rights) are anti-American and run counter to the "original intent" of our beloved Founding Fathers.
Furthermore, it’s a crime that our poorly-run, NEA-dominated, liberal schools no longer teach that the only Divinely-inspired people to ever intentionally and violently break a legally binding economic contract were our Founding Fathers when they ended the master/servant relationship that was the English/Colonial experience. Our great revolution freed them to use their liberty, economic, and military power to take what God had inspired them to take. Our noble leaders led us across this nation in a Heaven-sent Manifest Destiny that didn't end with settling our war-liberated west coast but extended our reign to the savage corners of the Pacific Rim and beyond.
God Bless Social Darwinism, the Free Enterprise system, and the Corporatization of America and the Globe!
[quote=oladub;17581]rb, I'm aware of that comment attributable to Mussolini. I would just like to nuance it. I would slightly modify the formula to corporatism=economic fascism. The reason is because to many people, fascism has connotations of gas chambers. As we know, Bush's Wall Street bailout did not involve gas chambers but it was a shining example of 'economic fascism'.
yes, i would agree. fascism is NOT the same as Naziism, although Nazis were clearly an offshoot of the fascists
Rb, As sometimes happens, we are in agreement. Nazi refugee and economist Friedrich Hayek stated the when central planning doesn't work, the tendency is for the planners, in this case German, tend to covers their mistakes with autocratic rule and censorship. However, not every instance of economic fascism has such negative results. For instance, some of Roosevelt's government/industry/labor arrangements eventually petered out without turning into anything Nazi like.
Omaha, I agree the the founders fashioned the Constitution to be flexible enough to be amended to change thus allowing an expansion of voting groups -something unimaginable in their day. But why do you think that Heaven-sent Manifest Destiny allows presidents to bomb Pakistani villages?
Ola, one of the hallmarks of fascism is a major crackdown on labor and trade unions [[also part of il duce's definition). FDR's programs were not fascist, by definition
Manifest Destiny is a phrase that describes our nation’s desire to enshrine the self-evident value of “progress” as central to our country's physical and economic growth. Oh, Sinclair Lewis may have made fun of an America dedicated to Progress, but rest assured that our American Exceptionalism is part and parcel of that grand ideal.
It is our nation’s duty to expand democracy [[and its inextricable corollary “free market capitalism”) to other more primitive countries. Our Manifest Destiny is at its core a binding obligation to open a world of civilization, refinement, and human liberty for our citizens and all those Godless heathens we encountered along the way.
It’s important to note that we broke away from a nation that had a similar view of its ultimate objective to civilize the world. They treated us not much more than a source of raw materials, a dumping ground for unwanted people and a revenue stream. They may even have seen their work in the Colonies as having a “civilizing aspect” to it. But they believed in the Divine Right of Kings; we believe in Heaven-sent Manifest Destiny. Ergo, we are better and right in what we do. ;)
As a nation, our good works were not finished upon reaching the Pacific [[thanks to the Mexican American war). We then consolidated our work with the grateful help of the Chinese laborers toiling for the Central Pacific in the creation of the first transcontinental rail line. Thanks to Social Darwinism we were able to visit human liberty upon these Chinese immigrants. Our generosity to the Chinese in this time period is legendary. And they returned the favor by opening many small laundries to keep this a neat and tidy nation. :)
Always looking to better the world, we reached out beyond our shores to end ancient monarchies and aristocracies. It didn’t hurt that we also created economic opportunities for our great industrial forces to properly use any natural resources that were sitting idle in these countries [[which, in my mind was an abomination to God).
Those guiding principles of Progress and Manifest Destiny make it imperative that we bring our kind of civilization, refinement, and human liberty to those in need of it. I am on board with the folks at the Project for a New American Century: it’s our Destiny to share our American greatness with those of other nations. :D
I could go on and on, but I shan’t.
You help me understand the Bush/Obama involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - and Iran. Oh, such possibilities!Quote:
Those guiding principles of Progress and Manifest Destiny make it imperative that we bring our kind of civilization, refinement, and human liberty to those in need of it. I am on board with the folks at the Project for a New American Century: it’s our Destiny to share our American greatness with those of other nations.
Oladub, I am with you. Together we will bring education to the uneducated or “dumb masses” or is that “dumb asses?” [[I think that could be a great play on the symbol of the Democratic Party…what do you think?)
You’re right the possibilities are endless. Manifest Destiny, Progress and other great economic ambitions have been the stimuli to our U.S. goals of expansion for a long time. I mean if olive oil had been the primary export of Iraq, would we have gone there?
The United States has a history of being a “Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead” kind of nation under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
My only worry is that that there are those like past Presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, and Eisenhower who occasionally speak out against our lofty foreign policy goals. They use and their fellow travelers use terms like “naked ambition” and “imperialism.”
I have a couple of quotes from those “nay sayers” in my above post. Read the one from the two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner! What a “cry baby” he is.
I know scholars like yourself and Cc will agree with me that there should be limits on that kind of so-called “free speech.” It’s just downright un-American.
And from reading your posts over time, I know that there’s one thing you’re NOT, and that’s un-American. We’re the kind of “America firsters” that wish men like the young Republican Senator from Indiana, Albert J. Beveridge, were still around today. He was an orator’s orator. His words about our national duty will forever shine in history: “We will not renounce our parting the mission of our race: trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world.”
I just wish that President Obama would listen more closely to the kind of sage counsel on foreign policy that folks like former VP Cheney, Stephen Colbert and El Rushmo offer. I believe that all three, as Rush says, have their talent on loan from God!
More, this time on alternative currencies and hacking the economy:
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/article...acking-economy
I can't remember the name of the recently-instituted local currency that some downtown and midtown-area business are supporting.
O.
A whole lotta fascist fringers on this thread!
First of all it's our American Exceptionalism that has gotten us into the position we now find ourselves. We are not suppose to be empire builders, but repugnicans somehow feel the need to spread "democracy" around the globe at the point of a gun, which as we know, doesn't work.
So the Tushies smacked the hornet's nest in the middle east, and now we're even less safe than we were after 9/11, which as we know happened on Tush's watch, the known facts being ignored, ending thousands of American lives.
Only prison and bankruptcy will make these fascist thugs understand what they've done. Let's hope the EU court system has the balls to indict Bush, Cheney & company, since our criminal justice system is apparently OK with war crimes and the murder of millions of innocent people in the thirst for corporate oil profits.
Conservatives and libertarians have it right in looking to the individual for prosperity and fearing big government for the opposite reason. I don't believe that we [[conservatives) are much interested in spreading democracy unless it is to protect our interests and security.
That is precisely why Bush is not a real conservative. He wasn't interested in protecting America's interest, only his oil buddies, and he certainly wasn't interested in the America's security. Bats,even you can see that, now you should stop defending neo-cons, and their mouth pieces like Rush.
excellent post, Otter.
Great thoughts from many..
I know that I am preaching to the choir when I remind folks that Spanish and Italian Fascism, as well as more contemporary forms of fascism [[often aided and abetted by the American Government) in places like Latin America, Indonesia, The Phillipines, etc did not involve Auschwitz style concentration camps, but did involve mass executions, kidnapping, death squads and in general state terrorism against citizens along with an economic system that benefited a fragment of the population.
I created a separate thread about this video, but the rampant consumerism that seems to be shoved at us with Fascismus Americanus needs to be examined more closely, I think:
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
This is why the Tush administration was the closest and scariest thing we've come to being an autocratic dictatorship, with fascist leanings.
When the Patriot Act allows the president on his intelligence and say-so alone to pick up American citizens and render them to foreign black-site prisons in places like Angola for torture, with no access to attorneys, no charges, and no rights of any kind, human or otherwise- what's not to understand about this?
This is illegal in all civilized nations of the world, and we have signed treaties and accords testifying to our acceptance of these international rules of contact.
All were violated by the Tush administration.
This will be the issue that defines the Tush administration and the neocons for all history.
Add to that the illegal wiretapping/data mining of every keystroke of every computer in America, every phone call since February 01, not after 9/11 as the Tush's lied about, and the systematic use of that information to destroy political opponents in state elections nationwide, and the federal attorney firings based on political grounds, and you have an autocratic dictatorship in line with Pinochet in Chile, or Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Really pretty simple to understand that what happened here was the shredding of the constitution for personal, corporate, and political gain by people who should be imprisoned for this as well as war crimes related to the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq and the murder of a million of that nation's citizens.
Wow, Lorax sure reads like you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! As a Colbert Conservative let me remind you that “might has made right” since before Columbus landed on Cuba or wherever in 1492. Get over it.
Now I am not saying the Founding Fathers were wrong for intentionally breaking a legally binding contract that the Colonies had with Mother England. Those great men needed their freedom to exercise their God-given rights.
Thank goodness they knew that what was “good for the goose was not good for the gander.” After the nation was formed and they became their own masters rather than servants of Mother England, they kept indentured servitude legal.
Our founding fathers wanted to restrict the vote to white-property owing males. Why? Because they were the only ones smart enough and independent enough to honestly voice their opinion. I think the country started going down hill ever since the property requirement for voting was removed!
We should have stuck with the original intent of our Founding Fathers and made laws that prohibited the riff raff from engaging in our great representational democracy. The playing field on which we all compete was as flat and even as it needed to be back in 1791.
Every revisionist change made by activist judges and other bottom feeders since then has just made a great nation weaker. This country started sliding down the slippery path to mediocrity when it started extending to everybody the rights and privileges that were originally meant for the elite few.
The Social Darwinist in me makes me believe that we were rightfully using our Manifest Destiny as God’s chosen people to take from the Native Americans that which they could not adequately develop and, more importantly, could not hold. The same applies, of course, to our foreign policy as well.
Just my 2 cents worth, what do you think? :)
Central to fascism is that the State [[or the collective) is the focus of the system. Corporatism...or, capitalism as I take you to mean by the term, is the opposite of that and therefore incompatible with Fascism.
Bats, did you actually read the original link and, if so, actually think? You appear not to know what you're talking about.
O.
Yes, and if you look earlier in this thread, you will see how I came to this position regarding Rushkoff's piece and what "corporatism" is, or isn't.
Wanted? Not sure but thats part of what they left behind. Another part of original intent was the inclusion of an amendment mechanism to modify the Constitution. It was this provision, more than activist judges and other bottom feeders, that expanded voting rights.Quote:
Omaha- "Our founding fathers wanted to restrict the vote to white-property owing males."
Jefferson, a slaveholder, is said to have wanted to restrict slavery. He got, instead, a Constitution that outlawed slavery 60 years later.
Its the 'activist judges and other bottom feeders' you mentioned who have done so much for manifest destiny by allowing a string of illegal wars funded with fiat money and debt and have also ruled that corporations are artificial persons who can be given our tax money to offset their mismanagement. Which brings us back to a government that allow the corporatization of our lives.
When Congress passed Bush's Wall Street bailout just weeks before an election, govcorp America knew that it had won - that Americans would lamely accept whatever the federal government and its large corporate owners wanted.
Jams, do let us in on 'the message' in your own words.
Wrong again, Batcrap. :eek:
What is so difficult about learning for you?
Fascism is the co-mingling of corporate and government interests, with the corporations having the upper hand. End of story. Nothing more.
Where are you getting your information from? The Limbaugh Limbo Letter? The Hannity Screed for the Socially Retarded?
God it's hard to get some people to learn up from down.
ok, here is what you said:
now how, exactly, does that show anything? what specifically is wrong? it certainly doesn't sound like you read the article. he is dead-on:
"In the very best years, corporatism worked by extracting value from
the periphery and redirecting it to the center—away from people and
toward corporate monopolies. Now, even though that wellspring of
prosperity has run dry, we continue to dig deeper into the ground for
resources to keep the errant system running. "
Would the Bush administration been as "scary" had 9/11 not happened?
Puhlenty is wrong...What corporate monopolies? [[they are illegal in case you didn't know that...only coercive government monopolies are legal...go figure). What is a corporation? A collection of individuals [[individuals are people...in case you didn't know....the only time that money comes away from people is when government seizes it and power). What to the people profiting in a corporation do with THEIR profits? Invest it, spend it, etc....right back into the economy employing and providing a living for????? You guessed it.....PEOPLE.
7 companies control 90%+ of the media outlets. 5 companies control the vast majority of the energy industry and last i checked, at least 2 of those have at least 1 person in common on their boards. de-facto monopolies.
You realize that "mono" means one, don't you? Not 7, not 5, 1.
I said that monopolies were illegal [[except government coercive monopolies). I didn't say that this was a good thing.
when 7 act as 1 or 5 act as 1, what is the difference? there is none
Nice try, too bad it doesn't work. Try logic...what if 100, or 1000, or whatever number you like "act as one"
Thanks Rb...I got a nice chuckle out of that one...intended, or not.
reductio ad absurdum arguments like that, bats, are another logical fallacy
Look, Batcrap, you need to look up and read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and realize that monopolies can mean as few as one, or as many as half a dozen corporations monopolizing the business interests of any given industry. This is dependent on the size of that industry, and only gets government interested in it when monopolizing that industry has a detrimental effect on the people.
Bottom line is that no corporation should be too big to fail. All businesses, banks included should be local, lend locally, and have no measurable effect on the economy as a whole should they go under.
Repugnicans don't believe in this, they believe in just the opposite. The mantra of the Reich the last 8 years was to allow businesses to screw the American public- especially gargantuan utilities like FPL who have no competition, and should be government owned and run.
The service couldn't be any worse. :mad:
People fill the roles assigned by governments...they are not individual people.
According to Repugnicans, corporations are people too! They would love nothing more than extending rights to corporations that individuals themselves hold here in America, and have tried under the Tushies.
Talk about the middle finger of fascism- there you have it! :eek:
By "people" I mean individuals...FREE individuals. In that sense, government is the opposite of the meaning of the word. Now it should make more sense to you.
I have worked for, and now own [[as a partner) a corporation [[or 2).
It still makes no sense TO YOU. I can live with that.
All I can say to this vague discussion of what makes one free versus what does not is that now we're going to have a strong dose of regulation to keep these fascist corporate behemoths in line.
I look forward to smaller sized banks, industries, that if one or more fail, they aren't too large to fail and leave an indelible mark on our society.
Under repugnican rule, we worship the CEO and the endless expansion of business, monopolies, as if they're a good thing.
Thank god I still have more than Walmart to shop at where I live, unlike much of middle America, and in fact, have never, and will never step foot in one of them. :)
My particular protest.
Regulation is nothing compared to market forces and a purer capitalist system. This is our greatest hope looking forward.
bats, yet again you deny history
The Russian Communist Revolution, Post WWII East Germany, Cuba, North Korea, and Communist China...Who is denying history?
Checkmate Slim...Although, you weren't playing...were you?
so now calling you out on your simplistic black or white view of the woorld is a victory to you?
Eastern Europe was NEVER communist. communism is where the workers control the means of production. in case you didn't notice, eastern europe fell because of LABOR strikes [[oh, you can't believe that because it flies in the face of your reagan worship) true communism has never been tried, the closest was the US in the 40s, 50s and 60s when unions held sway, and that was such a horriible time for working people. oh, wait -- that was when a single working person could support a family, own their own house and perhaps a vacation cabin up north, two cars and a boat without being saddled with unmanageable debt. Eastern Europe was an Oligarchy, where the Party simply took over the reins of the Romanovs
RB,
I think your argument that Eastern Europe was never Communist is a wrong one. A socio-economic system like Communism is not just defined by an abstract theory - it is defined by how it is actually carried out in human societies. Communism's execution has been quite different in different states, even beyond the often significant differences between the dictatorial or otherwise undemocratic versions. One could just as well say that 'true capitalism has never been tried' but it would have just as little meaning - 'true' capitalism, or Communism, is a theoretical construct only - actual capitalism or Communism is what people actually execute and experience.
On a somewhat separate note, your final sentence is not really right either. Most Communist systems became effective oligarchies eventually, but only in Russia's case could you say that it had any connection to the Romanovs. It ignores the social movements throughout Europe in the 20s and 30s that created the groundwork for the takeover of Communist dictatorships in post-WW2 Eastern Europe. And that says nothing about how it came to power in other parts of the world, like India or southeast Asia.
O.
I remember from high school government class our textbooks read that the Soviet's were working toward the goal of eventual, pure communism. Their government was vastly different from what Karl Marx had in mind. They essentially replaced one ruling class with another, since the government officials pretty much lived and oppressed the populace much the same as the old system of the Czars.
I've been told "Animal Farm" does a pretty good job explaining how the Soviets went from Marxism to Communism and why and how some of the revolutionary leaders were forced into exile.
Batson, since you called out rb on saying monopoly when you understood he clearly meant an oligopoly, I have to call you out.
Listen Daddy Warbucks, don't you know how many corporations you own? Assuming you actually do own a corporation, you would be a shareholder. Partners and shareholders have an entirely different set of legal rights and responsibilities. I've worked for corporations and held shares in them as well, so what?
And FTC guidelines are based on market concentration which is determined by squaring the market share of each participant and adding them up. If a market has 100 companies with 1% each, the result is 100. If another market has two companies with 50% each, the result is 5000 and the second market is 50 times more concentrated. A very rough estimate of the market rb describes would be around 1200.
Communists erroneously label the state as a collective or the embodiment of all of the citizen workers [[Proletariot)...it is, in fact, and extremely oppressive Statist government, regardless of what they call it to cow the populace into their oppressed way of life.
Shady,
I think you missed my point, which was that what 'true Communism' is on paper is almost irrelevant - what is relevant is what it has been in practice. I am also fully aware that Communism is an socio-economic system and not a political system, a point that I made in my last post. One can have a Communist social system within a democratic political system. Kerala would be an example of that. At the same time, inasmuch as the theoretical end state of Communism does lead to the dissolution of a State, it cannot be considered entirely apolitical in theory.
O.
Shady,
I too try to take care in the terms that I use, but I am probably more in the language-is-descriptive-rather-than-prescriptive school of thought about how we use terms than you may be. Not that Communism is whatever someone wants to say it is [[the kind of thing that leads to incoherent inanities like the "liberal fascism" that you mention), but that the practice and actual evolution in practice of ideas means at least as much as their theoretical meaning.
O.
Thanks for your well parsed arguments. I am learning so much about communism and socialism in a discussion of corporatism of one’s life. Let me see if I can tie them together.
All three “isms” seem to do away with the kind of freedom, individual liberty, independence and individualism that Cc and I talk about. But for the most part, it’s only the communists and socialists that seem to really limit human independence and liberty.
As a Social Darwinist and a Colbert Conservative, I believe that a democratic government works as it should only when the electorate is composed of informed and involved citizens who are independent of outside influences. Unfortunately this kind of analysis is too often misread by radical liberals as advocating for a government being run by folks who looking out for only themselves in the most selfish ways. That is hardly the case. The enlightened thoughts of these two of our Founding Fathers couldn’t be more clear.
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people…Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.” Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury, major author of the Federalist Papers and advocate of a strong central government
“The people who own this country ought to govern it.” John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
If an informed and independent electorate wasn’t ordained by God, why else would our Founding Fathers created a nation where only white male property owners could vote?
White male property owners were self-employed and not dependent on others for their income. That made them more independent than women [[married and unmarried), more independent than the members of Indian tribes, more independent that slaves and indentured servants, and more independent than ordinary wage earners.
That kind of independence led them to create a great government made up of white property owning males who looked after the interests of everyone [[who was a white male property owner). Why else would they have had the foresight to enact a law in 1790 ensuring that only free white people could become naturalized citizens of this great country?
At least one of our Founding Fathers also worried about the influence that corporations were to have on our government into the future.
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States 1816 commenting on the lack of protection from corporate monopolies in our nation’s Bill of Rights
Jefferson must have been revolted by what he considered the undue influence that English companies had on Parliament when they said that the Virginia and Plymouth companies could develop land in the New World from “sea to sea.” Or maybe he was worried that, as we evolved from a national economy based on small independent farmers to one of larger farms and the beginning of a larger mercantile and industrial economic base, corporations might try to influence governmental decisions in ways that benefit owners [[stockholders) and disadvantage the average non-white non-property owning families.
Thank goodness that nothing bad happened in the U.S. as the result of corporate power. In my reading of U.S. history, I was a little worried about the growth of corporate power with the SCOTUS granted corporations citizenship under the 14th Amendment in 1886. But despite that irrational decision, our democracy has worked as intended, and there has been no undue influence of corporations on life in the U.S.
As a Social Darwinist and Colbert Conservtive, I’d argue that expanding the right to vote beyond white male property owners did more to hurt this great nation than giving citizenship to inanimate objects under the 14th Amendment ever did.
.
I agree with your main assertion that "a democratic government works as it should only when the electorate is composed of informed and involved citizens who are independent of outside influences" and that the aristocratic democracy you speak of may have been better informed on most issues. However, doesn't an egalitarian democracy provide a better voice to the minority and unfortunate? When you remove voting power from individuals, won't it lead to oppression of those individuals which leads to violence from those individuals? Doesn't the First Amendment allow for a balance? An egalitarian democracy where open debate improves the democracy by getting the citizens informed and involved.
Ohh! You got me! With some folks posts, its hard to tell.
If Colbert moved from Comedy Central to Fox, I don't think anyone at Fox News would notice a change.
The term egalitarian is an anathema to any Social Darwinist. It implies equal outcomes to someone who follows Stephen Colbert’s rigorous political philosophy. Equal outcomes are an abuse of what made American GREAT. :p
Take CEO compensation in the U.S. Over time it grew from 12:1 [[1960) to 40:1 [[1980) to 400:1 today when compared with the wages of an average hourly worker. That is because the American CEO pulled himself [[or occasionally herself) up through hard work and innovation to deserve that compensation. What is interesting is that because the “market is never wrong” our CEOs also clearly outshone even CEOs of other large multinational corporations when using only compensation as a fair measure of comparison.
People like Cc and myself believe that the U.S. has enough of a level playing field that anyone with the self-discipline to apply themselves can rise to any height. Following that logic and looking at our current POTUS we are lead to conclude that white racism, dejure and defacto segregation are no longer barriers to high achievement. ;)
No my friend, there is no need for egalitarian anything. We already have enough social and economic mobility as things are. People will continue to rise and fall on their own merits, and that is as it should be.
Working people are working people because they don’t have what it takes to make it. I am sure that the other well educated and articulate conservatives on this web site would join me in supporting the intent if not the words of this old quote.
“The laboring class is unfitted for self-government…master and slave is a relation as necessary as that of parent and child, and the northern states will yet have to introduce it.” North Carolina newspaper, 1840s :D
How can you say that? Sarcasm is the refuge of fools! Stephen and I are not fools. He takes himself seriously and so do I! We are just trying to educate others so we can make this a better world. If I had only been able to make it to the May 24th gathering [[assuming you were there) you could have seen how serious I am.
Colbert Conservatives and Social Darwinists are men of the world. We know how it really works. Others may muse that the most important task someone has to undertake to be successful is to choose their parents well. Balderdash! The most important thing is working hard and taking the advise of well places elders. Let me give you an example.
“It is only greenhorns who enlist. You can learn nothing in the army. . . . Here there is no credit attached to going. All now stay if they can and go if they must. Those who are able to pay for substitutes do so and no discredit attaches. In time you will learn that a man may be a patriot without risking his own life” Judge Thomas Mellon writing to his son James about how to handle the Draft Act passed in 1863 where it was legal to “purchase” for $300 a substitute to enlist for you. James did as his father wished. His brother Andrew was too young to be drafted but he followed his father’s advice and became the self-proclaimed richest person in the U.S. and Secretary of the Treasury under three presidents! :rolleyes:
Welcome back Omaha!! Please stick around.
Cc, thanks for the encouragement. And I hope to both stick around and bask in the knowledge that YOU want me here. Unfortunately, I am not master of my schedule. But in my spare time I check on DY and wait by the phone for my hero Stephen Colbert to call in hopes that he needs yet another acolyte. :p
I can’t, of course, be as prolific as yourself, but I am wordier. I hope to continue periodically sharing the kind of Social Darwinian insights that both educate and amaze. Like agreeing with the late great Adam Smith when he hit the nail on the head and told it like it was regarding the role of government.
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence [sic] of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations :)
The liberal cowards posing as conservatives who worked in the Reagan Administration never had the backbone to use this quote when they were promoting that great political economist.
He used the little winking guy. What more do you need?Quote:
ok, i'm reasonably certain you are being sarcastic
Hey Omaha, before the election in November, your de facto party leader, Caftan Warlord Brush Lintball stated that Roosevelt was dead, that his policies live on, but we're doing something about that as well.
I say the same for Adam Smith- his ideas live on in the heads of a few social retards who wish to return to the 18th century, but would have a hard time making it in the modern world.
Wealth of Nations was indeed a seminal work for it's time, but was embraced, dare I say, too "liberally" by the moneybags of the industrial revolution, and spun to moderate effect under Reagan.
You got your wish, though- Tush, Cheney Paulson & Company raided the treasury on their way out the door last fall, fearmongering congress into giving them 350 billion bucks to bail out their buddies. Where's mine? I should petition to have my mortgage paid off for agreeing to foot the bill.
Hey Lorax, your sarcasm detector is broken.Quote:
Hey Omaha, before the election in November, your de facto party leader, Caftan Warlord Brush Lintball
You must pay very close attention for the detector to function properly. The quality of this humorous and polite mockery deserves kudos - in fact it fooled someone.
Of course Adam Smith, as one of the founding fathers of american capitalism, has it right. Your interpretation is what is off. Civil society is accomplished via government, in its' constitutionally limited role, establishing laws to protect all parties in any contractual relationship/commerce related interactions. It protects rich and poor alike, however, the poor are more vulnerable to the consequences of unlawful and unjust trade, so, practically speaking, they are the ones being protected more.
????Quote:
Of course Adam Smith, as one of the founding fathers of american capitalism...
I find no reference to any visit by Smith to the colonies in his lifetime.
Batson's actually right on this one. "Wealth of Nations" was a large influence at the time and economic considerations were a fairly big argument for the Revolution as discussed in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". Our founder's were influenced by a great number of writers that never stepped foot into the US.The Wealth of Nations was first published on March 9, 1776, during the Age of Enlightenment. It influenced not only authors and economists, but governments and organizations.
I wouldn't disagree with influence of his philosophy upon the American experiment, in fact, it was profound, but it was based upon a European viewpoint, Cc's comment implied a direct American link.
Let’s be clear that Adam Smith and our Founding Fathers had at least one thing in common: the proper role of government…protect those "with" from those "without."
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence [sic] of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
That idea fits perfectly with the sentiments about the societal divide and who should be in charge.
“The most common and durable sources of factions [divisions in society] has been based upon the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those without property have [forever] formed distinct interests in society.” James Madison, 4th President of the United States in the Tenth Federalist Paper.
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people…Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.” Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury, major author of the Federalist Papers and advocate of a strong central government
“The people who own this country ought to govern it.” John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
And because government is rightfully run by the propertied well-born, it's assured that it will usually respond to calls by owners to dismantle the combinations of workers into labor unions. In the past and on other threads, I’ve noted the ability of the American court system to use common law to label the combination of two or more workers into a labor union as an “illegal criminal conspiracy.” That is also in accordance with the observations of that great Scottish political economist Adam Smith.
“When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, laborers, and journeymen.”
Adam Smith didn’t promise that unrestricted free market capitalism would result in an utopian ideal. He just said that when small merchants compete with one another to make a profit, good things would generally result. I believe that it is true especially for the hard working disciplined owners who care enough to learn how to work the "system." :p
Regarding Omaha's post # 81, any critical and comprehensive response ccbatson? Can you handle Omaha?
ccbatson, here is a golden opportunity for you to elaborate much more fully on much of what you've said already here on DYes. The floor is yours and we are all ears.
Sooo easy...it isn't protecting those who have veersus those who do not, it is PROTECTING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE by virtue of the fruits of their labor [[intellectual property, actual manual labor, etc).
Gee, please don’t get the impression that I am challenging the Oracle of DY’s Non-Detroit board. :mad: There is a lot that Cc and I agree as I explained in post #81. And there’s more.
For instance the only proper reason for government to use our nation’s tax money is to protect our lives and our property with the military, the police and the court system. Well, that and to make sure there is an infrastructure needed to make the free enterprise system work in a fair way: banking oversight, stock exchange regulation, currency, legal system for enforcing contracts, interstate highway system, and anything else that is needed to allow corporations and their investors to grow and accumulate wealth [[which is then protected by the military, police and court systems). :)
Cc and I believe in an “ownership society” where everyone is responsible for her or himself. You are on your own [[YOYO) and you sink or swim because of what you bring to the party. Well maybe we do disagree a little about the advantage of those who chose their parents well have over those who didn’t. But for the sake of this board, I will go with Cc’s concept that the playing field is even enough. After all, if Barak Obama can become POTUS, any one can.
Geeze, all this stuff about government giving folks a hand out is bunk. Cc and I, when it comes to the kind of work done by bleeding heart social workers and sociologists, believe that just one exception to the so-called rule about the poor and underprivileged needing help proves that rule is WRONG. Go look at the real life story of Chris Gardner in the movie the Pursuit of Happiness. Anyone can make it on his or her own.
In an ownership society any government program that helps the less well off is bad because it just robs people of the discipline they need to succeed. Empathy is OK as long as it is exercised by individuals but not by government. Social Security and Medicare need to end.
People can invest in Wall Street and use the returns on their investments to pay for their health care and retirement. If they don’t have the spare money to invest for their future now, start saving tomorrow or they can update your skills and get a better job. If they don’t have the smarts to know what to invest in, start reading.
Investing in stocks can, of course, be a gamble…especially these days. I mean how would you have liked to invested your retirement funds in Enron on the advice of its admired CEO? I know of people from Omaha, who became Enron employees when Omaha's Northern Natural Gas merged with Enron. They followed what they thought was good advice and lost everything. But it could be worse, you could have been Elie Wiesel who invested with Bernie Madeoff…but I digress.
In unregulated free-market system, if people fall through the cracks or make bad decisions, that is what the United Way and other charities are for to bail them out temporarily. It is not the government's job to help anyone other than those with what it takes to make capitalism work. I agree with Joseph Allbaugh, first director of FEMA under George W. Bush. Mr. Allbaugh thought that FEMA was in reality an oversized entitlement program for the victims of natural disasters. He isn't being heartless he's just telling it like it is.
That's enough ranting for now, but let me repeat, I don’t want others to think that I am for starting a war with the Oracle, or anyone else for that matter. I, like Joseph Allbaugh, just call them as I see them. :D
And please let me remind you to watch the great Stephen Colbert as he broadcasts from Iraq tonight and the rest of the week.
Be advised you guys, that despite the great history lesson, ideas only work when in practice.
And they only work well when the playing field is level, and opportunity exists for everyone to have a chance to become middle class, or possibly wealthy.
No one here, super-libs like myself included, deny the desire to reap the rewards of one's labor.
However, that said, Roosevelt had it over on Adam Smith's later devotees, in realizing the world had changed, but that our government hadn't changed with it.
If we were to proceed as a civilized upwardly mobile society, unfettered, unregulated capitalism had to be reined in.
Taxation needed overhauling, so what happened? We got a 90% tax rate on all personal income over 2 million dollars per year through Eisenhower, a beloved Republican, which discouraged legacy wealth, so we wouldn't end up back in the times of the robber barons, where inherited wealth did nothing but pollute public policy, allowing too much control over politics and too much influence over how and if the rest of us were to have that level playing field.
We enforced the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, upheld Glass- Stegall, and embraced the Fairness Doctrine, all while having strong unions.
It was Reagan, who was a lousy president, and a criminal- actually a low-rent version of Tush/Cheney, who began dismantling the advances we made under Roosevelt
With Roosevelt we had the safety net of Social Security for the promise of an old age with dignity instead of poverty, we had millions put back to work through the WPA, built the Hoover Dam, the TVA, thousands of post offices, armories, military installations, public parks, lodges, highways, infrastructure including some of our greatest monuments including the Golden Gate Bridge.
We could still be doing it if it hadn't been for intermittent decades of Repugnican rule which favored the private sector over the public one.
When the public sector is run as well as it was under a Roosevelt, it works just fine. When Repugnicans get their hands on government, they purposely break it, then point to it and shout "look, it's broken, it doesn't work!! Let's get rid of it"
I personally have had enough of the Repugnican Reich's influence on our society, and as progressive liberals, we have a duty to drive a stake in the heart of this slimy succubus, and consign it to the ash can of history.
Oh, and by the way, for those of you who didn't get the witticisms of my earlier post-
I refer to Rush Limbaugh as "Brush Lintball" and label him as the "Caftan Warlord of the Repugnican Reich" as a direct slam to his having to wear a caftan due to his enormous:eek:....you fill in the blank.
It just happily rhymes with "Afghan.":rolleyes:
That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Why that kind of deliberate sabotage is tolerated is a mystery to me.Quote:
When the public sector is run as well as it was under a Roosevelt, it works just fine. When Repugnicans get their hands on government, they purposely break it, then point to it and shout "look, it's broken, it doesn't work!! Let's get rid of it"
It's tolerated because too many Americans have decided that Democracy is a spectator sport.
Until people start electing people smarter that they are [[Obama's a good start), then we'll have nothing more than the government we deserve. Look to Detroit as an example to avoid.
What amazes me is the continued fascination with Saracuda Palin- what does this dingbat bring to the table? Well, maybe dinner, but nothing politically substantive or remotely intelligent.
It's now called the "New World Order" part of the PNAC group of fascists still determined to take over the planet.
They allow Obama to serve thus far, because even they knew the road we were headed down was disastrous, and not good for business, which is all they really care about.
The GOP leadership understands the importance of new media and is all aTWITTER about using it. The conservative youth who are following Glen Beck are starting 912 clubs across this great land. They understand that politics is no longer a spectator sport. :eek:
Unfortunately, Conservatives are alienating Hispanic voters with their attack on that empathetic Supreme Court nominee. That won't help in 2010 or 2012. The need is to attack anyone who promotes empathy in government and in turn promote ruthless adherence to a conservative interpretation of the Constitution.
Now that's a strategy to build a viable majority party. :D
BTW, what's the left doing? Whining on DY. Better get moving and organizing from the ground up...or else.
Gotta go, Colbert is on...from Iraq.
She's "hot". She's a "MILF". How did you miss hearing that over and over during the campaign?Quote:
What amazes me is the continued fascination with Saracuda Palin- what does this dingbat bring to the table?
And liberals believe conservatives are immature and hateful??
Cc you’re right Conservatives would never reduce a human being to some sort of sexual object. That is dehumanizing. It’s not consistent with the conservative ethos of treating all human beings with the innate dignity with which God endowed them. ;)
Where those damn libs attack us is not for the objectification of people as sex objects. No true conservative would ever do that. No, where libs attack us is in our understanding of human nature. :mad:
We know that if some human beings don’t live up to their God-given capabilities, they will not prosper in our dog-eat-dog free market. True conservatives are advocates for letting losers suffer, until they learn to improve on their poor dedication and discipline. Suffering builds character. Everyone knows that! Conservatives know that “personal freedom” extends to the freedom to starve. In fact starving bodies along the road side can prove a great lesson to those who might consider squandering their talents.
But liberals [[those who make demeaning MILF and HFAD jokes) somehow think advocating for losers to learn from their failures is somehow also dehumanizing. I find it just the opposite, invigorating and somehow consistent with the Social Darwinist philosophy that I hold so dear. I know people can learn from their mistakes…and if they don’t, too bad. :D
Conservatives were the ones droning on about Palin's supposed hotness vs. what an ugly bitch with fat legs Hillary was. Yes, even on this very forum. Where were you?Quote:
And liberals believe conservatives are immature and hateful??
I recall they were making the same conclusion. I also remember a certain right wing poster saying Ann Coulter was correct when she labeled the 911 widows "harpies" and conservatives were dead on when they used to criticize Janet Reno's looks.
But when the tables are turned, they pretend to be holier than thou.