One does not have to look far in Washington these days to find evidence that government policy is being crafted with America’s biggest corporations in mind. For example, the Bush administration’s 2006 budget cuts the enforcement budgets of almost all the major regulatory agencies. If the gutting of the ergonomics rule, power plant emissions standards and drug safety programs was not… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (67)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe belief in the supply side economics has been exploded. Tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts, particularly to the rich, with the HOPE, DREAM, “lets wish very hard” that they work is plain a simple a fallacy. Rich people invest the money…they don’t churn it back into the economy, they don’t eat out more, they don’t use it to hire more servants.
So, the dynamic was changed to tax cuts for BUSINESS, relaxation of regulation for business to conduct the business of business. This policy has been in place for over 4+ year. The Bush Administration has simply made the selling of this policy into an art form.
But the results of that failed policy (begun in earnest with the Reagan Administration) has been been rearing its ugly head for twenty years. Stagnant wages, the growth of dual and three headed income families to maintain living standards, outsourcing (YES, it is a result…because there has been NO policy put in effect to protect American workers nor to REALLY incent business to create better paying jobs), lost labor power, an increasing separation between the haves and the have-nots (which includes a significant portion of the middle class - see the first two points), and middling REAL economic performance. Yeah, the stock market is great. Why…because PAYROLL…the highest part of fixed costs has been essentially FLAT…which flows straight to the bottom line. Add in savings from relaxed regulatory oversight, also add in relaxation of regulations to control the creation of oligopolies, lack of regulation designed to allow the REDUCTION IN COMPETITION (which was NOT the original intent - visit the the Tomorrowland exhibit again in Reagan World again).
The American people were sold a bill of goods, and CONTINUE to be sold a bill of goods. Living standards have been hanging on because of historically low interest rates (which will soon end because the dollar is headed for the toilet), reduced prices for goods (because labor costs is low…great I can buy that TV made in China…but we have no jobs to make them here)...I can go on and on and on.
Next up…Social Security reform for the sake of EFFICIENCY and to save the program. ANOTHER sop to business to reduce their civic responsibilities to the American public, and to pick up additional political contributions from Wall Street.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 18, 2005 at 3:36 PM The reference to NCRP’s study of conservative foundations support for public policy research and advocacy merits a couple of additional points: (1) We only researched conservative foundations explicitly supporting public policy work. There’s a lot more to conservative philanthropy than that. Just take a look at NCRP’s newest report on conservative foundations supporting evangelicals in the culture wars, which we just issued this month (check www.ncrp.org), and that will be clear. (2) Our studies don’t include corporate philanthropy and therefore undercount philanthropy’s support of conservative public policy institutions promoting the corporate agenda. Why? Because more than half of corporate philanthropy is not disclosed to the U.S. public. Corporations only have to disclose their philanthropic grantmaking that occurs through corporate foundations. The bulk of what corporations do with tax exempt funds to support nonprofits carrying out their political aims is done through giving outside of corporate foundations (through the CEO’s office, through the marketing department, etc.) and therefore not disclosed (the SEC doesn’t require disclosure of corporate grantmaking, and unfortunately too many nonprofits and nonprofit trade associations such as Independent Sector and the Council on Foundations have supported corporate fights against disclosure, even in the wake of the Enron debacle and Enron’s misuse of corporate philanthropy). Note that corporate grantmaking in 2004 rose, but corporate grants through corporate foundations declined (according to Giving USA 2004), meaning that an increasing proportion of corporate philanthropy is not disclosed to the American public.
Posted by Rick Cohen on Feb 18, 2005 at 3:55 PM “And I owe my Soul to the company store”
Thorough article, many wise suggestions. Corporatism is a behemoth.
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 18, 2005 at 4:49 PM “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate powers.”—Benito Mussolini
In our case, it is the merger of state, corporate and military powers through the empowerment of the self-righteous and greedy Pharisee, oops, I mean Republican Party.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 18, 2005 at 5:10 PM OK - i know personal responsibility is so very politically incorrect here but. . .
If someone makes $500/wk and spends $550/wk, misery ensues. If another person makes $500/wk and spends $450/wk happiness (or at least financial security) ensues. The choice for most of us (all but the very poor and the very rich) is clear. CHOOSE.
Or we can just sit around and complain about how “unfair” life is. Like little children.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 5:28 PM What about the people who don’t MAKE $500 a week and the BASICS cost $550 a week.
Or is your response…“Are there no prisons…are there no workhouses”?
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 18, 2005 at 5:29 PM Actions to take against corporatism:
1. Abandon the two mainstream parties because they really have no principles except power.
2. Educate yourself about real (Austrian) economics, not the Keynesian crap they teach at most universities. The mises.org website has some great media files available for free:
http://www.mises.org/Media/?action=category&ID=40
Start with “Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve” (Right click and Save As).
Then check out lewrockwell.com for some excellent commentary. Then go back to mises.org and listen to some audio files of Rothbard, Hoppe, and Rockwell. If you explore these two sites long enough, the scales will fall from your eyes as they did from mine.
Then what? Educate somebody else, of course!
Posted by Stephen Marsh on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:07 PM secretToHappiness?
No, I don’t sit around and complain like a little child. I own a successful company doing 6 figures a year in business, and I contribute heavily to lots of programs to help those who do not have it as good as I do.
I was not always so fortunate, however. Having found myself without a family (through divorce and my mother’s ensuing breakdown) at 15, I have worked damned hard. After 20 years of running a successful business doing over 80M a year in business, it was stolen from me in a hostile takeover through illegal means. However, the courts do not care if you do not have the money to prosecute. So I started all over and am now doing well again.
In that journey, I have seen many people who worked very hard get “jerked” around by illness, theft and plain bad luck. A recent Harvard University study showed that 1/3 of bankruptcies result from catastrophic illness, and the majority of these people had health insurance. I really wish you could find yourself in this situation, so you could understand the term “safety net”.
Why are people who profess to be the Moral Majority so hip on Social Darwinism? Let the rich be rich, and screw the rest? Survival of the fittest, disregard everything Jesus taught us. I guess this is the New America after all.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:14 PM I know L&P is just playing devils advocate but i will answer anyway. I am just that kind of girl. :)
Define basics. Beer, cable TV, Internet access, cell phones, expensive meats, convenience foods, fast food, starbucks coffee, etc, etc, etc.????
Food in the US is very cheap and healthy, if you buy the right stuff (Europe may be another matter, i do not know). Beans, rice, oatmeal, tofu, ground beef, milk, etc.
$500/wk is about what two people make together if they are both earning minimum wage. Hardly difficult to find that sort of pay. It takes very little for a single person to get that level of pay by themselves, after they have been in the labor market for awhile. If they show up and work, that is.
Anyway, the vast majority of US households exceed that level of income $25K/yr). Yet they still overspend. This leads to a choice. They can complain and whine (while watching their color cable TV and drinking their beer or soda) or they can learn to live on less. Good for them (they lose their indentured servitude eventually) and good fro the environment. Learning to live on less is just plain GOOD.
I would rather encourage people to do better, rather than to teach them the lie that their problems are the fault of “The System”. But, like i say, i am just that kind of girl.
Peace and wellbeing to all.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:25 PM Margaret - i am no subscriber to Social Darwinism. I will grant that many people (in absolute numbers, not in percent of the population) will not be able to care for themselves. This may be due to mental problems (low IQ, instabilities, whatever) or to unfortuante circumstances beyond their control.
But the above does not apply to *MOST* of the population. However, the fact that the vast majority of the US population overspends does apply. This latter group is who i am “preaching” to. BTW, this “preaching” is not to discourage or belittle, but to empower. . . to let them know they have a choice. We all do (well, almost all).
(The analogy between fat people and overspenders comes immediately to mind. While some people who are fat are fat beyond their control, the vast majority just eat too much and exercise too little. While it is sad they got that way, i find it hopeful that they can recover, if they begin to choose better.)
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:33 PM Excellent article! Informative for those who haven’t yet caught on to the newer corporatism, good approaches suggested for working to change the tide. That’s the hard part: understanding that it IS possible to turn the tide if enough ordinary-strength people all work with a common goal. Every single thing that every person does as their part is part of a sort of matching fund of efforts by others. Thank you!
Posted by Diana Morley on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:37 PM Sorry…but the facts of LIFE are…that people become destitute or are poor not because of their OWN failures…but because of CIRCUMSTANCES. Circumstances of birth, economics, health, etc.
I can’t agree with your callous view.
I’ve got an MBA…I understand classic economic theory…and the theory of the free market.
We don’t live in the jungle. Its easy for elitists like GWB and big corporations to espouse these principles when they sit at the top of the chain.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:40 PM It occured to me to answer in more detail Margaret’s post, since there really was a lot in there. . .
Margaret wrote “I contribute heavily to lots of programs to help those who do not have it as good as I do.”
I commend your generosity! I also support causes i agree with (with my time as well as money).
“Having found myself without a family (through divorce and my mother’s ensuing breakdown) at 15, I have worked damned hard.”
This is quire similar to my own circumstances.
“After 20 years of running a successful business doing over 80M a year in business, it was stolen from me in a hostile takeover through illegal means. However, the courts do not care if you do not have the money to prosecute.”
I don’t understand this.
“In that journey, I have seen many people who worked very hard get “jerked” around by illness, theft and plain bad luck.”
Me too.
“A recent Harvard University study showed that 1/3 of bankruptcies result from catastrophic illness, and the majority of these people had health insurance.”
I did not know this.
“I really wish you could find yourself in this situation, so you could understand the term “safety net”.”
I find this to be rather mean.
“Why are people who profess to be the Moral Majority so hip on Social Darwinism?”
I don’t know (and futher i don’t know if your assertion is even accutate).
“Let the rich be rich, and screw the rest?”
Sounds like Bush (and most other politicians).
“Survival of the fittest, disregard everything Jesus taught us. I guess this is the New America after all.”
I disagree. But then i live in the South, where the living is easier, i suppose.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:47 PM L&P wrote: “Sorry…but the facts of LIFE are…that people become destitute or are poor not because of their OWN failures…but because of CIRCUMSTANCES. Circumstances of birth, economics, health, etc.”
Does this really explain the US saving rate to you? Do you also believe that “Sorry…but the facts of LIFE are…that people become fat or are obese not because of their OWN failures…but because of CIRCUMSTANCES.”?
“I can’t agree with your callous view.”
I can’t agree that it is a callous view. It is merely a way to become free (but it does take effort in the form of self control).
“I’ve got an MBA…I understand classic economic theory…and the theory of the free market.”
I have got the ability to think clearly. I understand that people trade the future for the present on a daily basis. Then they complain about the trade they made. If nothing else, i would like to help them know that there are other OPTIONS.
“We don’t live in the jungle. Its easy for elitists like GWB and big corporations to espouse these principles when they sit at the top of the chain. “
Yeah, and easy for guys with MBAs espousing that average people are incapable of making good rational choices too. :)
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:54 PM Good article, but why not get into specifics about what people can do / examples of successful initiatives from folks like New Rules, ReclaimDemocracy.org, etc?
There too much analysis from progressives and not enough talk about how to/where to plug in.
Posted by Luisa on Feb 18, 2005 at 6:58 PM secretToHappiness
I would say that the social programs put forth by this administration and the general mood of the populace is NOT to help those in poorer circumstances. Look at the Social Security proposals. Look at Bush’s attempts to take away the right to sue someone who messes you up through their negligence or greed. I have read that less than 2% of the costs of health insurance are attributable to lawyers, yet this admin. seeks to cut out lawsuits for such medical malfeasance. Another example is the current situation of the returning vet, who is having a difficult time getting health care and rehabilitation from what is supposed to be automatic Vet. Admin. support. There have been a myriad of articles in the newspaper and online that support the assetion that the upper eschalons are squeezing out the middle class.
In Darwinism, only the fittest survives. When we have a society who’s priorities lie in the corporate structure, the military and power in general, those who struggle will ultimately be crushed. I am sorry if you don’t see the connection.
Also, yes, the courts do not care. We went to the local district attorney’s office, but they said it was not a case they could take on. We went to several high-powered lawyers who said we’d have a decent chance of winning a big settlement to redeem the millions pilfered, but that their lawyers had so backed us into the corner with shredded books (ours) that we would need approx. $250,000 to even consider beginning a case that was not a ringer. When we showed the various tax boards how they had illegally saddled us with $2M in back taxes (we’d collected the money, but they didn’t pay the Govt), they said they didn’t care.
My family is also from the South. I, too, am a responsible person and agree that many, many people want to push responsibility onto others. But we should err to the side of safety, not throw the baby out with the bath water. That is what this administration is doing.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 18, 2005 at 7:14 PM “Yeah, and easy for guys with MBAs espousing that average people are incapable of making good rational choices too. :) “
That’s not what I’m espousing.
What I am talking about is SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
That is the course that seems to have been removed from business schools…and conceptually from the conscience of the American People.
This isn’t about “conscience decisions” its about misfortune, illness, unemployment, children, education, OPPORTUNITY.
The playing field ISN’T level. That is the point you miss.
Wishing it was so…does not make it so.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 18, 2005 at 7:15 PM L&P - do you save a fraction of your income? Or spend it ALL (or even more than you make)? Why do you choose the way you do?
The playing field never has been and never will be level. 100,000 years ago the best hunters survived and procreated, the lessor ones died or barely scraped by. Very unfair. So what?
The point is that people can take charge of their own lives. Either you do or you don’t. If you do, why do you think others cannot? If you don’t, what is your excuse?
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 7:29 PM “The playing field never has been and never will be level. 100,000 years ago the best hunters survived and procreated, the lessor ones died or barely scraped by. Very unfair. So what?”
I’m not even going to respond to that.
It speaks for itself.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 18, 2005 at 7:44 PM L&P i don’t blame you for not responding to the obvious. But i was really curious about the other questions regarding how *you* deal with money.
Perhaps the questions lead to cognitive dissonance on your part? No matter. Have a good weekend and may your life be all that you desire.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 7:55 PM No..sorry…I can’t let it go.
Have you no sense of compassion? Understanding? or just plain old fairness to those less fortunate.
There ARE people who look for the easy way, and for others to pay their way.
But life isn’t in ABSOLUTES. You assume that EVERYONE that is poor, unemployed, sick or in some way is not meeting some STANDARD (and lets not even get into the discussion of WHO’S standard) has CHOSEN to be that way, and simply needs to pull themselves up to recover.
That is simply not true and is unfair. And in many cases isn’t POSSIBLE…no matter how hard you work.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 18, 2005 at 7:57 PM Obviously, secretToHappiness has the key to bliss, so let her go on her merry way.
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 18, 2005 at 8:20 PM L&P wrote “No..sorry…I can’t let it go.”.
Good for you. (You still have not disclosed your own personal philosophy regarding money. That is, do you spend more than you make, less or just break even?)
“Have you no sense of compassion? Understanding? or just plain old fairness to those less fortunate.”
I have all that in spades! But i also want people to be able to improve themselves. Waiting to be *rescued* from their own bad choices is so very unsatisfying.
“There ARE people who look for the easy way, and for others to pay their way.”
Sure, but what does that have to do with anything?
“But life isn’t in ABSOLUTES. You assume that EVERYONE that is poor, unemployed, sick or in some way is not meeting some STANDARD (and lets not even get into the discussion of WHO’S standard) has CHOSEN to be that way, and simply needs to pull themselves up to recover.”
Not all all! Where did you even come up with that??? I am asserting that the VAST MAJORITY of people can alter their bahavour to have significantly better (financial) lives. Just use the simple algorithm: “spend less than you earn”. I have already acknowledged that *some* will be unable to make their own ways in an earlier post above. (I also will disclose that i follow my own advice, saving 20% of my income - despite the fact i have 4 (!!!) children. They all think we are “poor”, but as they grow i am confident they will unconfuse the very different concepts (vitually opposites!) of “wealth” and “spending”.)
“That is simply not true and is unfair. And in many cases isn’t POSSIBLE…no matter how hard you work.”
Certainly the way your phrase it, it is untrue and unfair (“You assume that EVERYONE that is poor, unemployed, sick or in some way is not meeting some STANDARD”). But the way i state it is quite different - most people do not save and they can and should. See the difference?
Again, just for fun, think of the fat analogy. Sure, some fatties are fat for reasons they can not control (bad thyroid, mental illness of some sort, etc). But the VAST MAJORITY are just flat out making poor choices about what to eat and how much exercise to get (it is free country - i certainly think these choices should be allowed, but i also think that the “badness” of the choices should be pointed out, slong with the responsibility of making them). The savings rate of the average US citizen is pathetic - don’t you think this is an issue that should at least be addressed?
Anyway, i mean you no harm of any sort. I honestly hope you have whatever you dream of. Life is precicious, enjoy it to the fullest.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 8:34 PM pick - thanks. Perhaps financial security is not the key to bliss, but the lack of it can lead to misery. For the vast majority of us, financial security is possible, but requires disipline. I merely advocate that we encourate this disipline (and to kill the strawman i will acknowledge once more that this will not work for every single person - just most).
Funny thing is that i have trouble seeing this as controversial. Just common sense.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 8:39 PM A country is a group of people who have realised they have enough in common to band together for the common good. Social soildarity is a natural and vital element of any society. When this solidarity is replaced by an “every man for himself” mentality, sooner or later society will disintegrate into a number of very loosely connected special interest groups. The country is reduced to a “market” to be milked by big business. Citizens with their civil and political rights are reduced to consumers with purchasing power.
I don’t know about you, but there’s no doubt in my mind that I’d rather be a citizen in a country than a consumer in a market.
The dichotomy “countries and citizens vs markets and consumers” is a big topic here in Europe. We’re alarmed by the trends in the United States; and the alarm is magnified by the fact that the United States have always been our role model for citizen participation in government.
Posted by Ben on Feb 18, 2005 at 8:46 PM I’m not saying people shouldn’t save.
But the facts are that savings are a function of how much you MAKE. Which was the point of my first response.
Everyone’s disposable income is NOT equal. Everyone’s INCOME is not equal.
Same question as before…if a person makes $500 per month…and no matter how hard they try…my REAL EXPENSE…feeding my kids, rent, etc…NOT buying big screen tvs and eating at Le Circus once a week…is right on the margin…is that their fault?
Do you really think the answer is get a third job? Do you really think up and moving is done with a snap of the fingers and requires no capital outlay to do? Do you really think the answer is work a 60 hour week…and then all will be good?
And as to your FATTIE issue. Believe it or not…there ARE people with conditions…out of their control…that cause obesity.
People aren’t black and white. Neither is life.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 18, 2005 at 9:15 PM Touche secret!
I recognize in you what I don’t like in myself, smugness! and like you, I am a big baby who sometimes likes to get the last word in.
Perhaps we both seek to cherish Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
May we live long and prosper!
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 18, 2005 at 9:45 PM L&P - you are wearing me out! :) Anyway, onwards . . .
“I’m not saying people shouldn’t save.”
Good! I am an active advocate of saving. It is a way to achieve eventual financial freedom for the vast majority of working folks (but does require disipline to defer current pleasure for possible future benefits).
“But the facts are that savings are a function of how much you MAKE. Which was the point of my first response.”
Statistics here? From what i have read, people of virtually ALL incomes (below a threshold of, say, $150,000) do not save (you seem reluctant to disclose your own choices here?). And almost anyone who makes more than $25K/yr CAN save, just by pretending they make 10% less (i find automatic withdrawls into a savings plan are both effective and, after awhile, painless).
“Everyone’s disposable income is NOT equal. Everyone’s INCOME is not equal.”
Can’t argue with that. Though one might wonder how the *fraction* of disposable income varies with total income. I assert that virtually anyone who makes over 25K/yr can save 10%, if they are motivated (note this does not include EVERYONE, just 75-90% of those above this threshold).
“Same question as before…if a person makes $500 per month…and no matter how hard they try…my REAL EXPENSE…feeding my kids, rent, etc…NOT buying big screen tvs and eating at Le Circus once a week…is right on the margin…is that their fault?”
$500/month? With kids? Undoubtedly eligible for WIC and other social programs (been there, done that). Hopefully a temporary situation. I would not expect someone to save anything under those circumstances. This amounts to part time minumim wage (~20 hours/wk).
Now $500/wk (the example i started with, and an income that MOST households make more than) is a different story altogether (and i know, if you live in NYC or SanFran, this is not much still - but it easily can be enough in suburban places).
“Do you really think the answer is get a third job?”
At $500/month getting a first job would be in order!
“Do you really think up and moving is done with a snap of the fingers and requires no capital outlay to do?”
Huh?
“Do you really think the answer is work a 60 hour week…and then all will be good?”
It will likely triple the income you use above as a strawman. Do you really hava an MBA?
“And as to your FATTIE issue. Believe it or not…there ARE people with conditions…out of their control…that cause obesity.”Hey, now you are copying my posts (i said the same thing above, remember?)! :) But i also said that just because a FEW people have conditions does not mean the VAST MAJORITY do. And i find it unforunate when the VAST MAJORITY use an excuse instead of fixing their lives (or just acknowledging their own responsibilties for their situations).
“People aren’t black and white. Neither is life.”
Profound, grasshopper. And yellow is not red. :)
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 9:49 PM Well, in reviewing this dialog, I think I see the difference in viewpoints basically boils down to this:
L&B agrees people should save, but that a safety net should exist for those that don’t quite make enough to sustain themselves on, even if frugal.
Happiness agrees people should save, and it’s their own fault if life doesn’t deal them a fair hand and they should just go and die and save the rest of us a lot of money.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 18, 2005 at 10:06 PM Margaret wrote: “Well, in reviewing this dialog, I think I see the difference in viewpoints basically boils down to this:”
“L&B agrees people should save,”
Barely.
“but that a safety net should exist for those that don’t quite make enough to sustain themselves on, even if frugal.”
“Happiness agrees people should save,”
I *assert* people should save. And further that the vast majority can.
“and it’s their own fault if life doesn’t deal them a fair hand and they should just go and die and save the rest of us a lot of money. “
Now that is just plain out and out wrong! I obviously said no such thing, and even said the opposite.
Why would you write something like that? Is it you completely failed to understand my posts or are you just mean? Feel free to quote any of my posts to back up your absurd assertions that i think “they should just go and die and save the rest of us a lot of money”!
Margaret, for what it is worth, i am very disappointed with your post. It is, apparently, a willful mischaracterization of what i actually said. An apology would be in order.
But on the other hand, i bear you no ill will. We all do the best we can - sometimes it surprises me at how poorly that turns out to be. Have a good weekend, and a life that you choose. Peace.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 10:19 PM I don’t feel that I misinterpreted your statements. I think that you have made it clear that your beliefs go far beyond simply urging people to save—something we all agree on. But your statements have consistently conveyed that you have little to no sympathy for those who are not able to save enough or have great misfortune. If I read you wrong, it is because that is the impression you made not only on me, but to L&P also.
Posted by Margaret on Feb 18, 2005 at 10:37 PM Margaret wrote: “I don’t feel that I misinterpreted your statements.”
So despite the fact i actually said you were dead wrong in your asssessment of what **i think**, and the fact you have not a single statement on my part to back up your claim (despite my writing many paragraphs on this subject), you are standing my your obvious mistatement?
So much for 2 way commnunication.
Best of luck to you.
Posted by secretToHappiness on Feb 18, 2005 at 10:48 PM I think everyone is missing the point. Corporate corruption has poisoned both parties. The GOP by and through Bush has been completely taken over by big business.
However, there is a fundimental difference in the philosophies of lefties and righties that makes righties more tolerant of corporate corruption. Lefties place the interests of public health safety and welfare above the interests of corporate profits and righties place the interest of corporate profits above all other interests as a matter of policy.
As long as that is the case, righties (the voting public) will be more likely to hand power over to those who would continue to corrupt the government and diminish the services that the government should provide and can provide more efficiently and more equitably that private businesses can, under the false premise that the government is always bad and private enterprise is always good. A premise carefully cultivated by private enterprise.
Posted by Lefty on Feb 18, 2005 at 11:39 PM Maybe looking at this in terms of income classes will clarify?
Secrettohappiness thinks the middle class should be more fiscally responsible and liberalandproud thinks that the lower class should have a safety net. I’m not sure I see the incompatibility here.
Posted by blueshowdoyoudo on Feb 19, 2005 at 1:12 AM Blue, I’ll sum it up for you.
The remains of the dead and misfortunate should be turned into a useful elixer to be comsumed by the fittest and strongest so that they may carry on for the benefit of the race!
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!
LOLOL!
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 19, 2005 at 2:17 AM I’ve seen essays like these on several forums/newssites and blogs, and I think that there is a wide spread miscontruction going on here.
People seem to think that ‘capatilism’ means democracy and free markets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism is actually anethema to the two. As a system it has been doing it’s best to remove ‘free’ from the markets completely. An example from a local paper just yesterday (Globe and mail - Toronto) talking about the purchase of 3 or 4 of their competiters by Verizon. They referred to this as the “End of The Price War”. What!!! There is no such thing as a price war, especially as in ‘something bad to be stopped!! It is called a free and competitive market!! There are so many examples of this. Anybody want to talk about the US’s tariffs on steel and say… softwood lumber????? All this under “Free Trade” agreements?
I think that in the US, there is a deffinite aversion to a statement like this but: The CORE of Democracy is a SOCIALIST institution. You know, by the People for the People???? Do you really think that we formed these institutions (civilisations,especially the democratic ones) just to keep the Dog eat Dog rules of the jungle going?? If you do, then be prepared, because when the whole house of cards comes crashing down because of resource depletion/climate change/war and revolution then you might just be one of the dogs that are strung up on ropes or put under guillotines or as has been done many times in the past. Do you think you are immune??
Call me a fool, but I believe the whole point of civilisation was to act together to help one another, The strong protects/helps the weak. (you know, the good old christian values no preacher likes to quote)
If you want a good source of info into the danger that threatens ALL of us, then read the book: A Short History of Progress by Ronald WrightPlease everyone. It is time to get rid of the selfish views and the rampant abuse of our planet and people for the foolish and temporary profits of corporatism.
I for one would like to leave a nice home for my grandkids. How about you?Peace
Posted by Northman on Feb 19, 2005 at 6:46 AM What would happen if everyone decided to exercise ‘personal responsibility’ and only buy what they needed? The whole economy would collapse because our entire economy (and culture) is built on all of us buying things we don’t need. Most corporations would go bankrupt. If advertising did not work, corporations wouldn’t spend billions on it. That is why it is so hard for most of us to exercise ‘personal responsibility’. Just like it is hard for most of us to see through the lies the media feeds us and find out the truth about our government and what it is doing in the world. It is all part of the corporate agenda that we must fight on both the personal and political level as the article suggests.
Posted by dana3301 on Feb 19, 2005 at 7:46 AM I thought Margaret summed up Secret To Happiness’s position *as it was stated* very well. Secret, maybe you *do* believe the disabled, the children of the poor, etc, shouldn’t just up and die, but you SAID that thousands of years ago, if you couldn’t hunt your own food you died (paraphrase). You talk about people not saving and buying cable TV. Personally, I’ve had cable maybe 3 years of my entire life. I’ve spent more time unemployed than I have getting cable (which I had because it was included with an appartment) and they didn’t overlap.
I’m too sick to hold a normal job, but my doctors believe in encouraging people to do what they can by not putting them on disability, so even though my husband has health problems, he’s the sole income owner and I highlight and staple flyers, advise him on ways to keep expenses down, and otherwise assist.
If I die, he’s probably better off, and don’t think there haven’t been days I didn’t consider deliberately triggering an asthma attack I couldn’t recover from. If he dies, I will be impoverished unless a pharmacuetical company (who make thousands of dollars off of us annually for asthma medicines) decides to provide a cheap asthma cure.
I’m NOT an unusual case. Furthermore, the asthma came from mold exposure at my workplace, which I couldn’t prove—and which modern government is reluctant to do anything about.
As for saving—we lived off of our savings for THREE YEARS. The recommended amount is six months expenses saved. Now, my husband is in a business that expanding and will probably bring in more money annually than the two of us ever made as wage slaves.
Posted by Samantha Vimes on Feb 19, 2005 at 11:08 AM Don’t expect to change anything within the Democratic Party. They are no less wedded to the corporations than the Republicans.
If you are fond of government tinkering (despite mountains of evidence showing the insanity of it—see lewrockwell.com), I urge you to abandon the Dems permanently in favor of the Green Party. If, however, you sense intuitively that economic freedom would serve us better without tinkering or support from the state, I urge you to switch to the Libertarian Party.
You could even mix it up by supporting the Libertarians on the federal level and the Greens on the local and state levels.
These two parties, unlike the Dems, take a principled stand in favor of drastically reducing the military-industrial complex and thus against unnecessary wars.
Please take the long view. Yes, it might take decades for a principled party to actually win office. But your support will help them to exert some influence on public opinion in the short run and thus build momentum for the long run. The alternative is PERPETUAL insanity, meaning that our great-great-grandchildren (assuming humanity survives long enough) will be having this same conversation, hoping against hope that a mainstream party will ever be worthy of their vote.
Posted by Stephen Marsh on Feb 19, 2005 at 12:33 PM I’m glad to see more articles like this reaching more people like me: proof the internet is changing the status quo of media and corporate domination. However I don’t think the authors go far enough or grasp the potential for change.
I personally don’t believe it will be local organizations coming together—the internet has shown people don’t need to live near each other to identify with a cause and make their voice heard. And while campaign finance & media reform are necessary, we also need reforms like holding shareholders legally accountable for the companies they own. And the cost of doing business should not be only monetary: how about your impact to the environment, or the welfare of your employees and your community? If only karma was currency.
Unfortunately, and the authors recognize this, that means changing the economy. Like it or not, our standard of living is directly proportional to the health of our economy. If we make less or buy less, people suffer. So the government, in our best interest perhaps, has allowed the corporations extraordinary freedom—and to some extent, we’ve benefitted. But Justice Marshall hit the nail on the head: the baby is consuming the parent.
I’d love to see a new (virtual?) constitional convention fill the loopholes left by the last one: while our “forefathers” fought to break the power of monarchy, corporations are the new tyrants and the entire framework supports them. We needed a revolution before, and we may need one now. Someone needs to figure out how to harness the internet to grasp enough peoples’ imaginations long enough to band together and make a difference—in spite of the never-ending, overwhelming barrage of commercials to ignore others, buy stuff, and shut up. Then again, most people seem happy with their consumer and religious soma. Ah, isn’t it fun to ruminate…
Posted by Pete on Feb 19, 2005 at 4:47 PM I don’t believe that the government has allowed corporations extraordinary freedoms because it is in our best interest. They do this because it is in their best interest. Corporate donations equal the ability to get and keep power. The current Administration seems to base everything they do on this concept:
Need an energy policy-OK, how about a secret meeting with executives of the biggest power companies to set policy.
Need a “fix” for social security- Hmmm, let’s just see who gave us billions in the last election cycle. Oh, it was securities brokerage firms. Hey, I’ve got an idea-Private err Personal Accounts!
What about the pesky environment- Let’s ask the biggest corporate polluters what they think. Good idea! Voluntary pollution controls, that should work.
Now what’s left-Oh yeah taxes. How about a large tax cut that truly benefits only the richest of Americans. Great idea! Them people are what we like to call our “base”.
Not that the Dems have been much better. But at least there is a faction of the party that understands that Corporatism is the poison that is killing the system. And the spokesman for this movement has just been elected to head the National Committee. Perhaps I am just being stupidly optimistic, but I’m going to stick with it for a little longer and see if real change is embraced by the Dems over the next few years. Hopefully the recent grassroots fundraising success will allow the party to compete without being beholden to the Corporations.
Posted by Matt Harris on Feb 19, 2005 at 5:34 PM Oops forgot one.
Need a foreign policy- Let’s see, where is the largest oil reserve in the world. Yeah, that’s Saudi Arabia. Hmmm, Daddy is making a shitload of money there with his Carlyle Group. Don’t want to F up the inheritance. Where’s the 2nd largest? Oh Iraq! Damn, this President stuff sure is lucrative…
Posted by Matt Harris on Feb 19, 2005 at 6:03 PM Corporations have one purpose and one purpose only, to make as much money as possible for their owners (shareholders) and operators. That doesn’t make them bad or good, per se, but it is important to understand that fact in deciding how to deal with them. We cannot rationally expect them to operate in any other way. On the other hand, they have been one of the instrumentalities which have permitted us to develop new products, accumulate and spread wealth and many other things which are objectively good. Accordingly, corporations need to be regulated to rein them in from their otherwise single-minded pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else. I would like to see, for example, a Constitutional Amendment declaring that corporations are not “persons” under the Constitution and have no rights under the Constitution. This would greatly assist the Federal and State governments in attempting to regulate these Frankenstein Monsters, which are currently afforded many of the Constitutional protections which individuals have. There’s no need for it and I think it hampers everything else. The individuals comprising the corporation, of course, would continue receiving full Constitutional protection like every other American.
Posted by Ed Szewczyk on Feb 19, 2005 at 6:28 PM This link was posted earlier in another thread:
http://www.fairnessdoctrine.com/
a petition to restore equality in broadcasting and a return to original FCC intent.Here’s a copy of the letter I composed which I emailed to my Congressman and state Senators:
Dear Congressman .......,
As a concerned citizen residing in the .....district, I am worried that
Washington is intent on compromising Social Security. Looking at the way in
which the present administration has concealed $400 billion overcosts for
their Medicare overhaul, how can we trust them to overhaul another system
upon which Americans depend?Please do not allow our Social Security institution to fall victim to a
fiscal fiasco like our National debt. We cannot afford to let our enormous
deficit to continue to grow.Info to Contact your Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfmTo contact your memeber of the 109th Congress:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
The coziness of big biz and big gov is just so insiduous, it is really disappointing.
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 19, 2005 at 9:48 PM This is a tad off-topic, but it’s still THE ONLY #$*&ING; STORY THAT MATTERS right now and I would shout if from the rooftops if I thought it would do any good:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf
Our Republican-led government is the biggest perpetrator in the linked story but THE DEMS ONLY MAKE THE WEAKEST OF NOISES IN OPPOSITION, DIVERT PUBLIC ATTENTION FROM THE TRUTH AND ARE THUS COMPLICIT in their crimes.
I have no doubt that there are good people in both parties, but the sickening demon majorities only let them in them to create an appearance that one of them might someday be worthy of your vote. Please support a third party: Libertarian, Green, Constitution, even Socialist. There’s no other way.
Posted by Stephen Marsh on Feb 20, 2005 at 7:26 PM I thought we were responding to an article about how corporations have compromised the integrity of our country (i.e. government), not about how poor people need to eat dirt and save their money…
SecretToHappiness has really hit the nail on the head here. Poor people really need to get it together and stop spending so extravigantly. Last time I checked, you didn’t achieve financial security by putting food on the table and clothes on the back of your children. (And let’s face it, money really IS the secret to happiness.) What these poor people don’t understand is that they need to stop wasting their money on such trivial things like food, clothes, rent (especially when everyone knows it’s smarter to buy than rent). They need to just suck it up and save all their money and let that REQUIRED car insurance lapse. (It’s not like their insurance will pay anything anyway. Oh wait, I’m thinking of health insurance. Or is it both? I get so confused…)
If the poor in this country INSIST on spending money, they need to focus their spending on the products that are advertised to them 2,000 times a day. Because, and this is common knowledge, if they don’t buy those products, they’ll be forever worthless and will never amount to anything. It’s only in material goods that one can find true happiness (aside from the aforementioned “money”), at least that’s what Corporate America told me. Then he put his hand on my thigh and asked me if I wanted to “touch it.” He told me if I said “no” that he’d bend me over and screw me royally. To which I replied, “You don’t have to tell me, mister - I know all about you.”
Posted by Jon Swift Jr. on Feb 21, 2005 at 4:18 AM Money is not the secret to happiness. The secret to happiness is exactly that, a secret.
Saving cash will secure you means by which to alleviate your predicament, but that is not the secret. The secret lies in knowing what you really want from this life. No amount of money is going to buy you that knowledge.
Big business does not want you to think. They want you brain dead. They want you to be fat. They want you to kill, mis-behave, rape, destroy, sleep, eat, drink, buy buy buy… and so on. They want to take away your reason to think, so that they may think for you.
Just being born into this society is a challenge to last a lifetime. We are a planet breeding state of denial. You know what they say about assumptions being the mother of all f##k up’s!
Read the below one poster had to say about other posters giving it to each other.
“The Truth
What people don’t understand is that the conflict and angst that arises between all of us is not a reflection of merely our political ideologies. No, our divisiveness and inability to comprehend or see the good and bad on every side, whose causes and raison d’etre run much deeper and are fraught with innumerable pitfalls which are ceaselessly and without conscience plastered like billboard signs palimpsest upon the murky, uncertain mirror of history…but arise due to an intrinsically human inability to comprehend that whatever our convictions may be - our choices stem from a natural incapacity to see that our philosophic bases are solopsistic and always subjective.
Debates, are won or lost depending on the eloquence, amount of factual research, clarity of goal, articultion and erudition of the speaker, and yes, the debator’s ability to gain the audience’s sympathy.
Never is a debate won because someone has cornered the market on the truth. The truth is something that’s always changing. The minute you think you’ve got it, it metamorphoses into it’s opposite. Whatever truth anyone believes they’ve found cannot be proved on the basis of their selective reading of historical sources or even personal experience. The truth is much simpler and yet less easy to grasp than the power of words is to elucidate and define it.
And when each of us comes into the world as individuals with unique points of view…what is true is the necessity for everyone to realize that separation only takes place in the ego. Reality demands that everything, everyone, everywhere and simultaneously be and do whatever the universe or God intended by having created everything unique in the first place.
Yes, we are unique like everyone else and that is the truth. Stop attempting to, “one-up”, the last person to speak. What matters is what you as a unique individual have to add that is yours alone…perhaps then we can begin to see how not so different from one another we all are.
Otherwise we’ll be beating one another upside the head right up to the moment that the world we’ve dismembered and poisoned finally gives up on us and wipes us all out for reasons of self-preservation. Who can blame the Earth when that time arrives? Who will even be able to take note that the time HAS arrived? After all, while we were sitting in front of our P.C.s trying to prove the unprovable…others were pulling the very basis for the survival of life right out from under us in every imaginable way so as to make their miserable little fortunes - they too ignoring the truth of what they were doing for which they too had a thousand justifications that will all ring hollow once we’re dropping like flies in the midst of some nuclear winter or because there’s no more oil or clean water or the genetically engineered seeds proved to be so inimical to agriculture, unlike it’s proponents swore it would be, (how many so-called miracles of science have turned out to have hidden, unforeseen consequences that they had to be banned?), and suddenly…no more food.
Yes, life; reality - is what is continually occuring whether or not we agree with its terms - while we are so self-absorbedly busy trashing, robbing, raping, humiliating, torturing, dissembling, looting, rioting, making love, getting drunk and taking the family out for a spin, looking for the truth or God while it’s right in front of us all the time, and killing one another while trying to keep our filthy consciences clean…and that’s the truth!
Dominick Mastroserio “
Posted by Watson on Feb 21, 2005 at 11:21 AM It’s funny,actually it isn’t.
The whole purpose of Social Security was to establish a system by which people could be insured that,at retirement age,they would have some sort of income to prevent destitution and subsequent starvation.Retirement age was established to prevent people from having to work until,literally,the day they died,much to the chagrin of big business who vilified Roosevelt.The Re-party wishes to pervert this simple and humane sytem.
Is there anyone out there who can rationalize this obscene pyramid,sorry,it’s actually trapezoidal,scheme?Is there any one who thinks that,particularly after the dot com crash and the stock crash of the late eighties that they can trust their future to big business? Please tell me.I have a scam…I mean business opportunity I’d like to propose.
During the 1920’s,business was allowed to do as it pleased.The result:a depression and a third of the population being thrown out of work.Democrats instituted several programs to guarantee the minimal well-being of the citizenry.
For this they were assailed by Republicans who were too stupid to realize it was the only thing to prevent socialism or communism from dominanting.Now,ignoramuses in congress and business wish to tamper with the property of the populace to benefit corporations.
I’ve heard all the falderol of people like Rush,who is,by the way,a multi-millionaire,
claiming that individuals(Re-partisans are fond of this word.Ironically they use just before taking one’s individuality.)will have the opportunity(Translation:drink the Re-party Kool-Aid.)to invest in the stock market and make their own fortune.How many out there think they’re intelligent enough to manipulate the stock market?Many stock-brokers aren’t.Hence some people lose
everything.Enron comes to mind.Speaking of which,who had a personal involvement in that corporation and it’s subsequent demise?DICK Cheney.that’s who.Furthermore,who wants to spend an hour or four every day looking over their portfolio and the market to make sure their stocks aren’t slipping in value?We have working vacations and working weekends.Soon we’ll not only have working retirements,but also working off-time.By the way,don’t think that corporations aren’t above stating that an employee must investing,and maintaining at all times,a percentage of their pay in their corporation’s stock,regardless of how the corporation is doing.
Consider this,what will you Re-partisans do if this scheme does go through,you invest your money and lose it all.Where’s your recourse?Who will you sue,and do you expect to win with re-partisans drawing up laws which favor big business over people?Not to mention what will you do for money in the meantime,several months to several years, that the case is litigated? Furthter contemplate this:the politicians who are engineering this scam have iron-clad pensions and medical plans, that really do ensure social security, for the rest of their lives.You starve or die of easily preventable infection,not to mention overwork,Re-partisan politicians die of hearyt disease brought on by too much pate de fois gras and Taittinger.
A person who sides with re-partisans and this Ponzi scheme is as stupid as a cow who sides with the slaughterhouse.Then again,my great-grandmother,who lived thruogh the Great Depression,used to say"vote republican and you’ll get what you deserve”.Despite it all,re-partisans will still find a way to blame it on their opposition,if there is any left.I foresee it becoming extinct,or blame it on Clinton in some convoluted"magic bullet"theory.
Posted by wwoods on Feb 21, 2005 at 3:36 PM Drutman & Cray—
Thank you. “The People’s Business” is excellent destructive analysis—taking things apart to see what is wrong. But please notice the comment by “Luisa” on page 1. Her complaint is that you’ve given us insufficient constructive analysis. Where are the detailed suggestions for how we can restore democracy? What are the tactics with which we can get around the political and legal power of govt-plus-big-business corporatism?
Safe to say, getting to raw power for civil society will require a huge increase in the public’s political sophistication.
Job One—increase political sophistication with projects that right blantant wrongs. Obviously, such projects must occur on the states rights side of our federalism. We must not play into the compromised power centers of national-level corporatism.
“3 Crucibles Program”.
Crucible 1—A project to reduce 17 vulnerable state legislatures to nonpartisan unicamerals on the successful Nebraska model—with the announced intention to do the same to Congress as a part of our constitutional renewal.
The Nebraska experience shows us that the nonpartisan unicameral can put about two-thirds of the criminals on the streets, cut the cost of government by several orders of magnitude, increase cooperation with civil society and the media unimaginably, end the pork-barrel waste of “omnibus bills” with constitutional “single-subject” restrictions, allow constitutional provisions to end gerrymandering and to set clean-money campaign funding, and automatically cut overall corruption down to a manageable level.
The 17 states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Misouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota. They’re vulnerable because citizens in those states already have the CAI—constitutional amendment initiative. Nebraska citizens used their CAI to pass constitutional provisions for their nonpartisan unicameral in 1934. Their bicameral’s last session was 1935. Their nonpartisan unicameral’s first session was 1937. It’s an on-going success story.
Crucible 2—I&R (initiative & referendum) law clean-up project that criminally prosecutes and brings civil lawsuits against state-level officials and judges who routinely violate citizen rights protected by federal statutes 18 USC 241 (criminal conspiracy against rights) and 42 USC 1983 (civil conspiracy against rights).
Citizen rights to a republican form of government in the states—as promised in the Constitution—are violated every time state or sub-state govt processes an initiative or referendum or recall petition. It has been going on for over 100 years. It is fixed in blatantly unconstituttional statute laws passed by every one of the legislatures in the 34 states that have some form of citizen petition process (biggest problems are in the 23 active I&R states). Note that Massachusetts is a special case, requiring a state-wide constitutional convention for clean-up.
It is long past time for the I&R law clean-up to begin. It will strip many criminal officials and judges of their social, economic, and political power—and it will dramatically reduce corruption in state-level politics.
Crucible 3—A consensus-finding project for the features of the generic legislation needed in 34 states to call and control the 2nd NCC (National Constitutional Convention). This is necessary both to prevent predator elitist take-over of the convention and to meet the authors of the Constitution on their own terms—as given by Hamilton in Federalist 78 (a solemn and authoritative act of change). By conforming to Hamilton’s requirement, we will ensure our national continuity from the founding principles of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War to uncertain future.
The Crucibles will increase political sophistication, right wrongs, and give us a running start at restoring democracy.
For the past 11 years, I’ve worked on civil society’s raw power needs—and the melding of sovereign citizen lawmking with still-strong, but more-regulated rep govt. The history of that “true republican governance” is a straight line from its 400 years in the ancient Roman Republic to the US new-nation consensus reflected in our founding principles as written by Jefferson in the DOI. Americans have been living and dying for those extraordinary founding principles ever since.
The details of that history, and the why-to and how-to of adapting true republican governance to our nation are in my web site’s lead piece, the SOTR.
Job Two—mount and control the 2nd NCC to gain the raw power that civil society needs to end the evils of corporatism and its Bush-led despotism.
Stephen Neitzke
Direct Democracy League
http://ddleague-usa.net
Posted by Stephen Neitzke on Feb 21, 2005 at 4:58 PM The authors are too broad in their remediation, though accurate. A couple of things one might do personally: 1. buy organic products, though they are presently more expensive; 2. buy renewable energy at a slightly higher cost from such brokers as Sterling Planet
http://www.sterlingplanet.com/index2.php?
Read Wendell Berry’s article, “The Idea of a Local Economy”
http://www.orionsociety.org/pages/om/archive_om/Berry/Local_Economy.html
Posted by Steve Blumberg on Feb 21, 2005 at 6:47 PM I appreciate the detailed information you all have posted on this crucial issue. In listening to a lot of pundits on Social Security from both sides of the fence, it is evident to me that a “tweaking” of the system is needed, not a complete transfiguration.
The best suggestion that I had heard/read was to raise the level of income from $90,000 to $150,000 from which a deduction would be taken for SS, and raise the age of retirement to between 68-70. According to what I understand (I’m sorry that I’m not one of those people who remembers intrinsic details of the where and from whom I find info,God bless all of you who are more astute in this regard), this solution would provide funding to keep present levels for decades beyond 2042. What’s so hard about that?
Posted by Margaret on Feb 21, 2005 at 7:11 PM “The most effective way to control corporations will be to restore citizen democracy and to reclaim the once widely accepted principle that corporations are but creatures of the state, chartered under the premise that they will serve the public good, and entitled to only those rights and privileges granted by citizen-controlled governments. Only by doing so will we be able to create the just and sustainable economy that we seek, an economy driven by the values of human life and community and democracy instead of the current suicide economy driven only by the relentless pursuit of financial profit at any cost.”
I see the usual chanting of “Democracy! Democracy!” What will you do with me in your new (old) world, Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray? I don’t believe in democracy, which means man’s rule over man and does not involve God.
There’s much to agree with in the authors’ article. But I see some confusion and some contradiction. Social justice movements (the “global justice movement”) are seen as be good, but not the solution. We need a new movement, namely one that revolves around the right values and vision (capitalist?), rather than one which is fragmented and in pursuit of mulitple special interest goals. This is the authors’ view. But then the authors applaud the efforts of the labor movement, which they they note is fractured, for being at the center of the movement to challenge corporate power.
Indeed. You could say that the labor movement is at the center of that challenge, although there needs to be some qualification. I think it’s important to distinguish between the rank and file and the traitorous leadership (not all perhaps), namely the class collaborationists who do well while their membership withers under the capitalist attack. Somehow, I don’t think the authors were admiring the rank and file here.
Didn’t Sweeney get behind the Democratic half of the corporate ruling Party in the elections of Clinton and the recent election that saw George Bush win? And I have to wonder whether the authors voted for Ralph Nader in the last two American elections, because if they didn’t, I think that says a lot. (I’m from Toronto, Canada, by the way.)
The authors raise all of the important issues, for sure. I’ve never seen them all raised at once like this. But I’m saddened to see not once the word ‘capitalism’, although that’s what we’re talking about here. Good grief! Indeed, The authors argue for a kinder, gentler capitalism. Well, I would like that. But I don’t believe in capitalism. Again, Does that make me an enemy in this new vision-led movement?
I think the discussion around the chartering of corporations is important. But wasn’t there a situation a little while ago where Californians, or some folks somewhere in the US, agreed to ask their governor to strip the charter from some corporation and he simply said “no”? I certainly agree thaty ou need to get your prospective political representatives to commit to social justice goals before you elect them. Big time.
I think the point about media is absolutely crucial. Does that mean that the authors support the idea of our major dailies carrying a ‘labor section’ (which includes business information, but from a working person’s perspective), as some used to? Of course, If we could reach a number of the goals that the authors lay out, I’m sure that something like that would naturally follow. Or I hope so.
And I’m sure that those who can do so are already financially helping the independent media. But we need to free the working class before more can be done here. Clearly the capitalist class doesn’t want that. We might have ideas - and the authors are to be thanked for giving them some - about how to organize and run society that they don’t like, for selfish reasons. The authors didn’t mention shorter work weeks with the same pay. But I don’t expect to find every detail of a people’s agenda in one article. But for a fact, the capitalists have us too distracted and harried and busy to properly take stock and to really move against them. We are in a sort of catch 22 here. Although I like the reference to the colonization of the mind that happens when we let our guards down.
Indeed, The time to care is before the catastrophe. So I guess we have to talk about different categories of catastrophe, since we already have the catastrophe of capitalism to deal with. Apparently, It’s taken firm root in the authors’ minds. But honestly, I am happy to see them care enough to want it to work for everyone. As I said, I just don’t believe in it. In fact, I believe that as long as you have any money system, it will, while we are imperfect and without God, end up like this. It will become neoliberal, with a few making out like bandits, via privatization and deregulation for them, and the costs all shifted to those who are stupid enough to be willing to actually follow laws and believe in order.
Good luck to us all.
Posted by Arby on Feb 21, 2005 at 8:05 PM ITT, what happened? Yesterday’s main article about Bush’s efforts to derail Social Security is gone with no link to it that I can see. This issue is so important.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1964/
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 22, 2005 at 3:02 PM It should be apparent to all, but it isn’t, that we the corporate powers have pulled off a coup of the United States Government.
I think we cannot take it back because of ignorance and apathy of the masses. Probably in a few years when even the most dense of the ignorant finally sees what has happened there will be a war between labor and management, a total collapse of wall street and mass killing of corporate leaders along with everyone else. Prophecy tells the story, just watch it happening.
Posted by Rich Warren on Feb 23, 2005 at 12:04 PM This is in response to secretToHappiness’ assertion that most people are in financial difficulty simply because they refuse to save money. She should read the book by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi. Here is a link to a review and summary.
http://www.bookfinder.us/review6/0465090826.html
For middle income families, saving money and staying out of debt is a little more complicated than just spending less than you make.
Posted by godfrey on Feb 23, 2005 at 8:00 PM Did y’all know that there is an emergent movement NOW that shows us how to challenge corporate power and assert citizens rights, by abolishing the corporation’s illegitimately assumed personhood as well as its political activity and speech?
Three groups have pioneered and developed the solutions now being applied in Pennslavania, Maine and elsewhere. Just google POCLAD.org, WILPF.org,ReclaimDemocracy.org,and CELDF.org.or mainecaucus.org
Join or start a wilpf discusssion/action group and/or read Thom Hartmann, Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights. Hartmann has written a “boot camp manual for challenging corporate power in your state and even town hall”,as I called it in my review of his work! See the documentary and book by Joel Bakan, THE CORPORATION: The Patholiogical Pursuit of Profit and Power. For help contact Reclaim Democracy or WILPF. Go! Help yourself to end corporate rule! ~~Matt in Rockland Maine, where we put the above sources to work and where we have two bills in the legisature to control corporate power and restore citizen rights.
Posted by Matt Clarke on Feb 24, 2005 at 2:38 PM (Am trying to post on the 2nd page of “The People’s Business:...” but the web is getting buggy as this post may show up on the Labor story)
here’s one of Matt Clarke’s links pertaining to this subject:
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us s.html” .....“The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passedto circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.
The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment—a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters. Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….” ”
Posted by pick of the litter on Feb 24, 2005 at 10:29 PM The National Lawyers Guild has long been a leader in the fight to take our country back from corporations. The mission statement of the NLG Committee on Corporations, the Constitution & Human Rights states:
“In a democratic society, living human beings are sovereign and are the basis of all government authority. The fundamental premise of a democracy is that political power resides and must remain in the hands of the people. Artificial entities such as corporations, which were created for functional purposes - for example, to produce and provide economic goods - are vital for any modern society. However, unlike human beings, they are neither intrinsically valuable nor do they have any legitimate claim to share in or be able to avoid democratic sovereignty.
Corporations have in recent decades acquired increasing economic and political power such that they have begun to usurp the powers of government and undermine the principle of democratic sovereignty. The Committee’s mission is to work toward restoring sovereignty in the hands of the people, to put human beings back in charge as they should be in a democratic polity.” For more detailed explanations of their goals see, http://www.nlg.org/programs/corporations.htm
UNTIL A CORPORATION CAN GO TO JAIL FOR ITS CRIMES THE USA NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO BUY OUR GOVERNMENT WITH LOBBYISTS AND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. OR WE COULD JUST SEIZE THE CORPORATE LEADERS LIKE COMMON CRIMINALS AND REQUIRE THEM TO STAND TRIAL FOR THEIR CORPORATIONS’ CRIMES.
Posted by AmericanInsurgent on Feb 25, 2005 at 1:33 AM As Benito liked to say, fascism should be called corporatism. The simple fact is, Corporations are, by their very nature, sociopathic. So, it is not suprising to learn, that many of the people who succeed greatly in the corporate environment are, themselves, sociopathic.
One of the most important roles of government, it seems to me, is to protect the citizens from real dangers; like sociopathic corporations and there sociopathic bosses.
It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a business man, from the corporate world, for dog catcher, let alone president. The chances of finding ourselves with “Ted Bundy” in the White House are too great.
O.K., OK, I know: that has already happened; let’s see that it never happens again, if we still actually have that choice.
Posted by Dot Dedman on Feb 25, 2005 at 5:30 PM I just read on Yahoo that Halliburton is going to be awarded millions in bonus money for the “great” job they did in Iraq! Someone please help me jog my memory, but don’t I recall that they were suspected of appropriating millions from us taxpayers in services never provided about a year ago? What ever happened with that?
Posted by Margaret on Feb 25, 2005 at 7:49 PM You know, I read the historical citations, the good advice about living within a budget, and groups telling how they’re taking on the concept of corporation-as-person, and I’m encouraged. Maybe Americans aren’t all as dumb as the stereotypes suggest. However, I’d be a lot more encouraged if I heard someone with a real power base talking like this across mass media, not just sniping at the (repugnant) administration but challenging the very assumptions that fuel the monster; corporate “rights” without responsibility, prosperity via credit card, looking for someone else to validate decisions about how we live, convenience before discipline, being part of the latest new fad or gadget-fest, all the headgames that empower people whose income is from dividends, at our own expense. If only there were someone as rich as Ross Perot (Why did anyone give a damn about him in ‘92? Cuz he was a billionaire!) but with the interests of regular Americans and the world at heart, or someone with a truly mass following that translates into political potency, someone who can get and keep the attention of voting citizens. Don’t see much coming from the Dems like that, and as for the Reps, I should live so long.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 28, 2005 at 7:39 AM “If the gutting of the ergonomics rule, power plant emissions standards and drug safety programs was not already enough evidence that OSHA, EPA and FDA are deeply compromised,”
or, rather, evidence that those agencies are being properly reigned in
Posted by J Craig on Mar 2, 2005 at 9:29 PM “or, rather, evidence that those agencies are being properly reigned in”
As a business owner that has to deal with these agencies, I know they can be a bit ridiculous in some of their demands (recycling rainwater than comes off your roof, etc.) BUT, as someone who has worked in big business for 15 years, I know that individual businesses will generally not look out for the welfare of the environment. As I’m hoping we’ll inhabit the planet for a bit longer, I am willing to bend to some rules that irritate me (personally and financially) in order to have those that truly benefit all of us stay intact.
Yes, some reigning in on stupid and ineffective rules is good, but not the dismantling of our safety net for clean water and air through such bogus proposals as the “Clean Air Act”. What a sham!
Posted by Margaret on Mar 3, 2005 at 6:51 PM If we as a people were able to unite and force the goverment to put a tax on outsourcing which would not make it more profitable for companies to hire people from outside the usa, outsourcing would stop.
I’m writing hoping someone with the knowledge and connections could get an organization together to make such a move. I know that most US citizens would vote would aggree that jobs should be offered to US citizens first before being shipped to other continents.
Posted by antonio Fernandez on Mar 19, 2005 at 4:41 AM COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!
COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!COMMUNISM RULES ALL!!!
Posted by nazi on May 1, 2005 at 5:18 PM Now, there’s a disgruntled and misinformed anachronism. (Lenin was great for humankind?)
Posted by chicagostonepro on Jun 6, 2005 at 1:22 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray
- The People’s Business
Controlling corporations and restoring democracy
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
