I'll explain the objection to "corporatism" once and only once

[AllentownJake]

As an auditor, I'm a big fan of the founding fathers. The men for all their faults were geniuses when it came to diluting power so that no party could become too powerful. They looked at the world they lived in, looked at the mother country, looked at history and came up with a solution to governance that while flawed, was the best system for preventing power to concentrate too much. In my world we call this is segregation of duties.

The government is supposed to be a control and regulating force on the business world. I've said it in the past, however I'll say it again, pure socialism devolves into communism and pure capitalism devolves into fascism either way it is a boot on the throat of humanity and free thinking.

The Founders knew this, corporations were limited. There was a mistrust in them. They had a limited lifespan and had to prove they were doing something good for the public. Their charters could be revoked by the state they were incorporated and their assets sold and the proceeds given to shareholders. If they wanted to renew their charter, they had to petition the state to do so. The founders had no problem with wealth or a wealthy class, they just had no taste for developing entities that allowed individuals to hide wealth and avoid liabilities. The only shame is they did not write this into the US Constitution as it was not a problem. Just a little historical perspective.

When the Government begins to "partner" with business instead of regulating it you have a problem. You have the ability of the government to pick winners and losers. What happened this past year with the TARP payments and the subsequent tax rule rewrites by Tim Geithner's crew to pay them back was an example of the government picking a winner and a loser. The winner being large banking firms that were enormously irresponsible and losers being smaller banks.

There are some services that the Government will have difficulty providing, however, I'm a proponent of when the Government does something, it uses Government employees. I do not like it when services are outsourced to a third party. If you need to know why, look at K-Street or contractors in Iraq. Allowing the government to transfer payments to corporate entities for services will always result in corruption. The loss you pay for slight inefficiency you more than make up for in money not flowing out the door. In addition, the people who are providing the services have one loyalty, their employer, their loyalties are not split to a client and the person who signs their checks. Third party service providers to the government, should be an exception, not a rule.

So, when you hear me ranting about corporatism, this is what I'm ranting about. I do not want to end corporations, I do not want to overturn capitalism, and I do not want to install a socialist utopia. I want the government to be regulating business free from conflict of interest, and I want business to be conducting business honorably instead of lobbying for tax dollar handouts in Washington D.C. and state capitals.

[ixion]

1. well said... k/r

:applause:

[highplainsdem]

2. K&R

[TexasObserver]

3. Recommend

[defendandprotect]

4. As you might recall, FDR merely regulated capitalism to save it . . . the recent

overturning of the New Deal rules and regulations by political forces BOUGHT

by corporations shows that was insufficient.

Capitalism should have been ended in FDR's time -- and now we're suffering the

consequences of that failure.

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

It's a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system intended to move a nation's wealth and

resources from the many to the few -- and it does that quite successfully!

We need to move on to democratic socialism . . .

And re-regulate capitalism out of existence --

before it kills us all!

The very suicidal and destructive nature of capitalism portends ill for humanity and

the world, from the immense pollution of our planet, oceans, air, water, ozone holes --

to Global Warming !

Not to mention the harm being done to humans from this pollution and the negative effects

on our immune systems.

[AllentownJake]

7. I'm not that extreme

However the two political parties are both to the right of Herbert Hoover at the moment. I have no objection to a man or woman acquiring power and wealth through their own genius, I do have an objection of them handing it down to their idiot children who did not sacrifice for it. There needs to be a limit to that.

Capitalism in of itself is not evil, unregulated cowboy capitalism is.

I have no problem with a kid taking over a diner, restaurant, or a store from their parents. A house or a small farm. I do have a problem with a child taking over a multinational conglomerate from their dad.

We are dangerously close to feudalism and a dark age, and the administration right now, is speeding up that process, not slowing it down.

[defendandprotect]

21. Corporatism/fascism is extreme and should be dealt with by extreme measures . . .

The two party tyranny buy-out by corporations began more than 40 years ago --

and our only response to it has been to vote for "the lesser evil."

Unfortunately, most of the wealth acquired by capitalism is other people's . . .

from our own nation's land holdings to or own nation's natural resources and wealth.

Capitalism would be immediately extinct if it were actually competitive --

it's not about competition, it's about killing the competition.

And, if we examine most of the great wealth of the world, we see behind it great crime.

Not only great crime, but historical crime.

Much of those who we think have gained wealth thru their own "genius" have actually acquired

it by having government research turned over to them. Computers would be but one example of that.

Medical research, as well.

Capitalism has proven at every turn that it is evil -- intentionally.

Or do you think that the S&L theft and embezzlements and these many recent needs for

bailouts were some kind of mistakes?

And, yes, unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

Corporatism/fascism will take us back to child labor - and back as far as it can go into slavery.

That's the nature of this beast.

[Larry Ogg]

60. I couldn't have said it any better... 10+

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

It's good to see that others can see the world for what it is; as apposed too the deceitful illusions of political paradigms...

Larry

[defendandprotect]

72. And . . .

I think this all has to be discussed here much more often ---

thank you for joining in --



Happy Winter Solstice -- Nature's New Year!!

Smilie

[bread_and_roses]

96. another big + here (n/t)

[bertman]

124. Thank you for that, defendandprotect. Concise and accurate to a fault. nt

[pattmarty]

129. Interesting argument, but I don't think we are "there" yet.........................

.................The many things that are wrong with this country now have been happening little by little for 40 yrs. Most of the business regulations put on in the last century have either been repealed or just plain not enforced. To try to have a "socialist" system here first of now probably get you at least beaten in certain places. Look at the weak regulations that recently passed the House. No, we don't "need" Socialism now, but we do need strong regulations put back on business and start enforcing the anti trust laws. That alone would be a huge victory for the working class.

[phasma ex machina]

194. +1 "the two political parties are both to the right of Herbert Hoover at the moment."

[Odin2005]

27. We need Market Socialism.

A free enterprise market economy based on co-ops instead of corporations.

Like Jake I have no problem with people becoming wealthy through their own effort, I do not believe in equality of outcome, but I do have a problem from people becoming wealthy by being economic parasites

[truedelphi]

89. FDR made a sppeech in Madison Square Garden summer of 1936

That is a total defense of what you are saying: "It is better to be friends with organized crime families than to be friends of organized banking."

He was from the same class as the major banksters of his day -- and he understood them all too well.

Obama counts Geithner as one of his good friends, and has the guy just down the hall from the Oval Office.

[Hannah Bell]

111. not only from the same class, he was a bankster, like his fathers before him.

roosevelts founded e.g. Chemical Bank, Bank of NY...

Founded in 1823 as the Chemical Manufacturing Company, the renamed Chemical Bank operated under a New York state charter until 1865 and again, as Chemical Bank & Trust Company, after 1929. It was long dominated by the Goelet and < Cornelius van Schaack > Roosevelt families. In 1954 it acquired the Corn Exchange Bank and Trust Company, in 1959 the Trust Company of New York and in 1991 it merged with Manufacturers Hanover, itself the result of several earlier mergers. The Hanover Bank of New York was once controlled by another of New York's banking dynasties : the Woodwards. In the year 2000, the combined Chase and Chemical group merged with J. P. Morgan to form J P Morgan Chase.

http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/bankers_gilded_age/Bankers_index5.asp


The Bank of New York (Now BofNY-Mellon) founded on June 9, 1784<2>, making it the oldest bank in the United States. Alexander Hamilton, founder; Isaac Roosevelt, cofounder, second president..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_New_York


plus lots of smaller ventures...

[defendandprotect]

148. It's interesting to go back and look at his speeches . . .

first, for his frankness about the "robber barons/Princes of Property" etal --

but also because he regularly speaks about "the right to pursuit of happiness" and a

second Bill of Rights -- full employment, etc.

So much of that "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" has been weeded out of our

culture, it seems . . . !!

:)

Happy Winter Solstice -- Nature's New Year!

[Scruffy1]

94. You said it so well..

There's not a lot I can add. Having lived through the sixties and the Vietnam war I have seen forty years plus of Imperialistic capitalism. From Iraq to the Congo the wars of exploitation continue. In truth war is the very essence of capitalism. We keep fighting the symptoms and not the disease.

[Enthusiast]

132. Too extreme, defendandprotect.

Adequately regulated capitalism is the best system.

To achieve adequate regulation we must limit the influence of money in elections. That should be objective number one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

193. You may, or may not, be surprised to find that I've found near unanimity on that objective...

...from both sides of the aisle.

Funny how it hasn't happened.

[depakid]

5. One might also add that there are classes of goods and services that are more efficiently provided

by government(s)- or by highly regulated utilities.

Privatizing them is invariably a costly mistake.

[mmonk]

8. Yes, That is what many people do not get.

Privatization can be much more costly but yet those that propagandize for it will tell the public they are saving them money.

[AllentownJake]

11. I purposely left that out for now

The people that need to read this post, will not yet get that concept.

[AdHocSolver]

155. The problem is that people don't consider paying for exorbitant profits as a tax.

The "capitalists" have successfully convinced the public that what the government "charges" for its services, no matter how "minimal", is an evil tax, whereas a corporation ripping them off with exorbitant fees and extortionate business practices is somehow fair and just, because it is "private" business.

The corporate interests have redefined economic terms and theory so that the average person thinks that the screwing that they are getting is just and right, and the economy cannot work any other way.

To those people I say, you might as well put all your most valuable possessions in front of your house (if you still live in one) together with a sign that reads: "Take whatever you want."

Economics discusses the business environment as if all businesses were little more than "mom and pop" stores. Citigroup, AIG, and their ilk are merely big, grown up versions of your local hardware store or diner.

By modern standards, two giant insurance companies colluding to charge you exorbitant premiums, while continually reducing coverage, is "competition".

Then there is the essential feature of the capitalist system, the stock market. One would think that after Enron, and the expose that many of our most heralded corporations were cooking their books to defraud the investing public, people would be leery of betting their savings on a giant Ponzi scheme. However, it seems that those who still have any savings left are ready to gamble it away for that big score.

[Laelth]

6. Agreed. The "Third Way" is killing us.

This essay nicely explains that "Third Way Democrats" are in control of the Democratic Party. It also explains why those of us on the left are frustrated and feel unrepresented in government.

Ultimately, with "Third Way Democrats" in control, we are unrepresented.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144783/3_reasons_why_progressives_are_so_frustrated

:dem:

-Laelth

[AllentownJake]

9. I may sit out in the future

I have not decided. When my choice is corporatism or corporatism, I may not cast a vote for either.

We'll see how this year plays out, and if the third way continues.

[Laelth]

13. I won't sit out, but I will continue to describe what I see.

When Obama fired Greg Craig, the last strong liberal in the Administration was silenced. I see no reason to believe that this Administration can be anything but a "Third Way" outfit. There are no strong liberals left in the Whit House. We have been effectively silenced.

:dem:

-Laelth

[AllentownJake]

14. I will not cast a vote for my own destruction

Whether it is a slow death or a quick death.

[JHB]

40. If you have no other acceptable choice, vote for yourself

Write yourself in instead of opting out.

Not voting is de facto acceptance of the status quo, which in your case is obviously counterproductive.

If there's no one you can support, even holding your nose, vote for yourself. You won't win, but if you prove your vote is there someone will eventually try to win it. (and just imagine an election with a 10% (20%? 30%?) "other" vote. THAT would send the major parties scrambling.)

[dixiegrrrrl]

91. What if we had ballots that included "None of the above"???

would give us a more direct voice and choice.

[Nikki Stone1]

116. .

.

[defendandprotect]

149. +1

[ChiciB1]

123. I Agree With All You've Said... But I don't Think I'll Sit Out... But What I May

do is THINK, and THINK seriously WHO gets my vote! If it means it goes to the one who's not "the anointed" then so be it. I completely realize so many say this is throwing you vote away, but for the first time in my life I think I really "get it!"

While my political leanings are so much more with Feingold, Sanders, Kucinich... etc., I have simply gone along with "THE ONE" of my party affiliation. So rather than say I didn't vote, thereby having no real ground to stand on when someone asks, I will say YES, I voted! They need not know WHO I voted for, but at least I will be able to say I VOTED!

In the past I have just done the norm... no longer! And yes, I DO REALIZE that Repukes walk in lock step with blinders on, but that may just have to be the price Democrats will have to pay! We see what a mess they've made, THEY won't stop!

But Democrats have it all and are frittering it away! What has opened my eyes more than ever is HCR. To me IT SUCKS and if there aren't some serious changes made, people are going to HAVE to pay for something that isn't actually all that HEALTHY for them! Financial worry is a stressor, therefore that stressor creates an unhealthy person! Can't pay your bills creates more worry. So getting fined if you don't pay is UNHEALTHY!

It would be nice to have a STRONG alternative Party, but I may be dead an gone before that happens, IF EVER!

[WeDidIt]

10. Please provide direct quotes from the founding fathers regarding corporations

I doubt you can, but if you can, I am open to reading them.

[AllentownJake]

12. Does Thomas Jefferson work for you, He is the "founder" of the party

If the American people ever allow private banks to
control the issue of their money, first by inflation
and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property until their
children will wake up homeless on the continent
their fathers conquered. - Thomas Jefferson

"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, 1812

Like I said, they were more afraid of kings than they were multinational conglomerates

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

29. Great Jefferson quotes.

as a Left-Libertarian I hate it when the Reich-Wing nuts try to use America's most famous Left-Libertarian for propaganda purposes.

[WeDidIt]

35. Not quite the "founder" of the Democratic Party, but that's one

Have anything from Madison or Adams?

BTW, the REAL founder of the modern Democratic Party was definitely anti-bank. I cannot deny that. It was one of the major policy stances of Andrew Jackson.

I reject anti-corporatism. IT no longer applies in the current global economy. I support regulation.

[AllentownJake]

38. I put it in quotes

Ever been to a Jefferson-Jackson dinner?

Adams was an interesting character

"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." - this is more of Adams view of banks, which were the major corporate entity the founders dealt with at the time, it is hard to interpret what he believes from this. Are the people ignorant or is the Government. I'd have to find the actual letter to get context.

Madison, actually wrote most extensively on the subject

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm

Like I said, they were more afraid of Kings and Popes than they were of Conglomerates.

[sabrina 1]

119. From Madison on corporations ~

"The growing wealth aquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
--President James Madison

If you reject anti-corporatism for its own sake, you need to read some history on the subject of corporate states.

The Founding Fathers were not anti-corporations, they weere anti the abuses of the moneymen. They were also wise enough to know, and I believe it was Madison who wrote extensively on the subject, that human beings, no matter how good they think they are, can and it should be assumed, will be corrupted by too much power and since there is no power without money, both need to be regulated.

What we have now in this country is a Congress being bought by Corporations and out of control Capitalism. Congress responds to the needs of the Corporations rather than the needs of the people. Whatever the benefits of Capitalism are, they have been so seriously abused, that like every other 'ism' before it, it will be rejected as a failure, unless the US has the courage to save it by imposing the necessary restrictions, most of which were removed with the help of both Democrats and Republicans.

[Subdivisions]

151. So you challenge AJ to come up with a Jefferson quote and he does. Then you

move the goal posts back and ask him for further quotes from Madison or Adams. Can you not admit that you expected AJ not to come up with the Jefferson quotes and that, since he did, you were überly pwned?

[MessiahRp]

53. +1

GD I love Jefferson. If only there was a single person in power today with a fraction of his intelligence, foresight and sense of fairness.

Rp

[NJmaverick]

142. What you are not including was quotes that would show he was against a public option

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”


I guess your position was losing one, so now you are trying to hijack the slave owning founding fathers to prop it up.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. reminder: always add in 'haters' to your jabs and pokes. nt.

[NJmaverick]

147. whatever floats your boat skippy

[RetroLounge]

52. And right on time, the cheerleaders attack!

:rofl:

RL

[AllentownJake]

61. I've only had one

and I think I effectively dealt with the question at hand.

[liberation]

86. Hey, at least you got a very good one... Mr. Rahm Emmanuel himself!

Pretty cool if you ask me...

[NoSheep]

105. You mean I have Rahm Emmanuel on Ignore? Cool!

[Overseas]

95. Here's some historical background on corporations in the USA

2-page flier on early US corporate history: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf

A longer discussion http://www.nancho.net/bigbody/chrtink1.html#hidden

For one hundred years after the American Revolution, citizens and legislators fashioned the nation's economy by directing the chartering process.

The laborers, small farmers, traders, artisans, seamstresses, mechanics and landed gentry who sent King George III packing feared corporations. As pamphleteer Thomas Earle wrote:

Chartered privileges are a burthen, under which the people of Britain, and other European nations, groan in misery.

They knew that English kings chartered the East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company and many American colonies in order to control property and commerce. Kings appointed governors and judges, dispatched soldiers, dictated taxes, investments, production, labor and markets. The royal charter creating Maryland, for example, required that the colony's exports be shipped to or through England.

Having thrown off English rule, the revolutionaries did not give governors, judges or generals the authority to charter corporations. Citizens made certain that legislators issued charters, one at a time and for a limited number of years. They kept a tight hold on corporations by spelling out rules each business had to follow, by holding business owners liable for harms or injuries, and by revoking charters.

Side by side with these legislative controls, they experimented with various forms of enterprise and finance. Artisans and mechanics owned and managed diverse businesses. Farmers and millers organized profitable cooperatives, shoemakers created unincorporated business associations. Joint-stock companies were formed.

The idea of limited partnerships was imported from France. Land companies used various and complex arrangements, and were not incorporated. None of these enterprises had the powers of today's corporations.

Towns routinely promoted agriculture and manufacture. They subsidized farmers, public warehouses and municipal markets, protected watersheds and discouraged overplanting. State legislatures issued not-for-profit charters to establish universities, libraries, firehouses, churches, charitable associations, along with new towns.


Legislatures also chartered profit-making corporations to build turnpikes, canals and bridges. By the beginning of the 1800s, only some two hundred such charters had been granted. Even this handful issued for necessary public works raised many fears.

Some citizens argued that under the Constitution no business could be granted special privileges. Others worried that once incorporators amassed wealth, they would control jobs and production, buy the newspapers, dominate elections and the courts. Craft and industrial workers feared absentee corporate owners would turn them into "a commodity being as much an article of commerce as woolens, cotton, or yarn."

Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few charters, and only after long, hard debate. Legislators usually denied charters to would-be incorporators when communities opposed their prospective business project.

Some information about the current battle over "corporate personhood" -- whereby giant corporate conglomerates claim their being incorporated in the USA makes them Citizens entitled to bribe US politicians as part of their freedom of speech as US citizens. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

[Greyhound]

138. Excellent addition. This thread should spawn half a dozen conversations. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

15. Here's The Flaw...

There's nothing in our Constitution that deals with corporations or corporate power. Au contrare...remember, these founders represented the wealthy and while enlightened, they surely were looking after their best interests. The Senate was supposed to be modeled after the House of Lords...members were selected rather than elected thus making sure that the power elite of the time did have an inside track to the levers of power. It can be said they protected corporate interests by declaring slavery legal. Then if you look through this country's history you'll see corporate power (or whatever forms it took) taking precedence over all else, including human rights. Our government took millions of acres of land and handed it to railroads and it wasn't until FDR and over 50 years of the government standing against unions.

Expecting the government to do the "public good" and go against corporate interests has always been a loser. The best one can hope for is regulation and enforcement (and even under Democrats that hasn't always happened). Bottom line is the government itself operates like a corporation...it perpetuates power and wealth for the party in power and their backers...the "public" get the scraps. One can argue tha much of the New Deal regulation was as much to protect business from themselves than anything else.

[AllentownJake]

16. Depends on which Founder you were talking about

The best thing that happened to this country is when Aaron Bur decided not to shoot in the air. Thomas Jefferson, was quite pleased with his former VP in private letters over the action.

We have had a history in this country of this battle going back to the 18th century, a railroad, at the least can be argued was for the common good as it actually provided a transportation network for trade, military, and persons.

What good does Goldman Sachs provide to society?

Mr. Jefferson, had different opinions as did Mr. Madison and Mr. Washington.

[KharmaTrain]

19. It's What Happened...

You could easily say that bailing out Goldman that went to helping prop up many failed retirement accounts and other investments worked in the public good...preventing the economy from totally cratering and causing hardship for millions more than are current suffering. It's all perspective.

So was giving land to private railroad companies (rather than nationalizing like many other countries did) really serve the public good? Or we could get into the long running government subsidies and involvement with "defense" contractors. And, again, those moves were made to immediate benefit the big capitalists with the rest of the country getting the scraps.

Be it Hamilton or Geitner, our treasury has always been the banker of the corporates. At best we get an accomodation where the corporate interests align with the public good, but as we see in the healthcare debate, what constitutes "public good" isn't the same inside the beltway than outside.

You'll never get money out of politics...because those who get into government mostly do so because of the money they have and/or want. Even in socialist societies there are haves and have nots...the concept of economic equality goes against one of human nature's greatest "virtues"...greed. At best we can hope to regulate and enforce, but as we've seen the conflicts between government and corporates are tight and any threat to this balance of power will always meet heavy resistance.

[AllentownJake]

20. In no way am I advocating "equality" of economics

The current situation is more out of hand than anytime since Grant was President.

We needed a Roosevelt (either one would have worked) we got something else.

The strengths of capitalism is that competition provides development. The strength of Socialism is that it provides some measure of economic security. Like I said, I'm not advocating everyone be poor, but the neo-feudalism that is being embraced as a "third-way" is absolutely revolting and sickens me to my ideological core.

[KharmaTrain]

31. We're In Agreement

You're right about the level of corruption...this country became a true kleptocracy in 2001 and it's been hard to turn back the clock. A lot of that problem is the resistance within ALL segements of government who have benefitted from corporate money in one form or fashion or another.

Remember that Roosevelt and a massive change in both the House & Senate happened following 3 years of a worsening economic mess. The pain in 1932 was far deeper and more desperate than 2008 and even then the New Deal didn't go smoothly...it took the remainder of the 30's to begin to turn things around. I don't think we got "something else"...short of nominating Kucinich whomever the Democratic candidate was would have done much of what we've seen happen...maybe their approach would be different.

I fully agree that the strength of capitalism is with competition that leads to development, innovation and jobs. Our greatest prosperity has been when our various industries have been the strongest...unfortunately this isn't where we are now. There needs to be a balance between fair competition (aka free enterprise) with the government playing honest broker...regulating to enhance competition and growth. The key failure of Raygunomics is it destroyed the balance and the competition. The goal is to restore the balance and it's not an easy game. I'm still waiting for the House (yes Barney...I'm looking at you) to push through the long awaited re-regulations...but then watch it die in the Senate. And who gets the blame? It's a no-win situation now for this administration.

Cheers...

[HughMoran]

68. Thank you for bringing your perspective to this thread

I read each and every one of your posts with great interest. When looking at historical context, I prefer a perspective that doesn't overlook aspects of history that don't necessarily support the arguments being put forth in a particular thread. Thanks for your invaluable insight and 'big' perspective.

[AllentownJake]

69. Barack isn't much of a fighter

He is a very good manager, he is a very good ambassador, fighting is not something he does very well, he has an annoying tendency to look for consensus when there is none available. It is one of his greatest strengths at times, but also can be one of his greatest weaknesses paradoxically.

[Usrename]

191. I don't know about that.

No one is going to single-handedly change anything, and at least Obama has the Dems holding together in a party-line vote.

What more could be done?

[TheKentuckian]

83. Frank's bill is weaker than Dodd's proposal

I honestly think Frank's mark is a placebo filled with lots of loopholes and exceptions that continues to allow to big to fail as well as much of the heads I win, tails you lose gambling to go on.
Of course, I have to grant that even the weaker effort will be left to wither on the vine by the corporate Senate in any event.

[bertman]

125. I agree that Goldman Sachs and the others needed to be bailed out in order to prevent a major

depression and the misery and chaos that would have ensued. But, it's the terms of the bailout that were faulty in the extreme. If ever there was a time when a truly enlightened President could have put some serious clamps on the Wall Street cabal it was then.

But, the Rubin proteges made sure that there would be no penalties to be paid by the too-big-to-fail gang. No demands for reform. No demands for downsizing. No demands for giving the government the best possible deals on the paybacks. Once again the working-class taxpayers got screwed.

[Odin2005]

33. Hamilton and gang were proto-corporatists.

Using government power to help the manufacturing and commercial interests of North-Eastern elites. There is a direct link between them and modern industrial-financial corporatism.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. Jefferson was also against indurtialization

Hamilton's economic vision didn't die with a bullet and to a certain extent I'm glad. We would possibly be a third world country today if Jefferson's vision of a nation of subsistence farmers had been carried out.

[defendandprotect]

22. The Founders feared the power of capital/capitalism . . .

We have to put corporations back in the box --

And move on to democratic socialism --

We have too long suffered profits over people -- we need to move on to a system

which respects humanity, nature -- and profits last.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Feared It?

The Founders represented the wealthy...the root causes of the revolution were financial more than anything else. Taxation without representation...and the biggest protestors were the rich. One of the biggest "patriots" was Solomon Chase...maybe the last name may ring a bell.

Profits have always come first...and for many years this country tolerated slavery and the subjugation of the native Americans as well as exploited every resource they found along the way. It's when two corporate intersts conflict or the interests of some corporates conflict with the government (who side with other corporates) that there is regulation.

Good luck with the concept of democratic socialism...you currently have one Senator...only 99 more as well as 435 Congresscritters to go.

[AllentownJake]

25. Interest are starting to "conflict" right now

There is about to be a banking war, and I suspect, the populism will be spewed by the GOP not the DNC.

[defendandprotect]

32. Granted, our Constitution is as schizophrenic as the Bible . . .

battle between those who wanted democracy and those who compromised with it until

they could knock it out --

There are writings on this subject -- the fear of capital -- when I get a chance I'll

see if I can pull anything up on it. Been a while since I've looked into this.

And, yes, land distribution, the vote, all pointed to control of the nation by the wealthy.

But they were commiting to "equality for all" -- a force which would act against their interests.

Capitalism is a system given to us by the Vatican -- it succeeded Feudalism -- they invented

it to deal with their Papal States when Feudalism was no longer sufficient.

And, yes, they were freeing themselves from one kind of fascism, but inflicting upon others

their own brand of fascism.

PAPAL BULLS gave authority to Columbus to enslave or murder the Native America and the African.

Those are fairly elite roots in slavery and genocide!

As far as I know our government is still stealing from the Native American.

US backed religious schools -- Mormon and Catholic -- were a well used route to destroying the

culture of the Native American - in fact kidnapping their children. These schools were notorious

for sexual abuse, beatings, hangings, murders by officials upon the children.

The Founders made an evil compromise with slavery and slave states which belied the very

purpose of the Constitution -- and that compromise ultimately caused the Civil War from which

we still haven't recovered.

We need to reinstate the New Deal rules and regulations on capitalism --

and we need to move on to democratic socialism.

We also now have the tyranny of both parties -- that's less than 600 elected officials with

their pockets stuffed with corporate money vs the rest of us.

What the elite fear is the power of the powerless!

[KharmaTrain]

36. Interesting Perspective...

Being a history buff, I could go back to Rome or Eygpt to discuss wars and a military/industrial complex as being the source of their power and wealth. The powerful have always feared the masses and thus created devices, such as religion, to control them. It's rare times when the "people" rise up...most times revolutions were waged between one wealthy interest vs. another. Such concepts as human rights or equal opportunity are just PR to gloss over the true causes which are almost always economic.

What made our Founders unique is they set up a government that was spread out...or they had hoped...three branches that would represent all types of intersts that would supposedly accomodate one another and thus we get the "national good". In the last 30 years this system has become dysfunctional as the power elite has found new ways to enhance their wealth. We went from a producing to a consuming society and ran this country into massive debt. They no longer can float the debt...and this is what will require change...the destruction of the middle class has resulted in the doom to the elite. They are just starting to see it...and until they do, the "national good" will be their profits ahead of all else. Sad but true.

Cheers...

[defendandprotect]

82. Most who recognize the evils of capitalism . . ..

fail to go far enough to recognize the suicidal nature of it --

Exploitation -- especially of nature -- is suicidal.

The powerful have always feared the masses and thus created devices, such as religion, to control them.

That is a subject which needs a great deal more discussion here at DU.

As Cheney was fond of telling us, the right wing creates our "reality" and we are forced to
deal with it. John Mitchell told us way back when, "The country is going to become so right
wing it will make your head spin."

I've tried at DU to move the issue of the fakery involved in the current right wing religious
movement -- and the concept of organized patriarchal religion as the underpinning for patriarchy.

The GOP gave start up funds to the Christian Coalition as their system of authority/patriarchy
reeled from the various movements for civil rights and social change - Youth Revolution of 1960's.
Scaife financed Dobson's organization -- other right wing wealthy funded Bauer's organization.

Don't forget some of this undermining of patriarchal religion was brought about by Pope John
XXIII and his Vatican II which sought to give a compassionate and humane face to the RCC.
Vatican II also acknowledged the right to personal conscience in all matters -- including
birth control. It essentially kicked Papal Infallibility in the ass.

The Youth Movement was a direct challenge to war and all authority -- a challenge to culture.

US/CIA also created the Taliban/Al Qaeda during the Carter adminsitration . . . in order to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type experience."

And, US created the VIOLENT Islamic writings and moved them into the Middle East.

More info on this, if you're interested --



Lots of interest to be discussed here re money/debt --

We moved our jobs out into China and Mexico -- and coincidentally they are financing our debt for wars and tax cuts for elites.

We've provided taxpayer subsidy for the Vatican's "faith-based" organizations ---
coincidentally at a time when they required money to cover their priest-pedophile lawsuits.
In fact, there is an ongoing investigation into whether the RCC has used that money to pay off
their pedophile lawsuits!

Agree the system has become dysfunctional -- corporatism blocks any true representation of
citizen needs/interests.


I did come upon some info which isn't directly relevant, but fairly interesting
for a quick scan -- see below.

And nice to see once again, some discussion of "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"
and what that really means --

That concept is being weeded out of our culture!!




--------------------------------------




Some interesting notes on Charles Reich/"Opposing the System" 1996 --

Re Justice Brandeis writings -- in one area where he is pointing to
the cause of the Great Depression being "the existing unemployment which is the result, in
large part, of the gross inequality in the distribution of wealth and income which giant
corporations have fostered; that by the control which the few have exerted thru giant
corporations, individual initiative and effort are being paralyzed, creative power impaired,
and human happiness lessened; that the true prosperity of our past came not
from big business, but thru the courage, the energy, and the resourcefulness of small men;
that only by releasing from corporate control the faculties of the unknown many, only by
reopening to them the opportunities for leadership, can confidence in our future be restored
and the existing misery be overcome; and that only thru participation by the many in the
responsibilities and determinations of business can Americans secure the moral and intellectual
development which is essential to the maintenance of liberty."

(Corporate power only increased afterwards --)


Here's FDR --

"The industrial revolution brought a new dream -- higher standard of living for everyone --
luxury within the reach of the humblest -- but, said FDR, there was a "shadow over the dream" --
"Along with the industrial revolution came giant corporations which threatened the economic
freedom of individuals to earn a living."

FDR ...

"A glance at the situation today, only too clearly indicates that equality of opportunity as we have known it no longer exists."

"Put plainly, we are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy, if we are not there
already."

All of this, according to FDR, calls for "a reappraisal of values."
We need, he continued, to develop "an economic declaration of rights, an economic
constitutional order . . .

It is the minimum requirement of a more permanently safe order of things."

The Declaration of Independence, FDR said, puts the problem of government in terms of a
contract where those who are accorded power receive it subject to certain rights retained by
the people.

"I feel we are coming to a view... that private economic power... is a public trust, as well.
I hold that continued enjoyment of that power by any individual or group must depend upon the
fulfillment of that trust."

"The greater social contract .... terms of which are as old as the Republic, and as new as the new
economic order." FDR described the new social contract --

"Every man has a right to life; and this means that he also has a right to make a comfortable
living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied to him.

We have no actual famine or dearth, our industrial and argricultural mechanism can produce
enough and to spare. Our government, formal and informal, political and economic, owes to
everyone an avenue to possess himself of a portion of the plenty sufficient for his needs,
through his own work."

This requirement FDR said, is a responsibility of those who control the great industrial and financial combinations which dominate our economic life.

"They have undertaken to be, not business men, but Princes of Property.
I am not prepared to say that the system which produces them is wrong.*
I am very clear that they must fearlessly and competently assume the responsibility
that goes with the power. We must fulfill "the new terms of the old social contract,"
Roosevelt concluded, "lest a rising tide of misery, engendered by our common failure, engulf us."

1944 Annual Message to Congress & Fireside chat that same evening -- 1/11/44 --

FDR provided a more complete version for the new social contract --

"We have come to a clearer realization of the fact, however, that true Necessitous men are
not free men. People who are hungry, people who are out of a job, are the stuff of which
dictatorships are made."

Therefore, Roosevelt continued, as these economic truths have been accepted as self-evident, we must accept the justice of "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and
prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station or race or creed."

The new social contract, FDR said, must provide for security, and for human happiness and
well-being.

The new economic order would include the RIGHT TO . . .

- a useful and renumerative job

- earn enough to provide adquate food and clothing and recreation;

- of farmers to raise and sell their products at a return which will give them and their
families a decent living

- every businessman, large and small to trade in an atmosphere of freedom, from unfair
competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad

- every family to a decent home

- adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health

- adequate protection from the economic fears of aold age and sickeness and accident
and unemployment

- right to a good education

Meanwhile, an immense new growth of inequality, never imagined in FDR's time, took place.


The new economic edifice built after WWII created a society in the image of the corporate
hiearchy. The economic hierarchy became a social hierarchy. It creaed well-defined social
classes. Positions of privilege are dependent on educational advantages that only the privileged
can obtain. Worse yet, is the fact that the "losers" are disparaged for their condition.

Inequality has also come to mean a loss of freedom as well as a lack of wealth.
The lower a person is on the economic scale, the more the coercion takes the place of freedom.
People are driven by necessity, not choice.

We should recognize that economic coercions is really violence in slow motion.

If we are trying to find the causes of rising violence, we should recognize that economic coercion is on the rise, and it teaches people to do exactly what the system does - use force when they want something badly enough.

The new inequality is both an unbearable injustice and the source of an explosive combination of
fear and anger.

Today, we have forgotten the reason for the growth of government because we deny and repress the fact of corporate governmental power. It is big business, not big government, that primarily
regulate the lives of ordinary Americans.

And, it is in the area of control of knowledge and ideas that the merger of government and
corporate power reaches its apex. At the same time that government began to change from a neutral protector of the public interest under the New Deal to a partner of corporate America, an elaborate program was instituted to cleanse government of anyone who believed in the New Deal vision.

(Mc Carthy Era .... an attack on the ideals of democracy.) My comment --


Loyalty oaths, background checks, no independent thinker was allowed to hold a government job.

As government became more clearly allied with business, the legal system lost whatever
neutrality it possessed and became a pliable tool of power.

A crucial illustration of how governmental powers intended to strengthen democracy were
transformed into vital supports for corporate power is the story of how radio and TV licenses
were distributed. Originally, it was intended that licenses be allocated by the FCC to a broad
variety of community groups and interests representtive of American pluralism and obligated to use their broadcasting privileges to further "the public interest."

What has happened instead is that corporate giants, especially those already in control of other
forms of mass communication such as newspapers, gathered the lion's share of the licenses, often
controlling multiple stations. In addition, the major networks and stations have been given over exclusively to commercial use, so that they are dominated by large corporate advertisers.
Despite the fact that these broadcast licensees neither share their profits with the public, as
owners, nor perform any but the most token public services.

As great as is this givewaway of wealth, the giveaway of power is even more significant.
It means that corporate America completely dominates the public airways, and nothing that is disapproved of by corporate America is likely heard by the public.

[fascisthunter]

121. We live in a merciless culture of materialism and greed

The founding fathers were not as self serving as some may claim. I've read enough to establish that. Their view wasn't specifically a corporation or government but the plight of the people to succeed as a democracy. With corporatocracy running everything, democracy is less possible.

[ProSense]

39. Completely schizophrenic

Justice Breyer on stare decisis.

[bertman]

133. ProSense, could you give us a Cliff Notes version of this? I'm not a lawyer. Thanks. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

84. The pinnacle of feudalism in England was the Pope

England's feudal system is like a pyramid with the king at the top and the peasants at the bottom, BUT the king was answerable to the Pope as a king could not be crowned and recognized as the king without the blessing of the Pope. Therefore, the very pinnacle of England was not the king but the Pope in Rome.

England's decline and fall of economic feudalism had many reasons. Feudalism was based on the division of land by the king to nobles and vassals in return for their military service under the Feudal Levy. The main source of England's economy of the time was land which required peasants to work it. But the plague in the mid 1300's wiped out a third to nearly half of England's population which created the economic and political strength of workers. Workers demanded payment for their work, and as worker wages increased, land owners complained which led to the poll tax... the poll tax led to the peasant revolt which resulted in King Richard granting the demand of abolishment of serfdom.

England's economy moved naturally from land based to trade/mercantilism with labor a valuable commodity, increase in the population which created the increase in towns, increase in international trade and industrial growth. Nobles started paying mercenaries a wage instead of raising armies for the king and fighting themselves. With more workers moving into towns and trade, there were less to work the land, which led to breaking up the land into tenant farms that productive tenants could eventually purchase.

As England's economy moved toward mercantilism it created its own liquid capital. Under a feudal system, wealth was only in the land and liquid capital was supplied by the Vatican. Thus, the Vatican was most powerful over England under the feudal system and became less so as the economy moved to a mercantile system that created liquid capital. The less England needed the Vatican for liquid capital the more England moved toward breaking with the Vatican.

Under a feudal economic system the Vatican could keep England under its thumb because England required the Vatican's liquid capital which it couldn't supply itself, and the king was answerable only to the Pope. England permanently broke with the Vatican under Henry VIII who created the Church of England, but it was the natural decline of feudalism and natural rise of mercantilism which created the country's own liquid capital that led England away from the Vatican.

[The_Commonist]

17. Good stuff...

K&R

[madokie]

18. I had to give that a rec

more that sees it the better

[lunatica]

23. Social Capitalism is left out of the arguments

I think government's role should be defined to mean it is there to do the work for it's people. It is supposedly the best of the population who are elected to run things for the people. That means all the people. And if you have a Democracy like ours then it's the Constitutional duty to provide for the basic needs of human beings as we have stated in the Declaration of Independence. Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union message to Congress made the address which is commonly known as the “Four Freedoms” speech

(snip)

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world."

The third freedom encompasses all that can be referred to as socialism. Which I think includes free health care and free housing and free education for all. And for those who can't work it should include free food. These things would go quite far to support peace since it's the lack of these things that create much war.

And then if people want to become rich let them. If they want a bigger house than everyone else has let them. But not at the expense of the citizenry. No one should get rich by creating poverty in their own country or other countries. That's where corporations would come under strict regulation. They can make a profit but never by denying services or diminishing services to the citizens- everywhere in the world. I have no problem with CEOs getting paid more as long as everyone else is paid enough to live on comfortably-everywhere in the world.

[bertman]

136. " . . . It is supposedly the best of the population who are elected to run things for the people."

"SUPPOSED" is right. But, in reality, it has nothing to do with being the best and everything to do with being a person who is smart enough to manipulate the levers of one of the two parties. What we are getting is those who are best at getting elected. That's a LONG WAY from being the BEST representative of the people. Senator James Inhofe. Representative Louis Gohmert. Rep. Pete Hoekstra. 'Nuf said.

Because our system of supply, distribution, marketing, and demand is so convoluted and goes through so many different places, it's impossible to tell until it's way too late, if some corporation's actions are creating poverty. By the time they have amassed the riches they have already bought off the very politicians and regulators who were supposed to be keeping them in check. Add to that the fact that many of these corporations can buy off the media that would also be a watchdog organization--or they own the media outright.

[Greyhound]

139. Remember that the USA was a prototype and our early lack of systems allowed

the rise of a new aristocracy. The SCOTUS of the 1830s and 40s were heavily skewed in favor of this concentration of wealth as it was viewed as a counter to the persistent populism that elections, even as limited as they were, enabled. They laid the foundations upon which our greatest failures were built.

[Odin2005]

26. Another great post from you, Jake!

*THUMBS-UP*

:yourock:

This fusion of business and state is revolting.

[Orsino]

28. Eagerly recommended. n/t

[Solly Mack]

30. K&R & thumbs up & +1 & all things positive

[ProSense]

34. Great notion, but how realistic is it?

There are some services that the Government will have difficulty providing, however, I'm a proponent of when the Government does something, it uses Government employees. I do not like it when services are outsourced to a third party.

The program everyone loves, Medicare

Since the beginning of the Medicare program, CMS has contracted with private companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers.<5> These contractors are commonly already in the insurance or health care area. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation.

[AllentownJake]

37. I'm well aware of the Medicare issue

The government overcomes this by determining the fee for services, is not a collection agency for the insurance industries administering the product but makes direct transfer payments to the entities themselves for the claims they process, and has its own fraud team in CMS.

It operates ok, it isn't perfect, however the regulations and oversight for Medicare programs are some of the most stringent regulations in the country.

[ProSense]

42. Again, the point

Medicare represents the most realistic scenario.

[AllentownJake]

43. Did we just enact Medicare for all?

The reason Medicare works, is because you have groups pitted against each other with the government in the cat-bird seat. That and it is a program that serves a population that tends to reliably show up every election and has no problem abandoning politicians that do not serve their best interest.

The exception is Part D, which was a Bush partnership program that was a total and unmitigated disaster for all parties except for the drug companies, which goes back to my OP.

[ProSense]

What does that have to do with the point?

What?

[AllentownJake]

45. We were talking Health Care

I was doing a pre-emptive strike. My apologies.

[bertman]

137. If we realistically look at the amount of fraud in Medicare today, I'm afraid we might conclude

that it is not a prime example of a well-run contract program either. It works. But there's still a huge amount of corruption and fraud.

But I still agree with your premise that the government should be the entity that provides the services except in certain cases--Medicare being one, but also being one that needs a lot more oversight.

[laughingliberal]

41. K & R nt

[blindpig]

44. Your hope and desire futile

Honor? "Free from conflict of interest"? Dream on. The pursuit of profits knows nothing of this. Indeed, those 'conflicts' are part and parcel of maximizing profits.

We look to the New Deal as an example of how things should be done, but how long did that last? They started rolling it back as soon as WWII was over and we will witness it's final demise when Social Security is assaulted in the name of 'fiscal responsibility' next year.

Regulation is but an obstacle to be subverted and subvert it they will, people are paid big bucks to figure out the games. Time to get off of the merrygoround.

[AllentownJake]

46. We live in America

and occasionally some remarkable things happen. From our birth we have been counted out.

Do I have hope, yes. Do I see it happening under this administration, no.

The President might agree with everything I say, however, given his history this year and his belief in baby steps, he is not going to be the leader of any major real reform effort in American society.

[natrat]

47. it doesn't look good , does it. But maybe wev will be surprised for the better somehow.

[blindpig]

50. And if not?

Then what?

[AllentownJake]

51. Than we die as serfs, when we were born free

Eventually you need to convince a critical mass to fight.

Just as Jefferson predicted.

[robertpaulsen]

126. Futility is hoping a communist state would actually put the people's interests above the party.

Show me one time in history where that actually happened and I might give your point more credence than AllentownJake's. And by history, I'm talking about a sustainable government within a country, not a brief uprising like the 1871 Paris Commune. Otherwise you're just farting around the flip side of the same coin that a corporatist state sits on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism">totalitarianism. You don't advocate that, do you? Because I stand with what AllentownJake said in the OP:

I've said it in the past, however I'll say it again, pure socialism devolves into communism and pure capitalism devolves into fascism either way it is a boot on the throat of humanity and free thinking.

[havocmom]

48. AJ, Please put this OP in your DU Journal!

Please make it easy for us to find and refer to! It is a masterful explanation of terms and practices.

[AllentownJake]

49. Done, and please feel free to link when certain posters

make ridiculous inflammatory statements like you'd rather kill corporations than help people. The rhetoric they will use to shut down debate is downright embarrassing at times and they need to be put in their place.

[havocmom]

57. Thank you! Those journals are so handy for doing just that!

I agree with you and am so pleased with the efforts you make here to plow a path of reason and clear thinking through all the shit that gets thrown about.

I hope I live long enough to be an AllentownJake campaign worker sometime in the future.

[AllentownJake]

59. I doubt I will run for anything

However, I may write and speak on this issue. I'm thinking about doing a few youtube videos in the future.

[Larry Ogg]

54. What is the difference between Fascism and Communism?

Most people believe that fascism and communism are polar opposites, but according too the many decades of research by hundreds of psychologist and sociologist, nothing is further from the truth, and all you are seeing is two different paths leading to the same objective; total domination of the working class majority by a small minority of elite predators who have lied, stolen, murdered and bribed their way to the top of the pyramid.

Whether the rulers are fascist or communist makes little difference to the majority of those who suffers under their rule. Now ask yourself, doesn’t it seem a little peculiar that all these big corporations are outsourcing high paying American jobs to countries like communist China? Why would they do that if their polar opposites? The truth is that they are not opposites psychologically, because a sociopath is a sociopath regardless of which flag they wrap themselves in for public show; they form their own little cliques and gangs, create armies of thugs, and use the semantics of political and religious ideology; racism and the boogie man; too control, divide, conquer and enslave the cannon fodder masses.

[AllentownJake]

55. Very True my friend

Very true indeed.

[havocmom]

58. Yup. An oligarchy is a tyrant-class, no matter the philosophy

Practices and goals are the same, with only cosmetic differences

[Larry Ogg]

162. Your right havocmom

Oligarchies dream of Utopia for those who have no conscience, unfortunately that dream will require lots of slaves that do. And until their dream comes true, they need to blend in to the cosmetic differences of what ever culture they are in; of course that's hardly a challenge for a personality type that is a natural chameleon, they become what societies want ot see on the outside, and what societies do no see - is the evil that is in the inside.

[tom_paine]

63. Very well said and true.

:toast:

[Larry Ogg]

175. Thank you tom

:toast:

[glitch]

71. Whether the State runs the Corporations or the Corporations run the State means little

When they are both made up of the same people. Revolving door, anyone?

IOW, I completely agree with your post and am glad you mentioned the sociopathic component.

[Larry Ogg]

159. Thank you glitch

I believe that the discovery of the sociopathic personality has the possibility of saving the human race from its own total destruction; that is of course dependent on enough normal people becoming aware of this very real problem; and it's not extremely difficult to understand the signs and language that sets them apart from the majority of people who have a conscience; and once enough people understand, wars will be a thing of the past. Too that end, I try to shed light on them whenever the opportunity arises.

Larry

[glitch]

184. For you Larry Ogg:

:applause:

[dfgrbac]

74. It all comes down to who has the power.

When a minority rules, you get oppression of the people. As you state, fascism and communism produce the same results for the people.

What I can't figure out is why nobody ever brings up democracy. The opposite of minority rule is majority rule.

The only way for the people to protect themselves is by not giving all the power to representatives. We need the national initiative, referendum and recall on our election ballots.

The National Initiative for Democracy will do this by creating a fourth branch of government further splitting power and adding another check and balance! This is our only hope for the future.

My friends, we can see how well our so-called Congress of representatives is working for us by their health care efforts. It is a race to accomplish nothing. As Thom Hartmann has pointed out, Democratic legislators could easily pass "Medicare for all" with only 51 votes (not 60). Changing a program already implemented is not subject to filibuster. We could have Medicare for all in six months! But you don't see them taking this action - do you?

[Odin2005]

115. Sorry, After Prop H8 I'm no fan of referendums...

...unless they require a super-majority. A tyranny of the majority is just as dangerous as the tyranny of a dictator, junta, or political party.

[dfgrbac]

186. That's the biggest oxymoron going!

Tyranny is imposed on the majority, not by it! That's especially true when an elite minority takes control.

The majority of the population, especially at the national level, is far too diverse to create any kind of tyranny on anyone. And I strongly believe that most of the population consists of good, honest folks who would harm no one. And maybe everyone is not an Einstein, but we are all smart enough to understand basic issues that impact us all.

You mentioned Proposition 8. The National Initiative for Democracy is far more rigorous than the current state initiative processes. NI4D removes corporate and government representative influences from the peoples initiatives. With less bad information (misinformation) on initiatives, the outcomes would be more fair.

[Odin2005]

190. When the majority tramples on people's rights is tyrannical.

IIRC it was Ben Franklin that said "people will vote away their rights".

[dfgrbac]

192. Who is trampling on whos rights?

The majority never trampled on anyone's rights - when informed of the issues.

Franklin was right. We vote away our "rights" and power each time we vote for representatives. It is time we stop.

[Odin2005]

199. I know plenty of anti-choicers that are plenty informed.

It is a fallacy and is narcissistically arrogant to accuse those with different core beliefs that their different beliefs must be because of ignorance. It is a mindset that ends in gulags and re-education camps.

[Larry Ogg]

166. And when you can control the outcome of elections, you have all the power you need.

The number of how many rulers or law makers there are - in a system of government - is not as important as the quality of character within the rulers or law makers. There is no better example than the American system of government which I almost always refer to as a pretend democracy; because, with a few exceptions, most law makers can not and do not get elected without corporate sponsors to finance their campaigns, at which time the American voters get to decide which corporately owned hand picked candidate their going to vote for; some will call me cynical, but I just can't fathom as to how this process is supposed to be a real Democracy.

A national initiative would be a good, except for one thing, and someone here on DU set me strait on that one, most Americans are setting at home watching game shows, soap operas, sports and fake news; so you would have to consider how informed they are or are not when asking them to vote for or against something they don't have a clue about; to me, the way we choose our leaders is similar to a national initiative; and look around, somehow I just don't think this process works very...

[dfgrbac]

185. I'm sorry , Larry, but there is a world of difference.

You say, "The way we choose our leaders is similar to a national initiative". But I beg to differ.

We give our power away each election to some representatives we know little about. And they tend to forget about us once elected. But if we had a national initiative process, the voters who happen to be interested in a particular issue (initiative), that is those who have a personal stake in the outcome, would inform themselves to a much greater extent before they voted.

Voting on initiatives or actual issues (instead of just some representatives), would improve the knowledge of voters and improve the maturity of their decisions as time went on and they gained experience. Along with that, we would set in motion possible solutions to our many, many problems. If a solution didn't work, we would change it.

For one thing, we could remove that silly filibuster rule in the Senate. This rule hurts us far more than it helps. It gives way too much power to one person.

[Larry Ogg]

188. I live in the state Arizona where they have the state referendum

And Arizona is one of the most indebted states if not the most indebted state. Why? Many believe it’s because of the state referendum, because:

1) Special interest groups get their special little proposition on the ballot.
2) Voter apathy is high in Arizona
3) Arizona is a Right wing Republican state, (maybe because of voter apathy) which means
4) Most people who vote in Arizona aren’t to smart, let alone objectively informed.
5) The special interest group that got their proposition on the ballot - call all their friends and show up in mass to vote for it.
6) Most people in Arizona probably don’t have a clue about what a state referendum is, let alone that one exist, probably because of the apathy and being uninformed and misinformed.
7) Referendums pass because of any of the above combination's, and there is no law that says the state can’t go into debt to pay for it.

So if you think that voters would become; less misinformed by the politicians and the main stream media (M$M), and more involved because of a national referendum, I would have to say that such a notion is like putting the cart before the horse.

In other words, if the voters were objectively informed, and the vast majority did their part in a participatory Democracy, then yes, a voter referendum would be a good thing. But if the American people could accomplish something like that, it would seem as though they could elect politicians that weren’t hand picked by the corporations instead of the sycophants who are selling the country along with working class down the tubes.

[dfgrbac]

195. But with the National Initiative:

With the National Initiative for Democracy law as designed:

1) Special interest groups would lose their political power.
2) Voter apathy everywhere would be lessened due to self interest.
3) Right, left, conservative, liberal, and so on would have little meaning. Issues would have meaning.
4) People would get interested fast when they see an initiative that affects them directly. Everyone in general is smart enough to figure out their own interests.
5) Again, special interest groups would have no power. Under NI4D, only individuals have power.
6) All I can say is that Arizonians may be misinformed due to a badly written referendum law.
7) If that's the problem, propose the law. People would vote for that.

People would become less misinformed because one of the first initiatives would create a trusted public media that is not beholden to advertisers (corporations). We could make PBS fully funded in a manner similar to the way CSPAN is funded. CSPAN is funded by taxes on cable and satellite networks. We have been giving corporations a free ride on the public airwaves for too long.

Don't you see, the corporations are able to "hand-pick" their politicians by the exposure they give them in the "public" media which they own. They control it all!

[amborin]

109. nonsense!

they're outsourcing to China, b/c of its lower wages....shifting operations from places like, say, Mexico.....

they don't care a rats about whether a place is authoritarian or what, it's $$$$$ that matters

[Larry Ogg]

189. Pathological unbridled greed is at the very core of humanities dilemma

And Right Wing Authoritarian followers are the ones who unknowingly empower the worst of it, because they love the wolves in sheep's clothing more than anything.

[Odin2005]

113. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism, and it sucks.

[defendandprotect]

150. Well, keep in mind that J. Edgar Hoover ALWAYS referred to it as

"totalitarian communism" --

Basically true, because it was a dictatorship --

Many others, I think also correctly, argue that there has never been a true

test of communism -- simply communism.

There's also an old Russian joke that goes like this --

Question: What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

Answer: Under capitalism man exploits man --

Under communism it is just the opposite --


As we can also see from history, one of the fastest ways to enslave yourself and to

devalue human life is by overpopulation.

[Larry Ogg]

170. When asked what he thought of Democracy Gandhi replied, "Alas, it would be a good idea..."

I've been in discussions about the true test of different political ideologies; and included in these discussions are the influence of social predators, i.e. elite sociopaths.

So we could also discuss if there has ever been a true test of Democracy.


Love the Russian joke...
Heard the Vodka is pretty good too. :toast:

[defendandprotect]

176. I think you practice democracy the way some dentists practice dentistry . . .

:evilgrin:

It's a goal -- but then you also come up against that old right wing argument that

this wasn't intended to be a democracy!!

Vodka is good ANYWHERE!!


Happy Winter Solstice -- Nature's New Year!!

:)

[tomp]

56. a small step in the right direction but not good enough.

the government and only the government should control all essential goods and services. that doesn't leave much for private corporations.

in addition the media should not be controlled by private corporations, but by experts in journalism, and should be advertising-free.

and paper ballots counted in public in all elections.

secrecy in gov't must be abolished.

then, we would be talking.

[Uncle Joe]

62. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, AllentownJake.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Following on, pure facism and pure communism lead to the same place: Totalitarianism.

One guy in charge of everything.

[DailyGrind51]

65. Yes indeed, my friend!

[nannah]

66. thank you for your clarity

[Gregorian]

67. This is a valuable post. I can't thank yuo enough for this.

Each one of those paragraphs contains crucial information. I strongly suggest that you send this to Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. This information should be broadcast over the major networks.

[havocmom]

76. Note that the young man added it to his DU journal

Makes it easy to find and share!

[David Zephyr]

70. K&R.

The big lie about Capitalism is that the uber rich/corps are using "their own capital" when more and more they are sucking the People's capital with special legislation, preferred/deferred taxation, grants, giveaways, legal protection, non-competitive 'contracts' and more.

[mirrera]

73. k&R

[annabanana]

75. VERY well said AJ. . .

Clear aand concise.. And anyone who doesn't "get it" is just being willful!

[amborin]

77. k&r BUT ......

it's more than gov't merely "picking winners and losers" or "partnering" with certain corporations

lots of countries have industrial policies where governments pick winners and losers----take Airbus Industrie (EAD) as one example---a gov't consortium, and very successful, too.....




the real problem with corporatism is that it's the advent of "crony capitalism," wherein the government is not acting alone, impartially, to make techncratic decisions beneficial to the nation as a whole, but rather is acting in the interests of the corporations that now heavily influence the gov't decisions

Max Weber, the great social scientist, spoke to this

he wrote at length about bureaucracy, seeing it as both scary bad and also necessary

Weber thought a nation could only have decent flourishing capitalism if it had a "true" bureaucracy....and he listed the requirements...

one big requirement is impartiality

which we don't have when we have corporatism

[Overseas]

78. K&R. Well said. I agree.

More later when I kick this again.

[Edweird]

79. +1 Nail meet Hammer.

[valerief]

80. Thanks! K&R

:kick:

[kristopher]

81. You had my recommendation at the second paragraph.

I can't believe how few people recognize that simple, obvious truth.

Thanks for the contribution.

[scentopine]

85. Corporations and religious leaders now partnering with Congress

to write and refine legislation to the benefit of large corporations and large religions. The constitution is clear about religion's place in Government. I have to believe that watching our health care reform legislation being written, they would do the same today to limit corporate power over legislation.

However, even with clear constitutional language prohibiting legislation that favors a religion isn't enough to stop religion from interfering with sensible public policy.

One idea is to make it illegal for corporations to finance candidates. Of course there are restrictions - but the loopholes are huge.

My first steps?

- Make it completely illegal for corporations to sponsor candidates and legislation. No golf trips, PACS, etc etc. Have public money available and when you use it up, you are out of luck. Your billionaire wife should not be allowed shower congress with gifts and run attack ads against an underdog.

- No gifts for congress, and gov. employees. Period. No coffee, dinners, donuts, etc. As a one time GS-12 gov. employee I had constant scrutiny - I don't understand how these SOBs at the high levels get away with this shit.

- No revolving door. We train employees at SEC for two years - they learn all the regulation loop holes and then Goldman Sachs hires them as compliance officers. And of course the defense contracting business is equally notorious. No hiring Goldman Sachs and Citibank executives to run the bailout of Goldman Sachs and Citibank executives

So just like separation of church and state, there needs to be separation of corporation and state. Congress shall pass no legislation favoring a corporation.

I am sure there are plenty of principled smart people out there who would know how to do this.

[Thickasabrick]

87. K&R Great post nt

[fascisthunter]

88. Wasn't England at that Time Taxing by way of products

such as forcing colonies to buy tea when citizens didn't want to? I'm not sure if it was the East India Company in particular, so I may be wrong.


Great post BTW.

[dfgrbac]

97. Yes, the East India Tea Company.

Thom Hartmann recently commented about this - Check out his website here.

At the time of the Boston Tea Party, the East India Tea Company was the largest corporation in the world. The "tea party" happened because the people were upset that the King was repealing the tax on that corporation. It was not a tax on the people.

I am always amazed at Mr. Hartmann's knowledge of historical facts. I highly recommend his program.

[fascisthunter]

101. The Man is a Vault of Info, easily accessed by listening to his program

I haven't listened to him in a while, but used to religiously.

[MadMaddie]

90. AllentownJake you have nailed it!

The more we here the Dems talk about regulation, the Glass - Steigal act, mortgage reform etc, expect to hear the right become more of the party of "NO"!

The Founding Fathers were wise beyond their time and thank goodness for it!

[Goldstein1984]

92. Somewhere between Social Darwinism and Communism

there must be something like Socially Responsible Capitalism.

Thanks for putting it so well.

G1984

[barbtries]

93. very well put

i too deplore all the privatization on the grounds that it is simply too corrupt.

[amborin]

144. .

[varelse]

98. I believe this partnership was putting down roots as early as WWII

thank you for the op - it needed to be said :)

[winyanstaz]

99. Well said..ty

[live love laugh]

100. "Allowing the government to transfer payments to corporate entities for services will always result

in corruption."

You are 100% right.

[JDPriestly]

102. I'm with you on this one, Allentown Jake.

Government should not be competing to make toothpaste, but private companies should not be running our public schools. If people want to pay to put their children in private schools, that is their business. We can't require people to enroll their children in schools that are run by private companies that have the opportunity and means to proselytize or propagandize our children. I am just using schools as an example of a government function.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves.

He's not exactly a moral authority when it comes to making money and exploiting workers.

[AllentownJake]

104. Sigh

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Slavery

He was a flawed man, forced to exist in a flawed system, and did his best to reconcile it. Abe Lincoln was a racist, what is your point.

[Raster]

112. No point. Just providing shiny object distraction "S.O.D."

[Forkboy]

160. ...

:eyes:

[newtothegame]

106. Am I wrong or was it progressive's pursuit of "sueability" for corporations that led to personhood?

Not trying to stir shit up, but just curious, as I think we're seeing the "Part Deux" of this in us progressive's desire for healthcare reform. Our push for healthcare reform actually led to an even bigger handout to insurance companies and a potentially worse situation than if we'd done nothing at all.

[AllentownJake]

107. Progressives over the years have advocated some foolish things

That did not work out the way they intended, I'm sure if you showed any progressive from the 19th Century K Street, they'd reconsider that.

I'd have to do research but it could have been the 19th century version of DLC, giving lip service to issues while making nefarious plots against the people.

[newtothegame]

108. Thanks, I'll post in GD and see if anybody knows. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

110. Oh for the days of time-limited corporate charters.

K & R

[Vidar]

114. K&R.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

117. Great Post, AJ

Keep posting the truth about corporations till everyone gets it!!

K & R

[Greyhound]

118. This insane conflation of corporatism and capitalism is epidemic.

Capitalism depends on and profits from what we would today call socialism.

The percentage of self-described capitalists that have not ever read "The Wealth of Nations" must be well over 90%.

The foundation of capitalism is a social structure that eliminates deprivation for it's members. Once necessities are provided to all, capitalism works wonders as we can see in nations all around us.
:kick: & R

[TheKentuckian]

120. One of the most stellar and thoughtful threads ever

Thanks Jake.

[davidwparker]

122. "either way it is a boot on the throat of humanity" - Well said. You want

enough regulation so that all businesses are playing by the SAME rules with TRANSPARENCY.

Oversight is the word we used to use.

[gtar100]

127. Well put. Is it possible to go one step further?

If pure socialism leads to communism and pure capitalism leads to fascism, what do communism and fascism lead to? I'd venture to say they lead inevitably to unbearable human suffering and ultimately a revolution that destroys the old order. Communism and fascism are unnatural systems and must be maintained by a force that cannot be maintained indefinitely.

[jwirr]

128. Thank you. That is so simple to understand. What is wrong with the

idiots who do not see this?

[Wapsie B]

130. One of the biggest republican lies is that outsourcing will save the taxpayer money.

It's promoted as if that particular expenditure just falls off the books. Instead of a government agency providing a service it's now done by an independent contractor/political crony of the ruling faction of that state or municipality.

[Overseas]

198. Republican and New Democrat lies-- The Private Sector can do better.

Oh yes indeed, just like the private sector has done since defeating national health insurance in the early 90's.

I guess the question is-- "do better" for whom? Socializing the risks and privatizing the profits.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7345610

Privatizing our military services has been a dismal failure. We used to call what has resulted war profiteering. We are paying a lot more for a much poorer quality of services from reckless contractors who create more enemies for our country.

Furthermore, when military services were done in house, then someone who might not be cut out for combat could still serve his/her country by cooking for the troops, or doing the electrical work and plumbing. And would emerge from the military with more broadly marketable skills.

When things are privatized then the quarterly profits become more important than our national security or shared national goals.

Do we really prefer privatized corruption, or the ability to monitor performance more closely, with public accountability?

[ooglymoogly]

131. The sad thing is, this has to be said over and over and

our present "government" no longer heeds this good advice from history and is set on a path of unbridled greed and destruction. They have no qualms in stealing from the starving, homeless and dying to pad their already overflowing pockets.

[BrainGlutton23]

134. The word "corporatism" does not mean what you think it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body.<1> Corporatism views society as being alike to an organic body in which each corporate group is viewed as a necessary organ for society to function properly.<2> Corporatism is based on the sociological concept of functionalism.<3> Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.<4>

The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body.

Corporatism has been supported from various proponents across the political spectrum, including: absolutists, capitalists, conservatives, fascists, progressives, reactionaries and theologians.<5>

Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism. Some analysts have applied the term neocorporatism to certain practices in Western European countries, such as the Tupo in Finland and Proporz system in Austria.<6> At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used in a pejorative context to refer to the application of corporatism by fascist regimes<7> or to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public.

[Warren Stupidity]

145. (7) works for me

"or to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public"

But in order to disambiguate the term I prefer 'corporate kleptocracy' over the overburdened 'corporatism'.

[TheKentuckian]

161. I like corporate communism as well

makes the red baiters skip a beat and scowl as well as describing the scenario.

[mrdmk]

163. A corporation is hardly a bastion of democracy. Corporate Dictatorship works better.

This is just my experience working in a corporation.

[Autonomy]

164. Seems he and others are using the pejorative sense

as described in the last sentence of your post. It seems like a very unclear term to me, and tends to be interpreted very subjectively.

[Autonomy]

135. I would suggest, then, using the term REGULATIONS

or some variance, if you're not part of the 'overthrow capitalism' crew. You describe someone who supports the executive branch regulatory agencies, a standard Democratic position. The term 'corporatism' is not as well defined and easily confused with something else, by all ends of the spectrum.

[bertman]

140. Jake, could you explain this just ONCE more.

:evilgrin:

Exceptional post. I'd love to have DU post an archive of Most Substantive posts. This one would certainly fall into that category.

I read a book called The Peloponnesian Wars that chronicled the rise and fall of the various Greek city states. Interestingly, it seems the Athenians ran into some of the same problems we are having--the various elements of the aristocracy did not care much for the "democratic" form of governance and were constantly undermining it, ultimately leading to its demise.

At least, that was my take.

REC.

[proud patriot]

141. K and R

[DeSwiss]

143. This is absolutely excellent!!!

- And worthy of cutting and pasting everywhere!!!!

K&R

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

[varelse]

152. The discussion has remained civil and on topic

Nice job DU'ers :)

[AllentownJake]

154. I got 13 unrecs

and I can probably name them, but that was personal, it had nothing to do with the content of the OP.

[Pharaoh]

153. Yes of Course!

But we need a bigger Mega Phone!

[RedCloud]

156. Our founding fathers knew squat about communism.

Predatory capitalism was under way but to globally organize the workers to disenfranchise the capitalist stranglehold on governments was still a century away.

And naturally the capitalists made their workers fight wars when even 14 nations invaded the newly forming Bolshevik nation only to have their asses handed back to them. Even the USA was dispatched to the reformatory from whence it came and its invasion ignored by your "history" books because you are so free!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

How's that for letting workers set up their own experiment? Not (HET)!

[RedCloud]

158. And that list of invading capitalist forces was not small at all!

Foreign forces throughout Russia
The positions of the Allied expeditionary forces and of the White Armies in European Russia, 1919

These are the numbers of the foreign soldiers who occupied the indicated regions of Russia:

* 50,000 Czechoslovaks (along the Trans-Siberian railway) <8>
* 28,000 Japanese, later increased to 70,000 (in the Vladivostok region and north) <9><10>
* 24,000 Greeks (in Crimea)<11>
* 40,000 British (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)<10>
* 13,000 Americans (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)
* 12,000 French and French colonial (mostly in the Arkhangelsk and Odessa regions)
* 12,000 Poles (mostly in Crimea and Ukraine)
* 4,000 Canadians (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)
* 4,000 Serbs (in the Arkhangelsk region)
* 4,000 Romanians (in the Arkhangelsk region)
* 2,500 Italians (in the Arkhangelsk region and Siberia)<12>
* 2,000 Chinese (in the Vladivostok region)

(From above source)
* 150 Australians (mostly in the Arkhangelsk regions)

[earcandle]

165. I AM SO WITH YOU! Thanks for saying it. I couldn't have said it better!

Mind if I post this to my news blog?  

Thanks!

[Cetacea]

167. +100

[AllentownJake]

171. Go for it

Fix my grammar error in the first paragraph though.

[Faryn Balyncd]

168. K&R -- Corporatism is destroying the freedom & prosperity of American democratic capitalism

[dhpgetsit]

169. One of the best posts I've seen in DU.

No exaggeration.

[AllentownJake]

172. I humbly say

Thank you

:blush:

[scentopine]

173. We can sell naming rights to USA & pay for wall street bailout/10 yrs war

China and India have expressed interest.

[AllentownJake]

174. They'd name it something difficult to spell and pronounce

To fuck with us.

[jotsy]

177. I too am taken with the integrity of the colonial heart, but I have to ask

whether they would approve of folks 200+ years down the pipe line leaning so heavily on the details of their vision, designed to accommodate their moment in time. Maybe too many eras have come and gone without taking their hopes for the nation to heart, but they called upon each generation that followed to examine the quality of their government and modify as necessary. They expected each group to be as vigilant in how a free and self governed society is defined. Many of them shared notions of what ideal governance should look like, they aren't here now, we are.

The thing I think to remember is, that while they philosophically had a diverse lot of differences, they collectively penned a document with the well being of a universal public in mind. A declaration loaded with language sufficient in spirit it speaks to and through so much time, the heed of its call is hard not to answer.

tyvm AJ, the conversation was a great read and I for one trust you speak courageously and compassionately for what you believe is best for your citizenry, if more of us were like you, society and it perils and pitfalls wouldn't be so prevalent. I find I am compelled to disagree ever so slightly about the corporate mind set. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen the documentary 'The Corporation' made in 2005, it compares the corporate agenda against the psychological profile of a sociopath and finds few differences. I understand the necessity of commerce, but believe the contemporary working model is toxic to the masses.

[AllentownJake]

178. Baby steps my friend

;-)

Let's get them out of the Temple first.

[scentopine]

180. I think of Madison, Jefferson and religious incorporation

and their various objections to taxes and civil law and property grants for religious entities. Church of England had become a massive and quite secular enterprise with unchecked powers over legislation and tax revenue.

The bill of rights and subsequent amendments set up distinct boundaries between civil government and private enterprise, including religion which at that time was arguably the largest "private" enterprise in the world within the context of the embryonic US government envisioned by Madison and Jefferson.

If these same men saw our current legislative process being influenced by money from corporations (many with significant foreign ownership) and lobbyists as well as the limited representation available to ordinary citizens, I have no doubt there would simple and clear language prohibiting corporations from influencing the legislative process through gifts, campaign funds, kick-backs, PACs. The actions of lobbyists would be greatly curtailed. The constitution is designed to limit and balance power - our corporate influence in contemporary government is in violation of spirit and intent of the constitution, which is largely to prevent incorporated entities from usurping the rights of individual citizens.

During the HCR debacle we had congressional leadership trotting out bishops and religious leaders, pens in hand - very pleased to help draft the legislation. Just like corporations. There is no mistake about what the designers of the constitution agreed on regarding this sort of religious activity.

The new corporate model of government (remember Bush proudly hailed as the CEO president?) seems to treat individuals as common shareholders and the executive class citizens are shareholders of preferred shares that provide them with special voting rights and exceptions to common law. I'm beginning to feel like my vote is about as worthless as one of those ballots you get for annual meetings - since I don't have 10,000,000 shares of Class A shares in ACME, Inc. I just throw the damn thing in the trash since the common stock has voting rights diluted to about 10000:1.

Corporate influence over legislation would not be the only complaint by Madison et al (I wonder what they would say about the executive signing order). But certainly I have to think this would be the first problem to be tackled by watching our perverse and twisted legislative process in motion.

[Roland99]

179. Corporations & the Public Interest -How the original purpose behind corporate charters has been lost

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Roland99/58

Original link:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/Rowe.htm

[shireen]

181. bookmarked!

great post! thanks for writing it.

:applause:

[chill_wind]

182. Excellent OP, Jake. K & R and bookmarked. n/t

[DWilliamsamh]

183. Proud to be Rec 301 and proud to be from PA.

Well Said.

[defendandprotect]

187. kick

[WT Fuheck]

196. regulate capitalism until it is no longer capitalism.

inject socialism with enough of the dumb cum of capitalism that it does not lose its sense of humor.

[MSchreader]

197. Here's the problem I see

When you have a mode of production like capitalism that requires massive state intervention to keep it from being too exploitative or simply "greedy", when you have to empower state agencies to monitor virtually every aspect of the process of production in order to keep it from endangering lives, livelihoods or the planet, when you have to limit the level of organization of the mode of production because it can become "too big to fail" or you simply don't trust them, then you have a contradiction that can only be resolved in one of two ways: either the mode of production is changed, or the government overseeing it is changed. Historically, the latter has been the course of capitalism, while the former led to the various and sundry models of "middle class" socialism, all of which failed ... and were bound to fail, due to their own contradictions.

And in that gaggle of "middle-class" socialisms, I also include what you crudely call "communism". I'd get into an argument with you about what communism, but I don't think you're actually interested in learning about it from a real communist. Suffice to say, I would argue that countries like the USSR and China were/are representative of "communism" like George W. Bush was representative of "American democracy".

In the end, like you, I am not calling for the breakup of corporations, but I'm also not calling for state oversight or control. Rather, I advocate direct democratic workers' control of corporations from top to bottom, along with the rest of the economy. But then, I'm a communist, so what would you expect? A boot on your throat?