Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAmerica's House of Lords Debates Health Care
The health care debate has been like a tennis match, bouncing from the Senate to the House and back again. Now it's back in the Senate, as the United States tries to end its status as the only advanced economy without universal health care for its people. One hundred Senators from 50 states will decide what lives and what dies, health-care wise.
With so much at stake, it makes sense to ask: who are these 100 Senators? Might that give us a clue as to what to expect from America's upper chamber?
For starters, this "representative" body hardly looks or thinks like the rest of the nation. Only seventeen are women, while the United States is majority female. Only five are Hispanic, black, or Asian American, even as the nationwide melting pot has become one-third minority.
A Senator's average age is an elderly 63 years old, and most are wealthy millionaires. A famous 19th-century aphorism said, "It is harder for a poor man to enter the United States Senate than for a rich man to enter Heaven," and things are hardly different today. The senescent Senators already have great health care benefits too, even while tens of millions of Americans do not. So this powerful legislative body debating health care for the entire country is a patrician gerontocracy more closely resembling the ancient Roman Senate than a New England town meeting.
But it gets worse, for those who are hoping that majority rule might end this health care nightmare. According to the U.S. Constitution, each state is represented by two senators, regardless of population. This arrangement is the legacy of a deal struck in 1787 at the nation's founding, partly to keep the slave-owning states from exiting the then-fledgling nation. As a result, California, with more than 36 million people has the same number of senators as Wyoming with only a half million people.
That disproportional allocation has only gotten worse over time. When the Senate was created, the most populous state had 12 times more people than the least populous state; now it has 70 times more people. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court established the groundbreaking principle of majority rule based on "one person, one vote," meaning that all legislative jurisdictions must be equal in population. Yet the U.S. Senate completely violates this fundamental principle.
As a result, the 40 Republican Senators represent a mere third of the nation, meaning Republican voters have more representation than everyone else. That overrepresentation is bad enough, but it gets even worse. For the US has added an arcane layer of parliamentary procedure known as the "filibuster" that takes us out of the frying pan and into the fryer.
The Senate's use of the "filibuster" means you need, not a majority of 51 votes, but 60 votes to stop unlimited debate on a bill and move to a vote. So a mere 41 senators can kill any legislation. The 40 Republican Senators representing only a third of the nation need to peel away only a single conservative Democratic or independent representing a low population state like Montana, Nebraska or Connecticut to torpedo what the Senators representing the other two-thirds of the nation want.
Given such a vastly malapportioned and unrepresentative Senate wielding its anti-majoritarian filibuster, it is hardly surprising that minority rule in the Senate consistently undermines majoritarian policy. Besides health care, Senators representing a small segment of the nation have thwarted renewable energy policy, sensible automobile mileage standards, cuts in subsidies for oil companies, tougher campaign finance reform, Congressional oversight of national security and war, and more.
Minority rule in the Senate has been with the nation for a long time; in fact, it is widely blamed for perpetuating slavery for decades (between 1800 and 1860, eight antislavery measures passed the House, only to be killed in the Senate). For all these reasons, two of America's most revered founders, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, opposed the creation of the Senate, with Hamilton warning in Federalist Paper no. 22 that equal representation in the Senate "contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."
Even though Democrats have a solid majority in the Senate, a majority is not good enough. While Republicans warn against the Democrats using "reconciliation," the 51-vote tactic the GOP frames as a "nuclear option," Democrats should remind the public: There's nothing wrong with invoking simple majority rule in a body that is, in some ways, deeply unrepresentative and undemocratic by design.
So it's not just the Senators' credibility on the line if they fail to provide to all Americans a similar level of health care benefits that they themselves enjoy as senators. It's the very democratic legitimacy of the body in which they serve. How long are Americans going to ignore this constitutional defect?
105 Comments so far
Show AllNot to mention that the members of this "House of Lords" are bought and paid for like prostitutes. Are they like the ancient Roman Senate? Perhaps during Caligula's reign.
Tony Vodvarka
The author left out one critical word in the first paragraph.
He should have compared health care reform to a RIGGED tennis match.
Sorry Steve, this is based on the presumption that the democrats represent the wishes of their constituents,
and that there is ideological conflict within the senate.
It is more like an easter egg hunt; the senators, baskets in hand, run around trying to fill their's first.
Probably forever because it serves the plutocracy very well and they have a near total lock on DC these days. Add to this august and Roman like arrangement the totally undemocratic SCOTUS and you have something that looks more and more like IRAN daily. Whats the difference we all know that America is for all practical purposes the modern Fascist state. No wonder Cheney and the Imperialist faction of the Plutocracy want an Emperor so they can go around having to placate all these greedy Senators. The Romans had the same problem and eventually opted for Divine Caesar, so shall we pretty soon. After BV$H II we can expect something far worse up ahead.
Come on people. Forget about single payer health care. It just ain't gonna happen other than in our dreams. Trying to ask the Democrats to make health care reform a reality is like trying to get Bush/Cheney to reverse course in Iraq.
Am I the only one who has read Daniel Lazare's "Frozen Republic" and his critique of our bicameral legislature? Why this presumption of legitimacy for such a fundamentally undemocratic institution with such an ugly history as our Senate. Do we really think that these Senators know better than we do what this country needs?
I am old enough to remember when the Pennsylvania state legislature was set up as a little mirror of Congress. Each county had two Senators in the state Senate. That was struck down by the State Supreame court as unconstitutional(state constitution) because of its unequal representation.
We should do the same at a national level. If we want to have a Senate at all it should have at least roughly equal representation per senatorial district. Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota gets one Senator. California gets 12.
It's academic if they are all working for others' interests anyway.
Uni, bi, tricameral, matters not.
Capitalistic corruption is at the root.
Greed (which is ultimately fear-based) is not the same as capitalism. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable rights under communism, and socialism feeds the bureaucracy until society becomes even more top-heavy with corrupt control-freaks than our current system is. Remember that the Nazi Party was the "National Socialist Workers Party." Capitalism, like all human affairs, must be tempered with compassion and prudence.
Gringa
I think your nomenclature does not fit the reality. In your example of the Nazi Party, even though they co-opted the name of the socialists, they could hardly be confused with being true socialists since one of the groups that they used as scapegoats during that time period was the Communist Party. During the Cold War in East Germany the party in power back then used the word Democratic in its title. That certainly did not mean that the puppet government of the Soviet Union should have been considered democratic. I would also not be so quick to condemn socialism since true socialism, which has never been practiced anywhere in the world, is the only system that is concerned with the needs and rights of the working class while eschewing militarism overseas. Capitalism is a failed system that has seen the wealthy become even more wealthy off the backs of the working class.
Erroll, I'd disagree that socialism "has never been practiced anywhere in the world". Never by a nation-state, okay, but it's certainly practiced currently by about 800M people world-around in their everyday life as owner-members of co-ops, it's the natural form of life for gatherer-hunter societies, and it was instantiated in municipal government even in the US in many places (e.g. Milwaukee).
Mairead
If, as you say, socialism is practiced by so many people in the world, does this not beg the question why there are almost no socialists in a country like the United States? This country has gone through one of its worst economic crisis in many years and yet there has not been a clamor in the corporate media to look at other alternatives in government besides capitalism. How many socialists does one see on television debating the Democrats and the Republicans? I believe the answer to that question is none. The closest thing to a socialist in Congress is Bernie Sanders but Sanders has decided to back Obama's puny public option while also voting for Obama's imperial misadventures overseas. A true socialist would never have acted the way Sanders has.
My point was that people become corrupted by power over resource allocation, they lie cheat and steal, so a socialist government might sound caring or altruistic or common-sensical, but in reality it turns resource allocation over to the cogs and wheels (human beings with their egos and needs and greed) of a giant, top heavy machine that inevitably greases its own squeaky parts and eventually falls over to crush what's underneath it (we the people). It is not a mistake that the Nazi Party evolved from socialism to a corrupt fascist free-for-all. Socialism puts resource allocation into the hands of bureaucrats, who then get to decide who gets what. That's the first, fundamental, fatal mistake.
The failures of capitalism are the failures of men (mostly, and some women over the course of history), not the failures of the system per se. Crushing the competition is not necessary to capitalism. Actively, gleefully undermining and sabotaging and crushing other people so they cannot make a livelihood is not a condition of capitalism. Gleefully joking about the suffering of poor old ladies (like the Enron boys were caught doing), stealing lying and falsifying records are not conditions of capitalism. If you live in America today you are benefiting from the successes of capitalism and complicit in its excesses. Madoff succeeded not as a capitalist, but as a criminal. There's a difference.
That's the capitalists' definition of 'socialism' you're using, Gringa. No socialist accepts that definition as valid these days.
If you want to know what socialism is *really* like, think 'co-op' and 'credit union' and 'mutual insurance' and 'worker-owned businesses'. Socialism is about fully distributing the ownership and the profits, not concentrating them under a state-capitalist bureaucracy.
See above. You assume I have no experience in credit unions or cooperatives or intentional community. Which is absolutely untrue. In fact, because of my history with intentional community and cooperatives, I have thought very carefully about capitalism and socialism and have concluded that they are not mutually exclusive. As Gilbert and Sullivan mused,
"I often think it’s comical
How nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative."
I'm not a capitalist or a socialist or a democrat or a republican* (registered independent thank you) and I'm not a liberal or a conservative. Human beings ought to be intelligent enough to use the right tool for the right job.
PS. The single biggest reason that cooperatives fail, when they do, is corruption, the president takes off with the funds or that type of thing. You are complaining about the corruption that destroys true capitalism. It also destroys true socialism. And that is why the moral question is the top priority. We must stop lying stealing and cheating other people or the evils of economic life will continue to be our ruin. Capitalism with COMPASSION AND PRUDENCE.
I'm very curious what your job is because I am guessing that you are supported by the capitalist system. It's certainly not perfect, but count your blessings. America has to stop thinking in the all-or-nothing mindset and embrace diversity. There are many ways to do things, no one answer.
Who are you talking to? It can't be me, because I'm not "complaining about the corruption that destroys true capitalism".
My objection to private-profit capitalism, which I designate by 'Capitalism', is that it's *irremediably* feudalistic, anti-democratic, and pan-destructive. It provides *nothing* worthwhile that cannot be provided by other means at lower costs.
okay, why don't you identify the accepted definition of socialism that you are using and which I clearly in your mind am unaware of -- state your definition (post it) so you can educate me and we'll go from there. And please stop with the superior snarky tone, no one wants to discuss anything with a snark. If you're that interested in public debate and in changing minds, then get off your high horse and come wallow here below with everyman.
I already did state the accepted (by socialists) definition of socialism. Didn't you read it?
And any 'superior snarky tone' you perceive is an artifact of something going on inside you. I can't do anything about that.
good thing you're not on television then.
On the contrary, I made no assumptions about anything but your definition of socialism. Which, as I said, is very much out-of-date. Using that definition you are, in effect, arguing against your own straw creation. I hope you'll agree that setting up a straw creature is inappropriate.
You're totally brainwashed.
actually I'm speaking from more than 12 years experience in cooperative business punctuated by time spent living in intentional community (communes.) I wouldn't say YOU are totally brainwashed, but I would say you have an all-or-nothing mindset, which basically results from over-dominance of the infantile portion of the reptilian brain.
Since you know absolutely nothing about my "mindset", your all-or-nothingness is as empty as your chatter sbout the virtues of capitalism. You have a fairy tale mindset about economics as it intersects with human behavior, disbelieving your own eyes about actually existing capitalism in favor of your idealized version. I am not a Stalinist or any other idiotic variety of pseudo-socialist. I've lived in the same dysfunctional society you have for a good number of years, and I've participated in local co-op enterprises for 3 decades. You have nothing of importance to teach me, especially your infantile notions of capitalism.
Gringa
If, as you believe, capitalism is all that wonderful, why have you not addressed the issue that I raised in my comment at 11-21 at 12:44 pm and that is why these benevolent capitalists do not debate these terrible socialists that they seem to regard with such scorn and hatred on television or anywhere else in this country? What are the capitalists so deathly afraid of? According to you, the capitalists should have no trouble swatting away the arguments of those dreaded socialists. But of course the possibility of the American people ever seeing that happen on a national forum is next to impossible because the corporate run media is simply frightened to death that a socialist would expose the capitalist system for the fraud and charade that it really is.
If you want me to answer the question how do we get serious, open public debate to occur on television, I have no idea. Sorry. More importantly, how do we get the nation of sheep to stop staring at the television and waiting for some pundit to tell them what to do, I don't know, sorry.
I'm getting a lot of (undeserved) heat for saying capitalism is not the same as criminal greed. Capitalism is the yang to the socialist yin. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive and invite you to ponder if and how they can actually compliment one another. I assert they can and do.
Gringa
I see no need "to ponder" how capitalism and socialism supposedly compliment each other since I realize that capitalism does not, as you claim, derive simply from the greed of a few. The basis of capitalism is to exploit the working classes in order to enrich the wealthy. The average CEO in 1970 made about 30 times what the average worker made in wages back then. Today the average CEO of a large corporation makes about 250 to 300 times that of the average working person. That type of inequality would not happen in a true socialist system.
But as I attempted to point out, the average person in this country would not know this because the view point of a socialist is simply nonexistent in this country. Most Americans in all likelihood believe that a capitalist like Obama is somehow supposed to be a socialist despite the fact that he has done all he can to bail out the failed large corporations while not lifting a finger to aid those whose homes have been foreclosed by the banks and lending institutions. Obama's actions are anathema to what true socialists believe but, again, one is most unlikely to hear that expressed on the many talk programs where so many Americans receive their news. It would seem that the major networks and cable stations are in mortal fear that Fox "News" would label them as being communists or subversives for daring to have a person that espouses an opinion that is critical of the Democrats, Republicans and the capitalistic system.
Agreed on Sanders - he's at most a half-socialist.
As to why "there are almost no socialists in a country like the United States", there *are* -- about 75M people! But they don't know it, because the accepted definition of "socialism" is the one the Capitalists put out, about how the government owns and controls everything.
And there's probably no good way to rehabilitate the word right away. If we were to try to explain that co-ops, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, and similar all represent socialism in action, the brainwashing would kick in before the brains would, and folk would immediately rush to cancel their memberships screaming "socialism cooties! socialism cooties!".
Better we should call it 'economic democracy' instead. Get into their heads under their radar.
What I do not understand is the one-size-must-fit-all mentality. It's like capitalism (or socialism, or communism...) is the Athenean Bed, if you don't fit into it, cut off a couple feet until you do. For such a "melting pot," Americans have very little understanding of diversity. Would it be the end of the world if we tried different models in different scenarios, as the case may be? Would it actually be more realistic to say that's what we are in fact doing? The small business owner is a capitalist -- who may benefit significantly by joining a credit union. Modern American "communes" exist all over the place, mostly a collection of individuals engaged in capitalist activities to support their households while enjoying the benefits of shared landscape, road maintenance, a pond for everyone to swim in, etc. I've done a significant amount of work in helping small farmers in Latin America organize into business cooperatives -- in order to achieve an economy of scale so they can together access capitalist markets. Each member of the cooperative is most interested in supporting his or her own family -- the succes of the cooperative is only important to them if it meets their self-serving needs. The democratically-directed cooperatives work best if each member considers his own operation as an independent small business, and if the cooperative considers each member as an asset if they achieve quality standards and a liability if they don't -- you're out of the co-op if you can't cut the mustard. So each small privately owned farm had better stand up to the competition and create a product worth buying if they want to benefit from the cooperative's economy of scale. Not much different from the corporate model really. You're working with other employees to produce something together, and if you're not good at your job, you get fired (theoretically).
Economic democracy is where it's at.
As I said in another reply, private-profit capitalism is a feudalistic system that offers *no* advantages to anyone but the capitalist owner.
You cannot name *any* worthwhile thing that can be produced only by a feudal enterprise. Not one! If you think I'm wrong about that, try it!
As the former owner of a sole-proprietorship and the sole employee, I can tell you that my little capitalist venture supported me quite nicely without any feudal slaves. It was a fair trade organic coffee business so it was not destroying the planet or exploiting any worker but myself. The worthwhile thing I can name about my small business: FREEDOM, another, INDEPENDENCE. A sense of ownership and self-direction is very good for people. You're starting to sound a little shrill, like the Fuhrer or something.
What made your business Capitalist? Why was it Capitalist rather than socialist?
A socialist business would have fully distributed the ownership and profits, which would have meant that you, as the sole worker, would have got 100% of the ownership and 100% of the profits.
But that's what you did get, right? So what made your business "capitalist" apart from your imagination?
so⋅cial⋅ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
I owned the means of production and distribution. You are being really ridiculous here trying to imagine that socialism is the answer to be imposed on all scenarios -- yeah, I was the Queen, middle class and the poor in my little world of one where socialism means I keep all the profits! You win, which is your goal, to win rather than to actually say something useful or intelligent. Bye.
Please don't criticise *me* for the bad dictionaries you choose!
Only in 'state socialism' aka state capitalism is every job owned by the community/state, as per that definition. State socialism --where the people running the government also run business and industry-- has another name: 'estato corporativo' in Mussolini's term: the 'corporate state' aka fascism.
In ordinary socialism, jobs are owned by and their profits accrue to those who perform them, not the community. Hell, even Lincoln, who was not a socialist, understood that fairness demands that the people who do the work should get the full profit from that work.
But the basic principle of Capitalism is that the people who do the work *NOT* get the full profit from that work, but instead (as Adam Smith sarcastically pointed out) are paid a wage just sufficient to keep them from dying, so that they must work for the Capitalist the next day, too. Everything else goes to the Capitalist. That's what Capitalism is all about: living off of other people's work. Land feudalism or industrial feudalism, crown or silk hat, it's all the same scam at bottom.
No, I will never worship at your church, Gringa. And if you're an ethical person, which I suppose you are, you shouldn't be worshiping there either.
Hey, the neo-cons are in the process of re-writing the Bible. You should get in on that since no one may use words that don't have some updated meaning you've conveniently found to disqualify any argument whatsoever but your own.
Adam Smith wrote about the treatment of workers in 1776. Lincoln spoke of the primacy of labor in 1861. Mussolini defined fascism in the 1930s.
Socialism is inherently democratic. If there's no democracy, there's no socialism either.
So socialists believed that state-socialism is socialism until it gradually penetrated during the 1960s that all the countries claiming to be state-socialist were in fact oligarchies, including the USSR for which so many had high hopes. That's when the penny started to drop for most socialists.
There are still some who advocate for state-socialism, but if we scratch them a bit we find that they're really Leninists who believe there must be a "vanguard party" (in which they of course will be members) that will run things until the people are "ready". Who will determine when the people are "ready"? The vanguardistes, of course, Who Always Have The Good Of The People Foremost In Their Hearts.
By (I'd guess) the late '70s the disillusionment was pretty well complete. That's 30 years ago.
You can continue to claim socialism means state-socialism if you want to, but I don't think you're going to get any sort of sympathetic hearing except among Capitalists, cap-Libs, Leninists, and their ilk. Everyone else knows better.
Mairead: what book or video or person would you recommend that would clarify these points best? My thought is that this pure socialism you speak of could only work if you remove the state somehow from the equation altogether, which might happen on planet X someday, but how on earth?
I'll take this opportunity to apologize for getting firey, you did in fact get a bit shrill, but so did I. In fact I should stop posting altogehter for a week or two, or at least until I stop being pissed and frustrated. But seriously, recommend a book? I'll read it. Peace.
If there's any single book or other source that rolls all this up, Gringa, I've no idea what it is or where it might be found. The closest I can think of is perhaps Dahl's "A Preface to Economic Democracy" (1985) in which he makes a strong case against both Capitalism and state-socialism (which he calls "bureaucratic socialism"). Perhaps some other CDer can think of a more general one.
As to removing the state from the equation, that would be the automatic result of converting the state from an oligarchy to a democracy. When all power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it's like a sort of gravitational body, deforming everything around it. Diffuse the power throughout the whole population and that deformation goes away.
I don't think any apology is needed for honest emotion, but since you do I'll offer mine, too. I'm sorry you feel angry and frustrated, and that I had a part in it.
thank you. i'll watch the fire if you'll please watch the elitism.
By the way, you do love to pretend that you are a member of this "everyone else who knows better," and that superiority complex of yours is your ruin. You will never affect change in the people whom you WANT to change because you are too smug and superior to effectively communicate. You can blame me and my ego-problems for not listening well -- try talking to a wall, it won't interpret your smugness or reject your superiority.
"It's the natural form of life for hunter-gatherer societies." Hmmmm. If you want to make that case, you'll have to do some deep research and write a book. And I would read it because it's an interesting notion. But the statement is absolutely groundless as it stands. Being that there were more than 1000 native tribes in North America alone before European colonization, and being that most of them were killed before anyone bothered to find out how they organized themselves, it's virtually impossible to make a generalized statement about "hunter-gatherer" societies. Literally, they were killed before anyone bothered to find out who they were. Except that we do know that several tribes practiced slavery, and in the case of the Northwest tribes, some had a wealthy class that owned slaves AND all the beach-front property. So you might assert well, they were not true hunter-gatherers. Alright then, on what grounds is your statement based? Even if you can find information, it's given to you through a culturally-biased European interpretation.
In actual Fact the NAZI party did start off as a Socialist Party. This party floundered in early elections and were going no place so the party leadership turned to the CAPITALISTS for further support. These were the Huge German and AMERICAN business concerns who then started providing much needed MONEY to the Nazis.
They also sought to curry favor with the Conservatives in the German Army.
This came with a proviso and that was that the party purge itself of the Socialists.
They did so via murder and violence driving out most of the Socialists. (The Nigght of the long knives ETC).
In other words....the party moved way over to the right to become FASCISTS after purging itself of persons seen as on the left in return for the support of the wealthy and the Corporations.
They could not gain power without that support.
Does this sound familiar?
The Nazi's turned to the capitalists but only after "rights of personhood" had been granted decades before to corporations. It's convenient to say "well, privately owned and family-owned business is not really capitalism" but that's not true. It is. The Nazis did not turn to the "capitalists," they turned to the corporations. It's monarchy not capitalism. Take the elections of 2004, for example. Did you vote for Bush, a descendant of King George I, or did you vote for Kerry, a descendant of King Henry VIII? Just try to find out which government officials belong to which corporations and you will quickly lose the trail. By granting personhood to corporations "they" guaranteed that individuals could always hide behind their organizations and that the wealthy would always win in court. They nipped capitalism in the bud with it.
"Capitalism, like all human affairs, must be tempered with compassion and prudence."
This flys in the face of the basic raison d'etre of capitalism- profit. A compassionate capitalist is a unsuccessful capitalist. It's a numbers game. Yet it is actually not the desire for profit in an exchange that defines capitalism. Capitalism was created in the mid 1600's in England with the enclosure acts. The wealthy removed the peasants from the commons by force in order to both take the land for themselves and to create a poor, desperate work force for their newly invented factories. This has not changed. Capitalism always involves someone taking something by force, impoverishing the majority, and stealing commonly owned resources in order to make themselves wealthy. This is the way it works. I can say that in my lifetime, I have never actually met a capitalist- they dont frequent any of the places I can get into. The everyday common business owners are not capitalists, they are merchantalists. The average person trying to make a profit by an exchange, does so by risking something of value, in the hope that he/she can sell it for a bit more. This is fair. A capitalist doesnt operate that way- he lays out little, or takes by force.
Capitalism is an ugly system.
Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Merchantilism: The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade.
I agree with limiting / removing the rights of personhood from corporations, but not that "capitalism always involves someone taking something by force" nor with the statement that business owners are "merchantilists."
If we use the definition of capitalism above, the key point of interest would be in defining the word "development." A capitalist who pays attention to the triple bottom line will consider very different investments in "development" than will a follower of Milton Friedman.
"Remember that the Nazi Party was the "National Socialist Workers Party""
This comment demonstrates that you either have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, or you are a right wing troll.
Are you a child or do you simply suffer from a room temperature IQ?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/407190/Nazi-Party
National Socialist German Workers’ Party, German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)
political party of the mass movement known as National Socialism. Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, the party came to power in Germany in 1933 and governed by totalitarian methods until 1945.
It's all about labels and fables, gringa. There is no such thing as an 'evil system' without evil individuals behind it. I suppose one can ask if 'incentives' other than just money can be provided to 'inspire' people to want to make and produce things. The system(s) we have now are very ugly because so many are forced to produce out of economic desperation with poor working conditions, too little pay, and too little time off. Probably very little truly love what they're doing to earn a living. For human beings, the earth has become and is becoming more like one huge slave camp. And everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else, saying they are to blame. Or saying some 'system' is to blame and that it needs to be reformed, revamped, or scrapped.
No, no, human beings are to blame for the hell on earth they've created. And not just a few. To a greater or lesser degree we are all complicit, if only by our ignorance, both of ourselves and how we fit into the whole of things. Nature without us has maintained balance and harmony for billions of years, and all we can seem to do is blame, complain, and fight. Is it because there is an inherent flaw in human nature that must be transcended? Or are we presently behaving 'normally' for our species, which would mean we were doomed from day one. It does not seem to me that nature evolved us to be in constant conflict with everything we touch. More likely, it's that we were intended to develop in a different way, but are not compelled to like other species. Perhaps this 'choice' we have is intended to be a blessing which we have turned into a curse through ignorance and misunderstanding.
In the movie Hellboy 2, Prince Nuada said:
..."Proud, empty, hollow things that you are." And, thus, as Henry David Thoreau pointed the vast majority of humanity conducts its life in quiet desperation. So any system created from empty and conflicted individuals must reflect that emptiness and conflict.
"How long are Americans going to ignore this constitutional defect?" You're asking when will we all wake up from the American Dream, which for many has become a nightmare?
When we can frame conceptions of "change" in a positive rather than negative light. When we stop being too angry to go there.
When we figure out some means of achieving truth and reconciliation that does not spiral into vicious attacks and counter-attacks over who is to blame and who should be punished and how severely.
When we stop enjoying violence.
When we stop believing "it's not a crime if you're not caught."
When we stop lying. When we begin to value truth over false reputation, wisdom over cleverness, and skill over hidden incompetency.
When we stop being fascinated by and jealous of "lifestyles of the rich and famous." When we stop humiliating and punishing the low-lifes while sucking up to our "betters."
When we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Beautiful! Brava!
Not "all men are created equal."
It should be all people.
Don't women count?
Just quoting Jefferson. You'll note my alias "gringa" implies I am a woman.
By the way, if "love thy neighbor as thy brother" begins with the men, that would be a good start. Go for it, more power to you. I have a son to think about.
Comprende, mi amiga.
When pigs fly..
When we all become angels, life will be good.
Gringa, you write eloquently but know nothing about politics.
You can't wait for the people to become perfect. You have to work with what you've got.
One of the weaknesses of bourgeoisie progressive politics is this obsession with a moral purity based on a utopian vision of a morality that has never existed in the real world. It alienates a lot of people because it smacks of elitism
The working people of America will achieve victory when they wake up to their oppression and kick the crap out of the rich elitist bastards who are running the show, Obama included.
Don't agonize, organize!
Saying "You know nothing about politics" to me is about as intelligent as me saying "you know nothing about being human" to you. Empty rhetoric.
You're right, we shouldn't wait for torture to decrease rather than increase, or for the justice system to take the gags off, or for people to be decent and good in any way. It's such a la-la-land to imagine human beings are anything but self-serving monsters. Welcome to our dark amoral world.
If our government does not serve the majority, but caters to the mindless, hysterical minority, then we need to change it. That's the only change we can believe in. We know the Republicans cannot rule, and now we're seeing that the Democrats can't either. There should be a groundswell for a Third party in 2012.
There already is, it's called the "Tea Party." Frankly, I think there should be a Tea Party party. Let them show their ugly heads and become as marginalized as the Greens. It's not a third party we need, it's an independent and INFORMED voting public.
Gringa
Yes, an informed electorate is most certainly quite desirable. But after becoming informed they then need to have someone intelligent and desirable to vote for. As Lance Selfa points out in his must-read book The Democrats: A Critical History, neither major party in this country meets those qualifications.
The collective influence of an informed public will manifest a leader that reflects that broadened vision. It is possible to have an exceptional leader with a poorly informed public, but that leaders supposed wisdom will not penetrate the slave mentality of the electorate. Any useful changes that are instituted by that leader will not be sustained by the electorate when that leader is gone. The electorate must rise to a higher collective awareness and maintain it, in order to always have leaders that can reflect their desires. The best sports coach can do little with a team of 90 pound weaklings. A group of exceptional athletes will attract a coach that has been waiting in the wings for just such a team. Both are needed. a talented electorate and a worthy leader, but a well informed electorate is far more important for 'sustaining' positive changes.
Thanks, I'll read your must-read book selection. I've been pondering a next book so I'll go ahead and choose this one. Peace.
In fact, I'll trade you "must reads":
FOR YOUR OWN GOOD
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Own-Good-Child-Rearing-Violence/dp/0374522693
"Alice Miller traces the history of child rearing in Germany for the past two centuries and concludes that the source of criminality and of war itself lies in the abuse of children by their parents. The author delves into the background of Adolph Hitler and his henchmen. She notes that they had been successfully trained to be obedient so that feelings for the atrocities they performed never emerged. At their trials, all of the war criminals pleaded that they were simply following orders. The morality of their orders was never questioned..."
Donna, I'd disagree about a third party. Between inertia and the built-in biases in favor of the Business Party (I thought the story of the Supreme Court of Oregon screwing Nader was disgustingly exemplary), our best hope would be to take Business Party seats, and then vote en-bloc. It's much harder to keep a primary candidate off the ballot than a 3rd-party one.
It's significant for our goals, I think, that during the '30s, both the Dems and the GOP were divided along ideological lines. Huey Long's socialist plans got a lot of support from leftist Republicans as well as leftist Dems (which is one of the reasons he was such a big threat to FDR).
Amazing how the filabuster and these other tools were used so little by the Democrats during the Bush years. Bush and Congress shredded the constitution and the Democrats let it happen and often voted for the shredding. The big problem isn't the rules (this health care legislation bill SHOULD fail it is so bad), rather it is that the 2 parties are both serving corporate and special interests.
Its not power that corrupts, its autonomy. As long as 40 Senators and their constituents can hold American lawmaking hostage, their autonomy will corrupt them, and they will refuse to 'feel the pain' they are causing the other 2/3rds of the nation.
Witness what happens when a voter in Wyoming is worth 70 voters in California. California, the worlds 7th largest economy, gets 60 cents from the Federal gov't for every dollar in taxes it sends to DC, while Wyoming gets $1.80 from the Feds for every dollar it sends back. This 'rural socialism' has been going on for a hundred years or more. All that money, taken from urban blue states and given to rural red states perpetuates the sense of entitlement these people have. Witness Sarah Palin, on her new book tour, choosing only to go to states like Wyoming, where 'real Americans' live, and bypass populated urban areas like New York, where the 'liberal elite' live.
The billions of dollars urban blue states like New Jersey, New York, and CA send every year to rural red states like Wyoming, Arkansas, and Alaska is used to perpetuate a myth of the hard-working 'real' American of the red-states, who then vote to scr*w the rest of us repeatedly on topics like foreign policy (IraqWar), the finance sector (8 yrs of Bush supply-side economics), and climate change (what global warming?). These red-staters have been voting to economically disenfranchise blue state America (i.e. send the manufacturing sector overseas), but as long as they are insulated from the pain caused by these bad decisions, they will continue to make them. They have autonomy from the consequences of their decisions, and absolute autonomy corrupts, absolutely.
America is broken because it doesn't have a democracy.
I certainly am not RICK PERRY but maybe, just maybe, he has an idea. And the idea is that the USofA is done.
I will go ahead and say it:
IT IS LONG PAST TIME FOR CALIFORNIA TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE AND LEAVE "The Red Zone."
That's right: out and out INDEPENDENCE.
•California's budget woes would evaporate with the return of the 40 cents of taxes sent to Washington that are "re-directed" to Tennessee for Abstinence Education, to South Dakota for ethanol subsidies, or to Indiana for Basketball Palaces. If the taxes collected here STAYED HERE, tuition hikes would not be necessary, social safety net could be rewoven, and Californians could strike out on a CALIFORNIA-FIRST foreign policy.
•California's economy is among the ten largest in the world. Nuff said.
•Federal CRAZINESS (endless mandates, medical cannabis, climate change, energy rip-offs like Enron) would become a thing of the past. (Don't worry, we would have PLENTY of our own craziness but at least it wouldn't involve "discussions" and "compromise" with a slew of fuzzy-minded in-bred Baptists from Alabama and South Carolina and we could REALLY laugh at the prospect of President Palin.)
•California's flag already tells the story: CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC.
It's time. And no, it is not sedition. It is called INDEPENDENCE and the Will of the People.
IT IS LONG PAST TIME FOR CALIFORNIA TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE AND LEAVE "The Red Zone."
That's right: out and out INDEPENDENCE.
Great idea, but let's make it western Washington plus western Oregon plus California. It would be a great country!
Great idea! And this article demonstrates how the fundamentalist minortity is succeeding in making this country dumb and dumber by the minute.
I wonder how many Oregoneans and Seatleoneans want "California Uber Alles?" They probably do -- since they need the tax dollars.
not going to argue with your main point except to say, y'all gave us Nixon and Reagan and the Governator... Reagan, at a time when many of us out on our inbred little stomping grounds were REALLY laughing at the notion of "President Reagan."
Go Bears!
Do mean the UC-Berkeley Golden-Bears or the Chicago Bears?
I don't like west-coast chauvinism either. Go Stillers!
There is nothing progressive about the State of California - from it's profoundly polluting automobile-suburban culture, it's big pesticide-laden agribusiness and farm worker oppression, Proposition 13 and dismantling of the public wealth, its Reagan, Nixon, Swartzenegger.
Last time I was in the golden state, I was investigating an accident at a rock quarry near what is supposed to be ultra-"liberal" Santa-Cruz. Amongst the Redwoods withering in freakishly hot and dry weather, the workers were still all AGW denialists. They also mockingly referred to something about Santa Cruz government being organized as a "commonwealth" (sounds socialistic). I replied that the places I've called home - Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Virginia are all commonwealths too. They just gave me a dirty look.
Well, yeah, you got all kinds from skin-heads to naked hippies out there. But I'd still call it "progressive" compared to the commonwealth I live in (no naked hippies allowed here).
I meant the bear on the Republic of California flag. Go Bears!
Misplaced post.
America's health care debate is like a tennis match fought with balls of dung.
Hill is right about the unrepresentative composition of the Senate, that it has always been this way and should have never been formed the way it was. Some parliamentary structure would go a long way toward correcting the inherent non-democratic arrangement we have in Washington. That and serious campaign finance reform that excluded corporations from owning outright the entire electoral process and its lobbying aftermath in legislation.
(One thing this article doesn't mention is the utter worthlessness of the Insurance Reform Bill that passed the House. It does next to nothing to mitigate the inequities of the current system. Big Insurance and Pharma will rake in even MORE profits under the Obama/Baucus plan, only a fraction of the uninsured will get even minimal coverage and the rest of us will be left with precisely what we have now at even higher premiums and co-pays, with NO improvement in quality of care. And of course none of this even kicks in until 2013, when thousands of those needing decent health care NOW will be dead. Some "reform".)
tammons (9:53 am) points out Daniel Lazare's book, Frozen Republic, where all this is analyzed and dissected. I read his long article about it several years ago in Harpers, well worth reading. The Senate is our House of Lords and they have far too much power. Ideally, in a democratic society, they wouldn't exist at all because their economic class wouldn't exist. Multi-millionaires and billionaires would be a sordid remnant of a viciously unjust history.
We're light years from realizing this, so we still have arguments over whether socialism can ever work (it's Nazism in disguise, according to 'gringa'), or it's never really been permitted to work (according to leftists like me and many others here like Erroll) by a world-crushing capitalism that focuses all its considerable economic energies on snuffing it out. gringa is convinced capitalism can work just swell if only we all become saints and learn not to be greedy and share the wealth. This ignores the real history of capitalism, which is one of unmitigated and rapacious greed, economic violence (read John Perkins) leading to all the wars the US has instigated since WW2 in unflagging efforts to dominate the whole world, politically, economically and culturally.
The result is what we're dealing with now every day: a waking nightmare of inequality, lies, excuse-making, delaying tactics over critical issues like health care by a Senate full of unaccountable millionaires, funding illegal wars under pretexts as phony and lying as those that started these wars, lying about why we're still fighting these obscene wars, and all the rest of the crap capitalism imposes on this society and the world. But most of us STILL think it's the Only Way, and that socialism is every bit as evil as the Bush and Cheney clans insists it is. If we can't shake loose from these self-defeating delusions, we will remain forever lost, and captive to the very forces now strangling us all to death.
Respectfully, I agree with much of what you say. However, the suggestion that Americans stop lying, stop worshipping the wealthy, stop enjoying violence and start allowing a little compassion to guide them, is not a wish that we all become saints. It's a wish that we stop being monsters and start being human. There are in fact millions of us delusional citizens out here who believe it is not ridiculous to ask for, to demand, some ethics for a change. If we can't instill any ethics in this culture, it won't change, it will only get worse.
I did not say socialism is Nazism in disguise. You may wish to ignore or revise history (at your peril) but the fact is that Hitler won his initial support by taking the socialist platform. People (within the horrific definition of who was or was not a "person") thought he had their best interests in mind. He even championed organic agriculture and a whole-foods diet. Nazism succeeded to a great degree because of the clerks, the pencil pushers, the bureaucrats. It put an enormous amount of power into an army of ordinary government workers -- add hatred, xenophobia and impunity into that equation and you've got a horror story. It wasn't a "true" socialism, but people were duped into thinking it would be, at first.
So yes, I champion capitalism in the same way you champion socialism. It's great IN A WORLD WITH ETHICAL PEOPLE.
Debate? What debate? It was just a silly dilly dumbshow to pretend "reform" was coming. Big Insurance/Pharma silently wins more and then lies about the fake and floated "public option" which is of no threat to them. So what do we have now? We the taxpayers shall face the inevitable slipping of our money through our hands like sand come tax season every year. In the meantime, Big Insurance/Pharma is celebrating by calling for their pig trough upgrades !
Gringa, Jennifer and anyone else. Pertinent to the discussion of what capitalism and socialism is, if you can file share by Bit-Torrent (itself a sort of electronic socialism) please go to this site and download this the 52-minute documentary "Capitalism and other Kids Stuff" here:
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/7372/Capitalism-and-other-Kids-Stuff--Newer-Fancy-Version
For now, I'd just like to comment that the kinder, gentler form of capitalism is not possible, because under the fiduciary, accumulate-capital-or-die obligation any business that tried to be "nice" would either go out of business or the stockholders would sell-off.
As far as the caricature of socialism you painted earlier, I would suggest visiting some countries that are substantially socialist, like Norway. Are they slipping into totalitarianism?
Regarding co-ops, they are often hardly socialist in spirit. They are heavily influenced by un-egalitarian capitalist attitudes. When the employees wanted organize (under the IWW) my local food co-op engaged in most of the same dirty union-busting tricks that Wal Mart or Whole Foods would use - even using member resources to hire a union busting lawyer.
Thanks, I will download the Kid's Stuff. I actually enjoy learning and debating, am not out to win but to solve.
It's great that socialism is alive and well in Norway. This ain't Norway.
Any capitalist venture I've ever engaged in has had zero stockholders. You are still using the multinational model which is only enabled via a wildly bizarre decision of the Supreme Court to grant "rights of personhood" to corporations in 1886 during the lawless free-for-all grab for wealth that was the industrial revolution. Overturn that ruling and you'd have a free market.
Individual or family-owned proprietorship occupy a middle ground and I don't really consider them "capitalist" in that they usually operate in a static manner and often even cooperate with their competitors. But there are two probelms:
1. In our modern economy, large size is required for a lot of things. You can't have a small family-owned steel mill, electronic-component factory, or wind-turbine fabrication and assembly plant. In capitalism, this means incorporating and going public, which means a mandate for growth above all else.
2. There will always be a few individuals who will not be happy staying small and will put their competing small competitors out of business and ultimately retain monopoly control.
Capitalism is like a football game where when a team scores a touchdown or goal get to put two additional players on the field, four more with their second, eight more with their third, etc. With rare exceptions, the outcome of the game is not going to be in doubt after the first touchdown.
If you don't really consider small, common-sense (dare I suggest bioregional?) business to be capitalist, and it isn't socialist and it isn't communist, then what do you consider it to be? Because to me, it's the solution. So let's put a name to it so we can stop bickering over semantic qualifications.
I believe my post answered that question.
I was in the middle of the following edits when you posted:
It always seemed obvious to me that a theoretical free market is a highly, dynamically unstable thing, because any incremental gain in wealth produces an incremental advantageous gain in bargaining position - more wealth, better bargaining position, ad-nauseum, until equilibrium is achieved in the form of a handful of individuals reigning over a sea of poverty and servitude - which is pretty accurate model of humanity on much of the earth at present, and is only ameliorated in countries where there is "socialist" government regulation of the system.
Or, by analogy, Capitalism under a theoretical free market is like a football game where when a team scores a touchdown or goal, they are allowed to used their gained resources to put additional players on the field, then with the second touchdown, buy more players, etc, The outcome of the game is not going to be in doubt after the first touchdown.
Also, as far as corporate personhood, I think you have causality reversed, it was relatively free markets of the early industrial era that led to concentration of power in large business and robber-barron individuals, then with this power, they were able to manipulate government and legal decisions to their ends.
Well, I'd like to learn more about this. But I believe that it was criminal activity and hard-core greed that was about to topple them, not "free markets" per se, so they bullied the courts into granting personhood to paper organizations so that no individual would be accountable for any criminal activity. Not free markets, but license to act with impunity. There is actually a difference. Laws governing corporations used to require that they perform some needed service to society at large. When that service was completed, they were dismantled. It's the corporation in perpetuity, given the same rights as an individual only with the resources of an army, that crushes the competition as though "there can be only one." Corporations are in fact like immortals, because they are made of paper, not flesh and blood. When we relieve the paper gods of the rights of individuals, then we'll see what a real free market looks like.
Also, although I do realize now that to say the word "capitalism" in a positive sentence here at commondreams is to invite a pistol-whipping, no one has addressed the question, do you somehow make a living outside of capitalism? Are you employed by a capitalist venture or do you own a private business? If not, do tell! If so, count your blessings and analyze this thing from a realistic point of view. There must be something working in it for you, yes? Because me, I'm happy to admit that socialism sounds really appealing and I can point out working models -- but I'd still like to own my own business and be my own boss, thank you. And although it might be utopian to imagine a world without private property, in my state at any rate the private landowners are taking better care of forest resources than the state is. (ducking and covering for the pistol whipping about to ensue...)
"in my state at any rate the private landowners are taking better care of forest resources than the state is."
Oh, REALLY?
You and I know there is an agenda to privatize all things public, and forests and parks are a prime target for private concerns to "harvest their resources."
I notice you say "taking better care of forest resources" instead of "taking better care of forests."
In fact, logging, gas wells, and oil wells on public forest lands are getting out of hand, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/business/energy-environment/17royalty.html?_r=2&hp
Yes, REALLY. Why does posing the idea that many private landholders can and do actually steward the forest better than the state lead you to the conclusion that therefore, I'm saying everything should be privatized?
Me, I'm a civil engineer for the mine safety and health administration. I'm in a technical support section that reviews plans and supports enforcement of regulations concerning mine tailing dams - especially coal waste dams. Before that, I worked for various consulting companies in branch offices in Lexington, Ky and the DC area. The US Government is a wonderful place to work compared to private industry. The spread in compensation between the lowest paid and the center chief, is perhaps a factor of 2.5. and whether a cause of effect, it makes for a far more egalitarian workplace. Even the spread in pay between a GS-1 clerk and the POTUS is only a factor of 15 or so.
And one certainly gets a sense of accomplishment - protecting the miners and public safety, compared to my old job designing the foundations for another Wal-Mart or Japanese auto plant. There would have been several more Buffalo Creek disasters (look it up) if we we weren't around.
You claim to be for free markets yet you also support "Laws governing corporations used to require that they perform some needed service to society at large". Such laws don't sound very "free market" to me. The fundamental property of a completely free market is that no one can be compelled by law to aid in the welfare of another in any way, or "society at large". In fact, you practically just defined socialism.
Here we go - out of Wikipedia:
"Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended."
Note that nothing in this definition bans private ownership, as long as it is worker (not investor) owned, and the workers are empowered in the firm's decision making, including fair remuneration based on effort.
Oh, and one other point, much of the sort of capitalism that you re promoting depend heavily on individual voluntary personal conduct. Such appeals to voluntary sense of fairness don't work - especially in a system where fairness and sharing is rewarded by being buried by your competitors and going bankrupt. Human behavior is largely influneced by the social systems they live under. Things considered fair, reasonable, even logical under one system look unfair, and even illogical to a person living under another system.
We sorely need sociology to be in the required curriculum in all US high Schools.
Every human exchange we have depends on individual voluntary conduct.
Not to be rude, but just because appeals to voluntary sense of fairness don't work on you and yours do not mean they don't work on me and mine.
We sorely need ethics to be in the required curriculum in all US high schools.
It's a historical fact, the government would grant corporate status if it deemed the organization's purpose to serve the "common good." I believe you are missing something here. Limiting the rights of corporations does not limit your personal rights, it does not do away with capitalism and replace it with socialism. You can still run your business without being compelled by law to aid in the welfare of another in any way, or "society at large." It does not bar you or I from participating in the free market. It would just make YOU AND I personally accountable for what we do, which would tend to make us act in ethical ways, with our employees, with the environment, etc. We would personally have to stand up for every choice we make, our "individual voluntary conduct."
We already have laws regulating capitalism. One cannot sell human beings into servitude, for example. One cannot sell heroine on the streets. This may not be compelling anyone to "act in the public good," but it is protecting the public. And it is what makes us human; that we have limits, that we have morals, that we do not wish for morals to be imposed on us by law but we do recognize certain common needs, like protection from murderers, slavery, and yes, there are even laws prohibiting lying. Current events seem to suggest we need a few more protections, and fast. I've said "capitalism with compassion and prudence" and you've said it's bound to fail. Well, doing it without has gotten us into a pretty awful mess. And, I believe you are ignoring some very positive successes.
I'm glad you love your government job. Our government works when it is composed of ethical people -- Although this article about the American House of Lords does make its worthy points (!) My post commenting that public land owners are stewarding the forest better than the state is something to be proud of, we should all be proud. It's easy to point fingers at "the government" and say it's all corrupt, but I do in fact know several fine people with government jobs. Please do not confuse asking for honesty and a genuine regard for public service in government as a request for anarchy. It's not.
Maybe we need to get to specific policies.
Do you believe in environmental, consumer, workplace safety, and wage and hour regulations?
Do you believe if steeply progressive graduated income taxes for limiting the accumulation of wealth at the top? (In 1955, the top marginal rate in the US was 90%).
Do you believe that some things, like health care, public utilities, public transportation, schools, and vital natural resources are not amenable to "free markets" and should be publicly owned and run?
I have already stated that I believe capitalist and socialist systems can co-exist and that we ought to be intelligent enough to use the right tool for the right job, as the case may be. Let me put it this way:
Do you NOT believe in environmental safety? Do you NOT believe in consumer safety? Do you NOT believe in workplace safety? Shall we work out a definition of "slavery" here so we can determine appropriate policies? Me, I think 12-16 hour shifts with a couple 5-minute bathroom breaks performed at the lowest possible hourly wage is counter-productive to worker safety and the pursuit of happiness, even when or perhaps, especially when these are the only jobs available and workers "consent" to sub-human conditions.
Do you believe that public schools should be shut down? Or would you be happier to see well-run private schools competing with well-run public schools?
As for taxes, I have been interested in learning more about land value tax, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
and
http://www.newrules.org/environment/rules/land-use-policy/land-value-taxation
As for vital natural resources, so long as corporations may use our constitution to prevent "barriers from trade" with the rights of individuals in play, we really have no say anyway. It might help if we did not separate surface rights from mineral rights from airway rights from bandwidth rights... (for example, if you own the mineral rights, the surface owner's rights are subordinate, you can rip the crap out of the surface to get what you are entitled to without any really effectual laws to protect for example, endangered species). But the least we could do is allow other nations their sovereign rights to (democratically, we hope) create and enforce their own laws regarding their own natural resources.
please excuse my misspelling. You cannot sell heroin on the streets. Of course, you can't sell heroine on the streets either, unless you live in Brazil and have a prostitution license...
another typo - I meant PRIVATE land owners are stewarding the forest better than the state.
The late Michael Gilbert wrote a number of very fine crime novels. One of them was "The Long Journey Home" about an engineer who accidently runs afoul of three ruthless Capitalists building up their international business. Gilbert, who was a veteran of WW2 and a partner in a major London law practice, had exactly the right background to expose corporate criminal behavior in fiction. The book is a can't-put-it-down read, and I recommend it to anyone who wants a (slightly-)fictionalised look at Capitalism.
"You can't have a small family-owned steel mill, electronic-component factory, or wind-turbine fabrication and assembly plant."
Oh yeah? Try it. Try it on a bioregional scale. This is like saying "You can't get a black man elected president in the United States." Seemed like the truth, ay?
Or, return to the "common good" mandate for gaining corporate status, if there are industries that are "too big to fail" in light of the common good -- AND remove the "personhood" status so that groups of investors and management remain accountable for their actions when serving the "common good."
pjd, I will be happy to look into this. As you probably know, I believe that not all capitalism is bad. Regulated capitalism used to exist until disaster capitalism replaced it about 30 years ago. Europe has a mixture of socialism and regulated capitalism which the USA could learn from. You are correct about the reasons why regulated capitalism has as much as a chance coming back as socialism for Main Street.
Jennifer: YES!
The problem, Jennifer, is that there's absolutely nothing that Capitalism can deliver that a less-toxic system cannot. The only people who need Capitalism are the Capitalists.
Keeping Capitalism around is like keeping a poisonous snake in the house to get rid of vermin. I can easily imagine people making up stories about the big benefits of having that poisonous snake around, and proudly saying that if they're just careful to keep it under control everything is fine.
An outside observer, of course, would recognise that while the householders have to be alert, careful, and lucky all the time, that snake only has to get lucky once, and that getting rid of the snake and supporting a few cats instead would not only offer exactly the same benefits without the danger, but provide soft, furry sandbags on cold winter nights too.
When the employees wanted organize (under the IWW) my local food co-op engaged in most of the same dirty union-busting tricks that Wal Mart or Whole Foods would use - even using member resources to hire a union busting lawyer.
-----------------------------------
Did the membership vote the BOD out? They should have.
Much of the BOD was replaced by more progressive members, although some of them seem to be stealth progressives. But at any rate, by the time the board was replaced, the damage was done, the insisted on a full NLRB vote, and by then, an odd employee insisted that his own made-up "libertarian" union also be on the ballot. This diluted the vote, so along with management intimidation, the vote failed. Many employees left after that and no more organizing efforts have happened. The employees tend to be young people and people from the poor Homewood neighborhood nearby. They are easily cowed.
And, the main organizer of the union drive also made some tactical mistakes - particularly, not moving forward with our offers to form a consumer support group who would withdraw our $100 membership deposits if they interfered with the organizing in any way.
Ouch, that is a shame. "Management intimidation"? I hope you sacked the GM too!
The more I hear about shenanigans like that, the more I think that "deadfall" safeguards should be put in place in every organisation from the federal government on down, so that when somebody tries it on, the deadfall operates to pull their plug and stop their nonsense immediately.
CAPITALISM ---- BRAIN-POWER DICTATORSHIP
Capitalism is a competition based dictatorship where the most intelligent
upper half divides all the wealth, the 50% with a net worth above zero.
So to accomplish this the lower half must be kept insecure, anxiety driven
and in fearful submission to authority. Three examples:
(1) Absolutely nothing could have traumatizes us more than watching those
life action videos of JFK being wasted. Surely we who lived through it will
never forget the sight and the feel of it.
(2) For a great many 9/11 disaster was even worse.
(3) Disaster medicine from birth to the grave is by far the greatest tool for
keeping us insecure, anxiety driven and in fearful submission.
CREATED BY THE RICH ---- ALWAYS FOR THE RICH
In 1776 the rich nobility created the U.S. Republic so they could maintain slavery over workers and be always in control. A totalitarian from of government that has not changed to this very day.
well... I wouldn't call the XIII, XV, XIX, or XXVI Amendments "no change at all." But we haven't made any amendments to strengthen the Constitution since 1992, while the Bill of Rights, particularly the 1st and 4th Amendments, has been seriously and perilously weakened.