Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Source of Corporate Power
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
The words are those of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in last week's landmark Supreme Court decision marking some sort of culmination in the long corporate trek to personhood. It's the word "simply" that gets to me: Exxon-Pinocchio is a real boy now, and has his opinions, and the government has no right to stop him from "simply engaging in political speech."
What a cheap cover story; it's up there with "bringing democracy to Iraq" in its tawdry manipulation of iconic national values to justify a raw power grab. The 5-4 decision in the long-awaited Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case overturns restrictions on corporate spending to influence election results, giving entities with millions (in some cases, billions) of dollars at their disposal unlimited license to electioneer for the candidate with the friendliest attitude toward their interests.
The tendency of money and power is to concentrate, of course. The big trick, from a human perspective, is to make sure our core values remain pre-eminent, that they are served by the ways in which we concentrate power. Democracy is the great mechanism for doing so, the hope of the world, or so we are told, but the wakeup message in this nakedly cynical ruling by the Roberts Court, with its slim (but sufficient) right-wing majority, is that the concept of democracy is mortally wounded.
As former Sen. Bob Kerrey wrote recently on Huffington Post: "Instead of doing the nation's business, elected officials are spending a third of their time or more dialing for special interest dollars in never-ending campaigns for re-election.
"Industry lobbyists," he goes on, "are helping to write the very bills in Congress that affect their bottom line, placing private profit ahead of the public good. Billions of taxpayer dollars are going to benefit big contributors through earmarks, subsidies, and special regulations."
And as Chris Hedges explains on TruthDig: "Corporations have 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals that dole out corporate money to shape and write legislation."
The interests of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Coal, agribusiness, the financial sector, the insurance sector and, of course, the military-industrial complex, have infinitely more clout in government than the collective popular will and the voices calling for eco-sanity, universal health care and an end to war. Note: This is already the case.
Corporate entities have thoroughly gamed the system, leaving us with little more than a textbook-democracy façade. What the latest Supreme Court decision does is legitimize all this, shoving the corruption in our faces by declaring the absurd: Corporations are people too! They have a right to weigh in on the candidates just like the rest of us - to get their billion-dollar opinions out to the public throughout the election campaign.
This is an "activist" judicial decision, that is to say, a decision that serves a prior agenda, with any principles cited (e.g., the sanctity of free speech) sheer window dressing in service to a larger, and covert, cause.
As a New York Times story points out, the case itself - involving a conservative, not-for-profit corporation called Citizens United, which was restricted in its ability to distribute an attack film about Hillary Clinton, "Hillary: The Movie," during the 2008 presidential primary elections - could have been decided on narrow grounds. The court chose instead to expand the scope of the case, making it into a challenge of existing laws that regulate corporate election spending, most notably the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, which prohibits corporate electioneering within 60 days of an election. This is what we've lost.
The good news is that the decision has generated a huge outpouring of anger around the country. Within a day of the ruling, the website MoveToAmend.org had garnered some 40,000 signatures (it's now close to 50,000) in support of a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech and only human beings have constitutional rights. The amendment would also guarantee our right to vote and participate in elections, and to have our votes count.
A number of bills and legislative actions are also in the works, attempting to circumvent the Supremes. The proposals range from patch jobs to cries for profound change, both of which are necessary in the process of resuscitating democracy.
No matter what, though, the Roberts Court has hastened the propagandizing of the national discourse, mostly through the medium of television, as corporate interests amp up their thought-control machines in the name of free speech. I see little hope for a gullible nation that allows the tube to hemorrhage urgent inanities directly into its consciousness for 18 hours a day. This gullibility is the source of corporate power. Democracy can only thrive where people think for themselves.
- Posted in
104 Comments so far
Show AllPay Attention.
The observations about media are important. Marshall McLuhan did for communications and media what Zinn did for a reading of history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faK9HUvH2ck
"Literacy marched steadily in the direction of fragmenting and segmenting and classifying data, turning men into specialists who pursued individual subjects with
individual themes and goals, quite without relation to one another.
"The word Narcissus means narcosis, numbed, drugged. And Narcissus was drugged into thinking that image outside himself was somebody else. NARCISSUS DID NOT FALL IN LOVE WITH HIS OWN IMAGE, HE THOUGHT IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE" (emphasis added)
The story of Narcissus relates the substance of the Buddhist doctrine: that self is a delusion, but it is the delusion intimately related indeed even "identified" with by individuals. The delusion of self as an absolute is central to the doctrine of Christianism -- and the doctrine of an inalienable right to the "private property" of this absolute self is the salient point of the theory of conservatism. Both of these ideas are axioms of most Americans, liberal or conservative, and here is the real source of corporate power in the "hearts and minds" of individual Americans.
This decision will become as infamous as the Dred Scott v Sanford one in 1857 -- one that still stinks after nearly 150 years.
Gary
“In the United States today, the Declaration of Independence hangs on schoolroom walls, but foreign policy follows Machiavelli.”
-- Howard Zinn
Sioux Rose
GARY: Right on, and quite prescient!
"I see little hope for a gullible nation that allows the tube to hemorrhage urgent inanities directly into its conciousness for eighteen hours a day. This gullibility is the source of corporate power." Exactly! Boycott the corporate media!
Tony Vodvarka
"This gullibility is the source of corporate power. Democracy can only thrive where people think for themselves."
From religious mythology to corporate media mythology: the Western mind has been harvested by rich and powerful tyrants for a long time. Real life experience has been restricted down to the point where most Westerners are hopelessly understimulated and numb to their own best interests.
Now, the earth's internal organs are at stake. Is it time to turn off the TV and shut down Hollywood? Or is the boredom and meaningless of consumer culture too painful to allow this kind of detoxification?
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson
Sorry Tom. "We the People" have let the power slip away. I fear we shall never get it back.
In some odd way the investor class is able to vote twice or more times. Once personally and once through the corporations they invest in. The more corporations they invest in the more they get to vote.
The only context for a discussion of democracy in the United States is that: 1) it's gone; and 2) can we get it back?
I must respectfully disagree. What would we go back to? The time when only landowners could vote? Or before black men could vote? Before women could vote? Before 18 year olds could vote in elections but were still expected die in a political war? We never had a democracy. You can't lose what you never had, nor can you get it back.
elainem
I must respectfully disagree. Consider that every single thing you mentioned is no more. I would argue that obviously our Republic and its democracy worked and the proof that that it did is these wrongs no longer exist.
FastEddie75
Its not gone. Its a Republic which practices demoocracy. Its not working correctly at the moment, but yes, we can correct the stupidity being practiced at the moment. I see a start being made.
The freedom of investors to pursue profit, and profit alone, is also under attack with this Court ruling. That freedom is central to our capitalism. It should be trivially obvious that if Exxon is a great oil investment, we shouldn't have to worry about its stance on abortion before we decide to invest. The Court says corporations are political entities; once upon a time they were business entities focused purely on profit. This made it easy for investors, who often choose investments through spreadsheets based on a single parameter: is the company going to be profitable? The Court says there should now be other parameters on that spreadsheet: whats the companies position on gay-marriage, on Roe V Wade, on gun control, etc.
Investors have the right to invest in corporations based on their business model alone. They should not have to worry about the possibility that by doing so they could be 'investing' in governance that doesn't reflect their core values. If I am anti-Abortion, and Exxon is aggressively pro-Abortion, why should I miss out on a great oil investment over this issue? I can only choose to invest by muzzling my strongly held beliefs on abortion. Or I could keep my beliefs, and miss out on a great oil investment. Either way, the Court is MAKING me compromise on either my freedom to pursue profit, or my freedom to voice my political beliefs.
Through this ruling, the court is not just attacking democracy: its attacking capitalism; specifically, the independence, or purity, of capitalistic decisionmaking in its most basic form. And therein lies the handle by which to overturn this decision. The Court must know that they just ended our one-man, one-vote Democracy. But in this profit-crazy America, pointing out how they just ended our one-parameter (profit), one-vote Capitalism may find more political traction in overturning the ruling.
So, to overturn the ruling we need to argue that it's imperative to save the Purity of Capitalism? Because if corporations can politically advertise (they already do, and they already buy politicians and elections, and have done so for decades), then whatever their "beliefs" may be can confuse me when I'm investing in those corporations, forcing me to go against my own beliefs or sacrifice the purity of my profit-making impulses and natural rights to pursue sacred personal profits? That's why this ruling is so offensive to you? (What the hell is "one-vote Capitalism", BTW?)
Do you really believe that by rushing to the defense of the divinely innocent purity of capitalism, you're also going to achieve your own Holy Grail, progressive taxation? Can't you see that your ideal version of capitalism may not be the same as that of the rapacious capitalists themselves on whose behalf the Court laid down this ruling? I'm pretty sure their definition of Pure Capitalism will trump yours.
Well, the Court has to argue its position on purely legal grounds. I don't know what purely legal grounds mandate the 'purity' of investor decisions, but they must be there somewhere. Companies have been called 'aggregators of capital', people put their money in them for one reason, and one reason only, to make more money when they pull it out again. Arguing for the purity of this impulse is a strong argument for getting corporations out of politics completely: no political personhood, no PACs, no lobbiests, etc.
Investors have a right (or should have the right) to invest KNOWING that in investing they aren't funding governance opposed to their deeply held beliefs. They should know this apriori, not find it out later. Thats because they aren't following the political character of the company they invest in, just its business character. The only way to make this true, in every case, for every investor, is to prohibit corporate political advocacy. It should be deeply disturbing to any investor that a company that makes shoes may advocate for gay marriage, especially if the investor doesn't believe in gay marriage and just wants to make a buck off growth in the shoe market.
I'm trying to find a handle to overturn this decision, and I'm suggesting one other folks may not have thought of. Most Republicans may not be rich, but most intend to get rich off their investments. They would understand the argument I'm making, the danger it poses for their personal freedom to BOTH make money AND seek a government that reflects their core values. The argument I'm making is a libertarian argument, really.
Progressive taxation is the key to adjusting the role of money in our governance. I fully subscribe to the 'game' investors are playing as they try to pick winners from losers in our capitalism. I also subscribe to the notion that, as in football, when the game is over we readjust the score to a more level playing field. In capitalism, the game is the point, not the outcome. If the outcome is that 1% of the country owns half of it, then change the outcome, but don't change the game. Yet, that's what the Supremes are doing: changing the game. They're trying to muddle investor profit decisionmaking with political overtones. Anyone who cares about capitalism should be against this.
Yes, a corporation is a group of people given a state charter to form a synthetic entity for the purpose of profit. The court's ruling strikes at the essential concept. All shareholders do not hold the same political opinion. And surely the court is not saying these corporations would be spending money only for the sake of increasing their profit, for surely that would not be speech, but influence formerly thought to be illegal, i.e., bribery.
"All shareholders do not hold the same political opinion." Exactly. It's like this Court opinion is saying that all minority shareholders should, in the interest of making profit, defer their political opinions for those of the majority shareholders (who run the company). That's definitely a contraint on personal freedom and should be challenged that way.
ubrew12
All true. Except I would argue that the capitalism currently practiced is not real capitalism. Consider, corporations should go out of business when they make the wrong decisions, regulations stop administrators from looting the companies by agreeing to pay packages by sitting on each others boards, banks are involved in non banking operations, etc. That is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.
Real capitalism requires laws to stop predatory practices, (Glass-Steagall for instance) to keep egregious practices from occurring and regulattions and oversight.
Yes. We use laws to change the way business is done. Shame that the Supremes seem to think that business should be able to use money to change the way politics is done. It reflects an overall trend in capitalism: It used to be that capital fought labor for the spoils, and government was a referee, making sure the fight was honest. Labor was knocked out some time ago, and capital is now fighting the referee, and we're all arguing about whether the referee should win or the capital boxer. We SHOULD be arguing about how are we going to resurrect the labor boxer.
ubrew12
"We SHOULD be arguing about how are we going to resurrect the labor boxer."
WELL PUT! What a great anology. With permission I'm going to use it in an article.
"Yes. We use laws to change the way business is done"
I wish that was what we were doing right now. Obama at least touched on the problem last night of trade and tax policies that favor large corporations to the detriment of our country and our citizens. If he can get it, anyone should.
-They should know this apriori, not find it out later. Thats because they aren't following the political character of the company they invest in, just its business character.
This is an interesting point. And to extend it further. Now that your military generals regularly pontificate on cnn and fox, and now that much of the military's functions are caried out by private corporations, will the court also say that your privatized mercenary army(Xe/Blackwater/Halliburton) is a "person" with speech rights as well?
That would alleviate the problem the pentagon has of trying to hide it's "independent analysts" program or its other domestic propaganda operations. The court may very well say "generals, both public generals and private ones, are people too!"
Yes, or look at the censorship in television of single payer. The six-o'clock news broadcasts appeared to be sponsored by drug company ads. The networks tailored the definition of news to not conflict with their advertisers' profits. Seemingly you don't have to make your own ad buy the message. You can leverage advertising dollars to accomplish the same, maybe better.
And regarding generals being people, too, I believe the court ruling would apply to the military as well. Gone is their silence. Now the rank and file can gather up their nickels to run ads saying "We don't support this war we're stuck in. Bring us home!" And the television stations can no longer refuse to run ads they don't like.
Thank goodness the Supremes have come to the aid of the Xe's of the world so that they may more freely engage in "free speech" that openly advocates the start of new, profitable wars. Now that's freedom to die for.
Bombs are probably really good attention getters when starting a speech. Does that put Xe at an advantage over other corporations?
Of course, and that is as it should be. It is all part of God's plan (that is the plan to get rid of the human critters).
Sioux Rose
JLOCKE: Hush. Don't tell them. Maybe they haven't thought of that one yet.
We have some major "chess players" when it comes to economic & political analysis on this thread. Bravo, thinkers! Don't give it all away to "the other side." Simpletons play checkers, while you guys sometimes enter into the realms of 4th dimensional chess. And we mystics do know those OTHER realms; so we can speak with a certain authority on these matters!
The controversy surrounding this SCOTUS ruling is that it guts democracy by allowing corporations full rein to buy politicians and elections, right in public view, with no constraints at all. Before, they were technically and very mildly restricted by McCain-Feingold and vague laws going back a hundred years no one cared about or bothered obeying. Either way, corporations have bought the entire political process, most centrally by writing virtually ALL legislation their lobbyists are dispatched to "influence."
I suppose as a libertarian (and I have detected before that it's your position) your understanding of this issue is that democracy is threatened because now investors won't know which corporations to invest in or will be unfairly confused by their God-given rights to pursue profits and the mixed messages sent from corporations that contradict their "core values". So you're focusing on how to appeal to Repubicans' fixations on getting rich. Why would pro-life, tea-bagging, Milton Friedmanite, pro-war, anti-gay, gun-hugging, flag-waving, global warming-denying, drill baby-drilling, gay marriage-hating, feminist-hating, capitalism-loving, Christian fundamentalists want a law that forces them to choose between their preciously unassailable beliefs and investing in corporations that may not share all those beliefs?
But here's a news flash: Scarcely ANY corporations that trade stock on Wall Street give a damn about any of those issues, one way or another, with the possible exception of some of the tea-baggers issues, and of course the love of capitalism itself. All those personal, social issues that form so many conservative and libertarian belief systems are convenient distractions for corporate capitalism's overriding interest in accumulating money (profits) and concentrating it to project immense power. Unless an investor has those rightwing core values, he or she isn't going to find more than a meager handful of companies (green, sustainable, eco-friendly, etc.) to invest in. And then there won't be enough return on those investments to make it worth their while, unless their "core values" are far more important than financial returns.
ExxonMobil or none of the rest of the Fortune 1000 is ever going to come right out and say, "We oppose abortion," or gay marriage, or "we're in favor of war, all the time" (which they universally are). They'll support candidates who believe such things but they can easily distance themselves from these social positions by simply not saying a word about them. There's no law that says they must be specific as to why they support any given candidate, and their only real interest in doing it is because that candidate supports the "core values" of the corporation, which is to make profits for investors, regardless of any social, environmental or other consequences. That's capitalism as it actually exists, not the idealized interpretation you have that it cares one tiny bit about your core values.
But not all corporations are secular, nor are they always focused solely on profits. Many family run corporations for just one example have a LONG history of backing their "core values" with their money. And some of our "core values" include NOT allowing corporations free rein to our natural and human resources, among other minor considerations like global warming and air and water pollution. And the _stealing_ of our national treasure.
Good try but your greenwashing doesn't hold water.
Gary
"Corporations cannot commit treason, or be outlawed or excommunicated, for they have no souls."
-- Sir Edward Coke
So you're both opposed to capitalism (your remarks to the hopelessly indoctrinated Caligula) and FOR corporations? Except when you don't like them. Of course there are corporations that do all sorts of charitable deeds with their money, usually in the form of setting up foundations. That's how they buy off the public's mistrust of them, and it never cuts into their actual core values because they only apply the interest on their numerous investments to charitable ends. The principal is never touched, so foundation work is great PR at no cost.
But the "core values" argument, which you seem to both oppose and support, can mean anything at all. Show me where some corporations are pushing their core values to not allow other corporations "free rein to our natural and human resources, among other minor considerations like global warming and air and water pollution. And the _stealing_ of our national treasure." Examples? And whatever the hell you mean by my "greenwashing" is anybody's guess. Also, the quote you end with seems to flatly contradict everything you say in this post.
"hopelessly indoctrinated Caligula"
Rerally? I'll pose to you the same questions I did above to ggoodman I believe. Whats your alternative and where has it been proven?
Making statements as you did above is nothing new, people dio it all the time here, but without one ounce of factual backup.
So if I'm wrong....what do you suggest?
By the way, I appreciate the label "hopelessly indoctrinated Caligula", I prefer it to hopelessly indoctrinated "fool." Very kind!
Here's a blanket assertion you made in a previous comment:
"Capitalism is the one system that is proven to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That is a demonstrable fact."
That is nothing but your biased interpretation and is based on a storybook narrative that bears little resemblance to the real world, much like most of your opinions, Thomas More/Henry8/Caligula. Why don't you familiarize yourself with the way capitalism ACTUALLY works in the world we live in, instead of insisting on lingering in the era of FDR to Carter. Even in those years, capitalism was a utilitarian paradise only selectively. It left billions out in the cold, starving, or working slave wages in sweatshops, with no security whatsoever.
What to you is a "demonstrable fact" has been to billions of people hell on earth. There are thousands of sources, mainly books, that disprove your certitudes about capitalism being the best system imaginable, and they've been around for 150 years, but you clearly are far more persuaded by the dogmas of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan that There Is No Alternative to your cherished capitalism. You're immune to arguments to the contrary, so it's really not worth discussing this with you, as I've seen how your mind works for a long time in here.
But here's just one source you might check out: Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." Maybe you've heard of it. She discusses at length the way capitalism really functions today and how the trajectory it's taken from the 1940s to now was INEVITABLE. What's a better system? Democratic socialism, or libertarian anarchism, and neither of these has anything to do with authoritarianism, unlike the economic system you find so congenial. The corporate power endorsed by the Supreme Court is one that could ONLY emerge from a capitalist system. We've entered an era where capitalism is very swiftly being transformed into fascism, which is the polar opposite of socialism or anarcho-syndicalism (google it). If you're so excited about the wonders of capitalism, I have to wonder why you don't like Obama. His dismissal of any system but capitalism is precisely the same as yours.
Ephraim,
Remember that socialists and anarcho-syndicalists shouldn't be too comfortable with each other's ideologies, but aside from that, I want to have your babies!
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: You are really ON your game tonight. Is it the near full moon? Listen deeply. You can hear me clapping.
Sioux Rose
I think there is some love in the air here! Epherrim is getting proposals!
Clap away young lady, but allow me to point out there is no answer in the above. Its simply a critisism of me. Do you see one factual assertion to back up the critique? I do not. Do you see one country mentioned that is practicing a superior economic system?
I feel oppressed!!
Semper Fi Young Lady
Don't listen to Sioux Rose. She uses black magic bs to spew on this site. Whoever you are, it's cool. This site is filled with paranoid idiots who lump users together as they feel. They have nothing to back up their lying and bs-ing whatsoever.
"That is nothing but your biased interpretation and is based on a storybook narrative that bears little resemblance to the real world, much like most of your opinions"
Really? I fairly familiar with the real world and can back up my assertions with historical facts. Proven outcomes. I still await your proof of assertion.
Can you find a different system that has produced more wealth for more of its citizens? Where is it.
As to Obama he has done nothing to return us to the capitalist system that Clinton/Bush destroyed.
I repeat, you and everyone else keeps banging on my head, fairly free with the snide comments, but its all rhetoric. Where is your better system. Where is it being practiced?
"era of FDR to Carter. Even in those years, capitalism was a utilitarian paradise only selectively. It left billions out in the cold, starving, or working slave wages in sweatshops, with no security whatsoever."
Were those billionsd under capitalism? NO they weren't. America is not responsible for the rest of the world you know.
No system can provide everything for everybody, only a fool would contend it could, my point remains for all its faults...REAL capitalism, which we do not have now...has PROVEN to be the best.
No more finger pointing or rhetoric, where is the better systyem, which country. Real fascts, not Obamian pronouncements.
I do not mean to be rude, but its getting tiresome to keep getting the same "no answer"
To make sure we are speaking of the same thing, we are talking about capitalism as an economic system? Some confuse it with a social system. I'm sure you do not, but better to be clear.
Sounds like you arec describing corpratism rather than capitalism.
"Scarcely ANY corporations that trade stock on Wall Street give a damn about any of those issues"
The law is blind as to whether they do or not. All investors must assume they do, and must assume they conflict with the investors own cherished political beliefs, and that by investing in them, the investor is, in essence, fighting himself. This is especially true since, as you say, the corporation doesn't have to be especially fortright about why they support a particular candidate over another.
The law punishes investors for leaving investments early (before 1 year, say). But a corporation is free to change its political position on a weekly basis. And if the investor pulls out due to a corporations shifting position, the Supreme's are essentially going to TAX the investor for exercizing their free speech rights (with their feet). This is another way the Supreme's are enslaving the political advocacy rights of individuals.
The Courts ruling leads to investors being forced to choose seeking profit or morals (politics), but they cannot seek both. Explained this way to the investor community, its hard to see how this ruling will last. Those guys got money...
Ephraim
"I'm pretty sure their definition of Pure Capitalism will trump yours"
Ah, but they are not practising real capitalism. He is simply describing real capitalism.
Yeah "real capitalism," profit for the sake of profit alone.
Too my mind SCOTUS REINFORCED "pure capitalism," by legalizing its voice even more. What is more capitalistic than a "person" buying elections? Treating politicians as assets.
The real problem is not just corporations, they are legal fictions, but capitalism itself is not comfortable with democracy. It has no ideology but its own of greed.
Gary
"One aspect of modern life which has gone far to stifle men is the rapid growth of tremendous corporations. Enormous spiritual sacrifices are made in the transformation."
-- William Orville Douglas (1898-1980).
gdgoodman
Real capitalisnm does indeed exist for other than profit for profit's sake. If you think back, not too long ago, large companies used to do what most small companies still do.
Support their communities.
Still retain the sicial contract as much as possible.
Are concerned with their employees well being. (though the Fed keeps squeezing)
Don't confuse what the multinationals do with capitalism. Democracy needs capitalism to survive. Without it you get communism, dictatorship or anarchy.
>>Democracy needs capitalism to survive. Without it you get communism, dictatorship or anarchy.<<
Oh boy, have you been effectively brain-washed.
I don't know where to begin to re-educate you.
Capitalism has NOTHING to do with democracy, working just fine, thank you very much, in a communist state like China.
Socialism is not communism -- never was.
Greed is a self-destructive and corrosive force.
Capitalism depends upon taking capital AWAY from someone to enrich someone else -- for all the pretty theories -- that is what happens with a "free market" instead of a "fair market" which prevents capitalism's natural tendency toward concentration and monopoly. Not to mention corruption. It has, for one example among so many, corrupted China as well as the United States (among other nations) by stopping a fair wage law from being enacted.
Capitalism is an evil force. It leaches off of labor, swipes assets, exploits resources, and generally f^cks everything up.
Please fellow posters, use your eloquence to show this well-meaning fool his errors. I am stumped to really show how wrong he is in his defense of capitalism.
Gary
"The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism."
-- Mikhail Gorbachev
gdgoodman
"Socialism is not communism -- never was"
Didn't say it was that I see.
Your statement of: "Greed is a self-destructive and corrosive force" is correct but it has nothing to do with capitalism. If thats your direction its a non sequitur.
"Capitalism is an evil force. It leaches off of labor, swipes assets, exploits resources, and generally f^cks everything up."
That is an absurd statement. Systems of themselves are neither evil or good. Its how they are applied. Historically and factually I don't think you want to make an argument that capitalism as opposed to a socialist state or a communist state or a dictatorship, etc has been abused more. Thats a losing direction.
'
Seems to me the only brainwashing present is the old ideology of "evil capitalism" that was purveyed by the communists during the cold war.
This old fool would suggest to you that when you get past the rhetoric and the ideology what you will find is the poor old truth. Capitalism is the one system that is proven to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That is a demonstrable fact
As you pointed out, till the communist government in China started practicing capitalism, they were a typically inefficient and repressive regime with little to offer its workers.
The social democracies in Europe practice capitalism last time I looked, its how they pay for their social system.
Are you suggesting that North Korea's economy is working better than South Korea's? That her citizens are better off than their's?
Venezuela? Its in fairly bad financial trouble. Mexico? Russia?
Where is the wonderful system you want to replace capitalism with. Which country is using it in so I can compare and see how much better its doing? Which system do you want to replace it with?
I won't call you a fool as you designated me, but lets just say you are misguided or perhaps just inexperienced?
"Where is the wonderful system you want to replace capitalism with."
We could start with Catalonian Anarcho-syndicalism, and let different versions evolve for different regions of the country, like the Spanish did...until the tool of the Capitalists and Communists, Francisco Franco, murdered everybody.
Marx was wrong about a lot of things, but he had Capitalism's number: You can't accrue capital without ripping off the workers. If the Powers That Be don't dole out just enough Socialism to mollify the masses there will be a revolution. The greedy bastards have forgotten that, and the consequences are predictable.
It sounds like you haven't read any Bakunin in a while. I recommend God and the State.
If that system is so good, why is it not being practised?
I'm fairly familiar with history and most economic systems.
Remember that socialism is about the most inefficient economic system around except for communism. I would suggest there have certainly beemn enough instances to prove that.
"If that system is so good, why is it not being practised?"
Because everybody is so damned stupid!
LOL...no bitterness here...
I spend a great deal of time thinking about variations of that question, and here are some of my answers:
1) Everybody has to be on the same page. Anarchism isn't about being a mob of anomic hotheads running around with lit bombs. It's about maximising personal freedom - and accepting the personal responsibility that comes with it. If there's a pothole, grab a couple of neighbors and fill it. If a dam needs to be built, organize a temporary syndicate to build one, then rotate the staff to maintain it. The trouble is that everybody has to cooperate and be of a like mind.
This is not impossible - but it ain't gonna' be easy, and it's likely to take a while, because
2) All (and I mean ALL) forms of government are violently opposed to all forms of anarchy. They will tell any lie and commit any crime necessary to crush an anarchic movement.
3) Anarchists might be great individual fighters, and you couldn't find a cause more just than maximum freedom for every person, but while they're trying to work out a liberty-based command and control structure an opposing army organized by an hierarchical political system will march in and lay waste.
There are a lot of problems inherent in an anarchic system, but they could be solved...providing everybody is on the same page.
"Remember that socialism is about the most inefficient economic system around except for communism."
Without socialism our democracy wouldn't work, because the people would be ravaged by capitalism and they'd revolt. Imagine what would happen if you announced the end of Social Security. You think the Teabaggers are bad now? Deny them their SSI and Medicare coverage and they'd burn D.C. to ground. As for the efficiency of capitalism - to what end? Capitalists simply ARE NOT in business to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Quite the opposite. Capital doesn't give a fig for the good of the people, and will inevitably oppress them whenever allowed to do so. Unrestrained capitalism will, as Marx correctly noted, sow the seeds of it's own destruction in the form of pitchfork and torch wielding poor people. Leaven it with some socialism, though - some unions, public roads, libraries, schools, utilities, etc., and you can keep the masses peaceful enough to be exploited. But capitalism with no socialistic brakes is a recipe for anarchy - and not the good kind!
No matter what system you impose, you end up with the same tired horseshit: A knot of elites at the top exploiting the teeming masses below. Eventually the masses get sick of it, they revolt, and install a new bunch of yahoos with a new system. Ten years later you're back to square one, but with new oppressors. It doesn't matter whether it's communism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, fascism, or anything else. You always end up with the same result.
If liberty means anything to you, you MUST support anarchism.
- "Democracy needs capitalism to survive. Without it you get communism, dictatorship or anarchy."
*Representative* democracy needs capitalism to survive. Without it you get direct, participatory, democracy - you get anarchy: a functioning political critter. Anarchy is NOT chaos, as you assume. Educate yourself on the subject.
In fact, they are practicing ACTUAL capitalism. What you call "real capitalism" is in fact your idealized interpretation of how capitalism SHOULD work, not how it ever actually has worked. You are confusing reality with your personally held and cherished notions of it. Actually existing capitalism has given us perpetual war and the profiteering from it that never ends, as well as the corrupt and morally bankrupt system of health care we have. Just two examples of what will never be fixed under the capitalism that prevails in the REAL world, in other words, Real Capitalism.
Ephraim
"is in fact your idealized interpretation of how capitalism SHOULD work, not how it ever actually has worked."
I would suggest it certainly existed and worked quite well from FDR's time up to Ronnie when they started fiddling, to Clinton/Bush that wrecked it.
I fail to see how you believe capitalism generated "perpetual war", war seems to be fairly spread out over all economic and cultural systems.
I don't "idealize" it, I know what it was and how it worked before. Anyone in business can tell you what changed and when and who did it.
Our health care sustem is not quite the "corrupt and morally bankrupt system of health care" Everyone gets some medical care even now. Even illegal aliens access our health care system. There are millions that are without insurance, not millions without health care.
Perfect...hell no! First, cost is out of hand, second we should have Single Payer so every citizen gets primary care to stop the waste of waiting to treat. Cretainly we need reform....I believe we need Single Payer. But our system is not THAT bad nor would I ever go for the Health Crap these bozo's propose.
The idea that everything we do is wrong might not stand scrutiny.
ubrew12
Execellent comment.