Recent posts by Vector56, Margaret and others debating the merits and demerits of Ron Paul’s candidacy and philosophy got me to thinking. This is a dangerous thing, for my wife thinks she smells something burning and goes around looking for an electrical fire, but I digress.
These are dark times in America, and they are getting darker. Large corporations and wealth control all three branches of our national government and those of most of the states. The ideology of corporatism reigns supreme and the power of its adherents grows. The freedoms for which our ancestors fought Empires and dictatorships are curtailed in the name of security, and the standard of living for most Americans is in perceptible decline, both of which are directly caused by corporatism and the power of the corporations, which act as if they are above the law.
They act that way because, for all intents and purposes, they are above the law. They and their political minions, our so-called representatives, write the law, and their political minions who occupy the White House appoint the judges who interpret the law.
Thus it is no surprise that when corporations engage in flagrant criminal actions, such as those that caused the collapse of the economy in 2008, few if any individuals go to prison and the corporate criminals themselves are bailed out at the expense of We The People by decree of the government those same criminals control.
They deserve strong opposition. I submit that that opposition should include all Americans who agree on a few critical points:
1. Corporations are out of control and must be reined in.
2. Corporations are not natural persons and should have none of the protections of the same.
3. The corporate veil, which allows those who make the decisions of corporations to avoid individual responsibility for the negative consequences of those decisions, should be abolished.
4. Corporate entities should have very limited, if any, influence on political decisions and elections.
5. All corporate assets should be subject to confiscation in order to pay for any damages to the public good that a corporation causes, and that includes the personal assets of the corporate decisionmakers and the value of shares owned by shareholders who chose to purchase stock in the corporation.
6. Corporations should rarely, if ever, be the recipients of government subsidies.
Sound radical? I think it’s quite modest, hence the title. I’ve discussed these things with true, blue Libertarians and none of them have objected to any of those six proposals, except that some wanted an exemption for shareholders who did not participate in corporate decisionmaking, and most want no government subsidies ever.
I don’t know any Greens or Socialists who have any problems with my modest proposals. Most truly progressive Democrats, such as Dennis Kucinich, don’t either.
In fact, most working class people don’t have a problem with any of those things either. That’s most of the population, folks.
It would take at LEAST a constitutional amendment or two to accomplish those goals, if not a constitutional convention. Given the current domination of our government by corporations, it would take true revolutionary action, even if that action has at least some chance of being accomplished peacefully.
It would take organization, and a big-tent popular movement that would welcome all Americans who support the goal of destroying corporate power. Hell, it could even be an international populist movement.
The Anti-Corporate Alliance would have to be single-issue until its objectives are accomplished, and then its component allies could fight their differences out in elections, preferably elections that result in true proportional representation. That leads to other goals: the abolition of the electoral college and maybe the Senate, but it’s not necessary to do those things, at least not at first.
This means no social wedge issues allowed. No abortion, no gun control or lack thereof, no white power/black power/immigration/LBGT stuff. No progressive vs regressive tax issues, either. Just break the power of the corporations and return said power to We The People.
We can argue over the other things later. First things first. In my view, we have two options: curtail corporate power relatively peacefully, or face revolutionary and maybe civil war a few years or a decade from now, at most.
This means working with other people with whom we vehemently disagree on other issues that are important both to us and to them. It means joining together against a common and deadly foe.
It can be done. It must be done. And it’s been done before. If Churchill and Stalin, of all people, could be allies for a time, surely progressives of all stripes and libertarians could be allies. Surely people who disagree over abortion or guns or gays or religion could be allies of necessity. For a time.
“If we don’t all hang together, we most assuredly will hang separately.”
–Benjamin Franklin



54 Comments

To a certain degree, yes there is a lot of overlapping in Venn diagrams going on – after all, people are people and why do we get along so awfully.
But that’s Depeche Mode.
As to the means of enactment – I have a post coming up in the series about how shitty S.365 is, specifically about Constitutional Amendments (S.365 demands a Constitutional Amendment) and how wild they are to try and achieve.
We don’t really have recent memory about one, and for instance, there’s a Child Labor Constitutional Amendment that’s been laying around since 1924, never ratified. Seriously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Amendment
Well, that’s about the only peaceable solution I can think of, a Constitutional Amendment or Convention. If that’s unrealistic, then a real revolution is the only way out.
Unless, of course, you have vested interests in the corporate state yourself, which would not surprise me, so of course you would try to shoot down any real threat to the same. I’m not trying to be nasty, but a lot of liberals sound just like Republicans when assets they have “worked so hard for” are threatened. Cry me a river.
Regardless, I like Depeche Mode. Like the following:
“I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumors, but I think that God’s got a sick sense of humor, and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.”
Absolutely.
Most of this is already in the Green Platform, almost verbatim:
http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/economic-justice.php#241646
And no, this is not radical at all. The founders were not in favor of corporations at all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7_3-Zq-B4A
Well done OG, well stated, REC’D.
You already know where I stand on all of this. Which fucking part doesn’t everyone else yet understand?
People who think this is going to be worked out without all of them coming together and making sacrifices are fools. A fascist state has risen in our midst. We are it, it is us.
Absent a mass populist movement, soon, there will be unimaginable suffering.
There are the 4% who comprise the plutocracy, and then there are the rest of us. It is just that simple.
As Dave put it so well in his post just prior to todays effort : “PICK A SIDE, OR ONE WILL PICK YOU.”
ohio gringo recommended and tweeted anti-corporate alliance is definitely worth consideration. One thing is certain, I would love to see your six points as part of candidates’ platforms in 2012.
I guess it’s OK to be “Anti” and form an anti-group. Many Americans are definitely anti-war, for example, but somehow it seems that being Pro-something is a more powerful position–perhaps I’m wrong.
A discouraging aspect regarding Wall Street is that the overwhelming majority of our elected officials in Washington are heavily invested in Wall Street. In fact, most of them (at least 44% who are millionaires) have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in Wall Street corporations. These investments influence their votes on every and any issue.
As far as I’m concerned any liberal or progressive who owns stock in Wall Street is a fake. I sold all my stock in 2000, the year of my awakening. I will not participate in that Carnival. The people who do are at the heart of our current economic unraveling. They are all sycophants and thieves who steal from the 80%. I’m sure other people have done the same as well. Michael Moore has, but he is the only “famous” person I am aware of who has.
Those who have not and who rant against “the establishment” remind me of a short story I read years ago about a Girl Scout who went to visit an old woman in a nursing home. She had an apple in her purse to give to the old woman. After talking briefly, mostly about herself, to the old woman, the girl left. On her way home she ate the apple.
Powerfully said, OhioG.
One thing I’ve been wondering about of late is the possibility of treating corporations like people when they are guilty of criminal violations.
People when they get caught committing a crime are arrested. Arrested means stopped. They are forced to immediately cease whatever it is they are doing when the police arrive and they are kept from doing anything in a cell until they are at least arraigned and released.
Whey not arrest corporations, if they are so damned people-ish. Have a judge issue a warrant, and when the warrant is served, all activities stop. BP charged with fouling the Gulf? If there’s enough evidence for a warrant, the stations stop pumping, the oil trucks stop rolling, the refineries stop producing. They rot for a while in corporate jail. After an arraignment, maybe the judge lets them begin operations again, contingent on appearing at trial. If they are found guilty, then they serve time in corporate jail – not allowed to operate until the sentence is served.
I know this sounds a little crazy, but they’d be damn sure to be more careful, wouldn’t they, if the penalty was a few quarters with guaranteed ZERO profits?
I think these might be the best places to start:
http://www.occupywallst.org
http://www.october2011.org
Oh, I forgot to say — RECC’d
Regarding the difference between individuals and corporations, particularly 4th amendment rights, Hale v Henkel makes for a very enlightening read:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=201&invol=43
I listened to Rob Kall’s interview of Dennis Loo (Globalization and the Demolition of Society) earlier today. Loo says that the Democratic presidential candidate (2008) whose platform most closely matched that of Progressives was Dennis Kucinich’s .
http://www.opednews.com/Podcast/Dennis-Loo-Globalization-by-Rob-Kall-110817-987.html
Can we mind meld Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul?
Great diary entry and excellent food for thought…..shoot, gotta go now, something must be burning in the kitchen – LOL!
Highly rec’d.
You honor me by putting a Daveparts quote on my thread. He’s right, of course, as are you. To paraphrase you, absent a mass populist movement, soon, there WILL be incredible suffering in America, but it’s not at all unimaginable to me. I can imagine it all too well. I’ve studied too much history, and I’ve seen life in too many Third World countries up close and personal.
The prospect is horrifying. And we ARE running out of time, much faster than most, including myself, are willing to contemplate.
Oh abso-f*cking-luely OG from another OG.
Totally agree. Funny, I have been thinking exactly the same thing. eg. The left and right can get together to vote for Ron Paul to begin to break the corporate power, have a constitutional amendment etc. Then worry about the differences after. As they say, on certain issues, the left and right come together in agreement eg. both were against the Iraq War and the wars (cf Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts) etc.
Here OG, Ubetcha turned us on to this
It’s circa 1970. I edited Ubetcha’s original transcription, and started figurin’ out how to play it last night. Don’t know your musical tastes, but I think it’s waaaay cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-dJkrq32nvE
~Tonio K.~ The Ballad of the Night the Clocks All Quit(and the Government Failed)
Gather ’round people gonna tell you a tale
’bout the time that the clocks all quit and the government failed
well back when the agents tracked all the postmen down
and they found all they needed to know in the second class mail
and then they hauled off everyone ‘cept for me and a couple of friends
they forgot in the Nottingham jail
now that jailer, he saw all the smoke in the air
and he wished he was there ‘stead of inside watching our cell
so we said, “go do your share, we ain’t goin’ nowhere”
he agreed, grabbed his gun with a smile and then wished us all well
‘fore he had got to his car, we had cut through the bars
snuck outside and sat back just to watch till the curtain fell
now the first thing I noticed when we hit the street was the seventh fleet
they was cruisin’ the center of town (struck me as very strange *spoken*)
and nobody seemed real clear who had sent them there
but they sure looked grand with the band, the balloons and the clown (*another parade *)
and they played “anchors away” for the rest of the day
‘cept the times that they’d lower their guns and shoot some renegade down
and John the Baptist and Uncle Sam
they was carryin’ the plans for some new kinda object of faith
when all of a sudden this renegade band with their guns in their hands
stopped them both and demanded a look in the top secret case
ahhh but just in the nick of time they were stricken blind
by a low flying plane with no name and no number to trace
but just the same, John lost his head and they said he was gone, tried to run
but someone held him down and Sam tied up his hands
he cried out to his Boss but he couldn’t get across ’cause the lines were all down
and the crowd cheered him on from the stands
but he finally did get away
you can find him today, he sells silver plates and still waits for the Boss to call back
and Attila the Hun and his Austrian son
left their hideout in Rio to fly out and relive the past
Sam he showed ‘em around when they got into town
but he warned ‘em the rules had been changed since they played the game last
old Attila just grinned and winked at his friend
I forget what went down after that, it all happened so fast
yes it was lookin’ real bad, any luck that we’d had
had been lost in the park after dark when the army arrived (*big trouble you know, cause)
they was sweeping the town chasing renegades down
there’s no friends to be found, there was no place at all left to hide
and the Austrian son he was having some fun
he’d been put in command of the camps and his prisoners all died
(*meanwhile, way across town*)
in the penthouse suite of the tallest building
the boss was asleep when he heard such a clatter
sprang from his bed just to see what was the matter
looked down on the street and that scene filled his eyes
but you know he wasn’t even surprised
Well he got on the phone and he ordered some thunder
some rain and some disk blades, to plow it all under
someone asked why; with a sigh he explained
that the fools was up doin’ it again
(*meanwhile, back on the street*)
this clown in a gown and a hat with tattoos on his shoulder
comes over and whispers, “it’s gonna be all right”
he says he’s a personal friend of the Boss
and then asks if we gots any sheep he can sacrifice later that night
we said “no” he said “oh” and then wandered off
chanting some strange sounding language and waving his wand at the sky
(*most unusual individual confusion you know but…*)
Sam and Attila they’re just gettin’ their fill of the action and danger
they’d burned every manger in town
and ol’ John’s eyes were hazy; he must have gone crazy
he’s goin’ around tryin’ to drown everybody he found
and the Austrian son was still having his fun
launching V-2s at anything moving or making a sound
But bright and early next morning without any warning
the sky opened up and the Boss stuck his head through the clouds
(*something’ they’d never seen before ever*)
the army and navy they opened up fire
but he grabbed him that lightning and laid “em all under the ground
Sam jumped up to salute; the Boss said “that’s real cute
but it’s a little bit late ’cause I’ve seen what’s been goin’ down”
Sam said “you’ve got it all wrong; it’s them that you want, not me
can’t you see that’s Attila and the Austrian kid?”
the Boss says “yes that’s true, but I also want you,
do you think that I’m blind? Did you think you could keep yourself hid?”
and just then the clown in the gown hits the ground and starts kissing his feet
but he steps on his tongue and said “who is this kid?”
And that’s the way it was,
And that’s the way it is,
and that’s they way it’s probably going to be.”
(*And after all that’s happened you know this, huge flock of birds of prey swept down out of the trees
And I was listenin’ to my friends in the Nottingham jail, I was listenin’, and I swear to ya them birds was goin kaceee kaceee kaceee ………….I didn’t know what to make of it but, I present to you this story and you can take it for whatever ya think it’s worth……thank you so much…….*)
Death penalty anyone? Anyone?
Move to Amend
http://movetoamend.org/get-involved
You mean we eat the corporations instead of them eating us.
Serve it up, I’m ready!
Now, now. No need to be vindictive.
Life in corporate prison ought to do it.
I will not vote for Ron Paul. However, I would be happy to push for a constitutional convention with the intent of amending the constitution to read that corporations are not people or that money is not speech.
You are so desperate, and fearful, and lazy, that you are willing to elect a spent 76 year old has been racist/professional politician as the president of the U.S.A.?
I can’t speak for OG but I kinda think you got confused by the analogy. Ron Paul was the stench of electrical fire smouldering somewhere in the house. So you aren’t thinking exactly the same thing at all. Hang on now….here comes another analogy…….not only are you not on the same page, you’re not even in the same fucking book.
I hear Goldman Sachs is quite tasty with some fava beans and nice Chianti. “Slurp-slurp-slurp!”
libertarians basically dominate this website now.
“Unless, of course, you have vested interests in the corporate state yourself, which would not surprise me, so of course you would try to shoot down any real threat to the same.”
Really. You read that as “shoot down” and I am somehow an oligarch.
Shut yer hole barbarian. I’m unemployed right now – since April 18th.
I’m just talking about what it takes for a Constitutional Amendment and that I’ll be writing about it and that it’s fucking HARD.
It takes 2/3rds of both houses, for starters – the Veto proof vote.
But go ahead and assume away. You didn’t even grasp my agreement with you, and that I only addressed “means of enactment.”
Donate Here : http://october2011.org/donate
I think they are still a minority but they certainly are a group that is going to go to the mat fighting. Not that I believe most people here are going to fall for the strategy of electing Ron Paul to spite Obama(or at least I hope not.) I guess they figure they don’t have much to lose. Strategically if they can get you to switch for a day to rig the Republican outcome they figure they have a fighting chance against a President that clearly is out of touch with most of America and appears not to care.
I voted for a Republican in 2008. I won’t be doing so in 2012.
Seems to me that you’re going both to extremes and going the long way around to achieve the necessary reforms. IMHO, two things are pretty the foundation of necessary reform:
- Repeal/prohibition on corporate personhood;
- Public financing of all campaigns.
You get that, you get a good deal of representative government back and then traditional government enforcement of laws follows. (Obviously, that’s never worked perfectly, but it’s a start and could easily be tweaked for improvement.)
And eliminating the corporate veil could have unintended adverse consequences, esp. in our litigious society. A lot of regular small companies would never get formed if the founders knew that they could lose their homes if an employee screwed up on something and the liability exceeded their insurance limitations.
I like the fact you’re approaching this without suggesting a candidate.
From an issue perspective 80% of the country has been ignored on everything from bailouts to health care. I think both sides agree that the system is broken. I don’t think we agree though on how or even whether to fix it. I guess we should start though on where we can agree.
I changed my voter preference months ago so I could participate in and influence the Republican primary…..and actually do something with my vote for a change here in Arizona. I sure as hell won’t be casting it for Ron Paul.
Greenwald wrote a piece last year about the language that libertarians use as apposed to how progressives use it. He said Progressives think that corporations corrupt the government, but libertarians think that Government corrupts corporations.
In order to appeal to the other side, you may want to call it an anti-corporate/government alliance alliance.
No matter how we go about it we have to acknowledge that things are going to be hard though. There is no way that the oligarchs are going to hand over their power.
With 80% of the country upset, now would definitely be the best time to try to put together support on a state by state basis for the position that corporations are not people.
You are correct of course BP,
Eminently reasonable proposal.
But how do you propose to accomplish those two simple things. The plutocrats outright own 95% of our elected representatives, even SCOTUS has irrefutably been corrupted.
Yergh, I don’t envy you your choices if your going to vote in the Republican primary. :/
I guess Huntsman sounds halfway sane if you’re a male. If you’re a female though each and every one of their candidates ought to be non starters. There isn’t a single one of them that is pro choice, even the one with a uterus feels she should be entitled to tell each woman what risks she should have to undertake and what responsibilities she should be required to take on. I feel like screaming every time I hear them call it pro life. It ought to be either called pro LIVES(plural, as in there are 2 of them involved in a pregnancy) or pro fetus(which is frankly what most of these candidates are.)
No, you miss the point….
If Americans haven’t stood up and “Stopped the Machine” by then, I want wack-a-doodle but electable.
Perry would do if he doesn’t self immolate beforehand, he could easily be the spark for the 2nd American Revolution by May of 2013.
I am sorry to hear of your predicament. I was speaking in the conditional tense, you know, so I wasn’t assuming anything. I have no desire to get into a worthless pissing contest with you, so if an apology will head that off, I offer it.
And I wish you good luck. You don’t seem like a bad sort. I mean it.
Ummm…I was not endorsing Ron Paul’s presidential bid. I am advocating a movement to destroy corporate power. Just want to make that perfectly clear, to quote one of our really entertaining presidents.
I agree with that sentiment 100%.
“A lot of regular small companies would never get formed if the founders knew that they could lose their homes if an employee screwed up on something and the liability exceeded their insurance limitations.”
These things can be debated later. I don’t think an employer should be held responsible for something an employee did without his approval, but this is a minor issue in the larger scheme of things. Our entire legal system leaves a lot to be desired.
I’m sorry, but getting rid of the corporate veil is non-negotiable with me. Its primary purpose is to take away personal responsibility and maximize personal profit. Business and investment is SUPPOSED to be risky. If people don’t want to accept risks, then they shouldn’t try to be entrepeneurs. They should not have it both ways, and if they don’t like it, f* ‘em.
Accepted.
Just read what I write.
I have devoted almost 60 hours now to S. 365, the debt ceiling bill/SuperCongress law. There is not one good goddamn thing in it- at all. Soon to be fleshed out.
And aside from the Day of Action alert that me and me Congressional Scorecard group put out a while back here: http://my.firedoglake.com/kellycanfielddenver/2011/07/27/call-to-action-no-super-congress/
one of the crew has made an awesome takedown of the re-up of the Patriot Act. She has done a truly great analysis.
It’s all coming relatively soon.
And we in that Scorecard Group take a very, very dim view of how Congress is doing its job. None of us, not one of us, have a good thing to say about current governance.
So to be clear, yer not talking to a status quo person here.
In order to gain any alliance among the major factions of the US, you will first need to lay out an case against Corporations. Echo chamber posturing wont get far. In fact since you posted your ‘plan’ on an site that is regularly monitored by the Right, you have probably assured certain failure. I say that because you made it obvious that your ‘alliance’ is only a ‘foot in the door’ strategy. In other words your offer will be viewed as ‘Progressives using Libertarians for political gain’.
I think that you are buying into all the propaganda that the Tea Party has major support. The Tea party are the Libertarians that you are talking about. I noticed that you were careful not to say ‘Tea Party’ because what progressive would swear alliance with the Tea Party?
And the kicker is that you assert that the Tea Party would agree with #5. I simply do not believe that any Libertarian will go along with all of those conditions.
Then you also assume that this alliance would simply agree on ‘your’ proposals for amending the Constitution. You are ignoring how politics work. There would also be other demands that would be insisted on to brokerage the deal.
Plus you also assert that there are only two choices your plan or an “real Revolution” or Civil war. There are always other choices, dont be so naive to assume that everything is so black and white.
But I do applaud you though, you at least are attempting to try to perceive another solution. I agree that Corporate power must be caged. But pseudo offers for alliances that stand no chance of developing, isnt going to go anywhere.
I do agree with #1 #2 #3 #4 and #6. #5 needs more debate, because it is much to broad to assume that every Corporation is criminal corruption. I would replace #5 with banning all lobbying. After that I offer the alliance to all Americans to join and not try to target any factions. Nor make this alliance an Progressive reach out. Many will not even listen if an ideology that they oppose is the primary instigator. For example who would form an alliance with a movement started by Palin or Bachmann?
I wish I could support your plan but I am skeptical thought it would get any further than Blogspehere discussion. At least not without real debate instead of bandwagon pats on the back rec’s.
But that is just my opinion and I am just an individual. So listen, ignore do whatever you like. But you put a plan out there for opinion so accept when someone gives you their opinion. And please dont attack me like you did Kelly Canfield. It was pathetic IMO to accuse him of being invested in Corporate corruption. What do you really know about him? At any rate I dont think you won him over to your plan that way..
Perry is scary crazy. If either him or Bachmann become President I could see Christians getting their own special armbands and us moving towards theocracy.
Here’s my tribute to you, OG…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHxlVK_P48w&feature=related
The privileges corporations enjoy, such as peace, infrastructure, “flexible” labor force, law and order, etc. should come with a set of obligations to society, such as working for the common good and contributing to the nation. Of course, this notion that rights come with duties goes against the notion of individual freedom to pursue profit.
I also think that “our ancestors fought for our freedoms against empires” preamble is unnecessary given the US’ long history of foreign military interventions and hedge fund raids against 3rd world countries that benefited corporations, yes, but also the country as a whole. If anything, Americans would be parting with historical tradition.
Lots of good thinking here, Gringo, though given the comments on the thread, I’m a little unclear about whether you are advocating a big tent anti-corporate *party* or big tent *organization*. Big difference, IMO.
A third choice is a populist *movement*, which concept may imply no actual organization, depending whether or not someone or ones would seek to be its ‘Decider’ and spokesperson. Rambling; sorry. I haven’t thought it through.
But: anyhoo; Dylan Ratigan (yep, Libertarian, probably Paulite, but hell on what he calls ‘the unholy alliance between government and corporations’ or something close) and did his now-famous rant last week about the same
http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2011/08/10/ratigan%e2%80%99s-astounding-rant-obama-should-go-teddy-r-calls-out-both-parties-should-go-viral/
is paying Jimmy Williams (beats me, haven’t googled him) whom he claims has written tons of bills and amendments, to draft a Constitutional amendment to get all money out of electoral politics. He gets that it is simply one step toward restoring democracy, and realizes what a tall order it is to amend that document. People seem to skitter over the fact that two thirds of the states have to ratify one, as well, I’ve seen.
But he imagines that given the potential populist power of the internet now, it would be possible to get multi-millions of Americans to sign onto it, and also pledge not to give a dime to any politician who doesn’t support it. The most obvious with that bit being the fact that most politicians are liars, so…dunno. But he is soliciting additions and opinions on what should be included, and I have zero idea if he envisions an organization to back the thing, or just imagines the idea itself will spread like wildfire and take on a life of its own.
Anyhoo, he’s done a few segments on it, including this rather ironic interview with Mr. Major Fundraiser himself, Ed Rendell.
http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/19/our-constitutional-amendment-get-money-out-of-politics/
For myself, I’d like some consideration given to single terms in Congress, the number of years could be debated. Besides limiting the necessity of spending most of their time fundraising, it would limit somewhat the access to corporate power influences on voting, thus decrease the engine of the revolving door. I think. ;o)
OG, another very deeply considered and superior post.
Recommended to everyone.
You are onto the fundamental breeching, deliberately, of trust, especially among individuals … those who are “outside” and those who are inside the bubble of the “seperate” and VERY unequal two-tier legal system which corporate power and the absurd notion of corporate “personhood” has allowed, nay, FORCED upon already deeply flawed and dishonest legal, political and economic systems.
As well, this destruction of trust had permitted the so- called “representative” elite to accept bribes quite blatantly, a criminal act backed happily by a SCOTUS uninterested and unconcerned with the consequences of its, more-honestly THEIR, one-sided and perverse rulings upon reason and humanity at large.
Let us remember the “at large”, for if we do not embrace the fact that human beings have an inalienable right to protect themselves and their society from precisely the concentrations of wealth and power which neoliberal corporations, indeed from corporate power and wealth of ANY stripe, then democracy and any rational, reasonable, and sustainably humane society and form of governance CANNOT survive.
The “at large” reaslity also has implicit within it the recognition that there ARE many more of us than of them … and “their” ONLY power comes, ultimately, from tyrannical threat and provision for massive assault, physical, emotional, or pyschological … upon the rest of us.
This truth, for so it is, renders ANY appeal the powerful may or might make, to “order” or to “larger purpose”, but thinly veiled threats of fascism and ruthless, heartless “control”.
There are those among us, as always there are, who are attracted to such perversion … but they are always, a minority who have neither depth nor compassion to enliven and to become themselves, as whole beings, conscious and aware of the wonder and magic of the possibility of life and the meaning and the joy of such considered understanding and embrace of life and of living, as we all, together, have shared and share.
We, the rest of us, far outnumber the would-be Masters and their would-be minions …
And, of a truth, THIS is our time and our world far more than theirs.
Ohio Gringo, I thank you for daring, in so many ways, to lead the way forward, for that is what true leadership is about: courage and daring, to examine possibilities and, then, to return and share those possibilities with others, that they, too, might understand and see … yes! there is a better way, a much better way, a more honest and considered way … a genuinely human and heartful way.
The only thing which stands in our way, if we are fully honest, beyond the threats now leveled at all humankind who do not wish to control, are our own doubts … and what are they “worth” what real weight have they when seeking the light of a new, and better day, for everyone, not just a fearful and fear-mongering few?
DW
Gringo, you may already know this info, but today Yves Smith discusses more on this April piece (former S&L investigator) Bill Black wrote about the original Powell memo:
August 23, 2011 will bring the 40th anniversary of one of the most successful efforts to transform America. Forty years ago the most influential representatives of our largest corporations despaired. They saw themselves on the losing side of history. They did not, however, give in to that despair, but rather sought advice from the man they viewed as their best and brightest about how to reverse their losses. That man advanced a comprehensive, sophisticated strategy, but it was also a strategy that embraced a consistent tactic – attack the critics and valorize corporations!
He issued a clarion call for corporations to mobilize their economic power to further their economic interests by ensuring that corporations dominated every influential and powerful American institution. Lewis Powell’s call was answered by the CEOs who funded the creation of Cato, Heritage, and hundreds of other movement centers.
Confidential Memorandum:
Attack on the American Free Enterprise System More here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/bill-black-my-class-right-or-wrong-%E2%80%93-the-powell-memorandum%E2%80%99s-40th-anniversary.html
“Let us remember the “at large”, for if we do not embrace the fact that human beings have an inalienable right to protect themselves and their society from precisely the concentrations of wealth and power which neoliberal corporations, indeed from corporate power and wealth of ANY stripe, then democracy and any rational, reasonable, and sustainably humane society and form of governance CANNOT survive.”
Whooo! There it is, DW; the (pardon the pun, please) money quote.
Thanks for that.
Kelly, this medium is a perfect vehicle for creating misunderstandings. There are no auditory or visual cues such as tone of voice or facial expressions, which we as humans have evolved to look for.
As for “just read what I write,” that goes both ways. I try to use tenses to convey meaning, as I used the conditional above. Obviously, sometimes that doesn’t work. It’s not necessarily the reader’s fault, either.
Anyway, I know how hard it is to ratify a constitutional amendment. My example would be the Equal Rights Amendment, but yours is as good as any. OTOH, a movement to amend the Constitution sometimes forces Congress to act, as the Progressive movement calling for direct election of US Senators and the progressive income tax did about a century ago.
You are one who wishes for a nonviolent solution; this is the only one I can think of for our current national dilemna, and I’m still not optimistic.
Political party or organization? To be honest, I hadn’t thought that far ahead. I would have to say organization, a popular movement. To attempt to draw both Libertarians and Greens into the same political PARTY is begging for that party to immediately split into its constituent parts in an orgy of internecine squabbling, I think.
We just don’t have TIME for that. We may not even have time for a popular movement to accomplish emasculating the power of the corporations, but I suggest that it may be worth a try. I’m sure “they” said it was impossible for any movement to accomplish the break up of the robber baron trusts and to levy an income tax on the wealthy, too, but the old progressive movement succeeded in spite of the naysayers.
Thanks for posting such a great reply on this thread, DW. You touch on so many things that are true I don’t know where to start.
Psychologists define sociopaths as people who don’t care what effect their actions have on others and on society so long as they get what they want. I think it no coincidence that the nature of capitalism itself attracts sociopaths, and that sociopaths make the most “successful,” ie profitable, CEO’s. When the only thing that matters is increasing profits for shareholders, those who actually adhere to moral concerns for their fellow human beings at large, and their employees in particular, are considered failures and thrown out in favor of sociopathic SOBs who only give a shit about the bottom line.
They have all sorts of theoretical rationalizations for their behavior, and they now dominate our government, but the adverse consequences of their behavior on the rest of us are now obvious. The fact that they don’t care is painfully obvious. We, the vast majority of the people, really DO have the moral high ground in this fight, and I think we should unashamedly use it. All they have are rationalizations.
This reminds me of an exchange from “The Big Chill:”
“…rationalizations are more important than sex.”
“Oh, come on, nothing’s more important than sex.”
“Really? When was the last time you went a whole week without a rationalization?”
I did not already know that, Wendy. Fascinating. And disgusting. Thanks for posting that link.
No, I did not mention the Tea Party because I didn’t even consider those spoiled, ignorant, mostly Boomers who put up yard signs saying “Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare!” and portray Obama as an African witch doctor because they can’t see past the color of his skin.
The Tea Party and the Libertarian Party are NOT the same thing. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and movement in its own right that has its own political party. I don’t think their economic philosophy can possibly work, but that’s beside the point for the purposes of my proposal. They also don’t think that democratic socialism can possibly work, but that doesn’t mean they disagree with me on everything. They don’t.
I did not say that all corporations were criminally corrupt. I do think that, by enabling the decisionmakers of corporations to evade being held personally responsible for their actions, the corporate structure itself enables criminality to be practiced with little fear of retribution. And I know that Libertarians are big on personal responsibility, and personally know dedicated Libertarians who think the corporate veil should be abolished.
The Tea Party was founded by corporate interests and enabled by wall-to-wall coverage and ballyhooing by Fox News. That’s a fact. Libertarianism is based on the belief that individuals should be allowed to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not hurt others. IOW, libertarianism does NOT equal corporatism.
As for Progressives “using” Libertarians, the opposite could also be charged. The same thing happens with any alliance between parties who have fundamental disagreements but band together to fight a common foe.
I did NOT accuse Kelly Canfield of being invested in corporate corruption. I used the conditional tense, though I admit I was suspicious of him because he has promulgated the lesser-of-two-evilism approach in the past and thinks it possible to reform the Democratic Party from within, which I no longer believe is possible.
He clearly thought it was a personal attack, however, I think we both subsequently cleared that misunderstanding up. I disagree with him on some things, and I don’t like some of his debating tactics, but I do think his heart is in the right place.
You, OTOH, have a habit of putting words in other posters’ mouths, then using YOUR words to show that their ideas cannot possibly work, and then imply that because the poster does not agree with you that they are promoting violence.
Don’t worry, I won’t attack you in the way that I took an admittedly pre-emptive swipe at Kelly. I’ll attack you in precisely the way that I think you deserve, especially in light of your tenacious stalking of Daveparts. Why don’t you change your name to Freedom From Brains?
“3. The corporate veil, which allows those who make the decisions of corporations to avoid individual responsibility for the negative consequences of those decisions, should be abolished.”
The “corporate veil” is the only reason corporations exist … if number 3 is followed all the other suggestions [which mention corporations] are non-sensical because if number 3 is followed then there would only be sole-proprietorships and partnerships.
I, personally, agree with all the other suggestions, and especially BeachPopulist’s suggestion, Public financing of all campaigns, I’m just pointing out that number 3, “abolishing” corporations, makes the others nonsensical. Please don’t say, “I’m not advocating abolishing corporations, just the corporate veil,” because that is also non-sensical. That IS what a corporation IS. A corporation is a legal construct that enables investors to not be personally liable beyond their initial investment. If you rule that all cars must have only two wheels, in reality, that is a motorcycle and you have abolished cars, because without four wheels it is not a car. Without the corporate veil, as I said, you only are left with sole-proprietorships and partnerships. Sure, maybe all the stockholders of BP should be charged with negligent manslaughter, as they could be in a partnership, and perhaps that is the point you are trying to make, but that doesn’t make it logical to now call motorcycles “two-wheeled cars” or sole-proprietorships or partnerships corporations …
Thank you for spending the time to clear up what you were trying to say.
“You, OTOH, have a habit of putting words in other posters’ mouths, then using YOUR words to show that their ideas cannot possibly work, and then imply that because the poster does not agree with you that they are promoting violence.”
The irony in that statement is entertaining. I tell you the same thing that I tell other people who try to assert my point of view for me. ‘You are wrong, you have no clue what my opinion is because you are too busy pimping you opinion of me personally.’
Don’t worry, I won’t attack you in the way that I took an admittedly pre-emptive swipe at Kelly. I’ll attack you in precisely the way that I think you deserve, especially in light of your tenacious stalking of Daveparts. Why don’t you change your name to Freedom From Brains?”
Great now you have reduced yourself to petty name calling. ANd despite your worship of Dave he is not an God, and i have the right to criticize his dogmatic writings. But you keep insisting that Dave can say whatever he wants and I cannot. Maybe you like this brand of propaganda but I do not. I think that you get too emotional, and forget to use critical thinking while debating.
All i did in reply to your diary entry was try to give you my opinion. The first part of your reply was to the point and concisely explained what you didnt explain well. But you could not stop there you had to go and call me names. I get it you do not like me, get over it.
The stalking accusation is just an attempt to get me not to counter Daves misinformation and stark propagandist techniques. I am not on the bandwagon I refuse to promote the echo chamber mentality so you make personal attacks on me. Some friend you turned out to be. I guess our friendship only meant something when you needed me to play your games. And when it became obvious that you could not manipulate me, you turned. Yes i have my own beliefs and opinions which are entirely individual and different that yours. Get over it.
How many times have I called you an name? Actually how many times have I called anyone a name? Now compare those numbers with how many times that others have called me names. I honestly do not understand how adults can behave in such childish discourse and live with themselves. Pile on me all you want, but I know that teaming up and trying to marginalize and debater is vile activity. And you OG need to access just what you are involved with. Since you seem rather slow Ill spell it out for you, its called pettiness, self serving selfish masturbatory fantasies. The fact is that Blogsphere politics is fantasy land, nothing is reality in here. If one goes outside and looks around one finds an entirely different world than what is portrayed here. And I really do not care what the fuck some asshole thinks about me in fantasy land or the real world. Call me an asshole, great I am an asshole so what of it? Are you going to make me not an asshole? See in the real world you wouldnt talk down to me the way you have since I met you at that insanely moronic site called OET. From the start you thought yourself of higher intelligence than myself. Just maybe I am what you created or at least I have responded in a way that I should in accordance with your treatment of myself. Act like an asshole and the people around you are assholes too.
Look at your judgement of Kelly Canfield, you did not respect his opinions you instead attacked him personally because of his opinions. Your method is to attack anyone that has a different opinion than yourself. ANd you have the balls to accuse me of that behavior. Again I will quote George Orwell.
“As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.”
George Orwell
You have done more to harm your movement than I could ever do. I actually dislike Socialism even more since meeting you. The reason being that Socialism seems to have an occult or rather religious flavor to it that seems to corrupt the minds of its followers just as much as Nazism or Catholicism.
I’m with you, OG.