RE: Politics Made Simple!

RE: Politics Made Simple! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/29/2006 11:55:06 PM)
“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." Benito Mussolini Almost. What we have today (in Britain) is neo-liberalism where basically it is a free-for-all, individualistic society. Whereas fascism requires business subservience to the state to achieve nationalist objectives, neo-liberalism demands state subservience to business interests and the free market. What we have today is not fascism (as some think) it is neo-liberalism where free market economics and business interests govern the state and we are its subjects. I don't think for one minute that that the US is a fascist society simply because the Government is in bed with large corporations. What we have today began with Thatcher and Reagan where they created an Anglo-American neo-liberalism.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 12:02:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." Benito Mussolini Almost. What we have today (in Britain) is neo-liberalism where basically it is a free-for-all, individualistic society. Whereas fascism requires business subservience to the state to achieve nationalist objectives, neo-liberalism demands state subservience to business interests and the free market. What we have today is not fascism (as some think) it is neo-liberalism where free market economics and business interests govern the state and we are its subjects. I don't think for one minute that that the US is a fascist society simply because the Government is in bed with large corporations. What we have today began with Thatcher and Reagan where they created an Anglo-American neo-liberalism. That's a very astute observation......and oh man do I agree. - R

NorthernGent -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 12:12:38 AM)
To qualify, what we have today is a very liberal way of running the economy. In terms of social policy, Thatcher was far from liberal.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 12:54:28 AM)
quote: To qualify, what we have today is a very liberal way of running the economy. Absolutely...... The anti-trust department of this justice department has been almost nonexistent.....and the least utilized in the last forty years. The philosophy you've mentioned is primarily the reason behind why we ''subjects'' are paying so much at the pump. [;)] - R

Zensee -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 1:02:30 AM)
Yeah - In Comunism a corrupt government runs business whereas in Capitalism corrupt busines runs the government. 0

NorthernGent -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 1:34:06 AM)
Zensee, I see where you're coming from but "Communist" Governments to date have been distorted/corrupted versions of communist politics and the neo-liberalism we have today is an extreme form of Capitalism i.e. Capitalism is not necessarily, and does not have to be, a free-for-all. Now, I wholeheartedly believe in incentive and wealth creation (as did the founders of the Labour Party movement) however, Government regulation is absolutely essential to ensure genuine social policy and social justice (I'm aware some on here are completely anti-Government but for my money, if you want social justice, it can only be achieved by Government). What we have today is largely a free-for-all. I don't know what it's like over there but over here we have three parties occupying the same ground of free-market economics with slightly varying shades of social policy.

Zensee -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 1:54:40 AM)
Well I was being a bit simplistic but my point is, NG, it doesn't mater what ism you run under, the crooks will eventually take over and pervert it to their own ends. Or the righteous will become soiled and corrupt of necessity, in order to compete and survive in the political realm. Some isms are more resistant but none are impervious. Criminality and crookedness are part of the human condition and for some reason the majority repeatedly allows a small, often charismatic, seemingly sociopathic and always corrupt minority take charge - the Triple-A personality types. Our democratic process, being adversarial, just filters for these dangerously driven individuals. The people who want power are the last people who should be entrusted with it. 0

NorthernGent -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 2:12:10 AM)
Zensee, history supports your point of view. I'm scratching my head and I'm struggling to think of a benevolent Government untainted by corruption. However, whether or not this is a natural state of affairs is open to debate. Obviously, we are driven by self-interest as self-preservation is our number one priority but is it an inherently human trait to go well beyond an acceptable level of self-interest (i.e. rampant consumerism) or have we been conditioned to behave like this? I would like to believe we have more about us than to naturally want to eat each other (which is effectively what we are doing in Iraq/Afghanistan etc) and in the words of the New York comedian's link that was put on this board "spending money we don't have on things we don't need". For my money, this rampant consumerism is the product of Thatcher/Reagan inspired neo-liberalism.

meatcleaver -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 2:38:32 AM)
Corporations wield power because the majority of individual citizens don't want to give up their consumer lifestyles, they insist on their governments providing an economy that provide jobs with incomes that allow them to indulge in consumerism. The pressure is on politicians to cooperate with corporations and due to the same human greed that drives their citizens, take their share of the action. Due to the cost of development of many contemporary consumer products, only huge corporations have the money for such development. However, corporations are only about 20% of any country's economy. They can be controled, one of the functions of the EU is to control them but this is hampered by internal competition of the states and their willingness to enter a bidding war to attract them. Saying corporations have power to me suggests that people don't have a choice but to deal with them but they do have a choice, they just don't want a choice of not dealing with them which is why politicians allow this state of affairs.

NorthernGent -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 3:34:29 AM)
I have to agree with the exception of this part the pressure is on politicians to cooperate with corporations and due to the same human greed that drives their citizens. Yes, in today's Britain there is an unholy alliance between state/business interests/media/public objectives. However, how we got to this point can not be described as simply a result of human greed. Rampant consumerism is an unusual state of affairs. It was made possible by Thatcher’s Government and her policies of privatisation, free-market economics and, crucially, with the support of constant and repeated business marketing (day after day getting into people’s brains that we need to spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need). In a nutshell, what we have today is a product of the Government we had from 1979-1997 (not human greed). When Thatcher embarked on this neo-liberal form of economics business was certainly subservient to the concept and was simply a cog in the machine. After 25 years of effectively being brainwashed through marketing the problems are two-fold: We are now hooked on this lifestyle. Business interests have come to dominate Government policy to the extent where neo-liberalism is now driven by business rather than Government i.e. the tail is now wagging the dog (I’m sure Thatcher never imagined this would be the conclusion). A good example of the tail wagging the dog is this: Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation made £1.4billion profit in Britain between 1987 and 1998 and paid no net corporation tax – not a penny (from The Economist ‘Business: Rupert laid bare’ – March 1999). Despite crumbling public services (a vote winner/loser in this country), the Government is no longer in a position to dictate to business in order to secure funding through CT and potentially win votes (based on improved public services).

meatcleaver -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 4:02:37 AM)
Thatcher was dealing with an dissatified country that was on the whole fed up with being the 'sick man of Europe'. The 70s in Britain from what I remember were not some idyl, it was a time of stagnation, self doubt and a fear of the future. It was a time of huge national decline and self doubt, we couldn't make products to satisfy Brits, never mind export them. It was the reason I travelled abroad, to escape its suffocation and lack of opportunities. Working abroad was a big eye opener in how bad Britain was and it was a problem created as much by the Unions as by the management. Demarkation lines, workers pressured into not working too hard should that become the expected norm, a total lack of flexibility that benefited no one, not even the workers. The left created a country that was ripe for the picking. It taught me that constant belly aching about the powers that be was self defeating, when a more cooperative and positive approach could have created a Britain that was more at ease with itself like so many other western European countries. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and British lifestyle is just as bad as the 70s but for a different reason. British workers work longer hours for less pay and worse conditions. There are still people around that remember the 70s for what they were and that is why corporate marketing is so attractive, the alternative is far worse. Confrontation and blaming the other side just doesn't work. It never worked in Britain and it won't work. Corporations can be controled but it takes international cooperation and the biggest fly in the EU oinment is Britain. Countries can't do it by themselves as France and Germany have proved.

NorthernGent -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 4:29:24 AM)
There are a few things in there I don't agree with but rather than pick at the bones I'll concentrate on the meat of what you are saying. I agree that what we need in this country is enterprise and flexibility - the reason we didn't have this in the 70s owes as much to the decline of industrial Britain as it does to the "left" as you put it. I'll take the bit you set for me, in a post a few days ago you described your politics as "to the left" thus, you should appreciate that left-wing politics is a whole spectrum of political thought and not everyone on the left believes in Socialism and stifling Government control and regulation. As you said, the pendulum has swung the other way and calling it a free-for-all is dramatic but we are increasingly moving in that direction. The key is to have a balance with the right amount of Government intervention.

Chaingang -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 4:56:54 AM)
The fundamental reason for having corporation is to serve a public good. Any corporation failing to do so is simply legally dismantled. To tame the corporate beast you make it illegal for them to be multinationals in the first place. That's right, I am saying that a corporation must have a national affiliation and cannot have factories or any kind of satellite locations abroad. This eliminates off-shoring and tax haven advantages. The entire financial structure of a corporation must be contained within a single country. Corporations must be taxed, controlled, and regulated. Then you strip away the personhood. A corporation is not a natural person and should therefore not have the rights of a person. Access to government should be severely limited and lobbying illegal. Corporations may not contribute to political campaigns. All corporate and government dealings should be public record and open to even casual scrutiny. No exceptions, not even for matters of national security. Corporate officers lose any possible corporate shielding if they commit illegal acts. They can be held strictly liable for criminal acts. None of this applies to sole-proprietorships (obviously?). Individuals doing business almost as if they were corporations actually do have all of the rights of the natural person that they actually are. I mention this because Libertarians often confuse and conflate the role of the individual with that of the corporation - and indeed, they are absolutely discrete from one another. ... Can I have some help with this? Amendments? Additions? Complaints from corporate apologists?

Chaingang -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 5:16:17 AM)
Interesting editorial I just ran across: "Taming the New Multinational Beast" http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm0997.02.html Yup, I was googling my own terminology from the above...

Chaingang -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (9/30/2006 10:42:44 AM)
No help is forthcoming I see. How sad. So, nation will become meaningless ideas on a global consumer map.

NorthernGent -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (10/1/2006 7:33:11 AM)
CG, Interesting concept The fundamental reason for having corporation is to serve a public good. It is a long time since businesses in Britain existed for any other reason than to make pure, hard cash. In terms of could business ever return to supplying a public need (first and foremost), personally, I think it's a bridge too far and to be honest I personally don't think this is the real problem. I've read through your post a couple of times and I completely agree with the main thrust of what you are saying (i.e. Corporate regulation) but the one area I disagree on is businesses retiring to within their borders (there is something in this idea that smacks of Conservatism and to be honest I read it yesterday and I'm still trying to get to grips with it, probably because of the environment I've lived in i.e. traditionally we are a country that values free trade and this concept is a very un-British way of thinking). Also, I personally value openness in all areas of life so it's just not a concept I can go for. In terms of corporate, financial regulation and responsibility, I agree 100%. Enron was just an absolute horror show - putting loans through subsidies and not accounting for them in the consolidated accounts and treating loans as income is just plain, old madness. It's a poor show when a system can be created where external auditors are paid by the business (e.g. Enron) for non-auditing work - basically, it is a bribe i.e. keep the accounts right and we'll push some more work your way. The fact this has become normal practice is and indication that there is very little real financial regulation over some of these businesses. My view, I don't have a problem with incentive and wealth creation. The Government needs to get it's act together to move away from this neo-liberal form of governing the economy and start driving employee rights, consumer rights and environmental business practice. If I remember correctly, Corporate Governance in Britain recommends environmental reporting for businesses so the public can see how they operate in this area - it is only a recommendation and really doesn't do enough. The Government need to start acting with a conscience - the onus is on us to put the pressure on them. I suppose this is what Genoa and such places is about - a whole mix of people from various backgrounds just simply fed up with business domination. The movement is there, the problem is there's just not enough support for it within nations to make the Government sit up and take notice. Spread the word and who knows.

Chaingang -> RE: Politics Made Simple! (10/1/2006 8:45:06 AM)
Corporations have to be kept within the borders of individual countries because otherwise they are potentially supranational and bigger than some countries - look at Walmart and consider the Jefferson quote from earlier: "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." In that "trial of strength" the corporations must lose, otherwise there shall be no real ability to regulate them. It's too easy to hide assets, not pay taxes, etc. by keeping it all offshore. You cannot regulate what is beyond your reach. I don't disagree that it's an undesirable solution because I too have certain capitalist leanings. But it's probably the best and only solution to the problem under discussion. Consider too that part of the problem of things like offshoring is that the corporation does not have a national interest only a profit motive. So these corporate entities that wield so much power within our borders don't ultimately care about the strength of the nations they reside within - they can simply move elsewhere if need be. A nation's interest and that of the corporation must be the same if corporations are to be made to serve a public good as they used to.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625