This is not the kind of post I usually write, but I heard this on a podcast the other day and thought it was worth transcribing. There are a lot of different things going on there in Liberty Park, and people are choosing to participate in the Occupy Wall Street protest for a lot of different reasons, with lot of different goals (and some with no particular goal at all). And in any case, Chris Hedges isn't speaking on behalf of any of them, but I thought he did a good job talking about what's going on there, at least as I understand it.
I’ve been following what’s been happening here, and this is really where the hope of America lies. And all of the efforts of intimidation that we’ve seen by the police in New York, the disproportionate amount of force, and the disproportionate numbers that have been deployed to contain the protests here, for me, illustrate that the real people who are scared are the power elite. Of course they’re trying to make you scared and us scared, but I can tell you, having been a reporter for the New York Times, that on the inside, they’re very, very frightened. The do not want movements like this to grow.
And they understand on some level, whether it’s subconscious or in other cases even overt, that the criminal class in this country has seized power. That those people in this plaza, those people carrying out these protests, in the true definition of the political spectrum are conservatives in this sense--they call for the rule of law. They call for the restoration of the rule of law. And what’s happened is that the real radicals have seized power, and they are decimating all legal impediments to the creation of a neo-feudalistic corporate state. One in which there is a rapacious oligarchic class, a thin managerial elite, and two-thirds of this country live in conditions that increasingly push families to subsistence level.
And one of the reasons that I went to Amocoli, and the reasons Amocoli is important, is because in this race to the bottom, Amocoli is the bottom. It’s where they want the working, and even the middle class, to end up. And that is a place where they have no rights, where because of massive unemployment and work that is part-time, poorly-paid work, they can reduce the working class to a status equivalent of serfdom. Where there are no pensions, no health benefits. Collective bargaining in Florida is illegal, a legacy of Jim Crow, and Amocoli isn’t just a horrific pocket of essentially third-world abuse, but is a vision of what the corporate state wants to impose upon the rest of us.
And what they want is for us to remain passive, and to remain frightened. And as long as we remain passive and frightened, entranced with their electronic hallucinations, we are not a threat. The moment people come out and do this, the corporate state is terrified. And if you doubt me, look around you at the huge numbers of cops, and not only that but the kind of brutality that the cops have visited upon peaceful protesters.
I’m sitting in a park with the only free people in New York City. This is it. Fear is a potent force and the security state and the corporate state has worked overtime to make us afraid. Because when you’re afraid you think with a different part of your brain. You become politically, emotionally, intellectually, and even physically disempowered. And we have to stop being afraid. And if we stop being afraid, then these nefarious forces that are destroying our ecosystem and destroying our country, then their fragility will be exposed. So get out here and come with us to Washington on October 6th when we’re gonna again occupy a plaza because the only mechanism we have left for reform is civil disobedience.
Any belief that the formal structures of power, including the democratic party are going to ameliorate the injustices being visited upon us, is self-delusion.
It’s about physically throwing your body in front of the machine. I’m not a big fan of--social networking is useful in terms of forms of communication, but I don’t believe it’s useful in terms of forms of activism. Activism requires us to do what all of the great movements throughout history have done, and that is physically get out and obstruct the forces of control. And that’s it. This is really the only option we have left.
And it’s extremely important, because the system doesn’t work any more. Because there is no way for incremental or piece-meal reform to be carried out within the system. Since we’ve undergone a sort of corporate coup-de-tat in slow motion, it’s imperative that those of us who care about democracy and civil society engage in these acts of civil disobedience, which I have.
And to be honest, going to jail is more time that I care to donate to the US government. On the other hand, I have children, and I look at my children and I wonder what kind of a world we’re going to leave them.
My youngest son is three years old and his favorite book is Out of the Blue, which are these huge pictures of narwhals and dolphins and he will sit on the floor of his room and flip through these pages, and I look at him and when I see him do that it breaks my heart, because I know that if there is not a radical change in human behavior, all of those great sea creatures will be dead within his lifetime.
Corporate systems are in theological terms, and I’m a seminary graduate, are systems of death. They turn everything into a commodity, human beings become commodities, the natural world because a commodity, that they exploit until exhaustion or collapse. And in that sense, Karl Marx was right. It is a revolutionary force and the revolution has happened. They’ve won. And to appeal to the systems of power, or the illusory systems of power that they place before us, is to essentially become complicitous in the radical reconfiguration of the corporate state’s intents. They know no limits.
The only word corporations understand is “moreâ€. They will push and push and push, until human capital is destroyed. Until the ecosystem itself is destroyed.  And if we don’t carry out acts of civil disobedience, then the rage that is being expressed by the working class, and it’s a legitimate rage, will be channelled by proto-fascist movements like the Tea Party, militia, and other groups. And these are groups that celebrate violence. They celebrate the gun culture. They are racist toward Muslims, undocumented workers homosexuals, intellectuals. And that’s really the choice before us. Either those of us who care about an egalitarian, open society get out into the streets, or we cede power to movements that will seek to snuff out what is left of our anemic democracy.
Yeats got it. We live in a moment when the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity. And the reason that what’s happening today is so vital,  and so important and even monumental is that to my mind, everyone in this park are the best.
You can hear this and more on the Sept. 29th episode of the Citizen Radio podcast. Or you can watch the whole thing (around 45 minutes worth) as a series of YouTube videos available at TruthDig.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 80
From what I've seen and heard, there are some anarchists involved in the movement, but I'm not sure how much influence they have, or how much those sorts of ideas are likely to be embraced by the movement as a whole (to whatever extent the movement actually exists "as a whole").
And I'm not sure to what extent decentralization would actually present a solution. In terms of some of the issues identified by Hedges, the combination of corporate and governmental power to dominate, control and impoverish those who aren't part of the "oligarchic class", I think there's plenty of evidence to show that it's happening (and has been happening) at lower levels of government as well.
How decentralized do you think we need to go before a solution is found? Dissolve the federal government so that each former state becomes an independent nation? Get rid of the state governments and have thousands of city-states scattered throughout the territory formerly known as the United States? Total anarchy?
As for your short-term goal, I'm not sure I see how it presents any solution. But then maybe that depends on what you identify as the problem.
For example, those are New York City cops out there macing and abusing non-violent protesters. And throughout the country, state and local cops are beating and killing people every day.
And as long as its kept in mind that the Constitution didn't do an awful lot to protect the rights of people who were literally enslaved by state laws. It didn't do much to protect the rights of women, who were often forbidden by state laws from voting, owning property, etc.
And as long as it's kept in mind that some of the people advocating for decentralization seem to be pretty okay with people being abused, as long as the federal government isn't involved. For example, the socially-conservative teabaggers who advocate using state legislation to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will, to outlaw not only abortion but birth control as well.
And socially-conservative libertarians who oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation, advocating for the rights of business owners to discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
I think that if people involved in the Occupy movement want to look for political solutions, they're better off looking at ways to limit the flow of money from corporate interests to politicians. Public funding of elections and limits on political contributions.
Holy crap, what are you talking about? If I understand you correctly, that was the most absurd paragraph you've ever written.
BTW, Allen, I'm not sure what you're saying either.
And as long as its kept in mind that the Constitution didn't do an awful lot...
That not what the Constitution says now; let me know if you find anyone who wants to "go back" to the original meaning Constitution, and repeal the 13th amendment.
And as long as it's kept in mind that some of the people advocating for decentralization seem to be pretty okay with people being abused
I'm not okay with any abuse; but I do think it's a lesser evil to have the abuse come from smaller, more local governments, rather than large, national governments, if the abuse is to occur at all (which, again, I don't support).
If you don't support a powerful global government, does that mean you support the abuse that happens under ruthless governments all across the world?
they're better off looking at ways to limit the flow of money from corporate interests to politicians.
I think this will be unsuccessful. Should the bought-off politicians ever allow this to happen, there will be loopholes. Big money, as Larry M. calls it, will find a way around any roadblock you manage to erect, to buy benefits from powerful government. Which is why I think the power is the problem, not the money.
It was a response to your statement that you wanted as much decentralization of political power as possible.
And however absurd you might think it to be, I don't think it's as absurd as you making statements regarding everything I've ever written.
"I'm not okay with any abuse; but I do think it's a lesser evil to have the abuse come from smaller, more local governments, rather than large, national governments, if the abuse is to occur at all (which, again, I don't support)."
From the point of view of the victims of abuse, I honestly can't see how it would matter what level of government was involved.
"If you don't support a powerful global government, does that mean you support the abuse that happens under ruthless governments all across the world?"
I suppose it might. I've been wondering why people who claim to be anti-government aren't often supportive of the notion of a single, global government. I mean, if the goal is to eliminate all government everywhere on the planet, it might be better to only have one left to get rid of, instead of millions, or however many there are.
"Which is why I think the power is the problem, not the money."
If that's the case, and Big Money uses the power of government as a tool to achieve its ends, I don't see why, if government were eliminated, then the Big Money people wouldn't simply use other tools to continue to achieve those ends. If Big Money abuses people with the help of government, why wouldn't it find ways to continue to abuse people without the help of government?
Okay. From now on I will try to remember to spell everything out for you. I guess I was assuming you would understand it without a time-consuming, detailed explanation.
From the point of view of the victims of abuse, I honestly can't see how it would matter what level of government was involved.
Distraction.
I mean, if the goal is to eliminate all government everywhere on the planet, it might be better to only have one left to get rid of, instead of millions, or however many there are.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't see why, if government were eliminated, then the Big Money people wouldn't simply use other tools to continue to achieve those ends.
"Eliminating government" isn't really the goal; eliminating what government is doing (violating our rights- "abuse") is the goal. If that happens, "Big Money people" won't continue the abuse, if they try, they will be dealt with as any other criminal.
Whatever floats your boat, Matthew. I'm not sure what kind of detailed explanation is going to convince me that for political power to be as decentralized as possible, everybody's going to have to end up dead.
"Distraction."
Well, if the point of view of the victims of abuse is a distraction, who's point of view do you consider to be one that matters?
""Eliminating government" isn't really the goal;"
Oh. So when people call themselves anarchists and say that their goal is eliminating government, they're lying?
"If that happens, "Big Money people" won't continue the abuse, if they try, they will be dealt with as any other criminal."
Oh. So now the "Big Money people" can find ways around any roadblocks placed in front of them, but if government were weaker and decentralized, then suddenly the roadblocks would work? Hmmmm...I'm thinking that I won't hold my breath.
This is getting boring. You having fun?
My original statement, "as much decentralization of political power as possible," says nothing about everyone needing to be dead; you made that up. Either you are being silly or you need me to spell out everything I say in the simplest, clearest terms possible without assuming anything.
Well, if the point of view of the victims of abuse is a distraction, who's point of view do you consider to be one that matters?
Still distracting. Remember what we were talking about? In other words, I think there will be less abuse under a more decentralized system. I never talked about whether the abuse that does occur will be distinguishable to the victims based on which level of government it comes from.
Oh. So when people call themselves anarchists and say that their goal is eliminating government, they're lying?
Woops. That should have said ""Eliminating government" isn't really the ultimate goal."
If you refer to "anarcho-capitalists", the answer is no. Their goal is free markets/the non-aggression principle (no initiatory violence), which isn't the same as simply getting rid of a government. Many governments have been toppled in times past, and replaced with another or not quite replaced (Somalia?). None of these situations are automatically the libertarian society anarcho-capitalists seek.
but if government were weaker and decentralized, then suddenly the roadblocks would work?
Not what I said.
I said remove/decrease the power [to initiate violence], so that roadblocks are unnecessary.
I didn't say you said anything about everybody needing to be dead. I'm saying that if political power were decentralized as much as possible, everybody would end up dead.
"In other words, I think there will be less abuse under a more decentralized system."
If that's what you meant, then I wish you would've used them in the first place. Talking about less abuse overall isn't the same as talking about abuse being a lesser evil. I have no idea what you're basing your belief that there would be less abuse with decentralized government, so I guess I can't really comment on it.
"Woops. That should have said ""Eliminating government" isn't really the ultimate goal."
Okay. So eliminating government is the goal, but not the ultimate goal. But to get to the ultimate goal, government has to be eliminated first, right?
"If you refer to "anarcho-capitalists", the answer is no. Their goal is free markets/the non-aggression principle (no initiatory violence), which isn't the same as simply getting rid of a government."
First, anarcho-capitalists aren't the only kinds of anarchists, so I wasn't referring specifically and exclusively to them. My understanding is that, despite the "anarcho" portion of the word anarcho-capitalists, not everyone who labels themselves as such are actual anarchists, but are actually minarchists. I could be wrong about that, though. I don't really understand much about people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists. And secondly, I didn't say anything about eliminating a government. I understand that eliminating a government in favor of a different government doesn't make a person an anarchist.
"Not what I said.
I said remove/decrease the power [to initiate violence], so that roadblocks are unnecessary."
But you're talking about removing/decreasing the power of government to initiate violence, aren't you? I don't see how that makes roadblocks set up in an attempt to remove/decrease the power of the "Big Money people" to initiate violence unnecessary. I get that the "Big Money people" use the power of government to increase their ability to initiate violence (or, as I put it in another thread, for the StinkingRich to be able to stomp the LittleGuys), but I'm not convinced that decreasing the power of government will necessarily decrease the power of the "Big Money people." I think it would just mean they had to use a different tool.
I'm sure there are different strategies. I doubt that one would work, as the first step.
First, anarcho-capitalists aren't the only kinds of anarchists, so I wasn't referring specifically and exclusively to them.
Okay. I can't speak for the others, since I know next to nothing about them.
My understanding is that, despite the "anarcho" portion of the word anarcho-capitalists, not everyone who labels themselves as such are actual anarchists, but are actually minarchists.
I'm not sure where that understanding comes from- I don't know that I've heard of a single anarcho-capitalist who also calls him/herself a miniarchist.
But you're talking about removing/decreasing the power of government to initiate violence, aren't you?
Not just government, everyone, even "Big Money people". Government just happens to be the biggest offender.
I think it would just mean they had to use a different tool.
Which tool(s)?
Okay, but if it's a goal but not the ultimate goal then it has to happen before the ultimate goal, doesn't it?
As for whether it would work as a first step or as any step in the process of reaching your ultimate goal, what difference does that make?
"Okay. I can't speak for the others, since I know next to nothing about them."
No problem. Does that mean you can speak for anarcho-capitalists?
"I'm not sure where that understanding comes from- I don't know that I've heard of a single anarcho-capitalist who also calls him/herself a miniarchist."
No, presumably it's an either-or sort of thing. But from what I've seen, all but the most hardcore A-Cs are actually minarchists, or at least have it as a fall-back position.
"Not just government, everyone, even "Big Money people". "
How are you planning to remove/decrease the power of everyone to initiate violence?
"Which tool(s)?"
I would imagine they'd use any tools that get the job done.
Sure, and I better point out that by government I mean the state. There are plenty of voluntary governments that are not states.
Does that mean you can speak for anarcho-capitalists?
Since I know a little bit about them, I can talk about them from an informed prospective, but what I say probably doesn't always speak for all of them.
How are you planning to remove/decrease the power of everyone to initiate violence?
Persuading a critical mass of people to adopt those views is the only way I see it working.
So eliminating government (and by government you mean the state) is the goal.
"Since I know a little bit about them, I can talk about them from an informed prospective, but what I say probably doesn't always speak for all of them."
Okay, so you can speak about them, but not for them. You're not claiming to be an anarcho-capitalist yourself, and you're not claiming to be any kind of spokesperson (official or unofficial) for any anarcho-capitlalists, right?
"Persuading a critical mass of people to adopt those views is the only way I see it working."
Best of luck with that, Matthew.
It's true I've not claimed to be an anarcho-capitalist in these comments, and I've not been appointed as a spokesperson for any such people.
What other choice do we have? This movenent will spread as it has in the EUC & the Mideast. The powers that be ARE scared.
What other choice do we have? I think that's one of the things the people involved in this movement are trying to answer by way of example. Another choice that we have is to occupy.
And now, it will bring us down if we do not rein it in.
Adam Smith, in his worst nightmares could not have imagined what would happen when the "free market" was allowed to proceed to its ultimate conclusion. I am sure he never dreamed that successful businesses would grow into monsters that would threaten to enslave the very people they were created to serve.
We can't afford to hack at the branches (Wall Street) when we need to be striking at the root (power- possessed by government and bought by special interests).
It isn't simple, of course--in a complex system others' rights can be violated in very subtle ways. Will a business owner who's polluting ground water agree that he is violating others' rights, or will he say that he has a right to do whatever he wants on his property? Who will decide, and on what basis?)
Corporatism, capitalism, call it whatever you want. I agree that the government has been taken over by special interests...most of them rooted in multinational corporations. Government is not the problem...it is the corruption and perversion of our government that is the problem.
We are just repeating history. It took a massive populist awakening back in the 30's to beat back the Robber Barons.
Now we need to do it again...but not by hacking at the power of government. We need to return the power of government to the people where it belongs.
Emasculating government will only empower further oppression by the corporatocracy.
Bert, your equation of capitalism and corporatism is false. Might as well call it communism or Nazism, no?
I don't know why giving the bought off government more power will do anything but make it worse for us. The corporate world gets its power from the government. It is the only institution with a monopoly on violence.
My take on it is that this is the INEVITABLE RESULT of unfettered capitalism. In other words, it will happen whenever competition is allowed to pursue its ends without restraints. The most sucessful (ruthless?) companies will eliminate their competition, either by taking them over or driving them out of business...until only a few monoliths survive. And they will quickly determine that head-to-head competition is not the way to maximize profits...which is their only goal. Instead, they merge forces, use their economic power to influence government to pass laws that emasculate any regulatory functions and suppress competition. To Hell with the environment, bash the unions, and go for the gold!
The workers cannot fight this without government help, and when the government is bought and paid for by those corporate interests...they are screwed.
Therefore, I disagree with you in a very fundamental way. The people must take back control of their government. Yes, the corporate world gets its power from the government. Until that changes We the People will continue to get screwed.
And while "don't violate the rights of others" might seem like a simple rule in theory, as Aniko has suggested, it's not so simple in practice. Life, it turns out, is a somewhat complicated affair.
Bert, as long as you insist on calling what we have capitalism, I don't think it would be worthwhile to discuss this further- since we can't even agree on what it is.
Well make up your mind, Matthew, because you didn't include the word "legitimate" in the statement I responded to. And who decides which acts of violence are legitimate and which ones aren't?
"The president agrees with my definition..."
Yeah, I just watched it and he didn't use the word "legitimate", either.
Are you some sort of freedom-hating word-Nazi or something, Matthew?
Start a discussion with somebody, and it wanders off into a thicket of semantics, eventually ending up in the black hole of epistemology.
For all I know, Matthew may be right. According to some definition, the US may no longer be a capitalist society. But it was pretty clearly capitalism that got us into this predicament, and whether you call it capitalism or not has little to do with the present discussion about what has happened to our government...how it has been subverted by rich and powerful corporations.
So I view it as a red herring...a distraction, and I refuse to be dragged into it. Life is too short...
His answer (as I understand it) is slay the government. Or in the words of Grover Norquist, whittle it down until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub.
It's a classical libertarian answer. Get rid of government and everything will be hunky dory.
My answer is FDR's answer. Make government operate in the interests of ALL the people. But, after the experiences of the Robber Barons of the early 20th Century...and their clones of the early 21st Century, it is clear that the main function of government must be to protect the people from the power of huge multinational businesses that are, by their very nature, concerned only about their bottom line. Basically, they are amoral, obeying laws when they have to, or when it doesn't cost them profits, unconcerned about the environment or the populace...concerned about their own employees, only to the extent that their performance affects profits.
Of course, when I talk about "corporations," I am talking about management...whose compensation is determined only by the performance of the business. Their actions to subvert government...bribing officials with "campaign contributions"...is perfectly rational...and legal...under the system they have devised. If you or I were in their shoes, we would probably do the same thing.
So...I don't blame them as individuals. It's the system that their money has bought and paid for that is the problem.
We the People have allowed that to happen. They have been working hard to overturn the New Deal for almost a century, and they have largely succeeded.
That is what we need to change.
In this case, it's the financial industry.
11 Facts About the Biggest Banks
Rather than beating around the bush's edges trying to fruitlessly change things, we have to get down to the basic essence of the problem so as to nip it in the bud ...
We do not need to begin here a debate on whether there are great or small conspiracies going on and then just play around with the various theories ... we need to just quit denying that they cannot or do not exist for all of the various reasons so often given ... they do exist.
And near pathological or actual sociopaths are in charge of the worst of them ... "they" learned a long long time ago that B$M is what it takes to get and hold power ... that is done through banking on the international levels ... "they" have enough B$M and resulting power now to own both the media and enough politicians to basically get what they want ... and "they" want it all.
The sooner more of us come to admit, and/or, realize that, the sooner we can get to the necessary "root" of the "problem" ...
IMnsHO
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
Here's another:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.
The difference is in that final four words above..."...usually in competitive markets."
Those who argue that our system is no longer capitalism would probably claim that markets are no longer competitive. Some are, some are not. In general, I think where large multinational corporations have evolved, markets are less competitive than they are when there are a large number of small competitors. But as I noted above, the natural progression of the competitive process seems to lead to consolidation.
But there is no mention here of the points that John makes, about the destructive and oppressive actions of corporations, nor Matthew's claim that capitalism prohibits violation of others' rights.
But, as I said, whatever you call our current economic/political system, it needs to be changed to prevent the continued exploitation of 99% of us in favor of the elite 1%.
Yeah, who am I to insist that we should be careful in our choice of words, and only use language that accurately describes the given subject?
At least I don't force anyone to adhere to this standard. You can say whatever you want, but I may stop taking you seriously, if you start telling me the moon is green, for example.
Or that Wall Street, which is generally in bed with government- getting all sorts of subsidies, regulations, bailouts, and other special privileges at our expense- is an example of capitalism.
There are plenty of capitalist characteristics still in function in America, both on Wall Street and more often the rest of the country; but the reality is that interventionism- whatever you call it (corporatism, fascism, socialism, etc)- is overriding capitalism and free markets. We have to bring an end to that.
And I contend that that is what is causing our problems, government doing things (often for corporations) other than defending our rights, whether it is simply well intended "managing" of the economy or plundering us to befit a special interest.
So I agree the system needs to be changed, Bert. We need more real capitalism and less exploitation through government. All exploitation, by rich, by poor, by middle class, by corporations, etc.
BTW, I wrote a whole article, Bert, explaining my definition of capitalism/free markets:Your cited definitions are not wrong, just incomplete/not comprehensive.
A semantic fascist, apparently. I've yet to see any evidence that your preferred definitions (at least in cases where you've actually provided any) most accurately describe the given subject.
Get rid of government...except for defending of private property rights...and everything will be hunky dory.
I find that definition of capitalism far from complete.
But then, as I said before, there are lots of definitions...and lots of disagreements...about what constitutes capitalism.
It seems to me that what you propose, with absolutely no regulation of profit-oriented businesses, would end up in exactly the same place we are now...with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few elites who own the huge companies that would result from the inevitable mergers and acquisition as the stronger ate the weaker.
And then, with no regulation, we would have the mother of all corporatocracies.
I don't.
A corporation can never force me to be their customer. Governments do by definition. It doesn't make sense to fear the former more than the latter.
IF you don't support the current system or free markets, what do you believe the solution is?
BTW, what do you find incomplete about my definition of capitalism? Feel free to comment in that post if the discussion would be more appropriate there.
Something I found interesting today is that, after spending a bit of time reading some different definitions and explanations of what "capitalism" is and isn't based on different definitions, philosophies, etc. I thought I'd see what the Oxford English Dictionary had to say about it. I was surprised by both the brevity and simplicity:
capitalism - The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists.
It seems to me that what we're talking about (or at least trying to talk about) here is one that refers to a system. A system which favours the existence of capitalists.
So I look up "capitalist":
capitalist - One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises.
Okay, nothing confusing there, so I look up "capital".
And it turns out that the word "capital" has a number of different meanings, but the one that seems most relevant is this one:
capital - The accumulated wealth of an individual, company, or community, used as a fund for carrying on fresh production; wealth in any form used to help in producing more wealth.
So according to the OED, "capitalism" is a system which favors the existence of individuals who accumulate wealth to be used to help in producing more wealth.
No mention of "free markets" or "natural rights" or "democracy" or "equality" or anything like that.
I believe that capitalism leads to concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few ruthless individuals. That is what I have observed, that is what history shows us.
If there were no government, do you think corporations would operate in the public interest?
If you do, then you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Here is the bottom line, Matthew. There are some people in this world who are more skilled at accumulating wealth and power than others. All men are NOT created equal...not in their ability to manipulate and "work the system." So...should those individuals be rewarded with infinite riches at the expense of others who are unable or unwilling to compete with them?
That is the question you should think about.
Do you really believe in social...and economic...Darwinism?
That those who are the cleverest and most ruthless should rule over everyone else?
Yes, I do. I think they would become monstrous beyond belief.
"A corporation can never force me to be their customer."
Do you have a choice whether to buy gasoline or not? Or electricity or natural gas? In most cases, these huge corporations operate as de facto monopolies. Furthermore, even if you choose NOT to buy from them, they still control the use of resources, and levels of pollution in the air. And they absolutely control the price you pay for their products. Competition? Don't make me laugh!
NOW, they just influence government, and We the People have, at least, theoretical control via our vote. Take away the regulatory power of government, and the people have no recourse, no control at all. As bad as it is now, what you propose would be infinitely worse.
But it's my understanding that there's disagreement among libertarians, even those of the anarcho-capitalist variety, as to whether or not corporations require privilege from government in order to exist, and whether or not the could do so in the absence of government.
I tend to think that both corporations and governments have good and bad aspects, and would prefer that both continue to exist for the foreseeable future.
In a libertarian society, business- large or small- would only make money and profits by providing customers products they want. In other words, they have to do what the public is interested in.
So...should those individuals be rewarded with infinite riches at the expense of others who are unable or unwilling to compete with them?
They don't get infinite riches at the expense of others. They, like everyone else, must make voluntary trades. When that happens, both parties believe they are better off (or the trade wouldn't occur). And they can't charge more than anyone is willing to pay.
Competition? Don't make me laugh!
Sure thing. But you're talking about the present economy. We were talking about capitalism, free markets, etc, without a government doing anything more than protecting our rights.
In free market capitalism a new firm can enter the field anytime, and that becomes more likely the higher the profits are. No harmful monopolies can occur, since every business must constantly keep prices low, and find ways to lower them further, in order to prevent competitors from taking their market share.
I think we've discussed this whole issue at least once before, and were unable to reach agreement. Anyway, here is something else on the subject of capitalism and monopolies. Check out pages 167 to 179, if you're interested.
He writes more here, and talks about what the movement could accomplish :Food for thought, and some pretty interesting stuff in the comments as well.
I think that has changed since the Republican take over. The people that hijacked the TEA party movment are the ones that want to take everything away from the senior citizens!
Yeah, I think it will too. If the people involved stick (deliberately or not) to those open source principles Robb described, I think it'll be difficult for the movement to be hijacked. Which isn't to say that the Democrats and/or other political groups won't try to connect themselves to the movement without actually being a part of it. In fact, I think we're already seeing that happen.
Though answering the request would require a large increase of taxes for the rich to be given to people of governments desire to buy their votes. I blelive that is a greedy and selfish attitude.
But I listened to the things the people were saying. The first couple of days I spent a lot of time watching the crowds. They were just arguing stupidly (I think :) about the rich not needing that much money and they should be happy to share it. After all, we paid for the streets they use and the mail men. They couldn't run that business if they didn't use the stuff WE gave them. Actually, my first guess was that little group has paid close to 00$ taxes.
They are giving them lessons on how to respond Most are also being paid. I listened to a couple of Union leaders openly admit they pay them. And that they made agreements with someone ??? for food and beverage.
John, I'd say they had no idea they were there because they knew anything specific about what goes on until they were trained. We watched them teaching them hand reaction to take during the speeches :) But liked hearing Nancy Pelosi gushing over the earnestness of their concern driving driving this 'spontaneous' gathering. The unions already had the food ordered from overseas. It was set up. The union guys admitted it. They admitted they were paying most to be there.
I think it's coll that you at least took the time to go there and listen to what the protesters had to say. I'm surprised that didn't meet anybody who could explain why they were there. I've just been reading and listening to stuff online, and I've come across quite a few people who could communicate very articulately what they were doing and why.
Have you seen the We Are the 99 Percent Tumblr blog? A lot of them seem to me like pretty normal people.
I read the many, many letters (not all, but 1/2.) in the link you gave. I'll go back & read other things at the site also. CNN showed different people than FOX did on their video's.
They reverse favoritism from the Tea Party. CNN showed any dissension at the TP gatherings and FOX showed the yelling of the outsiders to the members :):)
Both sides need to get to know the groups from both angles. Getting to really realize they're people that you would like if you worked in the office together.
Thanks for making me go to the site of the letters also.
However I couldn't believe how many agreed with me on limiting the federal government.
I recognized one of the union men. He often represents the union on the TV. I don't know their names. It was on FOX but I will try to find a link in some of the conservative groups. Fox had already discussed the food that had been ordered earlier from overseas. But I had already read that. Maybe I can find it.
The reporter had a comment/question indicating to the Union man that they were paying all these people and he said, "Not all of them, not all of them." They did discuss food but I don't remember what they said.
John, you can't possibly know that, just like I can't know for sure where all the money comes for T Party gatherers.
Wil, before I finish searching, (I think you did this just to keep me out of your hair.) I was surprised how many of the letters spoke to limit the federal government. I thought that was encouraging.
A family makes family rules taking into consideration all the persons in the family. If government said all blocks of families would now operate under a gov't appointed director, every family would become less efficient immediately. Moving the boundaries up to a neighborhood would again remove the power and governing responsibilities to a greater size group far removed from the power the two adults in the family had in the beginning. The higher it goes, the less efficient is the government and the more discontent are the citizens. I certainly believe our forefathers knew that and as a result, limited the feds to as little authority as possible.
when my children were in school we belonged to the PTA (Parent, Teacher Association) and had some power. We the parents kept our eyes on the teachers and principal and these meetings offered us a chance to bat things back and forth with other parents and the school. Now the huge teachers unions and Fed government run the show. The education of the children is supposed to be up to the parents. That way if you don't like they school system and it doesn't look like it's going to change you have a huge amount of choices on where to move. Today, the feds and unions feel superior to the parents in making the decisions and they are failing miserably. I may have said this before ??? but I was discussing this with the principal of my children's high school and he gave me 4 tickets to the
yrly teachers union meeting. I came home very different. I actually thought principals and teachers were really honorable people. I couldn't believe how terrible they talked about the parents. They actually gave them things to say to satisfy the parents. They were lies. Openly laughing at us.
I went up to the class when my last child was in 3rd grade. I sat in the back row and watched the teacher and the children. I kept waiting and waiting for school to start. I had come up because Amy didn't seem to be learning anything. When I finally looked at my watch I realized school had begun some time ago. She was at her desk with a few kids talking up at her desk. Many kids wander'd around the room or sat and talked to each other. We left at lunch and took all her things home. My oldest daughter taught at a private school and offered to teach an extra class to pay for Amy's school. She graduated from there.
Unions don't need to run our schools. They are deteriorating. No where along the line did we choose them to be involved in deciding what THEY wanted our children to learn.
So in every way, experience shows that the further removed from individual, the greater the size of the group being governed, the worse the results.
Look at the radical difference in the government of the different countries. Why should we allow them to be in authority over us? Men and women that have totally different idea's than USA and many have proven themselves and their other politicians to be thieves and to be uncaring for the welfare of their own citizens.
The Federal government should control as little as possible and not lead us as a cookie cutter. The greater variety in authority the better. Family first; the parents should be free to make the vast majority of decisions regarding the family.
Then city; county; state; & then...........................................Federal Government.
50 choices of state government to choose from. YES!
I'm not surprised that you've found people who are unhappy with the government, although I'd be surprised to find out that their unhappiness was limited to government only at the federal level. I think a lot of them are frustrated with the whole system, and that includes government and big business and especially the corruption and influence that big money and corporate lobbyists have on government at every level.
As for the whole school thing, I think that's probably a discussion best left to another time and place. I know there are problems, but I don't know why so much blame is placed on teachers' unions. Or on unions in general. I'm a member of a union. An education union, even (but at the university/post-secondary level), and we're really not trying to screw anybody around.
I think part of the problem that the Occupy protesters are trying to address is that in many ways, it's not governments that have the most impact on decisions regarding the family (or the individual). It's the 1%.
Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Average CEO pay is 350 times the average worker. Average CEO pay has increased 300% since 1990. Average production worker has increased 4%. Wages, as a percentage of the economy, are at an all-time low. Social mobility is near an all-time low.
These are some of the things the OWS protesters (and many others of the 99%) are upset about.
I realize I don't know enough about how the money moves all over the world. I would like to see a debate on putting a closing our doors for a while and only buying what is made here. It would be awkward and there would have to be exceptions until the businesses here in USA could build themselves up.Prices would go up because people will want to continue at the higher salaries. But eventually, We can balance and budgets and jobs.
Here's the thing on the letters of the 99%. I do like most that I read and know they are having a hard time. But their attitude is warped in my opinion. They're mostly nice and afraid but they've (some) gotten themselves in such debt. They have to really give a lot up. With little pay families may have to double up in homes. But they seem to think the government owes them to be able to pay their bills. Even if they have to take it from the business's. One mans sign said "It is our RIGHT to have a job." I think the schools and many liberals have taught them to think that way.
I wonder how people in the great depression handled it. They took great losses. The Government or Charities did provide soup kitchens. But I can't believe that they just looked around to see who had the money and now are trashing them. I know we have hearts that will cheat and lie but we hope people gain controls and insights as they grow older. I'm afraid maybe they really DO believe we owe them.
We owe God to love and serve the poor. But he puts restriction on giving and we'll answer to Him, not other American.
I just can't believe they are ready to take money from private citizens, most of whom they don't even know. They have no knowledge of the characters. Do they realize how many $$$$ corporations give to special projects to help the poor and provide medicine and medical to institutions. America has many, many gracious and giving corporate owners.
I'll look for the other stuff regarding union participation.
Then I'm going to get my last e science magazines and read all night. I have to get away from politics :)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html
That''s today's video but no one needs to watch it. You might hate it.
I do think it is good that the crowd is there. I think it shows that the younger generation has been brought up to believe they have 'rights' that are simply possibilities. Also, I don't think all the corporations are all crooked.
I wish someone would write out a list of who they are, what they are doing that is wrong. I certainly believe many use soft bribery with the gov't.
I worry about the gov't micro managing, but I'm sure there are some area's that need that. I remember when the No Monopoly law was passed. I was a teen ager and had just gotten married. Bell telephone services were so unkind and bossy. They changed overnight. I was 17 or 18 and I was afraid to talk to them. I couldn't believe the difference on how I was treated when the law was changed.
And I think a lot of the anger and resentment isn't really directed at the companies that make things. It's the banks and the investment companies and the insurance companies, etc. that seem to get a lot of the focus. Which is why they're protesting specifically against Wall Street, and not, say, the National Association of Manufacturers.
"But their attitude is warped in my opinion. They're mostly nice and afraid but they've (some) gotten themselves in such debt. They have to really give a lot up....But they seem to think the government owes them to be able to pay their bills. Even if they have to take it from the business's. "
Without getting details from the people themselves, I think it's hard to talk about how they feel in general, but I think a lot of them are just desperate, and a lot of them feel like there's been collusion between the government and the banks and the big corporations to rip them off, so they feel that they'd only be taking back what what shouldn't have been taken from them in the first place.
But I get what you're saying, Glome. I think a lot of people are talking about rights and making demands and a lot of it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense when you look at it closely and think about it. I think most of it just boils down to the fact that they're in trouble, their angry and unhappy, and they want some help.
I'm sleepy. I'll read everything to do with the charts tomorrow.
Why Occupy?
by Lydia (part of the solution) Shelley
I think it was put out in a Christian Group. Talks about anon. I like her.
Great post. Also enjoyed following the comments on the post. Thank you for sharing!
We have a city here. Not a huge city. It's a city of about 18,000 people. This city has a hospital that was never filled to capacity. Many people in the city were born in this hospital.
A huge corporate health system decided that they wanted to build a hospital there because of the location. This health system is known to treat their employees like garbage and skimp on health care as much as possible. The city said no. They held public meetings where residents could come and talk and as a whole, the people said no. It was a process. A judicial process that was created for the people, by the people. The majority did not want this hospital to build in their town.
Do you think it ended there? Nope. Money won. This health system sued the entire city. It dragged on for 2 or 3 years when the city finally decided to stop wasting their money, the money for the people, on a case that could drag the entire city into bankruptcy. Wasting money for services for the people that live there.
It's a shame. It really is. Those people spoke but it didn't matter, money spoke louder. Corporate corruption at it's finest.
At some point, we need to stop and say "Enough is enough!" I think that's a big part of what the Occupy movement is about.
Thanks for sharing your story, Jennifer. :)