Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Benjamin Franklin’s Solution
Benjamin Franklin’s Solution
Nationalization has traditionally had a bad name in the United States, but it could be an attractive alternative for the American people and our representative government as well. Turning bankrupt Wall Street banks into public institutions might allow the government to get out of the debt cyclone by undoing what got us into it. Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, flapping around in a sea of debt trying to stay afloat by creating more debt, the government could address the problem at its source: it could restore the right to create money to Congress, the public body to which that solemn duty was delegated under the Constitution.
The most brilliant banking model in our national history was established in the first half of the eighteenth century, in Benjamin Franklin’s home province of Pennsylvania. The local government created its own bank, which issued money and lent it to farmers at a modest interest. The provincial government created enough extra money to cover the interest not created in the original loans, spending it into the economy on public services. The bank was publicly owned, and the bankers it employed were public servants. The interest generated on its loans was sufficient to fund the government without taxes; and because the newly issued money came back to the government, the result was not inflationary.7 The Pennsylvania banking scheme was a sensible and highly workable system that was a product of American ingenuity but that never got a chance to prove itself after the colonies became a nation. It was an ironic twist, since according to Benjamin Franklin and others, restoring the power to create their own currency was a chief reason the colonists fought for independence. The bankers’ money-creating machine has had two centuries of empirical testing and has proven to be a failure. It is time the sovereign right to create money is taken from a private banking elite and restored to the American people to whom it properly belongs.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/credit-default-swaps-evolving-financial-meltdown-and-derivative-disaster-du-jour/8634
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Nicholas Biddle, The Second Bank Of The United States
On August 26, 1831, Biddle's brother, Thomas, a War of 1812 veteran, was killed in a duel on Bloody Island (Mississippi River) at St. Louis, Missouri with Congressman Spencer Pettis. Thomas had taken offense to Pettis' criticizing Nicholas at the bank. After an exchange of letters to the editor Biddle accosted an ill Pettis in his hotel room. After Pettis recovered he challenged Thomas to a duel and both were killed when they exchanged shots from five feet apart
In April 1836, the Bank's charter expired, but the institution continued as a state-chartered bank for several more years. In 1839, Biddle resigned from his post, and in 1841, amidst the panic of 1837, the Bank failed. Biddle was arrested and charged with fraud; he was later acquitted. He died soon after while still involved in civil suits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Biddle_(banker)
Monday, October 1, 2012
Armageddon!
Wanted:someone to sell the UN to take over the world, sounds Gabriel's horns, swell republican ranks, hires someone to start a war. starts the wrong one. ignites a searing blast. Keep the lid on Jesus amen. They had an actor already. This one fits the role like tv wrote the script back in the sixties, or Heinlein before that. question is what effect a collective unconscious might achieve. Is the crisis sharper than the ideological one which in reality has not been decided only kicked down the road.
in the popular parlance. twixt the twins, at the bottom of which is the light and the dark. with a preacher in charge it won't be much fun, what with praying, and going to Hell. I don't suppose people like me would be of much use in a world like that. Bishop Rumney doncha know, but he ain't the one.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Friday, March 6, 2009
An open Letter To Glenn Beck
Dear Mr. Beck;
One notes your claim that you are a libertarian--
lib·er·tar·i·an
n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
"the belief that human behaviour is an expression of personal choice and is not determined by physical forces, Fate, or God," or Free Will.
Much of what you know is predicated upon that which you think you know, The Greeks defined that as Hubris--which is neither here nor there as you earn a living by preying on fear; another tool in the hands of the demagogues who would strip you of all that which you claim to hold so dear--and when it comes down to it what is that but the size of your bank account--the arbiter of your "safety".
"Tonight, America, here is what you need to know. We have got to make a choice. We are either capitalists or we`re not. We either believe in the free market system or we do not. We can`t play both sides."
::::::
Progressive Democrats instead favored a reserve system owned and operated by the government and out of control of the "money trust", ending Wall Street's control of American currency supply. Conservative Democrats fought for a privately owned, yet decentralized, reserve system, which would still be free of Wall Street's control. The Federal Reserve Act passed Congress in late 1913 on a mostly partisan basis, with most Democrats in support and most Republicans against it.
In 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The Act effectively barred banks, brokerages and insurance companies from entering each others' industries, and separated investment banking and commercial banking. The law was enacted in response to revelations of gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses that organized huge corporate mergers for their own profit, leading to the collapse of the stock market in 1929.
The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."
::::
The unleashed and deregulated financial services sector boomed, bringing us the speculative boom that in turn gave us the temporary budget surplus of the late 1990s and the finance-led booms and busts since then. The hedge fund was not invented in the 1990s, but it was under Clinton that they were transformed into their modern form, with the Clinton White House cheerleading that transformation. In 1998, when the hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, collapsed, leading to federal intervention, the president established the Working Group on Financial Markets. In February 2000, it concluded that hedge funds needed no regulation.
The General Welfare Clause
"Revolution of 1937."
Hughes prevailed on Roberts to desert the Conservative camp, swing over with him and join the three liberals in declaring the social security cases [Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)] Constitutional.[4] [P.56] This Roberts did, and by so doing, took the wind from the sails of the President's court packing plan. It went back to committee and died. one Administration official called the court's action, "the switch in time that saved nine."
This decision said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."
But the words "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8 were never intended to be an object for extension of the power to tax and spend; and up until the cases noted above, no court ever so averred.[Appx. 1]
The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. "it is scarcely conceivable that Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts... were unaware of the political implications of their move. the President had lost a battle but won a war. In a remarkable series of decisions . ..the Court executed the most abrupt change of face in its entire history..."-
:::::::::::
...as tho the nation exists only in the moment of your latest adolescent eruption, that free market you prattle on about--is and always has been, manipulated to suit the needs of the few, not the many. Caesar, Crassus & Pompey--whose petty pauper are you--? Sweet swindles, as they divide the world; as if this nation you whine about actually exists--other than as a faction in the global chaos, and you a sop to the Mob milling about in the forum, Caesar's tame tribune spilling earnest lies.
Oh, how fierce your indignation, at these petty politicians with painted faces, puffing up the Senate steps, papers tucked under their arms, stuffed with peacock wings, and fine wine chilled in the Apennines, bought and paid for, their votes nothing more than an abject acquiesce to the highest bidder in the triumvirate.
Fool, to think your useless prattle matters to the rabid Mob that cares for little more than the next circus or the next sensation in the scheme of things.--
Heinlein:
For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
(To Sail Beyond the Sunset, 227)
The ebb and flow transcends the antiquated nation state; Caesar conquers Gaul to add to his coffers;--some years later Charles is crowned in Rome; just before Hamlet the Armada runs aground; new monsters roll across the Ardennes redefining the extent of the civilization, and today sit perched on desolate hilltops surveying a bleak landscape, the Last redoubt against the Beast; and you prattle on about "earmarks" which your master decides should be your latest diatribe to put coins in his basket.
BRUTUS
Be patient till the last.
Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him.
ANTONY
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
:::::::::::::
What then, my friend? Honor or Ambition? How long will it be before the fables are allowed to die? What will you choose as your newest alcohol? How will you know the difference, in the prison of your delusions? Will you champion Sparta, or sleep with oligarchs in Athens? In the end it will not matter much, your lips pressed against the ass of your latest suitor; nor will you, as he strokes your hair, spinning the web of your newest despair; some new whimperings to delight the drunken mob.
Even so, such pretentious preaching will only serve the mob so long, its addled attention soon drawn off to some new atrocity, your mendacity nothing more than the graffiti scrawled upon the wall--the temple was profaned when Gilgamesh was just a boy, or when Achilles sulked in his tent as Agamemnon fondled Briseis as her father moaned to absent gods. Take your meager knowledge to the market to impress young girls--they are always wide eyed at the sight of Heroes, even when they do not know what they are:
from The Sixth Elegy
The hero is strangely close to those who died young. Lasting
doesn’t contain him. Being is his ascent: he moves on,
time and again, to enter the changed constellation
his risk entails. Few could find him there. But
Destiny, that darkly hides us, suddenly inspired,
sings him into the tempest of his onrushing world.
I hear no one like him. All at once I am pierced
by his darkened sound carried on streaming air.
Rilke
One notes your claim that you are a libertarian--
lib·er·tar·i·an
n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
"the belief that human behaviour is an expression of personal choice and is not determined by physical forces, Fate, or God," or Free Will.
Much of what you know is predicated upon that which you think you know, The Greeks defined that as Hubris--which is neither here nor there as you earn a living by preying on fear; another tool in the hands of the demagogues who would strip you of all that which you claim to hold so dear--and when it comes down to it what is that but the size of your bank account--the arbiter of your "safety".
"Tonight, America, here is what you need to know. We have got to make a choice. We are either capitalists or we`re not. We either believe in the free market system or we do not. We can`t play both sides."
::::::
Progressive Democrats instead favored a reserve system owned and operated by the government and out of control of the "money trust", ending Wall Street's control of American currency supply. Conservative Democrats fought for a privately owned, yet decentralized, reserve system, which would still be free of Wall Street's control. The Federal Reserve Act passed Congress in late 1913 on a mostly partisan basis, with most Democrats in support and most Republicans against it.
In 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The Act effectively barred banks, brokerages and insurance companies from entering each others' industries, and separated investment banking and commercial banking. The law was enacted in response to revelations of gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses that organized huge corporate mergers for their own profit, leading to the collapse of the stock market in 1929.
The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."
::::
The unleashed and deregulated financial services sector boomed, bringing us the speculative boom that in turn gave us the temporary budget surplus of the late 1990s and the finance-led booms and busts since then. The hedge fund was not invented in the 1990s, but it was under Clinton that they were transformed into their modern form, with the Clinton White House cheerleading that transformation. In 1998, when the hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, collapsed, leading to federal intervention, the president established the Working Group on Financial Markets. In February 2000, it concluded that hedge funds needed no regulation.
The General Welfare Clause
"Revolution of 1937."
Hughes prevailed on Roberts to desert the Conservative camp, swing over with him and join the three liberals in declaring the social security cases [Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)] Constitutional.[4] [P.56] This Roberts did, and by so doing, took the wind from the sails of the President's court packing plan. It went back to committee and died. one Administration official called the court's action, "the switch in time that saved nine."
This decision said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."
But the words "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8 were never intended to be an object for extension of the power to tax and spend; and up until the cases noted above, no court ever so averred.[Appx. 1]
The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues. "it is scarcely conceivable that Chief Justice Hughes and Justice Roberts... were unaware of the political implications of their move. the President had lost a battle but won a war. In a remarkable series of decisions . ..the Court executed the most abrupt change of face in its entire history..."-
:::::::::::
...as tho the nation exists only in the moment of your latest adolescent eruption, that free market you prattle on about--is and always has been, manipulated to suit the needs of the few, not the many. Caesar, Crassus & Pompey--whose petty pauper are you--? Sweet swindles, as they divide the world; as if this nation you whine about actually exists--other than as a faction in the global chaos, and you a sop to the Mob milling about in the forum, Caesar's tame tribune spilling earnest lies.
Oh, how fierce your indignation, at these petty politicians with painted faces, puffing up the Senate steps, papers tucked under their arms, stuffed with peacock wings, and fine wine chilled in the Apennines, bought and paid for, their votes nothing more than an abject acquiesce to the highest bidder in the triumvirate.
Fool, to think your useless prattle matters to the rabid Mob that cares for little more than the next circus or the next sensation in the scheme of things.--
Heinlein:
For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
(To Sail Beyond the Sunset, 227)
The ebb and flow transcends the antiquated nation state; Caesar conquers Gaul to add to his coffers;--some years later Charles is crowned in Rome; just before Hamlet the Armada runs aground; new monsters roll across the Ardennes redefining the extent of the civilization, and today sit perched on desolate hilltops surveying a bleak landscape, the Last redoubt against the Beast; and you prattle on about "earmarks" which your master decides should be your latest diatribe to put coins in his basket.
BRUTUS
Be patient till the last.
Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him.
ANTONY
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
:::::::::::::
What then, my friend? Honor or Ambition? How long will it be before the fables are allowed to die? What will you choose as your newest alcohol? How will you know the difference, in the prison of your delusions? Will you champion Sparta, or sleep with oligarchs in Athens? In the end it will not matter much, your lips pressed against the ass of your latest suitor; nor will you, as he strokes your hair, spinning the web of your newest despair; some new whimperings to delight the drunken mob.
Even so, such pretentious preaching will only serve the mob so long, its addled attention soon drawn off to some new atrocity, your mendacity nothing more than the graffiti scrawled upon the wall--the temple was profaned when Gilgamesh was just a boy, or when Achilles sulked in his tent as Agamemnon fondled Briseis as her father moaned to absent gods. Take your meager knowledge to the market to impress young girls--they are always wide eyed at the sight of Heroes, even when they do not know what they are:
from The Sixth Elegy
The hero is strangely close to those who died young. Lasting
doesn’t contain him. Being is his ascent: he moves on,
time and again, to enter the changed constellation
his risk entails. Few could find him there. But
Destiny, that darkly hides us, suddenly inspired,
sings him into the tempest of his onrushing world.
I hear no one like him. All at once I am pierced
by his darkened sound carried on streaming air.
Rilke
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rove has studied his Orwell and understands that "who controls the past, controls the future."
That's why we saw Rove lambasting Obama's budget deficit, conveniently skipping over the nearly $1.6 trillion added to the deficit by the administration he helped guide. Not one word about the role the massive tax cuts for the rich he championed played in creating the current economic crisis. Not a peep about the deregulation of Wall Street he held so dear.
Indeed, he tried to lay the Bush administration's fiscal legacy at the feet of "two wars, 9/11, and a recession handed to us by the previous administration."
CRAMER: Welcome to the U.S.S.A. In the worst bear market since the Great Depression, we have a president and a Bolshevik -- Democratic Congress that seems oblivious to the rampant wealth destruction that's being caused by their agenda. Or maybe they know and they don't care. Either way, it's important that you Obama-proof your portfolio, or at least make it Obama-resistant, because we know he has both the power and the will to crush entire sectors. Everything from health care to oil and gas to the defense contractors. As if dealing with this garden-variety depression wasn't enough, now you need to protect your money from the expropriator-in-chief.
Limbaugh:
We [conservatives] love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness. Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault.
:::::::::::
These Yahoos, and their masters, will indeed do everything within their power to insure that progressive programs fail. The downward spiral will not affect those with the wherewithal to withstand it, the inconvenience, the strong survive, despite their lip service to creationism--their only allegiance is to god, and he is green and looks a lot like George Washington, at least till he tanks and they are forced to convert to a more stable commodity. When we come out the other side, they will be covered in shit, but firmly in control, and all they need to do is sit on their hands as the largesse is thrown at them.
Capitalists are amoral they have no idealogy, other than that which they can buy, or sell. It could be said that most Americans are capitalists, large or small--the almighty buck has been in charge for a long time.
:::::
:::"Republic: Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics."
:::"Democracy: democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.":::
:::::
Therein lies the basic division between the Democratic & Republican parties. The former tends to the egalitarian & the latter towards the creation of a ruling class.
One may immediately see that the system in the United States tends to give the Republican viewpoint an advantage in that the structure set up by the Constitution favors a representative government; which over time has fostered a ruling elite regardless of party affiliation.
A second division lies in the approach to the redistribution of wealth. Broadly, the republicans favor the wealth remaining in the hands of the few, postulating that they can be trusted to redistribute it for the benefit of all, while the democrats favor the idea that the government should be trusted to redistribute it equitably. Both viewpoints seem inevitably flawed--and indeed the major dilemma of government in the US is just what to do with the money, a wheelbarrow full for this, a truckload for that; or the reverse should you belong to the opposition.
At the present time--we are on course for a civil war & a great depression combined over this very issue, the republican partnership with the corporation or the democratic distrust of the corporation. One leads to a fascist symbiosis, the other to a socialist state. For the most part, America waffles between the two, unable to choose--Teddy Roosevelt went after the big trusts in the early part of the last century, and Franklin instituted the "New Deal"--it should be noted that Teddy got tossed out of the Republican party, and that Franklin changed the role of US government irrevocably--as the republicans are only now beginning to realize.
What the Founders understood was that no-one is to be trusted, not individuals, not companies, not religious institutions, and not the arms of the government they themselves were setting up, and they therefore set everyone against everyone in a perpetual free-for-all that would continue as long as the Constitution itself was the final determining factor, and because of the faction inherent in the system the constitution would endure because no-one could afford to set it aside.
At least not yet--as the this last most recent attack upon it has shown.
That's why we saw Rove lambasting Obama's budget deficit, conveniently skipping over the nearly $1.6 trillion added to the deficit by the administration he helped guide. Not one word about the role the massive tax cuts for the rich he championed played in creating the current economic crisis. Not a peep about the deregulation of Wall Street he held so dear.
Indeed, he tried to lay the Bush administration's fiscal legacy at the feet of "two wars, 9/11, and a recession handed to us by the previous administration."
CRAMER: Welcome to the U.S.S.A. In the worst bear market since the Great Depression, we have a president and a Bolshevik -- Democratic Congress that seems oblivious to the rampant wealth destruction that's being caused by their agenda. Or maybe they know and they don't care. Either way, it's important that you Obama-proof your portfolio, or at least make it Obama-resistant, because we know he has both the power and the will to crush entire sectors. Everything from health care to oil and gas to the defense contractors. As if dealing with this garden-variety depression wasn't enough, now you need to protect your money from the expropriator-in-chief.
Limbaugh:
We [conservatives] love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness. Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault.
:::::::::::
These Yahoos, and their masters, will indeed do everything within their power to insure that progressive programs fail. The downward spiral will not affect those with the wherewithal to withstand it, the inconvenience, the strong survive, despite their lip service to creationism--their only allegiance is to god, and he is green and looks a lot like George Washington, at least till he tanks and they are forced to convert to a more stable commodity. When we come out the other side, they will be covered in shit, but firmly in control, and all they need to do is sit on their hands as the largesse is thrown at them.
Capitalists are amoral they have no idealogy, other than that which they can buy, or sell. It could be said that most Americans are capitalists, large or small--the almighty buck has been in charge for a long time.
:::::
:::"Republic: Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics."
:::"Democracy: democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.":::
:::::
Therein lies the basic division between the Democratic & Republican parties. The former tends to the egalitarian & the latter towards the creation of a ruling class.
One may immediately see that the system in the United States tends to give the Republican viewpoint an advantage in that the structure set up by the Constitution favors a representative government; which over time has fostered a ruling elite regardless of party affiliation.
A second division lies in the approach to the redistribution of wealth. Broadly, the republicans favor the wealth remaining in the hands of the few, postulating that they can be trusted to redistribute it for the benefit of all, while the democrats favor the idea that the government should be trusted to redistribute it equitably. Both viewpoints seem inevitably flawed--and indeed the major dilemma of government in the US is just what to do with the money, a wheelbarrow full for this, a truckload for that; or the reverse should you belong to the opposition.
At the present time--we are on course for a civil war & a great depression combined over this very issue, the republican partnership with the corporation or the democratic distrust of the corporation. One leads to a fascist symbiosis, the other to a socialist state. For the most part, America waffles between the two, unable to choose--Teddy Roosevelt went after the big trusts in the early part of the last century, and Franklin instituted the "New Deal"--it should be noted that Teddy got tossed out of the Republican party, and that Franklin changed the role of US government irrevocably--as the republicans are only now beginning to realize.
What the Founders understood was that no-one is to be trusted, not individuals, not companies, not religious institutions, and not the arms of the government they themselves were setting up, and they therefore set everyone against everyone in a perpetual free-for-all that would continue as long as the Constitution itself was the final determining factor, and because of the faction inherent in the system the constitution would endure because no-one could afford to set it aside.
At least not yet--as the this last most recent attack upon it has shown.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Cartoon Figures---
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us."
--Neil Postman;"Amusing Ourselves to Death;"1985.
::::
We have a national spotlight, rather more like a searchlight really, it is constantly on swinging to and fro, examining, scrutinizing--a long litany of ills can be attributed to it, from 'Triumph of the Will' to the latest "Joe the plumber". It would seem that even with the best of intentions, the reduction of three dimensions to two creates a separate reality that necessarily subtracts from an essential humanity.
Broadly, the problem is not the not realbut rather the idea of an almost real; that is the spill over, the inability to distinguish between realities, that of fact, and that of illusion.
It would be necessary for this discussion to note that we are not dealing here with literature or cinema, which though pertinent to the argument in the larger sense, do not deal with the flow of information necessary to decisions which should be based on accuracy. What we receive is filtered, shaded, even suppressed, and of course manipulated to fit the needs of the searchlight which feeds on conflict. We are served personality, which is more easily digested than numbers, and drama, which is more entertaining than the gritty theory which the numbers are fed into--
Capital must create more capital; inevitably, it seems to flow inward, becoming ever more concentrated, thus the outlets for the control of information must also constrict to perpetuate and protect the system. It might be noted, that the only industry that seems immune to the boom and bust inherent in the capitalist model is the entertainment business, it has no top end, no saturation point, money can be continually pumped into it with relative security as regards the possibility of loss. It is not surprising then that actual News is on the decline; it has become irrelevant, devoid of the necessary angst, unprofitable. Unless packaged adroitly, it is a distraction from the real purpose, the manufacture of profitable personality which a potential viewer will "invest" time in.
Thus, what is said is subordinate to who says it. Who trusts the sayer, and who does not becomes that sayers demographic--the larger the demographic the more valuable the sayer: regardless of the veracity of what is said.
A person who wishes to know, rather than just be fed, must stumble through the forest blindly, hoping to fall into something of value. Opinions from one side of the aisle or the other have little validity as they reflect only the interest of the corporate entity promoting them. It is not easy to escape from Motive, be it monetary or more nakedly in the Will to Power.
The power to know is dangerous; and an actual ability to know anything in the morass of misinformation is nearly impossible; and will in the course of time become even more so, the casualty is history which can no distinguish what actually happened, from what was said to have happened.
--Neil Postman;"Amusing Ourselves to Death;"1985.
::::
We have a national spotlight, rather more like a searchlight really, it is constantly on swinging to and fro, examining, scrutinizing--a long litany of ills can be attributed to it, from 'Triumph of the Will' to the latest "Joe the plumber". It would seem that even with the best of intentions, the reduction of three dimensions to two creates a separate reality that necessarily subtracts from an essential humanity.
Broadly, the problem is not the not realbut rather the idea of an almost real; that is the spill over, the inability to distinguish between realities, that of fact, and that of illusion.
It would be necessary for this discussion to note that we are not dealing here with literature or cinema, which though pertinent to the argument in the larger sense, do not deal with the flow of information necessary to decisions which should be based on accuracy. What we receive is filtered, shaded, even suppressed, and of course manipulated to fit the needs of the searchlight which feeds on conflict. We are served personality, which is more easily digested than numbers, and drama, which is more entertaining than the gritty theory which the numbers are fed into--
Capital must create more capital; inevitably, it seems to flow inward, becoming ever more concentrated, thus the outlets for the control of information must also constrict to perpetuate and protect the system. It might be noted, that the only industry that seems immune to the boom and bust inherent in the capitalist model is the entertainment business, it has no top end, no saturation point, money can be continually pumped into it with relative security as regards the possibility of loss. It is not surprising then that actual News is on the decline; it has become irrelevant, devoid of the necessary angst, unprofitable. Unless packaged adroitly, it is a distraction from the real purpose, the manufacture of profitable personality which a potential viewer will "invest" time in.
Thus, what is said is subordinate to who says it. Who trusts the sayer, and who does not becomes that sayers demographic--the larger the demographic the more valuable the sayer: regardless of the veracity of what is said.
A person who wishes to know, rather than just be fed, must stumble through the forest blindly, hoping to fall into something of value. Opinions from one side of the aisle or the other have little validity as they reflect only the interest of the corporate entity promoting them. It is not easy to escape from Motive, be it monetary or more nakedly in the Will to Power.
The power to know is dangerous; and an actual ability to know anything in the morass of misinformation is nearly impossible; and will in the course of time become even more so, the casualty is history which can no distinguish what actually happened, from what was said to have happened.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
The Case for a Fascist society
It seems to me a natural outgrowth of declining Imperium. A loss of control sociologically combined with the most powerful armed force ever known on the planet, and an economy on the verge of complete collapse--makes for a compelling scenario...
We note some differences in the modern Fascism of the Repukes and Neo-Cons--
The first is the largely Jewish makeup of the shadow leadership of the movement: although I am perplexed over whether that has any material relationship to the actual events which seem to be transpiring. Guess that will have to be left to the more paranoid of the conspiracy theorists; they could just as well be Baptists, Presbyterians--more about preserving an aggressive foothold in the Middle East than any thing else, I suppose.
The second is "the use of "champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property" as ploys rather than principles--as a means to power, propaganda to advance the merger of economics & politics.
the third and most important point where they diverge is in the emergence of "The Leader" principle, until that transpires, that is, until they find a Charismatic leader they cannot move forward. Everything in the Fascist State must revolve around a leader, Fascism cannot function by committee.
________________________________________________________________________________
"Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stöker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism, and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property."
"The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all of his own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war and in the midst of peace - to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals . . only if he has been told to do so, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it."
-Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol I The Spell of Plato, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969, p. 7
* "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
* "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
* "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
* "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
* "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
* "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
* "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
* "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
* "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
* "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Umberto Eco; Essay, "Eternal fascism;" 1995
Thus, the Communist Third International published the following definition:
“ Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery. ”
— Leon Trotsky, Fascism: What it is and how to fight it
1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in capitalist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimizes artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.[24]
---Fascism entry in the Encyclopedia of Marxism
We note some differences in the modern Fascism of the Repukes and Neo-Cons--
The first is the largely Jewish makeup of the shadow leadership of the movement: although I am perplexed over whether that has any material relationship to the actual events which seem to be transpiring. Guess that will have to be left to the more paranoid of the conspiracy theorists; they could just as well be Baptists, Presbyterians--more about preserving an aggressive foothold in the Middle East than any thing else, I suppose.
The second is "the use of "champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property" as ploys rather than principles--as a means to power, propaganda to advance the merger of economics & politics.
the third and most important point where they diverge is in the emergence of "The Leader" principle, until that transpires, that is, until they find a Charismatic leader they cannot move forward. Everything in the Fascist State must revolve around a leader, Fascism cannot function by committee.
________________________________________________________________________________
"Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stöker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism, and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property."
"The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all of his own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war and in the midst of peace - to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals . . only if he has been told to do so, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it."
-Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol I The Spell of Plato, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969, p. 7
* "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
* "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
* "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
* "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
* "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
* "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
* "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
* "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
* "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
* "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Umberto Eco; Essay, "Eternal fascism;" 1995
Thus, the Communist Third International published the following definition:
“ Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
The historic function of fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery. ”
— Leon Trotsky, Fascism: What it is and how to fight it
1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in capitalist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimizes artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.[24]
---Fascism entry in the Encyclopedia of Marxism
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
1984
One looks at our modern world askance--
We can no longer look ahead with any confidence; the forces of freedom and equality have both failed primarily it would seem because of the economic strain which permeates both of them. Alas, Man must have commerce--he must work. At this point in time the world becomes a factory, nothing more than a repository of raw material that sustains our activity. Whatever else may be said of it, this world is finite: much of what sustains us has already been ripped from her bowels. Progress is still viable, but the idea of growth is a noose around our necks.
Fostered by the economic elitist who finds significance only in acquisition this pernicious doctrine of growth has led us to a cul-de-sac from which our whole civilization must be rethought. Profit can no longer be the primary motive; the illusion of "ownership" must be set aside. It must be recognized that greed wherever opportunity exists is the primary motivation in the way our society is structured today.
We are caught between the individual and collectivism, and on both ends of the spectrum the dialectic seems to be the rise of the corporate state; that is, the economic and political spheres are combined into one entity. What sort of tyranny we may expect from this development remains to be seen, though the oppression of the many by the few is a likely outgrowth, given our history.--As an aside, one might note that oppression need not be belligerent, a seemingly benign one works just as well and is even more insidious, leading as it does to a content populace which resists change, until the dominant minority oversteps its bounds, and even then years of inertia hampers any sort of rapid response--
What rises in reaction to the emergence of The Corporate State, which given our History must arise? The union is outlawed, at best under constant attack, and discredited; its members portrayed as reactionary--disloyal to the good of the company; religion is displaced as the dispenser of the Good, all sustenance resides in the generosity of the company, good behavior i.e. obedience, is rewarded by the company, and bad behavior casts one into the darkness of unperson--
What then arises to oppose this conglomerate incipient world state?
It may take various ideological stances depending upon its local necessities, indeed it may not have any clear cut ideology, it exists to oppose--the local papers define it as "terrorism"--tho its practitioners may view themselves differently, ranging from revolutionary to holy warrior to freedom fighter. Depends upon your point of view I suppose; or who signs your paycheck if at this point in time that can be distinguished. Either way, as Orwell pointed out, the State must have an enemy to distract internal dissent.
As I began so I must conclude, askance--
For the "Terrorist" to be effective he must be armed, to be armed he must wield the fruits of the corporate state, that is to say he must be supplied by his enemy. Victory is not the goal, conflict is. Only through conflict can the dialectic be held in stasis, the ideological underpinnings of the corporate state will not stand scrutiny since that basis is only the perpetuation of a dominant minority which has endured since the dawn of the neolithic age.
How do we define madness, and who is it exactly who is mad?
We can no longer look ahead with any confidence; the forces of freedom and equality have both failed primarily it would seem because of the economic strain which permeates both of them. Alas, Man must have commerce--he must work. At this point in time the world becomes a factory, nothing more than a repository of raw material that sustains our activity. Whatever else may be said of it, this world is finite: much of what sustains us has already been ripped from her bowels. Progress is still viable, but the idea of growth is a noose around our necks.
Fostered by the economic elitist who finds significance only in acquisition this pernicious doctrine of growth has led us to a cul-de-sac from which our whole civilization must be rethought. Profit can no longer be the primary motive; the illusion of "ownership" must be set aside. It must be recognized that greed wherever opportunity exists is the primary motivation in the way our society is structured today.
We are caught between the individual and collectivism, and on both ends of the spectrum the dialectic seems to be the rise of the corporate state; that is, the economic and political spheres are combined into one entity. What sort of tyranny we may expect from this development remains to be seen, though the oppression of the many by the few is a likely outgrowth, given our history.--As an aside, one might note that oppression need not be belligerent, a seemingly benign one works just as well and is even more insidious, leading as it does to a content populace which resists change, until the dominant minority oversteps its bounds, and even then years of inertia hampers any sort of rapid response--
What rises in reaction to the emergence of The Corporate State, which given our History must arise? The union is outlawed, at best under constant attack, and discredited; its members portrayed as reactionary--disloyal to the good of the company; religion is displaced as the dispenser of the Good, all sustenance resides in the generosity of the company, good behavior i.e. obedience, is rewarded by the company, and bad behavior casts one into the darkness of unperson--
What then arises to oppose this conglomerate incipient world state?
It may take various ideological stances depending upon its local necessities, indeed it may not have any clear cut ideology, it exists to oppose--the local papers define it as "terrorism"--tho its practitioners may view themselves differently, ranging from revolutionary to holy warrior to freedom fighter. Depends upon your point of view I suppose; or who signs your paycheck if at this point in time that can be distinguished. Either way, as Orwell pointed out, the State must have an enemy to distract internal dissent.
As I began so I must conclude, askance--
For the "Terrorist" to be effective he must be armed, to be armed he must wield the fruits of the corporate state, that is to say he must be supplied by his enemy. Victory is not the goal, conflict is. Only through conflict can the dialectic be held in stasis, the ideological underpinnings of the corporate state will not stand scrutiny since that basis is only the perpetuation of a dominant minority which has endured since the dawn of the neolithic age.
How do we define madness, and who is it exactly who is mad?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
notes from the communist manifesto
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
****
from Wiki on the dialectic:
In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is controversy: the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments respectively advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The outcome of the exercise might not simply be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, but a synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.[1][2] The presupposition of a dialectical dialogue is that the participants share at least some meanings and principles of valid inference, even if they do not agree.
****
The bourgeois seeks no synthesis of the Dialectic. It it is interested only in preservation & profit. By maintaining the struggle between freedom & equality, rather than participating in negotiations to resolve the conflict, it divides the proletariat in a permant struggle which serves only its primary interests. The perceived gains of the proletariat are illusion, products of the progression of materialism. Life itself, that of symbol & worth are abdicated in favor of an empty comfort.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
****
from Wiki on the dialectic:
In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is controversy: the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments respectively advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The outcome of the exercise might not simply be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, but a synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.[1][2] The presupposition of a dialectical dialogue is that the participants share at least some meanings and principles of valid inference, even if they do not agree.
****
The bourgeois seeks no synthesis of the Dialectic. It it is interested only in preservation & profit. By maintaining the struggle between freedom & equality, rather than participating in negotiations to resolve the conflict, it divides the proletariat in a permant struggle which serves only its primary interests. The perceived gains of the proletariat are illusion, products of the progression of materialism. Life itself, that of symbol & worth are abdicated in favor of an empty comfort.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Economic Expectation
The essential component of the Market is expectation. Heretofore, that expectation has been toward expansion, and a blind belief in growth; that expectation, at a basic level, within the Market has changed. However they might wish to disguise it the means of exchange must in the end be based on something of real value. The era of the petro-dollar is rapidly drawing to a close, and the ability of the American dollar to find, develop and exploit that resource is rapidly diminishing. The basic strength of the American Market, is and always has been in her ability to produce food, but that industry has now allied itself so closely with oil in all her stages of development that here again the dollar is losing ground.
Heavy industry save for a few pockets is gone, the high tech industry is stagnant, and will soon be eclipsed by countries with a greater stake in its present development. Our present infrastructure in based on the distribution and storage of foreign manufactured goods and our own agricultural products. This system also relies on petroleum throughout its operation. The nascent green technology will, without massive government infusion, take many years yet to develop.
Without a solid, universally accepted basis for the manufacture of currency, exchange must be based on a constantly changing assumption of where the true value lies, given the above deficiencies, property became the most attractive proposition which the fewest downsides upon which the market could derive a favorable evaluation of the dollar. It was a hedge against the inevitable fall, no more than a holding action--it main purpose was to allow the expectation and illusion of growth to continue. But there was no real growth, there was only inflation. As the demand grew, prices rose but the real value of the property remained the same. No other outlet arose which would alleviate the pressure because every other avenue was closed by the fuel-dollar equation which made investment an inevitable loss. The bubble thus had to be expanded by any means necessary to preserve expectation. Basically, that's what they were selling, expectation of an ever expanding economy, which no longer exists. When that became evident to the Market, prices began to fall. The new expectation is retrenchment, defensive positions against contraction. Credit becomes cautious, debt must be paid down; interest must be earned as the primary source of profit rather than speculation.
Against such a backdrop, the infusion of a finite amount of cash, no matter how large will be quickly absorbed in bolstering those defensive positions, rather than changing what is by now an unalterable position. The American economy, until basic outlooks are once again changed, and in the present climate that is unlikely, has nothing to offer the world by which she can show a profit, and is contracting. It is, at the present time, lurching towards a new equilibrium.
It is not the bottom of the real estate market that is the problem, but rather the bottom of the market itself, the bottom of expectation, that place where we will reside in the new economic order of nations. As noted above the infusion of money into a system with such an expectation is futile--however, the infusion of cash into reorienting the system and revaluing the dollar upon new infrastructure might allow for a shorter duration to the now prevalent inward looking expectation.
Heavy industry save for a few pockets is gone, the high tech industry is stagnant, and will soon be eclipsed by countries with a greater stake in its present development. Our present infrastructure in based on the distribution and storage of foreign manufactured goods and our own agricultural products. This system also relies on petroleum throughout its operation. The nascent green technology will, without massive government infusion, take many years yet to develop.
Without a solid, universally accepted basis for the manufacture of currency, exchange must be based on a constantly changing assumption of where the true value lies, given the above deficiencies, property became the most attractive proposition which the fewest downsides upon which the market could derive a favorable evaluation of the dollar. It was a hedge against the inevitable fall, no more than a holding action--it main purpose was to allow the expectation and illusion of growth to continue. But there was no real growth, there was only inflation. As the demand grew, prices rose but the real value of the property remained the same. No other outlet arose which would alleviate the pressure because every other avenue was closed by the fuel-dollar equation which made investment an inevitable loss. The bubble thus had to be expanded by any means necessary to preserve expectation. Basically, that's what they were selling, expectation of an ever expanding economy, which no longer exists. When that became evident to the Market, prices began to fall. The new expectation is retrenchment, defensive positions against contraction. Credit becomes cautious, debt must be paid down; interest must be earned as the primary source of profit rather than speculation.
Against such a backdrop, the infusion of a finite amount of cash, no matter how large will be quickly absorbed in bolstering those defensive positions, rather than changing what is by now an unalterable position. The American economy, until basic outlooks are once again changed, and in the present climate that is unlikely, has nothing to offer the world by which she can show a profit, and is contracting. It is, at the present time, lurching towards a new equilibrium.
It is not the bottom of the real estate market that is the problem, but rather the bottom of the market itself, the bottom of expectation, that place where we will reside in the new economic order of nations. As noted above the infusion of money into a system with such an expectation is futile--however, the infusion of cash into reorienting the system and revaluing the dollar upon new infrastructure might allow for a shorter duration to the now prevalent inward looking expectation.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Meltdown
Well, isn't this a fine mess.
A new emperor in fine clothes! But its a bit chilly for those.
700 billion.
For the frat boys in fine suits who got caught with their pants down, my momma used to say there was no such thing as free money.
Problem is, them boys never listened to their momma.
Dwindling resources equals the end of the gravy parade--So the dudes with the real cash, that paper not backed by the mystical machinations of credit for credit shut off the faucet.
--oopsers. Bound to happen. Tipping point. "Please, Mr. Bush, give us some more money so we can continue to roll in the dough--"
Probably happen too. Problem is that government money is worth no more than a handful of snow, and melts right through the hand. Bingo the bunko bankers go, give us more, and they will, cause everybody got their hand in the trough one way or another but strapped for the cash to pay the Wal-mart credit card, and that's mostly owned by China too. Everybody go Boo-hoo.
With no pain, the Corporate State can slip right through--which Mr. Rove knows, since Mr. Cheney told him so back in the day when they began building the paper castle with credit cards and bank machines--computers to track the interest rates and multiply the multiples--I guess in the end they forgot about the American propensity for the quick buck, now they are up against it and we'll have to see how far they are willing to go and just what they are willing to risk. They like to keep the untidiness on foreign shores but they will do what they have to do. Seems to me, the bankers like wars, but find riots to be most unprofitable.
All in. Us & them both. Us? we got a two and a three in the hole, and the first card turned up is a suicide king. If we let the bailout go through they get to play in the sand box for a while, if not, the shit hits the fan for a good bit, things get re-adjusted to a more realistic level, but Jesus knows there will be Hell to pay, and in the end they just move back into the dusty offices where the paper get pushed along. Its a good thing rednecks like to play dress up and wear gaudy uniforms with shiny medals, else ways they might have to hire Hessians to come in to keep order. As it is, homegrown blackshirts will have to do, at least they got some practice in at the RNC, bashing heads and doing the paper work, processing is a good word, sorta neutral in the scheme of things; at least when people disappear.
Time to pay the piper, people.--one way or another. Greed is good til the pot boils over and the revenooers come to take the truck; and you have to sell the cow for a dime on the buck. Happy go lucky has called the shell game and the pea has rolled off the folding table and is headed towards the gutter.
A new emperor in fine clothes! But its a bit chilly for those.
700 billion.
For the frat boys in fine suits who got caught with their pants down, my momma used to say there was no such thing as free money.
Problem is, them boys never listened to their momma.
Dwindling resources equals the end of the gravy parade--So the dudes with the real cash, that paper not backed by the mystical machinations of credit for credit shut off the faucet.
--oopsers. Bound to happen. Tipping point. "Please, Mr. Bush, give us some more money so we can continue to roll in the dough--"
Probably happen too. Problem is that government money is worth no more than a handful of snow, and melts right through the hand. Bingo the bunko bankers go, give us more, and they will, cause everybody got their hand in the trough one way or another but strapped for the cash to pay the Wal-mart credit card, and that's mostly owned by China too. Everybody go Boo-hoo.
With no pain, the Corporate State can slip right through--which Mr. Rove knows, since Mr. Cheney told him so back in the day when they began building the paper castle with credit cards and bank machines--computers to track the interest rates and multiply the multiples--I guess in the end they forgot about the American propensity for the quick buck, now they are up against it and we'll have to see how far they are willing to go and just what they are willing to risk. They like to keep the untidiness on foreign shores but they will do what they have to do. Seems to me, the bankers like wars, but find riots to be most unprofitable.
All in. Us & them both. Us? we got a two and a three in the hole, and the first card turned up is a suicide king. If we let the bailout go through they get to play in the sand box for a while, if not, the shit hits the fan for a good bit, things get re-adjusted to a more realistic level, but Jesus knows there will be Hell to pay, and in the end they just move back into the dusty offices where the paper get pushed along. Its a good thing rednecks like to play dress up and wear gaudy uniforms with shiny medals, else ways they might have to hire Hessians to come in to keep order. As it is, homegrown blackshirts will have to do, at least they got some practice in at the RNC, bashing heads and doing the paper work, processing is a good word, sorta neutral in the scheme of things; at least when people disappear.
Time to pay the piper, people.--one way or another. Greed is good til the pot boils over and the revenooers come to take the truck; and you have to sell the cow for a dime on the buck. Happy go lucky has called the shell game and the pea has rolled off the folding table and is headed towards the gutter.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Invading countries to seize their natural resources is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. That means that the huge task of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure -- including its oil infrastructure -- is the financial responsibility of Iraq's invaders. They should be forced to pay reparations. (Recall that Saddam Hussein's regime paid $9 billion to Kuwait in reparations for its 1990 invasion.) Instead, Iraq is being forced to sell 75 percent of its national patrimony to pay the bills for its own illegal invasion and occupation.
http://www.alternet.org/story/90409/?page=2&ses=8634ccd3db89bac9c3e06ac6160097c1
http://www.alternet.org/story/90409/?page=2&ses=8634ccd3db89bac9c3e06ac6160097c1
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Caesar On The Rubicon
I don't know.
what's up with all this?
It has been said, that the business of Rome was war, a profitable business a Caesar will attest crossing the Rubicon.--
a report says Saudi Arabia informed the CIA of their misgivings, alas, they too were ignored;
yet why are they now distancing themselves from their old friends? Perhaps lying is anathema to our Islamic allies? or is it something else? The attractiveness of the euro in the face of what will soon become apparent?
In which case, just how far has the cabal sold America down the river? It is not a question of western civilisation falling, rather a fat segment is sacrificed, a holding action--a retrenchment in the face of what has become a liability due to fiscal concerns, intellectual properties shifting in the economic sphere--innovation in production, the technological edge which is the basis of the dollar eroding. The petro economic model changing parameters with the ever increasing demand vs relatively static supply--shift of where the ability to pay resides.
The deflection of blame in the face of the inevitable rising of the east, shift of capital
to ever more hostile markets (self interest dictates loyalty to the "company" but the company seeks long term survival at the expense of the individual, a variant of Jung--the corporate identity resides not in the quest for profit but in survival, an aside, but diversification and expansion serve only longevity, not profit). Markets are not bound by territorial claims, historically the Merchant class is hostile to nation states.
The matter at hand; the matter at hand--
The Company is godless. Ideaolgy is limited to corporate slogans, catch phrases to extol the worker to greater efforts "in service" to the company. It has no need of a separate entity of control, other than itself. The chain of command must end at a finite point.
The Company is not bound, nor has it ever been bound by adherence to a Moral code. It's essential coda therefore is expedience, conservation of time in production, (see Nazi Germany, innovations of Japanese for models)dehumanisation of the individual for the conservation of capital, etc--which obviously does not any notions of the Good, other than definitions which apply to espectations of Quality or methods of production. The company, is exempted, in that sense of being bound by the conventions of what for the most part has been a high-minded but often empty morality, lip service to honor and duty co-opted to coerce the masses to die for the greater good of whatever is necessary for the sake of efficiency.
which is still not the matter at hand!
The corporate model applied to government, first of course, tested by Mussolini and the National Socialists ending in dismal failure (apparently)--due to the exuberance of the "Leader" in spreading the message (see French revolution as corollary) of absolute loyalty and obedience overreaching the limits of the the state as corporation. Reconstituted it finds direct control of political institutions cumbersome, expediency is hampered by dealing with codes of conduct that conflict with its need to survive, it is necessary only to influence local pockets of political control to maximize its interests. It need not be brutal, but it can be ruthless, and it is dictated and predicted by the dialectic.
All of which, he said, finally getting around to the matter at hand, has been found in the current situation which America finds itself.
It is the reason why lies are permitted, why no proceedings of impeachment have proceeded, why the infringement of individual rights have continued to be expanded. The "dominant minority" is entrenched, the creative minority which our republic routinely produced has become (both on the right & the left, designations which no longer have any meaning, other than to deflect the eye of scrutiny from the "real" objectives) marginalized, objects of ridicule: see Ron Paul, Ann Coulter, Naomi Wolf, etc.
The business of America becomes war, (by proxy) and at some point a politician and\or a general will come to shores of the Rubicon.
As to all that, so what?
See the movie: Metropolis,
and after that read Milton's "Paradise Lost"
...if you can tear yourself away from the Bread & Circuses long enough.
what's up with all this?
It has been said, that the business of Rome was war, a profitable business a Caesar will attest crossing the Rubicon.--
a report says Saudi Arabia informed the CIA of their misgivings, alas, they too were ignored;
yet why are they now distancing themselves from their old friends? Perhaps lying is anathema to our Islamic allies? or is it something else? The attractiveness of the euro in the face of what will soon become apparent?
In which case, just how far has the cabal sold America down the river? It is not a question of western civilisation falling, rather a fat segment is sacrificed, a holding action--a retrenchment in the face of what has become a liability due to fiscal concerns, intellectual properties shifting in the economic sphere--innovation in production, the technological edge which is the basis of the dollar eroding. The petro economic model changing parameters with the ever increasing demand vs relatively static supply--shift of where the ability to pay resides.
The deflection of blame in the face of the inevitable rising of the east, shift of capital
to ever more hostile markets (self interest dictates loyalty to the "company" but the company seeks long term survival at the expense of the individual, a variant of Jung--the corporate identity resides not in the quest for profit but in survival, an aside, but diversification and expansion serve only longevity, not profit). Markets are not bound by territorial claims, historically the Merchant class is hostile to nation states.
The matter at hand; the matter at hand--
The Company is godless. Ideaolgy is limited to corporate slogans, catch phrases to extol the worker to greater efforts "in service" to the company. It has no need of a separate entity of control, other than itself. The chain of command must end at a finite point.
The Company is not bound, nor has it ever been bound by adherence to a Moral code. It's essential coda therefore is expedience, conservation of time in production, (see Nazi Germany, innovations of Japanese for models)dehumanisation of the individual for the conservation of capital, etc--which obviously does not any notions of the Good, other than definitions which apply to espectations of Quality or methods of production. The company, is exempted, in that sense of being bound by the conventions of what for the most part has been a high-minded but often empty morality, lip service to honor and duty co-opted to coerce the masses to die for the greater good of whatever is necessary for the sake of efficiency.
which is still not the matter at hand!
The corporate model applied to government, first of course, tested by Mussolini and the National Socialists ending in dismal failure (apparently)--due to the exuberance of the "Leader" in spreading the message (see French revolution as corollary) of absolute loyalty and obedience overreaching the limits of the the state as corporation. Reconstituted it finds direct control of political institutions cumbersome, expediency is hampered by dealing with codes of conduct that conflict with its need to survive, it is necessary only to influence local pockets of political control to maximize its interests. It need not be brutal, but it can be ruthless, and it is dictated and predicted by the dialectic.
All of which, he said, finally getting around to the matter at hand, has been found in the current situation which America finds itself.
It is the reason why lies are permitted, why no proceedings of impeachment have proceeded, why the infringement of individual rights have continued to be expanded. The "dominant minority" is entrenched, the creative minority which our republic routinely produced has become (both on the right & the left, designations which no longer have any meaning, other than to deflect the eye of scrutiny from the "real" objectives) marginalized, objects of ridicule: see Ron Paul, Ann Coulter, Naomi Wolf, etc.
The business of America becomes war, (by proxy) and at some point a politician and\or a general will come to shores of the Rubicon.
As to all that, so what?
See the movie: Metropolis,
and after that read Milton's "Paradise Lost"
...if you can tear yourself away from the Bread & Circuses long enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
